àng. Rm甚麼First Minister I,iatrima business between the United Kingdom and Kurt Aletaan may rolled out before thelong discussions of the Scottish Government and what it looks like in the future, I think that there will be some high demand either of us and that's very interesting. Glenfellyr, Pat Hoy, am Garnac. Mae ddod oes заedd rhanoligfer o drafodol eich gwrsau o arfer o ddechrau i gael. Mi'n bwysig â'r hollwyr, a'r byd i ddych chi hefyd yn ddadwn nhw'n trafodol i gael ar hyn, ac yn hyn yn dweud. Felly, yn 2007 a 2009, rydw i gael i gael i gael i gael amser i gyfailuedd Cymru, dwi'n dweud i'r cymdeithasau i'r effeithio i'r dweud o unigwyrs o'r ddych yn wneud yn gyfrifio glasgwyllion, not surprisingly, i'r cyfrifio gyrfa gweithio. Many of the comments were in regards to ill health and the respondents were convinced that their condition was down to the noise from aircraft. Much research has been carried out by my office, most of which confirms the fears of my constituents that noise from aircraft indeed is indeterminental for people's health. One of my research projects conducted in 2014 was a comprehensive undertaking 32 pages long, which covered the causes, the extent of how widespread it affected, what damage was being done, what compensation was involved elsewhere, who was responsible for action and most importantly what can be done to alleviate the impact. I presented this report to Glasgow Airport seeking dialogue with the view to see if there was any elements in the report that we could constructively work on. I am pleased to tell the chamber to say that the airport agreed to meet me. One of the major on-going complaints was being kept awake at night by flights in the wee small hours. There are no restrictions to flights at Glasgow Airport through the night. My ask of the airport, which I put to Amanda McMillan, the then chief executive, was a request that the airport carry out a pilot scheme to insulate houses to protect against the noise that would allow for a night's sleep. The airport said that it would consider this but thought that it would not be possible to retrofit a house at a reasonable cost that would make this a viable proposition. I took up this challenge and again after much research this time into the process, I retrofitted a house in Clydebank and in an attempt to prove that it could be done economically. In September 2016, I commissioned Sonoflo Limited, a specialist condition monitoring company owned by Ruben McLean, to professionally monitor the noise outcomes. He produced, for me, a night-time aircraft survey. The monitoring went through four distinct phases over a week. First, a sound test inside the house was carried out with no added insulation, which measured 63 decibels. Then, the loft was insulated, a further test measured 50 decibels, after which triple glazing was fitted and a further test measured 45 decibels. The outside of the house was measured at 84 decibels. Although the house was already equipped with double glazing, a major difference was achieved by installing triple glazing. The significance of three decibels is that three decibels is a doubling of the sound value. Three is double or three is half, depending on the way that you measure it. When I presented the findings to Glasgow Airport, the airport accepted the findings and the quality of the work that has been done by the professional. After a few meetings to their credit, the airport came good with their promise and said that it would prepare the details of a pilot scheme. In the intervening period, a directive was issued by the UK Government to the effect that airports with noise levels of 63 decibels and above will be required to put in place a sound reduction scheme for all those houses affected. That means that some 50—500 to 800 houses will now be eligible in Clydebank. That overtook the voluntary scheme and will deliver way above my own expectations. It should be noted that the UK Government has just this week finished an aviation 2050 consultation on aircraft noise with a proposal to reduce the levels before compensation by a further three decibels to 60 decibels. Gil Findlay. I have a point of clarity. I mentioned that it would no longer be a voluntary scheme. Is that a compulsory scheme? My understanding is that there are no compulsory schemes. Gil Paterson. Absolutely. The voluntary scheme has been taken over by a mandatory scheme. As long as the households are inside measurement as above 63 decibels spread over 60 hours, they will qualify it. I am pleased that, obviously, what I was going to accept was a smaller number, but having that number, I am really grateful for it. Gil Findlay. Gil Findlay. I wonder if you could just explain further how that works. Let's take it. The householder has to apply to the scheme. They have to make a contribution that is 100 per cent of the cost that is covered. That is new to me, and I am really interested in what the member is saying. Gil Paterson. Unfortunately, I am not able to say that because the scheme has presently been developed. I do not know the full extent, and that is why I am not sure if it will be £500 or £800, but it will be somewhere in between. As to how it will apply, I am not entirely sure. If I find it, I will certainly keep you posted. It is a bit of an anorak issue in many cases if you do not have to put up with this. I am glad that you are interested in that, and I will do my best to keep you informed. I have also been engaged with the Scottish Government, Westin-Bartonshire Council and Eastin-Bartonshire Council, although neither the Scottish Government nor local authorities have little or no powers over aviation. My discussions with Westin-Bartonshire Council were to encourage them, whenever they were involved in full-poverty projects, where they typically are installed, double glazing, loft insulation and wall insulation, by suggesting that areas under flight paths are affected by noise and that, for a very small additional outlay, the materials used should be materials that are protected for both heat loss and sound penetration. It should be noted that the materials that I used in my experiment were excellent in both capacities. You may ask if the Scottish Government and local authorities have no responsibility for this issue. Why should they spend a penny on reserved matters? I need to point out to the warnings over many years from the World Health Organization, which have highlighted the hazards that are caused by aircraft noise. The latest of those warnings from the World Health Organization came in October 2018, raising the prospect of cardiovascular disease, a cognitive impairment, quality of life wellbeing and mental health issues, metabolic outcomes and more. Therefore, the costs that are met by the Scottish and local Governments would, for a modest additional cost, by taking preventative action and upgrading their vital and welcome fuel poverty schemes under the flight path, will save untold expenditure in the future. People, particularly children, will be protected and able to flourish. I am pleased to say that my many constructive talks with the Scottish Government—in particular, the minister who is sitting here in Kevin Stewart—and the Westumbartonshire Council are bearing some