And I'm wondering, can this fit into that model? You know, how does the gift economy or seeing, you know, like seeing these medicines or anything as sacred, how can it fit into our current model of capitalism or can it, or is this where it needs to be this whole, um, I keep saying like, is this whole model of, of economics that we currently have, is it going to collapse? Is it going to just go away one day? I mean, I have a prayer that it does, you know, the current, the current model of economics is inconsistent and incompatible with the consciousness that is emerging today. And it's incompatible with the story of interbeing, the story of reunion, the new story. Um, and so it is, uh, hard to interface with it when you are doing something of the new story. And if you try to shoehorn it into existing economic models, then it gets distorted and reduced. So yeah, like, you know, it's not just with psychedelics. I mean, um, music and film, they were supposed to be liberated by the internet, but what happened is that artificial scarcity was created in order for people to be able to continue to profit from it. And yeah, so that's what, like, like the whole edifice of intellectual property law is itself, um, I would call it pathological, like, like the term of patents and copyrights keeps getting extended and extended and extended at the founding of this country. It was like 14 years. Now it's like 70 years after the death of the creator for copyrights. So like Harry Potter, you won't be able to make your own Harry Potter stories freely until like the year, you know, 2140 or something probably like that. So, so like, and, and like in the psychedelic world, I, I heard that there was a patent for the technology of, of one practitioner, one person taking medicine with headphones on, listening to trans, trans music, like someone decided to patent that. So basically patents are kind of an enclosure and it comes if they seem quite natural, if you believe that individual human beings are actually the authors of their ideas, but I don't see myself that way. I didn't create the ideas that I speak. They come through the collective mind. They come from source. They come from spirit. And, and so the people who are critiquing the economic models around psychedelics, I think they have a valid point. We did not create the brain and its neurotransmitters and, and the plants and the toads and even the chemistry. Like the chemistry is also in a sense discovered. It could be through a flash of inspiration. That's one of the ways that the guardians intervene in our reality. They offer someone a flash of inspiration and they come up with an invention and it could be a psychedelic compound. It could be, you know, a energy coherence mat or something like that could be a poem, it could be an idea, right? That's, that's the intervention. So if we properly understand ourselves and reality, then intellectual property does not make sense. And it's actually a form of enclosure of privatizing something that is actually supposed to be in the commons. And we are in that legacy reality right now. We are in those legacy systems. So I'm not going to condemn somebody for doing their best to live and engage in those systems. But let's recognize where we want to go. So that when the step is available to us to go in that direction that we do it and don't step back into the past. Yeah, no, it's, it's, it's been a hard thing to grapple with, right? It's like we're living in these two worlds or we're stepping into a new potential of the world that exists in more harmony. And because it is, you know, it's interesting just hearing this when I interviewed Paul Stamets a few years ago and he told me he's actually putting in protective patents. You know, I actually started crying during our interview. I was like, wow, this is kind of a strange world that we're, we're now having to put in protective patents for psilocybin strains. I mean, just to protect it from the other, you know, companies or people that want to take it, right? And it comes back to this, this model of the separation, right? The scarcity. Like what is... Yeah, I don't know if I'd buy that. I mean, if you put something in the public domain, then it becomes unpatentable by anybody. So why do you have to patent it yourself? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here, but...  He didn't explain it, but I think what it was was this idea that there are companies out there who are now trying to patent psilocybin strains so that they don't become public domain. They become now owned by a pharmaceutical company. Which is kind of crazy to think about.  Or a plant that is public domain. It's part of, it's for the all, it's, it's Earth. But, you know, this is the model of separation, right? Let's come in and take it and make money off of it and make it, you know, only attainable by me as a corporation because it's under my patent now.  And basically, like, this is, yeah, this has gotta stop. How do we, but how do we get out of this?  Or people that are like, I've tried everything. I heard that Ketamine's gonna work. Let me go work with this Ketamine company. Or I heard that psilocybin will help my fear of death and now the only place I can get it is from this one corporation because they're the only ones that have, you know, the legal control that's distributing it to the legal therapist. Like how do we, how do we stand apart from that world? Sometimes seems like we are heading in that direction where there's a lot of fear around like, are we gonna lose this? I mean, we're not gonna lose our ability to grow our own psilocybin and work with it. Well, we could lose our ability to do that.  So like, there is a level where we need to get active politically and stand for what's right. It's just that simple.


In a famous 1959 speech considered to mark the birth of nanoscience and nanotechnology as fields of study, Richard Feynman charged scientists with the problem of measuring, manipulating, and controlling things on the atomic scale. Since then, scientists have used electron microscopy to successfully resolve distances millions of times smaller than a pinhead. But Feynman's vision of identifying the three-dimensional coordinates of individual atoms in a material remains elusive. In this study, scientists have taken a significant step toward meeting Feynman's challenge by using a technique called electron tomography to map the locations of 3,769 atoms in a needle made of tungsten. Electron tomography works by using an electron beam to produce images of a microscopic object along different orientations. Those images are processed by a computer to visualize the three-dimensional structure of the object. In this study, scientists rotated a tungsten needle over a total angular range of 180 degrees, capturing snapshots of the needle's tip at different intervals. Before the snapshots were combined into a single 3D image, they were corrected for stray movements of the sample and other distortions during imaging. The images were then reconstructed using two different methods for reducing noise. Regions in each reconstruction where the intensity produced by the electron beam exceeded a certain threshold were labeled as candidate atom sites. When both reconstructions identified the same candidate site, a real atom was likely to be found there. Statistical analysis showed that the 3D positions of atoms could be determined with a precision of 19 picometers, much smaller than a hydrogen atom's radius of 53 picometers. With such high precision, the researchers were able to accomplish a rather difficult feat in the world of material science. They were able to see how the actual atomic structure of their tungsten sample differed from its ideal crystal structure. Not only could the researchers detect the absence of an atom in a location where it would normally occur, they could also quantify how much the atoms were shifted from their predicted positions in a perfect lattice, mapping the 3D displacement from the ideal one atom at a time. This capability transcends the limitations of traditional electron microscopy because it allows individual atoms in an object to be accounted for in three dimensions. The resulting images therefore provide a more complete picture of how atoms are arranged in real samples than the traditional electron microscopy images currently found in textbooks. This marks the first time that the positions of thousands of individual atoms have been detected in three dimensions without assuming the crystallinity of a sample material. Paving the way for novel applications in physics, chemistry, nanoscience, material science and biology and coming one big step closer to meeting Feynman's challenge.