fruit. There is a proposal going forward before Westumbartonshire Council in August to approve a second pilot scheme that will retrofit 12 houses for heat and sound protection. The World Health Organization says that people are damaged at levels over 45 decibels. Therefore, I believe that housing regulations for new-built homes are within that zone. Incidentally, that zone is identified on a public record document. It is required to install materials that protect to the 45 decibels level. Of course, the cost of installing on a virgin housing site is considerably less than having to rip it out and reinstall it later on. It is really interesting that, right now, in Clydebank, there are houses being built that fall within the 60 decibel zone, which, if not fitted with dual-heat sound protection products at the start, would be required to do so in a few short years. However, I am glad to say that Westumbartonshire Council has been very engaged and alert in this matter. There is every chance that those houses will be fully protected to that secure level. To conclude, although that is very much a health debate, it could have easily been an education because of the damage to attainment. However, the remedy lies in all the cases in protecting the building. My message from this debate is quite simple. You either stop night-time flights—that is an option—or you insulate buildings and homes to safeguard the people. That is the solution to that. I thank you very much for giving me this time. I thank you very much, Mr Paterson. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Rona Mackay. Mr Balfour, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Gil Paterson for bringing the debate forward this evening. I also thank him for the information that he has shared already, which has been enlightening to me. Airports are a fantastic feature of any city, bringing a huge wave of benefits to citizens both locally and nationally. They facilitate the travel of millions of people to hundreds of destinations while also improving the economy through tourism and exporting. For example, Edinburgh airport has a hugely positive impact here on the Scottish economy. According to a recent study, the airport contributes nearly £1 billion to the Scottish economy every year and supports 23,000 jobs nationwide. Its impact is wide-ranging and must not be underestimated, providing the foundations for many of the Scottish industries, particularly tourism. Tourism, particularly here for Edinburgh but for the whole of Scotland, is a vital industry, with more than 14,000 businesses focused on tourism that cater towards the millions of visitors coming to our country each year. Visitors are attracted by our munificent environment, our culture by not forgetting golf, whisky and, of course, the castle. Undoubtedly, it is important to be mindful that, despite the incredible benefits, airports have an effect on the surrounding environment. Noise is the concern at hand and is raised on occasion by communities along the airport flight paths. While noise cannot be completely removed, airports deal with it to manage the impact on local communities. I am delighted that we have already heard about what the UK Government is doing and will do. That will move it from a voluntary system into a statutory formation. Our airport has had a noise action plan in place for 2018 to 2023, which has been created in order to engage with local communities around the issue of noise. The aim of the plan is to consult with local communities on how they may be affected by living under flight paths or near the airport. Those consultations will give information that will help the airport to understand what are the specific issues that affect people and, ultimately, how best can it work with them to improve its impact. I wonder if Mr Balfour is aware that the expansion of flight paths at Edinburgh airport has been rejected twice by the CAA because the airport has not provided the correct information to communities that would be impacted by noise and other factors. Jeremy Balfour, I am aware and have been involved in that process. We have a challenge of when the airplanes take off, as Mr Finlay will be aware. They have previously gone in one direction and the airport had been suggesting that they go over other parts of West Lovian. That has had an effect on local communities. The airport still needs to come up with a system that allows airplanes to land and to take off in an efficient way, but it also protects communities, particularly communities that have not been affected by that noise previously to now. By Mr Finlay, I understand that Edinburgh has now set up an independent noise management board that has been made up of community councillors and other airport stakeholders. I hope that that will engage with local communities across Lovians. Ultimately, it is not possible to eliminate all noise generated from airports. There must be a degree of give and take, especially given factors such as the varying levels of people's experience towards noise and how much economic growth is generated by the airport. However, it is clear that airports across Scotland are taking the matter seriously. I am pleased with Gil Paterson's example at Glasgow. I hope that my local airport in Edinburgh will follow that line of Glasgow and take it seriously and support local communities as best as we can. I am grateful to my friend and colleague Gil Paterson for bringing this important debate to the chamber tonight. I would like to pay tribute to him for his long-standing work on the issue. I know that Gil has been working on this for more than a decade and has been relentless in his pursuit of justice for those living under the flight path of Glasgow airport. It is great to hear that, finally, success is around the corner. Gil has outlined the more technical issues in the debate and the fact that the Scottish Government has no powers in relation to aircraft regulation, as this is reserved to the UK Government. It also has very limited powers in relation to health and safety. It is those aspects that I would like to concentrate on tonight. Gil has articulated many of the negative health aspects. Everyone now accepts that excessive aircraft noise, particularly at night, has a negative impact on health. It can contribute to heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure and mental health issues in relation to constantly disturbed sleep due to night flights. We all know how bad we feel after a disturbed night's sleep for whatever reason. Think about enduring that every night and you'll begin to see the magnitude of the problem. One of the most depressing and unfair impacts in relation to noise is how it can affect children's cognitive development. The constant interruptions from overhead noise during school hours and during the night can adversely affect children's educational attainment. Aircraft noise does not affect every household in Scotland. My constituency of Straskell and Bearsden, which neighbours Gil Paterson's constituency of Clydebank and McGuy, is on the flight path to and from Glasgow airport. However, there is no doubt that, due to the proximity of Clydebank to the airport, Gil's constituency is most adversely affected. However, to put that into context, the World Health Organization guidelines recommend that more than 40 DBAs are enough to adversely affect sleep, and frequently noise has been recorded at more than 50 and 60 DBAs in parts of Bearsden. Indeed, when the Civil Aviation Authority instructed Glasgow airport to alter the flight path last year, many of my constituents contacted me worried about the increase in noise pollution. Many of children sit in important exams or were university students concerned about the impact that noise would have on their concentration in sleep. When the airport organised a consultation day in Bearsden to illustrate the changes that were being planned, to the astonishment of the organisers, more than 400 people turned up over the course of the day. That was far more than had turned up when they organised a Heathrow consultation. That is an issue that we must address, and I am really pleased to hear of the progress that has been made. It is for the sake of those whose lives have been blighted by excessive noise and night-time flights for many years. Gil Paterson has outlined ways in which that could be achieved and the progress that has been made, despite our limited powers. I hope that that will progress quickly for the sake of those who are living under the flight path. We are talking about the health and wellbeing of future generations, and it is our responsibility to act now so that the problem is dealt with before the two suffer the ill effects of excessive aircraft noise. I congratulate Mr Paterson on his debate. I brought forward a debate on the expansion of Edinburgh airport flight paths a few years back. During that time, I hosted a couple of public meetings in West Llywain, in which a huge number of people attended and were concerned about what the impact of flight expansion would be on them and their community. We know that airports are an unhealthy environment—noise, stress, waste, fumes, overcrowding and all—and the rest of it have a major impact on the environment. We know that they are a significant contributor to pollution and global warming, but they are important to our economy and society and provide a lot of jobs. Most of us use air travel from time to time. We have to look at how we address the conflicting features of air travel. The research from the World Health Organization recently shows how some cities have joined what they call the healthy cities movement that are trying to bring airports and the local community together to create far more healthy places that can coexist in a much healthier way by reducing waste and offsetting and reducing emissions, having sustainable travel to and from airports and mitigating noise. That is how it has to be in the future. It is not my experience of having dealt with Edinburgh Airport over the past couple of years or how the senior management of the airport conducted themselves during the process that I spoke about earlier. Airports are noisy places. Gil Paterson, I appreciate what you say about airports. I have the same thoughts, but I think that there is very much a political dimension. I do not come to this debate as someone who is talking about the environment. I am talking about people who are affected with their health. If you consider the low number of people in comparison to the people who use Edinburgh Airport, Glasgow Airport and other airports, it is a very small number. It is feasible and possible to take care of them. I really believe that the only way that it can be done is with a political act. The UK Government is doing it, but for me it is too slowly. It should look at the World Health Organization and work to that order rather than salami slice at the way that it is doing it. Mr Finlay, you will get your time back. That is a long intervention. I would not disagree with what Mr Paterson says, but I will comment on some of those issues in a minute. The reality is that airports are noisy places. Plans are big and noisy machines have impacts negatively on people in the community. That extensive body research that people have spoken about has the impact of high levels of noise contributing to heart disease. The longer you are exposed to it, the higher your risk of adverse health impacts. We know that it impacts on the learning capacity of children, on the impacts of sleep disturbance, has psychological impacts, contributes to obesity and low birth weight and all of the other issues that there is a significant body of research on. Combining the noise with increased air pollution from aircraft and from road vehicles servicing the airport, all of that compounds the impact on communities nearby. There are things that can be done to reduce ground noise and noise in the air. With quieter engines being developed, electronic planes are not science fiction. They may be here sooner rather than later. Restrictions on night flights, as has been mentioned, and more sensitive scheduling of flights is the correct way forward. Countries have statutory schemes for the likes of the projects that Mr Paterson has spoken about. I hope that that is becoming a statutory scheme, because what I have looked at at the moment is that this is a very patchy thing. It is up to the airport in that area to decide what happens. Statutory schemes in other areas are paid by taxis and levees on travel, and here that is not currently the case. I hope that we are moving to that because certainly a number of the properties in my region could benefit greatly from that. In some countries, of course, they have property removal initiatives, where the properties are bought up and people are compensated, and that has been done in places such as the Netherlands. On the ground, ground noise blends and noise walls have been constructed to help with ground noise. My experience of dealing with expansion of flight paths at Edinburgh was not a good one. I have to say nearer was it good for the communities who would have been affected. Airports have to be upfront. They have to be honest about what they are doing, and they have to build relationships with communities. They should have done that prior to submitting their application to extend the flight pass and did not. I think that there was a huge missed opportunity. They also need to end the professional arrogance. They actually came up against it in the campaign group that I worked with, because we had a professor of aviation who joined the group. Any of the baffling science and engineering that they would throw at us was easily addressed because we had the good fortune to have a professor of aviation. Not all community groups have that luxury. They also need to respect their neighbours and provide real and genuine and live information on flights and the noise from them. As I said earlier, the airport proposal for expansion at Edinburgh has twice been rejected by the CAA because of the poor information that they provided for the community. They cannot do that. If we are going to have a credible way forward where communities coexist, they have to provide genuine information and work collectively with the communities that are impacted. Thank you very much, Mr Finlay. I call Mark Ruskell before I go about Angus MacDonald. Mr MacDonald is the last speaker in the open