Suspense, which is usually heard at this hour on Thursday nights, is taking its customary summer holiday. Suspense returns to the air seven weeks from tonight on Thursday, September 1st. You are deep in the remote hill country of Afghan, face to face with the fierce Bataan warriors, trapped into a hopeless fight from which there seems no escape. We offer you escape, designed to free you from the four walls of today for a half hour of high adventure. Tonight we escape to the north of India, and to a battle long remembered, as Rudyard Kipling described it in his famous story, the drums of the fore and aft. When I came out from England to serve as a newest correspondent with the British troops on the northwest frontier of India, I was attached to a regiment known as the fore and fit. Princess Hoensalan's own royal light infantry, fore and fit. But now, behind their backs, men call them the fore and aft. When certain words are shouted in front of other barracks, the troops may come out with belts and fists, but the mere whisper of fore and aft brings out the men of this regiment with rifles in their hands and murder in their eyes. I think perhaps the story of how the fore and aft got its name may be really more the story of Jakeinn and Piggy Lou.  They were both about the same age, with curly hair and the faces of cherubs, and inside were two souls that should have belonged to a pair of devils. I must have seen them before, of course, but the first occasion I can recall was at an informal court the colonel was holding in the orderly room one morning. Piggy and Jakeinn were there, and they were in trouble, as usual. All right, Sergeant, read the charges. Yes, sir. The charge is made by one smithers, a civilian, that while walking back at the bazaar at 6 p.m. last evening, he was set upon without provocation by two drummers from the regimental band known as Jakeinn and Piggy Lou, and by them was beaten into near insensibility. Well, uh, go on, Sergeant. Mr. Smithers states further that he was struck down by the two defendants and while lying on the ground was kicked repeatedly in the face and ribs, escaping with his life only through the timely arrival of a detachment of the guard. That's all, sir. Well, what about it? Jakeinn, Piggy, is this the truth? Oh, yes, sir. We gave him what for, all right. That will do, Piggy. Yes, sir. All right, Sergeant, turn them over to the bandmaster and have him tan their hides. Yes, sir.  I'm begging your pardon, sir, but can't we say nothing in our own defence? What if a bloomin' civilian said he'd report you for having a bit of a barny with a friend? Suppose he tried to get money out of you, sir, and then he... That will do, Piggy. You were fighting. Well, only between ourselves, sir. That doesn't count. We can't have no blinkin' civilians interfering with the business of our Majesty's regiment. All right. We forget the birching. But you're both confined to quarters for three days. But, sir... All right. Dismissed.  You're too young to be smoking. Yes, sir. Come on. I can found it, Kipling. I don't know what to do with the lads. They're not really bad at heart and they've never known any home at the army. Where do they come from, Colonel? Jakein is from some back street in London and Piggy Lou is straight off the Calcutta docks. And in both cases, ancestry unknown. Well, they seem loyal enough to the regiment, at any rate. They are, and loyal to each other in their own way. I'm inclined to think sometimes they've got more real spirit than all these new regulars put together. Um, aren't you a bit overloaded with green troops, Colonel? Overloaded? My dear fellow. 90% of the regiment were in Manchester factories or Lancashire farm six months ago. Can't make a soldier that length of time. Any chance of action very soon? In between ourselves, Kipling. We'll probably move north in about ten days. You all know not to the front, of course. We'll give them a few months to shake down before they go into action. Oh, that's a good idea. Yeah, it's the only thing to do. There's one thing certain. This regiment is not ready for action yet. Only, uh, don't write that back to your paper. But the gods who govern armies seldom choose the wisest plan. On the Afghan border, a large force of Pataan guerrillas began massing near the Kaiba Valley, being held in check temporarily by a regiment of Highlanders and a regiment of native Gurkhas. A week later, the fore and fit, a regiment totally unprepared for action, was ordered to march north, contact the two regiments, and carry out a joint action to disperse the enemy. Parade ground and barracks began to hum with preparations for the coming campaign. Privates walked with a new swiker, and the young officers nearly shot one another at pistol practice. But too piggy and jaky, the excitement was like salt in an open wound, for the band was reduced to twenty men, and the drummer boys were being left behind. Blimey, I won't let him do it to me, jaykin. Me, what's gonna have a career in the army being left behind like an old boot? Oh, why should you worry? Now you can stay here with that blooming girl of yours. Oh, what's a girl when the regiments go into the front? And besides, am I to explain to her about being left behind with the women? What do you have to explain anything to her for? She's only thirteen. I've been telling her I'd get myself a medal when the first campaign came along, and how am I to do it now? I heard in the barracks they're going to take Tom Kidd along. He's to be the bugler. Of course, he's eighteen, though. He may be eighteen, but I can plaster the wall with him any day, and with one hand behind my back. Perhaps we could bash him round a bit. Or just enough so as he can't bugle no more. You could hold his hands, Piggy, and then I'll kick him in the... No, no, no. He still wouldn't take us. Well, reputations ain't what they might be, you know. Oh, well, for myself, I just as leave, stay here and do a bit of loafing. With our own regiment going into action. While I, as leave, have my... Oh, look who's coming. It's the blooming Colonel himself. And so it is all alone.  You wait here. Have you gone down with him? Yes, catch my pile. Blimey now, we're in for it again. Begging the Colonel's pardon, sir. What, what the... Well, Piggy, are the drums in revolt? No, sir, I... I'd like the pleasure of a word with you, sir. All right, go ahead and have it. Well, sir, if you thought the world and all of your regiment and it was going off to active service without you, sir, then how'd you feel? I, uh... I... I'm afraid I should feel a bit left out of things. Well, that's how Jaikin and me feels about it, sir. No idea what a campaign can be like, Piggy. Why, you'd flop in your face in the first twenty miles. Oh, no, we wouldn't, sir. We're good at marching. I'll have to tell my girl I'd bring her back a metal. I've just got to go. I see. Uh, think you could pass a fiscal? Not the slightest doubt of it, sir. We're both of us very healthy for our age. All right. I suppose it's unheard of for a regiment on the border to take drummers along on active service. But, uh, if you can pass the medical officer, you can both go along. Oh, lie me! We're going to the front! I mean, thank you, sir. Oh, I mean, Jaikin! Jaikin! Jaikin! The regiment marched out of the station two days later, and all those left behind lined the road that led past the parade ground. The band stood by and played them out, waiting to fall in at the rear of the column. And although Jaikin perspired and beat on his drum manfully to cover up, it was quite evident that Piggy Lou was not with the band. Jaikin kept glancing at the cedar hedge behind him, and I had a pretty good idea why Piggy was being detained. Oh, oh, careful, and take real good care of yourself, Piggy. You're self-venturesome. I worry all the time. It's hard, Chris. I'll grant you. It's hard. But what's it meant to do when this regiment's called on active service now? Yeah. Give us another kiss. Oh, Piggy. That's more like it. If you'd have stayed here like you'd ought to, you could have had as many as you want. If I'd done that, Chris, you wouldn't think anything of me. Like is not, but, well, at least I'd have had you with me, Piggy. And all the thinking in the world ain't like kissing.  I won't care about a medal. Just stay with me, Piggy, darling, and I'll love you true forever. Aren't you going to do that any out, Chris? You said you was. Of course I am, but it'd be lots more comfortable if you stayed here. Don't take on about it, Chris. I'll be coming back and I'll marry you someday, too. I promise. Oh, but when? Years and years, perhaps. You'll be careful, won't you, Piggy? Man has to take his chances in the army, Chris, but if it happens, I'll be thinking of you. Right to the last. Oh, don't talk like that. Oh, now, yeah. Give us a kiss. Piggy, come on over here. We're about to fall in. I've got to go now, Christmas love. Don't you'll be forgetting me. Oh, I won't ever, Piggy. Yeah, I made something for you to take with you. What is it? It's a batten bag. All the regular soldiers carry them. I'll put some of my air in it. It's awful kind of you, Chris. Oh, it ain't made so well, but I didn't want nobody else to help me. Not even Mum. I'll carry it right over my heart so long as I'm alive. Oh, don't say things like that. Piggy, come on. Give us one more kiss now. Can't stay no longer. Oh, Piggy. Goodbye, Chris. Take care of yourself. Goodbye, Piggy. Be careful. I'll be coming round to see you, Christmas love, when I get back from the war. Well, it's about time, and luckily we're not both in trouble.  Petty coat, chaser.  Tell the Colonel he can shovel off now. A great hour on CBS Friday Night is this is Broadway. Rising stars bring you their top acts and their problems for the future to Clifton Fadiman, Abe Burrows, and George S. Kaufman, three show business experts ready with advice. Be sure to hear this is Broadway tomorrow night and every Friday night on most of these same CBS stations. And now, we return to the second act of Escape. And tonight's story, here comes of the fore and aft. And so the fore and fit went north to the wards, first by troop train, then on foot, when the last rail had left them with a seven-day route march before they'd reached the front up ahead. And during those seven weary days, the regiment began to crack. The men weren't hardened to the long miles of marching, and they found themselves dead tired before noon of each day. The food was bad and the water was worse. And on the second day, the snipers started in. They would hide in the tumble rocks of the low brown hills beside the road and wait for the column to pass. The first sign of one would be a flash in the puff of smoke, and some man on the long line of march would die without ever seeing the enemy who'd kill him. And even at night, the tired and nerve-shattered men would all rest. If anything, the night hours in the dark tents were a good deal worse than the daylight hours on the dusty road.  