debate, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for joining members and also thanking Gil Passan for his work on this issue over many, many years. A number of members have already talked about the numerous studies that have been conducted that show that higher levels of aircraft noise can impact on high blood pressure, on heart disease, on heart attacks, on strokes and even dementia. Of course, the educational impacts as well on children, whether it is in the classroom or at home, the impacts on their reading, on their comprehension and memory skills have been, I believe, at least 20 studies that have been done into this and looked at looking into this. Across the UK, Mr Passan says that it is a rather small number. There are 60,000 people who are exposed to night-time aircraft noise that exceed those world health organisation limits every single night. It is clear that noise from airports is causing a major public health crisis for those communities that are affected. It is our responsibility in this Parliament to tackle it. My constituents in Fife live under the shadow of existing and potential future flight paths out of Edinburgh Airport. From 2016 until October last year, the airport undertook an air space change programme, which ultimately sought to double the number of planes taking off from the airport at peak times to a departure every single minute. It proposed eight new arrivals paths, meaning nearly every community within a 15-mile radius, with the exception of central Edinburgh, would have a flight path overhead. I was inundated, as Mr Finlay and many other members were, with concerns for me in five stretching from Charleston in the west through to Dunfermline in the Keithing and Kinghorn in the east. Throughout the multiple consultations that have taken place, community concerns about noise were repeatedly downplayd and ignored by the airport. Residents felt that the information that noise mapping provided was deliberately difficult to understand and did not take into account the clear noise impacts within the home. Concerns were also raised by members of the airport's own noise advisory board as to the accuracy of the information that was provided. It was clear to many of us that the airport saw concern about noise as an issue, just to be swept largely under the carpet. Of course, I think that the thing that galled the community most was that the airport was not operating at capacity and there actually was no need for the expansion of flight paths. My opinion all along is that they are fattening the airport up for sale because the business model that the owners operate to is that they keep assets for a short period of time, then flog them on for huge profits. When they were challenged about that, they did not understand. No, that was raised at many of the community meetings that we had in Fife, and it is clear that Edinburgh Airport gains money from the flights but also gains money from selling duty free and its commercial operations as well. The CAA rejected the proposed new flight pass last October, criticising the airport for increasing the proposed flight path numbers mid- consultation and failing to properly engage with communities then on the impacts. The rejection by the CAA was a major win for communities, but Edinburgh Airport has already begun the work to submit a fresh proposal for new flight paths. That is why now more than ever we need to get a handle on tackling the noise issue. Recent changes to regulations at UK level mean that we can finally take action here in Scotland on noise pollution from our airports. New regulations give Scottish ministers the power to introduce noise related operating restrictions, and all airports with over 50,000 civil aircraft movements per year. I welcome the opportunity earlier this year to meet transport Scotland officials, along with representatives from Dalgethey Bay and Hill End, Kinghorn and North Queens Free community councils. I look forward to further guidance that is due to be published on the subject imminently. I hope that it reflects their concerns and I welcome an update from the minister if he is able to give us one this evening. My colleague Andy Wightman and I have also spoken in this chamber before about the opportunity for ministers to have more control over the operating conditions through formal designation of Edinburgh Airport and the use of powers under the Civil Aviation Act. That would allow us to address the issue of night flights in the airport, which are already restricted at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead. Last month in this chamber, the Cabinet Secretary, Michael Matheson, committed to reviewing the vast permitted development rights granted to airports, which can further contribute to expansion and related noise. I noticed that Mr Stewart was here earlier on. I mean, hopefully he will go back and think about the forthcoming review into permitted development rights and how we can get more control over the airports. I mean, at the moment, they just have seen to have vast unlimited permitted development rights within the airport and that, of course, can facilitate expansion and noise issues. Presiding Officer, if we are all in agreement about the health impacts caused by noise aviation, there do appear now to be multiple ways that we could be addressing those in Scotland, not just about insulating properties, but actually going further and looking at measured restrictions as well. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber to tackle this growing public health crisis. I would like to thank my colleague Gil Paterson for bringing this important issue before us for the debate today, which can clearly have an impact on people's quality of life. Aircraft noise is not a new issue. It has been a constant source of frustration for communities for a considerable period and there is, in certain circumstances, no way of escaping it. As members will be aware, in 2015, the Edinburgh airport embarked upon an airspace trial that saw aircraft use a newly designed flight path from take-off, which sought to reduce the amount of fuel aircraft were burning while waiting on the runway, reduce the time between the departures of each aircraft and provide a better service for passengers and the airlines flying from the airport. That resulted in the unintended consequence of significant proportions of East Central Scotland now being overflown by jet and turboprop aircraft that previously were not before. Areas within my constituency, including Manurston Holdings and the village of Black Ness, were particularly affected. As two were swathes of my colleagues Angela Constance and Fiona Hyslop's constituencies of Almond Valley and Llynsgo respectively. Of course, I acknowledge the work that Neil Finlay has done on this particular issue, too, in West Lodian. The vast majority of complaints were around the level of noise emitted by the aircraft. Given that one of the trials' aims was to reduce the time between take-offs, there were also complaints about the number of jets using this new flight path and causing untold stress and anxiety to residents in these areas. High-powered passenger jet aircraft breaking what was once tranquility and turning a peaceful life into a noisy nightmare in the process. Edinburgh Airport also operates, as we have heard, a not insignificant amount of night flights. These are defined as flights between the hours of 11pm and 6am in the morning and, as recently as 2018, the airport has been facing calls to curb the amount of flights during this period. In July 2014, figures from one chosen week marked 138 take-offs and landings at the airport. However, four years later, night flights had increased by 38 per cent to 191 in the same week studied. That is 191 times per week that someone could have their sleep disturbed by the intrusion of aircraft noise. Presiding Officer, we must consider that any sustained intrusion to our lives during the day or while we are asleep can result in detrimental impacts on our health. Exposure to regular aircraft noise plays a large part in that intrusion for people living near airports or under flight paths. As Gil Paterson and others have referred to in this evening's debate, the recent WHO report on environmental noise guidelines provides strong recommendations for achieving aircraft noise levels below 45 decibels during the day and below 40 decibels through the night. Anything above those levels will have an adverse impact on the health of exposed populations. Turning to some of the findings of Edinburgh Airport's trial airspace change, the average noise recorded in places across the flight path area were consistently above the 40 to 45 decibel threshold and in some cases considerably above. In 2012, Virgin Atlantic pledged to reduce noise energy output of its fleet by six decibels per aircraft movement by 2020. That, in line with advancements in aircraft engine technology, is all very welcome. However, reducing noise by six decibels from an original level of about 70 decibels is still well above the recommendations of the WHO report. The Civil Aviation Authority, the European Union and the international civil aviation organisation should be working to ensure that policies are in place to continue innovation and mitigation wherever appropriate and possible to limit the impact on our communities. In particular, it is for the CAA in the UK going forward to ensure that its procedures and guidelines are fit for purpose for airspace change and the changes in use of existing flight paths is appropriate and takes into consideration the impact of communities as a priority. Although the changes proposed by the Edinburgh airspace change were ultimately rejected, the communities subjected to the trial and subsequent changes in the use of other flight paths are a long way from properly healing. The WHO report should be taken very seriously if we are to ensure that communities are given every chance to live in the relatively peaceful way that they rightly deserve. However, it is incumbent upon all parties involved to be at the table to ensure that progress in this area is made for everyone in the spirit of collaboration and collective responsibility that we all have towards our citizens and our communities. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to respond to the Scottish Government on behalf of the cabinet secretary. I also recognise the strong feeling that there is about this issue among some residents, as we have heard, in the communities that are affected by aircraft noise and members across the chamber. I also recognise particularly the long-standing interest that Gil Paterson has in this issue and I want to congratulate him and sincerely thank him for the support that he has provided to the Scottish Government and I congratulate him sincerely on securing time for this very important debate for his constituents and clearly for other members across his chamber's constituents as well. I hadn't appreciated until sitting next to Mr Stewart was pointing out to me the example that was given that Gil Paterson had done a pilot project. I believe that if Mr Stewart is correct he was actually paid for at the expense of Mr Paterson, which is definitely going above and beyond the call of duty for MSPs, but I think further adds strength to the commitment that has shown to trying to resolve this issue for his constituents. I want to start by referring to the WHO report. Of course, the assessment of noise and noise annoyance is a complex process and different noise sources affect people in different ways, as we have heard. The issue of the extent of health effects and the associated with noise is an on-going area of research and the WHO report is an important contribution to our knowledge of the issue as I and Angus MacDonald, Gil Paterson and others have said the thresholds that have been established in the WHO report of 45 decibels by day and 40 decibels at night are obviously very informative. The WHO report does however cover a number of areas and it's worth it while just mentioning that it also, in addition to aircraft noise, also covers issues associated with road traffic, rail, wind turbines and indeed leisure noise. As well as the impact of different noise sources in isolation their interaction is also important at any given point individuals and indeed wider communities are likely to be exposed to noise from multiple sources simultaneously. Any efforts to mitigate the impact of noise should take this into account and as context for the issues of noise impacts which shall all turn to shortly. Jeremy Balfour alluded to this but we're also debating this issue in part due to the on-going success of Scotland's airports. Last week, Edinburgh Airport announced its busiest rep May on record and Glasgow Airport had its busiest every year in 2017. Scotland takes into account our climate change targets and actions to address climate change and I know that members are concerned to manage that impact. Scotland now has direct services to many parts of the world which we didn't have before including the Middle East to a range of destinations in North America and to numerous cities across Europe that we rely on for doing business and family on holiday. Edinburgh's newly launched service to Boston which the Scottish Government assisted in securing is further enhancing Scotland's route network and of course can eliminate unnecessary connecting flights to hub airports but that doesn't diminish the concern that I know members feel about the issue of noise and while, as I say, I recognise the need to place downward pressure on the environmental impacts of aircraft activities continuing success of Scotland's airports brings with it significant economic benefits and airports local area. It's wider region and to Scotland as a whole so we shouldn't lose sight of that. However, and I've been hearing listening closely to members today I very much respect the view of members and colleagues across the chamber who are concerned with emissions and I hope we can all agree that with the success that comes from growing airport activity there's a wider responsibility for airports to consider the communities around them and particularly those directly impacted by Gil Paterson, Rona Mackay, Neil Findlay, Jeremy Balfour and Mark Ruskell all members, I think, have mentioned this point that they expect airports to act responsibly and to take into account the impact in local community. And it is important to remember that