I've got to get myself some sleep. As if I ain't march just as far as you have. It's fair killing me. Well, it serves your bloody well right for getting us into this. We could be back in the barracks now, living on the fat of the land. And halfway to becoming musicians like us not. In which case, I'll be sleeping in a regular bed and having some decent grub to eat for once. I'm afraid you're not the army type, Jake, and perhaps I shouldn't have talked my friend, the Colonel, into letting you come...   Yes, sir. Yeah. Don't have to go calling a blinking sergeant, sir. That ain't no harm, innit? What's that? Oh, Piggy. That's another one of our centuries got yourself killed out there. Then baton beggars can sneak up in the dark without making a sound.  All right! I wonder what they look like, Piggy. These are your pitans. What's it matter when we can't even carry rifles? I ask you now, Jake, and look at this in my hand. A man to get himself a medal when all he's got for a weapon is a blue man's wife. Late afternoon of the seventh day, weary, savage and sick, their uniforms dulled and unclean, the foreign fit rendezvoused with the Highland Regiment. Hey, lads, here comes the new regiment, the foreign fit. The foreign fit, eh? And may I ask what is it their fit for? Some of the men bore wounds and some were stretcher-cases, but the real casualty was the regimental morale. These raw recruits had marched out of their station in the south with the band playing, and somehow they'd imagined they might march gloriously into battle the same way, but no band played when they slugged to a stop at the brigade encampment. Limey! Look at them chaps over there. We're in petty coat. A lot you know. They're islanders, me lad, and I've ever demanded best take no liberties with them. Oh. Well, Piggy, do you think we found the ready war at last? What else? Ain't that the full-blown general over there talking to our colonel? Had a bit of a rough time of it coming down, sir. My men had been rather mauled and no chance for fair return. They only want to go someplace where they can see what's before them. They're ready to recover, but I simply can't spare you just now. Oh, there'll be no need of it, sir, for all we're wanting is one good night rest. I see. Well, you can pitch your camp next to the Highlander's Colonel, and I suggest you call a general inspection before dark. We plan to attack the enemy position at dawn. Very good, sir. So, it's active service you wanted, Piggy, eh?  Just take a look at them patterns out there on the plain. Must be eight of them to one of us, right down the line. It makes it that much easier to get a medal. Now, how do you hope to get a medal?  More like it. We'll not even have a chance to see how the beggars look. The bend, as you might have heard, is going to wheel and retire when we reach them rocks out there, while the regular soldiers go in and attack the enemy. Which, I might say, is exactly the way I'd planned it myself. I got no fondness for being sliced up like a leg of lamb. Ah, you've got no spirit, Jaikin. Them, as one, spirit can have it. As for me, I... Oh, here we go, Piggy. Right you are, Jaikin. Ready now. Watch yourself now, Jaikin, and step lively. Just keep your eye on me Only someone had blundered, someone had misread an order, and the foreign fit moved out onto the plane to attack the enemy force alone. The foreign fit's moving out. But the clump of rock, the band wheeled and halted and continued to play, while the ranks opened to form a skirmish line and moved slowly ahead. Oh, steady laddies. We have no orders to move out, and therefore we'll stand fast the new. At 500 yards range from the enemy line, the regiment began firing at will. At will and wildly. In a few minutes, they thrown away half of their ammunition and blinded themselves with their own smoke. And farther out on the plane, the Afghan armies took quietly, firing occasional well-aimed bullets into the milling herd of green troops. Suddenly, from the main body of the Afghan troops, a small band of about 50 Pathan warriors charged forward and fell upon the start of Englishmen. These were the Ghazis, the suicide squad. Always thrown out ahead of the Afghan army before any main test of strength. Swinging their long, heavy knives, they struck the close-packed British line. The foreign fit wavered, reeling away from the vicious slashes of the murderous bone-handled knives, rallied for an instant and held, then broke, turned tail and ran. You look at them ladders. They turn and run. I might say they make better speed for the rear than they made to the fore. They're anything but foreign fit now.  It'll take them a long time to live that one down. The fore and aft. The regiment took no thought for the wounded, for the men left behind, nor did they stop until they jammed in the pass that led up to the hill. And the band, too, was carried along with them in their headlong flight. All the band, except two men.  Oh, of course not. Well, I hope you're right. Blumen cowards running away. Now, weren't that a fine way for the British regiment to act? Had we done the same thing, we'd not be left behind here the way we are. Now, what's got into you? You're comfortable, aren't you? I may be comfortable, but I ain't easy in my mind. Ah, put a sock in it. Hey, hey, look. Somebody's dropped the canteen here. Maybe it's got rum in it. Well, now how can you hope to tell by shaking it?  I'll do the trying it out. Is it, Piggy? Is it? No, it's water. Here, have yourself a free drink on a Majesty drummer, boy. All right, sir. Chakin', look.  Hey, keep your head down. Well, now with the Blumen enemy retiring, perhaps our lads will come out and rescue us.  Well, don't they know the Pathan's ain't chasing them no more? They're their own precious skins. Ah, far mo. Maybe we ought to give them a little music, show them it all nice and cosy out here now. What? Do you want us to go and get our blinking self-shot? Oh, they ain't no enemy close by now.  Here, are you positive there was only water in that canteen? Oh, how? So, like it's not sure a coward do, the same as the rest of the regiment.   Well, now, so you have got a bitter spirit. Maybe I'll speak to my old friend the Colonel about it. I'll shut up and start blowing. You ready? Ready all? Now. Where is it we're going to march to, Piggy? Back and forth a time or two in full sight. Then we'll wait in the rocks for the battle to stop. Are they watching us? Yeah, they're watching us. Oh, yes, they're watching us all right. Time held still, and even the Afghan snipers forgot their weapons. While two armies watched the tiny red-coated figures marching back and forth on the battlefield alone. And I'll tell you for certain, there's a pair of brave laddies down there. All right, you fleeting collards. Look at them out there. Are them two children the only brave men in the regiment? The men of the fore and aft lifted their heads, fingered their rifles, and stared without moving. And out there on the silent plain, back and forth marched Jacob and Piggy. We've got to play these blooming instruments all day long. Aren't the blighters ever going to come back?  Keep playing. Well, all I might say is, I shouldn't have ever let you talk me into this. I ain't cut out for active service anyway.  Oh, Jacob. Jacob. I'll show you the fright of you. Two armies saw them die from the snipers' bullets. Two armies and the men of the fore and aft. All right, men of the regiment, what now? Those two at least were brave enough to know how to die. Pig's fan is. This time we attack and there'll be no turning back. Look at them laddies. The fore and aft, they're going back to fight. Aye, look at them run. That's how it should have been done the first time. Aye, laddies, and now is the time for us. Orders or no, here's where we join the fight. Company, prepare to charge. Late afternoons saw the Afghan army wiped out. And the general explained to me how everything had gone according to his plan and how he hoped I'd cable that back to my paper in London right away. I turned and left him then and walked across the silent battlefield, walked out among the silent dead. The two tiny figures lay quite close together, Jacob fallen across his broken drum and Piggy Lou with the pipe still clenched in his dirty fist. A bouge under his tunic caught my eye and I reached in and drew out a button bag, embroidered crudely with the name Chris. My own air inside of it. Right next to my heart, Chris, so long as I'm alive. I thought how Chris would soon forget and how the world's memory is no longer than hers. The sun was sinking away into the west. The button bag in my hand was soaked, damp, and over the left breast of Piggy's grimy uniform, over the pocket where decorations are usually worn, a brighter red stain had spread out through the coarse wool, looking very much like the bright red ribbon that goes with the metal. Escape is produced and directed by Norman MacDonald. Tonight we have presented Drums of the Four and Aft by Rudyard Kipling, adapted for radio by Les Crutchfield. Featured in the cast were Ben Wright as Rudyard Kipling, Hugh Thomas as Piggy Lou, and Terry Kilburn as Jacob with Colleen Collins, Ramsey Hill, Alec Harford, Wilms Herbert and Tudor Owen. Special music arranged and conducted by Wilbur Hatch. Next week you are hanging by your fingertips on the sheer face of a nice cliff, suspended a thousand feet above instant death with your strength running out and with no chance for escape. Next week we bring you an adventure tale, action by C.E. Montague. Be sure to tune in at this same time next week when once again we offer you escape. In just a few minutes, Casey, crime photographer, marks upon another adventure with death. Tonight's adventure is called Crazy Like a Fox. Join crime photographer on most of these same CBS stations. Tiff Corning speaking. This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.


We stand at a remarkable time in our history. We, the youth of the world, are leading global change for the first time thanks to our interconnectedness. Beyond 2015, a UN-promoted platform has offered us a chance to influence the global development agenda for the next generation, our generation. We've taken this opportunity to make our voice heard through a large-scale crowdsourced initiative culminating in this year's Global Youth Summit. We're more than 500 of us met in Costa Rica with a simultaneous participation of 54 self-organized hubs around the world to debate and agree on the development priorities which we want world leaders at the UN General Assembly to act on. As ambassadors of one third of the world's population we identified the lack of universal access to information and communication technologies as an obstacle to our intellectual, economic and political empowerment which needs to be overcome. We want to get ahead. Government, civil society and the private sector should work together to provide the resources we need to innovate and create the businesses and industries of the future. We need access to education and knowledge sharing regardless of our location or economic status. We want to change our world. Member states should put mechanisms in place that make voting, openness and accountability more feasible online. Communication technologies must be used as a means of engaging young citizens with the leaders who represent us. We want to respect our environment. Transparency of information on environmental issues is needed as is guidance on ways to protect the environment and to handle natural disasters in an efficient way. The use of sustainable energy sources should be extended urgently. We want to be smart and safe online. We are aware of the positive and negative aspects of new technologies and call for education and support to make our online communities safe. The same rights of freedom of speech, association and privacy existing in the real world should be extended online. And we want to be healthy. Innovative systems should allow patients to connect to health services to improve issues of accessibility, affordability and acceptability while taking into account best practices and bioethics. We need access to information about healthy lifestyles and how to deal with issues of disability including the stigma associated with many diseases. We believe beyond 2015 is the start of a global inclusive dialogue leading to a world where information and communication technologies can overcome the major development challenges of our time and create new opportunities for young people everywhere. This is our vision for the future and we're determined to make it a reality because this is the world we want.


Now, to be able to see what's going on over time, we'll create a logger. What this does is it keeps track of a value, whatever value we send to it, and it'll keep track of it for as long as we want, and it'll automatically produce a running list of that whole value's history and a convenient plot to sum it up. This is especially good for tracking the loss of a network. You can imagine a lot of other instances where there's a value and you'd like to see how it changes over time. We can do it with this logger. We'll visit this in a bit too because this is new with the new version of Cottonwood. Now we can go in and explicitly create our training loop. In its simplest form, it's pretty straightforward. We have our number of training iterations. We iterate through that and for each iteration, we do one forward pass through the network and one backward pass through the network. That's all we really need. Everything else is for convenience and for visualization and for documentation. So on each pass through, we'll use our logger and we will pull out the loss value for that pass and log it. This will let us track it over time and see a plot of it. Also we have a nice way to visualize what's going on inside of an individual convolutional block. This is a good way to get snapshots of where things are and to try to get a sense of how things are operating. So we'll take snapshots periodically at enviz interval of each of our two blocks to be able to see what they're doing. Then after passing all the way through our training loop, we'll do some more record keeping, some more visualization. We'll summarize the structure and what this does is it generates a text file documenting all the pieces and what they do and how they're built and what their parameters are and we'll save that out to the reports directory. And then also we'll do a visualization of the structure. So this is the network visualization that we looked at before that shows each of the blocks and how they're connected together. It can be a good way to get a nice visual one shot overview of what's going on. Now to do training, we can take and modify the structure. So we reach in, we remove the training block, we add the evaluation data block into the structure and then we explicitly reconnect it. We wire it up. So remember our zero with port on the eval block carries the signal. It connects to the first convolution block and then port number one, the second port on the evaluation block carries the label. We wire it back up to the one hot block. Now we have successfully removed the training data block, inserted the evaluation data block and we can repeat this process for the evaluation phase. So we iterate through our number of evaluation iterations and we do a forward pass and what makes this an evaluation is that we don't do a backward pass. We don't update the parameters in order to walk down the loss gradient and minimize the loss. We keep that frozen, but just keep doing passes to get the result. And again, we log it so that we can see it. We periodically visualize what's going on in the convolution blocks to see what's going there, but all of that is extra. The only part we really need for evaluation is that forward pass loop.


Good morning, welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. We're meeting today to consider draft supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to establish safety standard for table saws. Issue table saw safety is one the commission has worked on for over 20 years and the hazards from table saw blades is severe. Lacerations fractures and amputations are far too common place. According to nice estimates table saw accidents resulted in average of over 4000 finger amputations a year. It's a huge number and put that in perspective. He laid those fingers end to end. You'd have a line that would reach up to the top of the Empire State building. Sorry, top of the Eiffel Tower every year that would happen. That does happen. The proposed safety standard we consider today will go a long way to prevent those injuries and the proposed rules expressed expected to address. Over 49,000 trips to the emergency room annually. Staff's competent in these results because of the work that's been done builds on the agencies work over many, many years and changing commissions. This proposal is based on this proposed rulemaking commission issued in 2017. Given the length of time since the NPR is issued additional testing done by CPSC and changes in the marketplace staff updated that package so we can get additional stake input from stakeholders. Any of the injuries caused by table saws nor the safety standard we're going to consider today are new. In my view. Action is long overdue and should this proposed rule go forward. I look forward to robust comments from stakeholders. We're going to start with questions for staff. We have several staff members present to answer questions. Are any. With us are Caroline Paul director division of mechanical and combustion engineering. In the office of hazard reduction and identification and Michael Rogers attorney officer general counsel also in attendance are Jason Levine executive director Austin slick general counsel and Alberto Mills commission secretary. Each commission will have 5 minutes for questions multiple rounds necessary. And the questions after the questions are complete staff will be excused and moved to consideration the package as a reminder while commissioners may voice our personal views on legal issues. It's not appropriate to discuss any legal advice provided to us by the office of general public general counsel in a public session. Legal advice must remain confidential. So at this point in time going to turn to see if there are questions for the staff. I don't have any commissioner Feldman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I do have some questions. Mr. Rogers Miss Paul thank you for being here for for all your work on the package. Last week Oira issued new guidance to help agencies design regulations that promote competition in the marketplace. The purpose of this guidance is to ensure that regulatory actions like this and SNPR appropriately consider competition to identify policy options that are pro competition and therefore pro consumer. Can you please discuss how this NPR is consistent with that guidance. Oh sorry I'm not familiar with the guidance. It was from OMB have you not had an opportunity to review it the OMB guidance. Yes well I'll take that question so the CPSC staff did review that that guidance from OMB. We didn't really have any comments on it had been circulated. It was primarily with the director of economic staff since it deals with the economic analysis. Okay would you like to answer the question. Sure. So I would say that what we try to do in this case you know because there's a potential you know like there are there are several questions about potential creation of a monopoly. It's not our perception that that's the case because you know they are like more than three companies now with different technologies that you know are available in the market. There's one company that you know recently introduced a new technology and it was not subject to any patent you know issues so essentially I would say you know that we don't believe that a monopoly will be created out of this. I understand that the IP landscape on the issue that we're talking about today I guess I was asking more about the OMB guidance and a walk through about sort of what we've done here to make sure that that our rulemaking analysis is consistent with with what OMB has has guided us to do. Well you know since the package was put together before the guidance we haven't had the time to you know to make it consistent yet but I think we haven't made it consistent with the OMB guidance. I'll ask this the guidance specifically notes that there are benefits from consulting with competition experts like the Federal Trade Commission and DOJ's antitrust division. Has anyone from our staff consulted with DOJ or FTC in putting together the proposal we're considering today? Yes we did. We consulted with FTC because they have methodologies to deal with this. We basically we got information from them so we can get a qualitative description improvement of our assessment but not a quantitative one. Can we get a readout of those conversations? I believe so. Okay I would like to see that thank you. And you were speaking to this Mr. Tejeda the rulemaking that we have in front of us today it's controversial because it will likely force participants to license standard essential patents from one maybe two firms that own this IP. And by concentrating market power in the way that we're proposing we would essentially bless the ability of this one firm to raise costs on its rivals less than competition and ultimately harm consumers. So Mr. Chairman I'd like to enter in a copy of the OIR as 2023 guidance on competition effects for the record which my staff has already shared with the secretary. Second question staff assumes that this proposed standard would be 90% effective in reducing injuries. The briefing package states that the data provided by SawStop demonstrates over 7000 activations by the SawStop AIM technology that resulted in no severe injuries. My question is how have we verified the data that was provided by the petitioner? It was supplied as a response to comment it's in the public record so we take it a face value. So we haven't independently verified their claims of 7000 activations with no injuries. Not for that particular submission. Okay. The when they say no severe injuries. How do you interpret that what is what is no severe injuries mean. I believe whether or not