there is already a regime in place to mitigate the impact of noise from airports with every major airport required to have in place measures to mitigate the impact of noise. The environmental noise, Scotland regulations 2006 require that major airports produce a strategic noise map and a noise action plan sitting out to mitigate the impact of noise from the airport. There's a requirement under the regulations for an airport to use all reasonable endeavours to take the action set out in their action plan. And it's important to stress that these action plans are themselves required to be updated at least every five years and Glasgow airport updated their plan last year to cover the period 2018 to 2023. As I understand it, Glasgow airport's plan was produced based on extensive feedback gathered during a 13-week public consultation between January and April of 2018 and this represented an opportunity for the public to have their say in what the airport is doing to specifically mitigate against noise. And it's worth highlighting that given Mr Paterson's and others concerns that Glasgow airport are taking further measures under their noise action plan to mitigate noise for residents. And this includes firstly developing a noise insulation policy to mitigate noise for residents most affected by aircraft noise and clearly the move by UK Government will aid those efforts. Finally incentivising the use of quieter aircraft through differential landing charges. Mr Finlay is right to indicate that in future electric planes we will play a role in helping to reduce aircraft noise and indeed they're already being trialled in Norway so they're not as far away as people may think from being used commercially. And encouraging aircraft thirdly to adopt continuous descent operations which involve aircraft maintaining a steady state of approach which reduces noise. And fourthly developing an airspace change proposal which will allow aircraft to fly more accurately along departure routes and minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise. It should be noted though that the regulations do not just cover airports, they also cover major roads and railways as well as major urban areas. And this recognises the need to address as previously stated the fact that noise comes from multiple sources but colleagues are right that airports should take action where they can do so. Certainly it was touched upon by Mr Finlay and Mr Balfour in their exchange and indeed by Mr Ruskell as well that we're very much conscious that changes in flight paths can mean that while some communities can become less impacted by aircraft noise, others can see aircraft noise increase. And while airspace change is a reserved matter as has been said by a number of colleagues which is the responsibility of UK ministers and UK parliaments and the Scottish Government has no direct formal role in the process we have emphasised previously the need for airports to properly consult local communities. That's a point that I think Mr Finlay was very much concerned to make sure that it happens and with sincerity that those consultations are genuine and that indeed the relation to their proposals and I make that point here again today that that is something we expect to see happen and at present large parts of our airspace are crowded and inefficient. This is bad for passengers clearly but it's bad for the environment and bad for the wider economy. So it's perhaps obvious but I should restate using our airspace more efficiently can lessen need for things like aircraft stacking thereby making journeys quicker using less fuel meaning a cut in emissions and hopefully less noise over those communities closest to the airports. However it's also important that necessary changes are made to the use of our airspace to accommodate future growth in a sustainable way. It's also essential however that airports effectively consult with local communities and take account of the responses to that consultation before deciding on which options to pursue as part of an airspace change process. Finally in conclusion the mitigation of the impact of noise from an airport must be balanced against the benefits that an airport brings in terms of economic growth, employment and so forth. The environmental noise Scotland regulations 2006 imposed requirements on airport operators to take action in relation to noise. I was greatly heartened to hear about the impact that individual measures can be taken and my colleague Kevin Stewart was keen to emphasise that he will be looking at the protection against noise in his review of building standards for what I will. Neil Findlay Does the minister believe that there is a contradiction and the view that you can have sustainability and exponential growth and aviation? Minister I would agree in the way that Mr Findlay has put it but I certainly recognise we have to get the balance right. If we are growing air traffic in Scotland, we have a responsibility to communities that are affected and to make sure that we manage the greenhouse gas emissions that arise from air traffic. Clearly with technology improving we can see more efficient engines, we can see quieter engines, we can see entirely new propulsion systems in terms of electric planes so it is not necessarily a given that the air travel has to be bad for the environment we can obviously try and design out those vulnerabilities in the future to reflect the impact of emissions in our annual statutory greenhouse gas emissions targets. I want to point to the fact that Mr Stewart was keen to emphasise that we will be looking at the issue that was raised by Mr Patterson of how we can make the most of energy efficiency investments to tackle noise impacts on residents in terms of the review of building standards and Mr Stewart before he had to leave asked me just to make that point so we obviously have worked to do in this respect but we believe that the requirements of these regulations are for now sufficient obviously augmented by the steps taken by UK Government and they do meet their intended purpose but there are no plans for arrangements to be changed at this time but I have certainly taken extensive notes of the points that were made by members and I will make sure that my colleague Mr Matheson is aware of the strength of feeling across the chamber and report that back but I must be brief. I am quite happy because there are just a few speakers. Will the Scottish Government consider taking back control, if you like, of Edinburgh Airport and designating it as an airport that is under the control of the Scottish ministers? Wouldn't that be the most strategic thing to do given that the Scottish Government has an abalanced interest in aviation? I hope that the member will forgive me as I am not the lead minister on that particular topic and I will lay that point to Mr Matheson and ask him to correspond with Mr Ruskell but I have certainly noted it, it is not within my side of the portfolio but I will certainly relate that to Mr Matheson and make sure that he is aware of Mr Ruskell's point. On that I conclude and thank you for your patience. Not at all, interesting debate. Thank you very much, that concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament.