the cross it would be whether the victim had to go seek medical attention. When we based our effectiveness it was also based on our own testing of technology as well as our search of other sources such as UL on what was considered. Okay. So a minor versus severe injury. Go another round. Yes. Yes, please. Sure. Just some follow-ups there. So Mr. Boniface it sounded like you had more to offer on the question of whether this complies with OMB guidance and I wanted to give you a chance to finish that answer. Sure. Thank you very much. So two elements one is as an independent regulatory agency we're not required to follow the or our guidance. However, as Mr. Hayden noted, we we as a practice do its good regulatory practice and we did consult rather heavily with with the FTC on on the development of the competition. It's a the issue is is central to this rule. And so we've put a lot of analysis in it and we've asked for a lot of comments in this proposed rule going forward. And Ms. Paul, it sounded like you had some more to offer on the data analysis that the review of data that we've gotten in and how we've looked at that and reviewed that. Just that in my view that the submission from softwafts is a supplementary kind of a nice add on but the bulk of our analysis and conclusions were based on our own testing and our work with you well. And our own health sciences reviews extensive review of injury severity caused by lacerations from the tearing motion of a table saw blade. So we reviewed this ourselves in house. That was a cherry on top we didn't need that information from saw stop but it was nice to add. Is that fair. Yes. Okay, thank you. That's that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Paul. Can I just ask you does the NPR dictate how manufacturers must meet the performance requirements is the proposal. No, the proposed rule is a performance standard that does not specify our particular technology. So staff does not assume this results in monopoly or any kind of dictation of how the performance should be that is why performance requirements are preferred. The requirement simply limits the depth of cut to a surrogate finger to three and a half millimeters or less. We are aware of 2 firms saw stop embossed that have introduced table saws that could meet this performance and recently became aware of another. And that that occurred since the 2017 NPR but again, the emphasis is that we are not telling anyone how to meet these requirements. However, it is met. It's great. It would limit the depth of cut to something between a a bandage and requiring micro surgery. Thank you for that. And what about test methods? Are we prescribing a specific test method in this proposal along that vein? We do not because there are many different ways to get at this. And I think the recent technologies that come to market show that how if you try to do that, you would limit things we've seen now technology based on reverse polarity of magnets. We've seen technology based on explosions of capsules that similar to an airbag as well as the original technology that started this petition in terms of actually what now seems more cumbersome. Transfer energy from a solid break into a blade and using angular momentum to bring that entire blade below the surface. We've also seen technology in terms of capacitive sensing. It could be optical. It could be thermal. And that's why a performance requirement would truly allow innovation. Thank you for that. And in terms of injuries, can you describe the trend say since 2010, whether you've seen an increase a decrease in injuries, particularly since the introduction of the modular blade guard requirements in the voluntary arena. That is, I have been involved with this project since 2003 really since I started CPSC 26 years ago. And we have not seen in any trend analysis, whether we're looking at straight numbers of injuries, whether we're looking at diagnoses in terms of lacerations, the amputations, it's not even that they're shifting to something else. This stubbornly remains constant around 32,000 a year. And this is significant because since 2010, all table saws sold in the United States have converted to meet the voluntary standards that incorporate a modular blade guard design. So each year, the market is saturated with more and more of these products as the expected life expectancy table saws are replaced. And yet that number has not changed. And with the special study, I sat in with the multiple, you know, 5 or 6 people looking through ideas of every single one of these injuries that we're able to do follow up interviews with in 2017. And they're horrendous. Sorry about that. Do you have a view as to why the modular blade guard hasn't been effective. And I only give my personal view and is that I would say the 1 thing that we saw. In the special study deep dive was that people are not using the blade guard. Whether it's modular traditional. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. I don't have any additional questions at this time. Thank you. Commissioner actually both your questions were my questions. So I know there's a request for another round. I turn back to commissioner felbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to circle back to some of the questions I had on the injury data. What do we know about incidents where the technology should have activated, but didn't. This would speak directly to the reliability of the technology which I think is important for us as a commission to assess. Do we know of incidents where the technology has failed and. If so, are there resulting injuries that that that we know of. In terms of the nice data that information is not available and in terms of the follow up in the special study, we did not come across any that had occurred. When I hear about the sauce stop active in duration injury mitigation is system. It's usually more that it's. Activated when the person did not intend it to. Okay. And because that's an issue. Are we aware of instances where consumers have. Deactivated or bypass the technology. And if so, how are those incidents accounted for in staff's assessment. I'm not aware of any of instance. Okay. You mentioned I think in the response to a question from my colleague commissioner boil that you're aware of 2 firms that have introduced saws with the technology that 1 is saw stop and the other is. Bosh. Does Bosh have any currently enabled saws on the marketplace for purchase today. They do not. Okay. The cost injury model that you guys presented staff developed a monetary estimate that's based in large part on jury awards. Jury awards are designed as we know to make an injured person. Whole in negligence cases, including intangible costs like pain and suffering. While that calculation may be relevant in tort lawsuits. That's not really what we're deciding here in this rule making our jobs to determine whether the products present an unreasonable risk of injury and whether or not there is negligence is is interesting, but not part and parcel to. The determination that we're making pain and suffering. As I understand it's sorry of fairly highly subjective calculation in lawsuits. I'm concerned that our cost benefit analysis relies too heavily on an intangible metric like this and thus might skew the benefits of the proposal. Can you please speak to the why this type of analysis is appropriate here and where we may have relied on that in previous rule makings. Sure. So the, the ICM, you know, when, when it's used for a specific injuries. It's a less specific set of. In just related to the product that's been study and and also it selects a similar type of cases to estimate the intangible benefits. So, you know, normally the estimate is specific to the product itself. Because, you know, it uses and is related to the problem as well as, you know, in your jury awards that also somehow connected to the, to the problem itself. Okay, I'm not sure that I follow. So I may have some, some, some additional questions. Did, did, did staff consider other objective measures to calculate intangible benefits? No. Okay. I want to ask about the commission boil. Did, did touch on this, but with respect to the 2017 special study on table saws, that study found a lower risk of injury on table saws equipped with the modular blade system and those that met the latest voluntary standards as compared to the table saws that that that don't But staff discounts the risk in doing so. I think the commission may be creating some additional legal risk if the rule proceeds of staff proposed. Not giving the 2017 special study is as much weight as it might receive. I think that's a risk, particularly in light of the recent recent loss in the DC circuit. It's my hope that commenters will address this and the other concerns I've raised today. I do again want to thank all of you for answering my questions this morning. Mr. Chairman at this time, I do have enough further questions. Thank you. Mr. Trump just just one last question that on that study that looked at modular blade guards and other modest safety features, it found that there was almost no benefit compared to the baseline and then right. Those didn't make it significantly safer, which is why we're here today. If it's based on the nice trend analysis. Yes, we do not find that they have made a difference. Thank you. The commission. I don't have anything further. Thank you. Hearing no further questions for the staff and excuse them. Thank them for the work on this. Before pointing the matter as proposed by the staff to vote going to entertain a motion from the commissioners to amend the proposal commissioner Feldman. Do you have any amendments? Commissioner Trump. I have none. And commissioner Boyle. No, I don't have any. And I have none as well. So hearing no amendments. I move to approve the draft supplement on those proposed rulemaking to establish a safe safety standard for table saws. Is there a second? Second. We have a second and can move forward to the vote. Commissioner Feldman. How do you vote? I vote no. Mr. Trump. Yes. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are three. The noes are one. The draft supplement knows proposed rulemaking on table saws passes. And at this point in time, we have up to 10 minutes per commissioner for any closing remarks. So I'm going to start myself. And first, I want to thank the CPSC staff for the work on this issue. It's already been a very long effort. Even though it's not done yet. And I appreciate their commitment to improving the safety of table saws. As we saw today, we had a number of questions that were raised. And I think. That is appropriate and exact reason why you put something out for a. For comment. So as things were raised up. That is why I felt very comfortable moving forward at this point in time. So those issues can be commented on by stakeholders. And then the commission can assess that. Because I had mentioned earlier the severity and the ubiquity of the injuries associated with table saw blades compels action. I look forward to, you know. The number of amputations less rations and fractures are happening each year. They are tremendous. And the trend lines as we have heard from staff today have not changed in the period that we've been working on this. So I look forward to a robust comment from all stakeholders, including consumer groups, industry representative advocates on the proposed standards feedback will help us move forward on a final rule so we can reduce and perhaps. Eliminate the amputations and other serious injuries caused every day by table saws. Move to commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to thank staff for being here to answer questions and for all the their work on this rulemaking over the years. Having now watched and read as much as I could in the time that I had, I know that that you've worked hard on on what is a complex matter and. Something that that frankly includes many unknown variables. Unfortunately, a majority of the commission didn't support a briefing on the subject, despite half of us wanting 1. These briefings are something that prior commissions have received, but we bypassed and I do think that that's unfortunate. The products that we're dealing with today are complicated. A briefing would have allowed us more time to study the issue and ask more meaningful questions to staff about the proposal. It's implications and the data on which we're relying. I would note