I'm sorry. Oh, thanks for doing this. I never could have done this. Well, this is amazing. You can look right here, that's good. Thanks.  I appreciate all that you do. This is our friend, Melissa Wilson.  And my name's Katie Ball. Hi. I'm not okay. Yes. I'm just a president. How wonderful. Thank you. We ought to get a family picture. That would be nice. Watch this. That's great. Is that good? That's great. Everybody's looking right here. Jeannie, you can smile, too. Thank you, express. Thank you. I should tell you how hard it worked. Oh, yes. Yes. She's an honor, you know that. Well, she enjoys every minute of it. I'm pleased. Just wait one second here. All right. Of course.  No, that's not what I know. Just some souvenirs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. She was quick. I would never do that on her. Well, you hope so. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I would never do that on her. Well, you hope she doesn't. Have you recuperated yet? I think so, yeah. Yeah. All right. You have. Four o'clock every day I start falling asleep. Is that right? Do you catch you doing that? That's right. Yeah, I did talk to you the other day and she said, you better go home. I said, I cannot fall asleep in the car and ride it. Bad. Thank you again. It's just unreal. It was a pleasure. Our very best wishes for your future. Thank you very much. Thank you. She does seem to be well taken care of. She does a pretty good job, I suppose. Bye. Thank you. Thank you so much. Bye-bye.


Ukrainian Army captured 103 Russian T-72B3M tanks. Ukrainian soldiers from the 47th Mechanized Brigade have captured another Russian Army T-72B3MOD 2016, also called T-72B3M, the latest generation of main battle tanks from the Russian T-72 family. The information was decimated on social media. According to Army Recognition Media Outlet, the 47th Mechanized Brigade has been conducting a series of offensive actions towards Robertine, located in the Zaporizia region. A week prior to this, Ukrainian forces reportedly destroyed several T-72B3Ms when Russian forces made a failed attempt to retake captured positions in the same direction. As a result of the Ukrainian retaliation, the Russians lost three tanks while another three were forced to retreat. Since the onset of the war, Ukrainian forces have seized more than 550 Russian tanks. Among these, 103 have been identified as T-72B3MOD 2016 tanks, also called T-72B3M. Following their capture, these tanks have undergone repairs and have been returned to service within the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The recovery and refurbishment of these Russian tanks have become the primary means for Ukraine to replenish its military vehicle arsenal. The significant number of tanks seized not only indicates the resilience of Ukrainian forces but also underlines their strategic maneuvers amidst the persisting tensions. As the conflict continues, Ukraine's ability to turn Russia's resources into their own gives them an advantage on the battlefield, but how this will affect the broader conflict remains to be seen. The T-72B3M, also popularly referred to as the T-72B4, is a modern iteration of the renowned T-72 family of main battle tanks originating from Russia. Essentially, the T-72B3M is a significantly upgraded version of the T-72B3, featuring substantial enhancements in the realms of firepower, protective measures and mobility.


We don't put them in a box, and it's more like if you feel comfortable and you're confident, shoot the ball. And JJO is wide open. JJO has been obviously after every day of practice, the media that comes and watches us, shoots a lot of threes. We work on different things at the start of practice. We want her in the paint. She was huge for us. And those threes, I mean, that, you know, kind of changed the momentum of the game a fair bit. So a baseline and then just some simple action to get her open. And, you know, the ball went in. Other games, the ball hasn't been going in for us. And it did tonight, but we had to fight. We got back to our identity. We're a way better team than what we've showed the last two games. So I'm just proud of the effort and the commitment and the connection that we had. But now we've got to do it again. Next question, second row to your left, Sandy. Yeah, Sandy, a little bit more about JJ. She sat up here before and said, we've got to prove that we belong. And then she kind of went out there. I mean, she hit threes, but she blocked. She did about everything. I mean, a player under pressure to and she got you guys going initially. Just talk a little bit about that.  And, you know, it's been a journey this year for her with the injury and then getting her integrated into the team. And I've spoken all season long that we we were finding our feet once we could get her integrated because she's so important for us. But her will to win. She's a superstar. This girl, she's amazing. She's very humble. You know, we know she's carried us the last, you know, in the games that we lost, she was really, you know, the only one that was being consistent. And, you know, it's a focus. We thought that's an area we knew we could get open. And that's just JJ, believe it in herself. Her teammates obviously trust her, I trust her, you know, to finish plays, make plays offensively. But defensively, she was on Asia a fair bit tonight. I think you saw that. I thought she did a fantastic job. Shop blocking, changing shots, switching and staying in front of guards. It's not easy for this player that size. So she was big for us. And, you know, we're going to need her to do it again on Wednesday.