that neither I nor any of my current colleagues sat on this dais during the earlier briefings and typically vote to publish rulemaking notices. The public comments that we receive are an opportunity to solicit a wide range of opinions like the chairman said regarding the soundness of our proposals and this process helps the commission improve draft product and address key issues. This general principle, though, depends on the soundness of the initial staff proposal and unfortunately here, I think the SNPR still has too many unanswered foundational questions and unknown issues to send it out for public comment. For that reason, today I break from a general practice of supporting these notices. And while I have a couple of concerns related to the rulemaking, I want to limit my remarks to three areas. First, I still have many unanswered questions about the intellectual property necessary to comply with the proposed rule. This is one of the key issues in what we're trying to do here. Staff states clearly in the briefing package that the proposed rule would most likely require all suppliers to use patented technology in their table saw. Staff takes some comfort in noting that two of the relevant patents that they've identified are set to expire soon. But the package also notes that as of 2016, SawStop had more than 100 table saw patents and the Dr. Gas had filed 140 patent applications that may still be relevant. We don't know what patents Dr. Gas, TTS, or SawStop have secured in the interim since 2016. But we do know that SawStop is actively pursuing a litigation strategy to extend the length of the relevant patents where it can, including at least one recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't share staff's comfort, therefore. The SNPR states that we don't know the extent to which these patents would impede other manufacturers from producing table saws with AAM technology. We don't even know what patents would be essential to the safety standard. We have no idea what additional IP exists, including filings within the last seven years. We have no idea what whether the current IP holders will license their holdings on fair and reasonable terms. We don't know who owns what patent. I don't agree with the Biden administration on everything. However, the OIRA guidance that was issued last week is helpful. It's recommendation that regulatory agencies carefully consider the competition landscape of the decisions that they're making is a sound one. This morning, I asked whether we had consulted with the DOJ and the FTC we had, and that's helpful. But it's a mistake for the CPSC to depart so radically from the pro-consumer, pro-competition safeguards that OIRA endorsed. And this information, frankly, is critical to our decision making. Approving the proposal without such basic information is premature and misguided. I'm concerned that the commission runs a very real risk of creating monopoly in the table saw market. To that end, I've drafted letters to certain parties who I believe may own or control relevant IP, including Dr. Gas, TTS, and the Felder group, to seek answers to some of these questions. There may be patent holders that we don't know of, and that is reason enough for the commission and our staff to continue doing our homework before taking any next steps. Second issue I want to raise, and it's related to the IP licensing terms, they would have a substantial effect on table saw costs. Between the IP licensing, redesign, and other related costs, staff forecasts that the per unit increases could exceed $1,000 per saw, maybe 20% or 30% higher than even that. I suspect that's why the Chief Counsel for the Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration offered comments suggesting changes to the 2017 NPR, which we didn't adopt in the current SNPR. If we finalize this rule, the cost of table saws will increase. This will directly affect consumers, including small contracting businesses that rely heavily on these products. I'm also concerned that the benefit side of the cost-benefit calculation here is deficient. The commission both discounts the 2017 special study and uses a pain and suffering metric arising from jury tort awards to account for almost 70% of the estimated benefits. I'm concerned about the reliability of the SNPR's cost and benefit calculations. And again, I think that's reason enough to pause what we're doing here today. But third, as I mentioned before, I believe this rulemaking needed a public briefing in more time for commissioners to ask questions and receive staff feedback. The rulemaking's controversial history and the fact that the briefing package runs to 166 pages demonstrates the complexity of the issues. None of the current commissioners were present when the NPR were considered in 2017. While CPSC staff has been working on this issue for more than 20 years, the pending SNPR is new to this commission. In my view, voting it out today without a complete record and answers to foundational questions, the commission's missing an important opportunity to engage in reasoned and thoughtful policymaking. Nevertheless, I encourage all stakeholders to submit comments on the issues that I've raised as well as others that I might have missed. I hope that the IP holders will respond on the record to the questions I'm sending them. I look forward to reading the comments when they come in and I hope that they can fill in the gaps of whatever steps the commission might take next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing the hearing today. I have the balance of my time. Commissioner Chomka. Here's some of the gloves that I wear in my workshop. And you can probably guess that I get a decent number of scrapes and cuts. Sometimes that means I have to super glue them shut or worse get a few stitches, but I still have all my fingers. And that's probably because the one tool in my workshop that I stopped using as my table saw. I had too many close calls with it. I had pieces that got jerked in towards the saw blade and move my hand far too close to a spinning saw blade. I had pieces shoot across the room with enough force to put holes in drywall. I couldn't justify continuing to use it. It just wasn't safe enough. So I created workarounds. Sometimes I use my miter saw or my router table or homemade jigs that let me use my circular saw for long cuts. And now that I work at CPSC, I see that my concerns are backed up by the numbers. Table saws send almost 50,000 people a year to the ER. And there are gruesome injuries. These are gruesome injuries like fractures and finger amputations. The Civil War was responsible for 60,000 amputations. Table saws are responsible for 65,000 amputations just since we were petitioned to fix the issue. But today we advanced a rule to save those fingers, to stop those amputations. Technology exists that could prevent saws from cutting more than three and a half millimeters into skin. That turns a trip to the ER into a trip to the medicine cabinet for a Band-Aid. And our rule would require that level of safety. In doing so, the rule would provide perhaps the greatest benefit to society of any rule in this agency's history, at least anything I'm aware of, with up to $2.32 billion in net benefits every year going forward. It's troubling that it took this long. An inventor created this solution a quarter century ago, back in 1999, and he petitioned this agency to require that level of safety on all table saws back in 2003. We've missed an opportunity over 20 years, and in that time table saws have injured one million people. That inventor, by the way, went from idea to working prototype by himself in less than a month. So it probably wouldn't be very difficult for major saw manufacturers to quickly come up with workable solutions to this issue. But they might not even need to, because they might already have those solutions. Other saw makers have created and implemented equivalent solutions. There may be licensing deals and options that would allow most major brands to access technology like that today. Why then aren't they doing it? Why isn't this safety technology ubiquitous? The answer might be as simple as money. It seems that saw sellers appear to be scared that if they start selling saws that are safer, they might open themselves up to product liability lawsuits when injuries occur in greater numbers on their other saws. So we're in danger to protect their bank accounts, and I don't appreciate that. And just a reminder, this proposal comes with this historic $2.32 billion annual net benefit, even with the assumption that companies are going to struggle with getting patent license or need to invent new technology from scratch. But if any of the companies have rights to existing technology that works now, the net benefits will be even higher. So when you talk about that struggle is a red herring. The rule already assumes that difficulty and bakes it in, and that difficulty may not even exist. The one place where I draw issue with this proposal, just one, is that it wants to wait three more years before this rule goes into effect. That would mean condemning 150,000 more people, innocent people to serious and gruesome injury, people we should instead be protecting. In the final rule, which I hope to receive later this fiscal year, we'll have to select an effective date that's reasonably necessary to address the hazard. With a rule that has billions of dollars in annual net benefits, a logical question to ask might be, isn't there a reasonable need to start gaining those benefits now? To start gaining those benefits as soon as possible, maybe even 30 days after the rule goes into effect, because that's the shortest period we're allowed to do that by law. And on the other end of the spectrum, the longest period we're allowed to do by law is six months. To depart beyond that requires good cause. Here, staff seeks to depart all the way up to three years, and I don't currently see any good cause to do so. And while we don't need to show that it will be easy for companies to comply quickly, we may learn that it is, which would make shortening the effective date all the more necessary. We know that three companies have already sold a saw with AEM technology. It's also my understanding that many table saw manufacturers might currently have the rights to compliance safety features and might be choosing not to incorporate them. It's my understanding that the industry lobbying group, the Power Tool Institute, undertook a joint venture among members, including Hitachi, Bosch, Stanley Black and Decker and Techtronix, and appeared to have created viable saw safety features which may be usable by all members. Today, I sent letters to the leadership at Bosch, TTS, SawStop, Hitachi, Stanley Black and Decker and Techtronix, seeking information on which of them have access to AEM technology. They would allow them to comply with the proposed performance requirements. Their answers are due on November 15th, and I've asked them to submit those answers to the commission secretary for inclusion on the public record. While we don't need that information to go forward with this rule as written, it would be relevant to shortening the effective date considerably, and I expect honest answers to those questions. And commenters, I encourage you to please weigh in with any other reasons why a shorter effective date is reasonably necessary. I wish this agency had done 20 years ago what we're doing today. We'd have prevented a million trips to the ER. 65,000 people would still have all their fingers, including at least one friend of mine. Today we did good. In the coming months, let's decide to do good faster. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank Ms. Paul for all of your work. I think you're the second CPSC staff member in the last couple of weeks who has indicated they've spent decades working on a project. And I think it should go without saying that that's too long. So I appreciate that we are here finally to be able to move this proposal forward. I do look forward to comments. I think if there are ways to make our proposal better, I certainly welcome them, but we are long overdue and I thank you for all your work. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all commissioners for engagement today and for the staff for all the work over a long period of time. And with that concludes today's decisional meeting of the consumer product safety commission.


Tarzan and the diamond of our share. Tira, queen of the hessie hair, promises Tarzan and his friends their freedom in exchange for the father of diamonds. Instead, she has them confined to the Tower of the Sun. Hakeru offers to help them escape if they will assist him to recover the hessie-herry and talisman from Tira. Tom, the only member of the party who knows where the gem is concealed, goes to the queen's chamber, accompanied by Darno to recover it. Tarzan Gregory is held in the Temple of Maachu in a state of suspended animation, and Hakeru agrees to bring him to the Senute, the tower which is to convey the party over the rim of Tuenbaka to freedom. Tarzan himself goes to the upper floor of the Tower of the Sun to the chamber where Helen and Magra are confined. As the eight men of the two young women are preparing to leave, the door begins to swing slowly open. With the gesture of silence to Helen and Magra, Tarzan leaps behind the barrier. Two armed hessie-herryans advance into the chamber, their eyes on the young women. As the eight men move noiselessly out from his place of concealment, one of the guards catches the movement from the corner of his eye. He turns, whips out his bronze sword, calls to his companion. With his shout, he leaps forward, weapon upraised to strike. Tarzan slips under the blow, catches the guard by arm and waist, lifts him high over his head, hurls him head foremost against the wall. The second hessie-herryan makes a rush for the open door. Before he has taken three steps, Tarzan catches him.  A moment later, the eight men tosses the unconscious guard aside. Come on, Magra. Helen, you've got to move fast now. Where do we go, Tarzan? Out, down these stairs. Fast. Never mind the noise. If there are any more guards, I'll take care of them. Wait, we'll close this door. Now, come on. Paul, they're not at home. Do we need them? Never mind them. They'll probably be waiting for us. Where, Tarzan? At the Senut car. We're all to meet there. Those two guards. Back in our room there. Are they dead? Stuns. Unconscious. They're not hurt. Here's the outer door. Just a minute. I'll see if the street is there. But the door is open. How Caryl left it so when he and the others went to the temple. All right. There isn't a soul in sight. Come on, hurry. Here. This way. We're coming. Hurry, Magra. Around that building ahead there. Then straight down the street to the edge of the city. It's only up in Tome. An alternate door there. There's the tower. One of those. Back in the secret passage leading from Tira's quarters, Tome and Dono stagger along under the weight of the father of diamonds and its golden disc as swiftly as they can. Cowing past the cobra, they gain the dim, high-vaulted corridor of the temple. Hurry along it toward the little door opening into the passage under the street. My lord, so far so good. Now, if we only can find that door, won't you? Don't. Are those voices calling this way? If we are found here? If we reach the door to the passage under the street soon, it must be closed now. If we have not passed it, we have come this far. We must win through before that crowd beats us. The door is on your side. Watch for it. I know. We have passed nothing that even resembles a door. And this, there's a cursed thing is getting heavier with each step. Faster, darling. For the love of Buddha, faster. If we are caught, it will mean worse than death. We cannot be far from it. There, just ahead on your side. Laporte, along the milchier of the door, put the disc down and find the opening stone. Beat, beat. Hurry. Don't move. Hurry. I have it. Quick, here. Drop the disc and I close the door. Hurry. Don't let the breast, but that was cutting it too thin. Mr. Anno, what's too thin? Help me to get the disc on my back. I think I can manage it alone through this passage. Here. Hello. There. I shall balance it now. And when you are tired, let me try. Down through the dimly lit passage, Tomes staggered with the diamond and disc upon his back. Dono upset him, helping when he can. They climbed the narrow stone stairs at the end of the tunnel and arrived at the bronze door in the outer wall of the building to which Hakeru brought them. Let it down, Dono. Rest well. Come with me. Rest well, Monabee. Then we must, we must continue. We still have a long way to go to reach the Senutka to the end of the street. It does, and we're only here now. My friend, he would pick that thing up as though it were a sack of feathers and run with it. This door is in the outer wall of the house. Right on the street. I shall open a foothill. The council of Thirteen has gone over to Thira. Please, he would not be free. He is coming directly towards us. If he passes, he will see us. We must stop him from raising an alarm to be able to understand Dono. We shall tie him up as we did Thira. Miss Pa? Exactly. Leave him to me. You watch the door. Here he is. As the venerable white bearded Nisham approaches and is about to pass the wall projection where Tom and Dono are concealed, a disc leaning against the wall at his feet. He steps forward to investigate. Quietly, Tom moves out into his path. A grim smile on his lips. He is still pecking at my phone. Nisham. Quietly, oh, hi, please. We intend you know. I have him, Tom. He will make no noise now. I have. But, Tom, you spoke the... You... I had forgotten for the moment that he speaks English. I merely warned him to be quiet in his own tongue. Then you do speak their language. I had an idea, Miss Tom, that you knew more of all this than you led us to believe. They speak the ancient Egyptian, Dono. I happen to be rather familiar with the language. A pokwa. Why did you not let us know? No time for explanation now, my friend. We will go into that later. Find the old gentleman. We can gag him. We must get on to the Senut car. Ben, we shall leave him here then. Yes, I shall find his feet. Quickly. He is as safe as his illustrious tira. He will not get out of those not so quickly. And now, see who's at play? Yes, I shall open the door. We will carry the disk between us.  What is the noise? The crowd, my friend. I do not see anyone in the street, though. Stay in the shadow of the walls. That moon is bright as daylight. But the door! Come, Dono. We are not out of this yet. The crowd. They are guards, no doubt. Tira is broken loose from her wounds and set them on our trail. They seem to be coming this way. The noise is getting louder. Faster, my friend, faster. This way. That low building at the end of the street. The Senut car is there. The others are not there waiting for us. We are... Oh, look, home coming around that corner into the street. Kazan and Margaret. Yes, and behind them, Serian is going to be a very close race, my friend. If only Akira has won through with Brian Gregory. Hey, pull, Dono. Easy, Dono. At this risk, we have a chance. Yes, give me that disk. You two look after Helen and Margaret. Come on, fast. Atan Tom. For all's sake, haven't you made it? Look over there. The temp's doors open. And here's the Herions. Now we are in for it, Kazan. Now further to go than we have. We, Kazan. But guards from the tower and guards from the top. Such grace that is going to be very close. What happened to Akira? Did you get through? And we left him in the temple. He is to meet us at the Senut car with Gregory. And we carry you. No, no. Serious. I cannot. Come, Helen and Ellen, my share. Oh, I'm coming, Pa. I'll give you that, but I'll make it. That Margaret and Atan Tom. Just a few steps. I'll throw this disk into the Senut car. Tom, you and Dono help the girls out. And we'll stand the guards off until Akira gets here. I'm afraid we will have to go without Gregory or Akira. I do not see him. Dono, near Garzan. Those fellows are dealing on his fast now. Get into the car and stay there. We cannot hope to hold that crowd for any length of time. There are too many. It is certain death. We'll try to stop them as they come to that little passage to the Senut car. It's narrow. We must hold them there. Come on. You hear Tarzan? Akira has arrived with Gregory. Yes, he keeps ground slowly. Back toward the car. Akira, be ready to let go of the break as soon as we're in the car. Aye, aye, Tarzan. I am ready. Dono, look Tarzan. He is walking toward the guard. Dono, move back with us.  He is walking straight into that arm. Tarzan! Dono, thinking only to delay the Hesseherians long enough for his friends to mount the Senut, rushes out to meet the foremost guards. Several of them surround him at once. He stands solidly, lashing out with clenched fists. The grim smile on his lips. A huge Hesseherian leaps eyes back. The others swarm over both men as they sink to the ground. With a yell of warning Tarzan swings forward to the help of his friends.


One last thing about vaccines, and then I'm going to let this go. There are more vaccines out there. In the United States, we're basically doing two vaccines. Pfizer and Moderna. But there's a Johnson and Johnson vaccine. And there's an ultra-Zeneca vaccine. There's a Russian vaccine and a Chinese vaccine. Put aside the Russian and Chinese vaccine. Maybe we don't trust them that much. But Johnson and Johnson and ultra-Zeneca. In the UK, which is vaccinating at a faster rate than the United States per capita. Still nowhere near as close to Israel. They're using all of these vaccines. Johnson and Johnson only requires one shot, not two, and doesn't require the stuff to be frozen at minus 100 Fahrenheit. Why aren't these vaccines approved? Why aren't these vaccines being distributed? If Biden wants to shake things up, why doesn't he just approve the ultra-Zeneca and the Johnson and Johnson, particularly the Johnson and Johnson, and get it out there? I don't think anybody's using Johnson and Johnson. But why not? Put it under. It's a little riskier. You get a choose. I'd rather take it now than later. But the ultra-Zeneca people are using. Why the United States says they'll approve it in April? I mean, it's like, ugh. It's like, yeah, people are dying. No big deal. Well, just wait. We've got, you know, there's some forms that haven't been filled yet. And we've got some checkmarks to make them some boxes. And, you know, yeah, the British have done it faster. But, you know, I'm not sure if we should trust the British because they're a third-world country anyway, right? I mean, a European after all. You know, so we should just, we'll just wait until April until we have filled out all the forms and checked all the boxes and done the work that we need to do because we only do the, we are American, right? And we Americans have to approve vaccines for Americans. I mean, that's what it is. It's the same with the CDC, not having approved the test because it was designed outside of the United States. So we're not going to use that test for whatever reason, right? I mean, if people are dying, get every vaccine in the world that has shown that it's safe and start getting it into the arms of people and keep track of who's getting what. And we'll learn from that because, hey, we might have to be vaccinated every year or something. But again, no. No. All right. As you can see, I am unbelievably angry, frustrated. And yesterday, and you'll see this if we can really, if we get the video and can release it, the law professor came back and said, well, I'm not exposed to COVID. I mean, he did a good job at it. And he said, he had to oppose me after all. And he said, but we've got all these reasons why we need regulations. And none of the reasons stood up. And suddenly none of the reasons stood up in the face of an emergency, in the face of people dying. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego, it's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes, but if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share, and you can support the show at yourunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals, and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this.  So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go, easy. Do one or all of those, please.


Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas! My name is Bernardo David and I'm here today to present to you a little taste of our paper called YOLO YOSU, Fast and Simple Encryption and Secret Sharing in the YOSU model, which is joint work with Ignacio Cascuto, Lydia Garms and Anna Skoling. The whole inspiration of this paper is the so-called YOSU model of computation, I mean secure computation. In this model we go from the traditional multi-party computation model with a fixed set of parties and several rounds where each of these parties interacts with each other to a more flexible model in a way and inflexible in a completely different way where each party can only speak once. In the YOSU model you only speak once, you have a huge pool of parties and then you sample smaller subsets of these parties in order to perform your MPC protocol. Each of these subsets of parties, each of these committees will be responsible for computing one round of this protocol and after they speak, after they send their message to the next set of parties, they have to stay silent. Most importantly, this committee stays anonymous until the point where they actually perform an action where they send their message, which gives us security against adaptive corruptions. Also, the point that you're able to sample small committees from a huge set of parties helps us with the scalability problem. However, when you work in this model, you have to worry about the problem of going from constructing secure channels with a public infrastructure and traditional public encryption, which we do in standard MPC protocols. And you need to actually figure out how to construct secure channels among parties who do not know each other. You need to be able to allow one committee who is executing a given round of the MPC protocol to communicate its state to the next committee whose identity is unknown until they speak themselves. Obviously here we cannot simply rely on our traditional public encryption schemes and our traditional public key cryptography techniques, we need something else we need to be able to encrypt towards an unknown party who is executing a certain role in the next round of this MPC protocol. Several previous approaches have been proposed to solve this problem. The main, the start of this line of work was this paper called Can a Blockchain Keep a Secret by Ben Hamouda and others, where they construct a protocol that allows evolving committee protocol to transfer a secret that is proactively secret shared from one committee to the next committee to the next committee, however they only tolerate less than a quarter of the parties being corrupted. Then the Yoso MPC paper itself that built on this idea in order to create the sort of MPC where each round is executed by a different committee. Use an idealized model where you get an ideal channel that allows you to communicate some secret states to a committee that will be acting in the next round. However, they don't show any construction of their idealized model, although they needed to be secure against less than half corrupted parties. The same authors of the Yoso MPC proposed the idea of a random index PIR, which is a private information retrieval protocol where parties are able to retrieve some data from a random index without revealing that to the servers and they use that plus some techniques like MPC had to implement a way to retrieve random public keys associated to random identity so they can actually encrypt data towards someone whose actual identity they don't know. The problem we're trying to address here is how to construct a efficient channel from one committee in Yoso MPC to the next committee, while also achieving a publicly verifiable secret sharing scheme that is compatible with this The approach we take is a little bit different from the previous approaches. We're actually building on the work that is being presented also in Asia-Pacific this year called encryption to the future. That defines a primitive that allows you to encrypt data towards a role rather than a party. A role is assigned to a party according to a lottery predicate that tells you whether a given party has been assigned a given role at some point in time. So you can have a role identifier string that uniquely identifies a role, and then you have time divided in slots according to a blockchain protocol. When a certain block is produced in a given slot, that block will allow you to determine which party will be performing a given role at that slot. And so encryption to the future ciphertext that have been generated towards that role can be decrypted by the party who has been selected according to some lottery procedure that can be checked by this lottery predicate. While this work by Campanelli and others in Asia-Cryptus year actually produces the first definition for this primitive and introduces a number of different ways of constructing it. It still suffers from some drawbacks in terms of concrete efficiency and also in terms of compatibility with existing publicly verifiable secret sharing schemes. In this paper, we will construct what we call encryption to the current winner, which allows you to encrypt a message towards a party who executes a role according to the lottery predicate when given the current state of the blockchain. So there's already enough random message of blockchain to determine the identity of the current winner of this role, although that identity remains hidden until that party acts. We do that using the idea based on shuffling, which gives us consent size for the ciphertext as opposed to ciphertext with the same number, the same size as the total number of parties. And then we use the idea of the ETF paper to show that it can actually take this encryption to the current winner and realize you also MPC, or even get full-blown encryption to the future towards people who might be elected for the future by using IBE and a committee that has communication independent from the number of messages or length of messages. Our contributions here, apart from this construction of encryption to current winner using shuffling are a publicly verifiable secret sharing scheme that is compatible with our ECW scheme in a way that we have proofs that the set of shares has been correctly generated. There are off-size independent from the number of parties, and that can give us actually a very efficient implementation of PVSS more efficient than our previous words such as Albatross or Scree. We also show how to efficiently do re-sharing with public verification for this PVSS protocol, and we finalize here with some constructions. Our constructions are based on DDH and as well as a generic linearly homomorphic encryption scheme, and we believe that as far as we know this is the most efficient PVSS scheme constructed today, even independently from our YOSU application. As future words, we would like to instantiate our framework under different assumptions rather than this DDH instantiation we show. A promising approach is using the Castagnos-like-Yomi approach for linearly homomorphic encryption, and we would also like to get better concrete constants and parameters for the full-blown PVSS on top of ECW implementation. Thanks for attention, and I hope you enjoy this conference, and Merry Christmas to all of you.