It's my great pleasure to open the Digital Security Challenge, the first of its kind event in Interpol, aiming at enhancing member countries' cybercrime investigative capability. Perhaps some of you may not be familiar with IGCI, so I'd just like to simply touch upon the IGCI. Under the Interpol vision, connecting the police for a safer world, IGCI was opened here in Singapore in April last year to address unprecedented challenges law enforcement faces in the digital age. So what kind of challenge are we actually facing nowadays? As you know, identification of crimes and criminals is key all the time to law enforcement in order to detect and investigate crime. The criminal use of the internet has fundamentally challenges, the law enforcement traditional way of detection and investigation of crime. Today more and more crimes have online or digital component, be it to move money or to communicate amongst criminals or access to victim. Consequently, computer and mobile forensic are getting crucial, very much crucial, for all types of crime. As most investigations require the police to collect e-evidence from computers, smart phones, tablets or even the cloud. So without these capabilities, the law enforcement may not be able to see the whole picture of the criminal network nor to bring criminals into justice due to the lack of sufficient evidence. Given this situation, Interpol created digital forensic laboratory at the IGCI so that digital security or digital forensic support can be provided on site at the IGCI to membership, as well as remotely from the IGCI. By providing capacity building and operational support, Interpol striped to help you, member country, you, enhance your capability to deal with cyber crime. As part of this endeavor, we decided to organize this digital security challenge. For the next four days, you will be going through the digital security challenge in the investigative context. My colleague, Martin Obeler, already explained about how the exercise will be managed so I don't go into the depth. But essentially, you will be placed in different teams and presented with cyber crime scenario. So your team will be then investigate and try to identify the perpetrator in, actually, minimum time. As evidence, as you know, is very much time sensitive. As in a life, real life investigation, these exercises include interviews of suspect and analysis of the seized evidence. In the end, you will need to submit a report and present evidence you found in front of so-called prosecution panel. What is interesting, perhaps for you, is that there will be reward for top two teams that will successfully conduct the investigation. I don't know what will be given to you, but I think Martin, you know, so it seems to be a secret. So I'm sure that you will enjoy this exercise and at the same time, you will be able to grasp the potential new challenge that will come to you in cyber crime investigations. By working together on the case presented during this exercise, I think you will be able to assess how ready you are to deal with these challenges in cyber crime investigation and what you need to do to fill the gaps, if any. And importantly, you know what technology is available and who can assist you, how, when needed. That's the ultimate goal of this exercise. Having said that, I would like to highlight that this digital security challenge is based on multi-stakeholder collaboration, which is IGCI's approach since the beginning of its operation. So in today's crime landscape, most of information law enforcement need to prevent and investigate cyber crimes lies within the private sector. So that is why IGCI is designed to enable expert from law enforcement private sector and academia to work side by side at IGCI. This event today exemplifies this close collaboration as it is supported by both government and private sector entities. So I would first like to thank the government of Canada, one of the supporters of this event in the framework of the ASEAN capacity building project. For its continuous support to support activities. Second, support we have received from our private sector partners. I'd like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to NAC, CDI, Cyber Defense Institute, Transmicro, MSAB, Magnet Forensic, and the Civil Rights for their strong support, global police community through Interpol. And in this context, there is very good news today, especially for a colleague from our membership. I have great pleasure to announce a new corporation agreement that Interpol concluded with Celebrite last Friday. Celebrite will provide their product, software, hardware, and the licenses, technical assistance, and the training to law enforcement of the Interpol membership through IGCI over three years. I think that the challenge law enforcement phases can be only overcome by multi-stakeholder cooperation. Interpol therefore will continue to engage as many stakeholders as possible to find the best way to support you, our membership, in your national and regional effort to combat cybercrime. I hope that you truly enjoy this digital security challenge exercise and strengthen existing friendship with your colleagues, as well as develop new network to fight cybercrime among participants, including private sector supporters. I wish you a very fruitful exercise and a wonderful stay in Singapore. Thank you.


Isaiah Spiller wasted no time at Texas A&M before he started producing. As a freshman, he handled 203 touches for 1149 yards and 10 touchdowns. After that, Spiller's stat line looked virtually identical year-over-year in terms of overall production, so at least he was consistent. And when looking at market shares and rate stats, Spiller looks good in terms of efficiency and receiving work, but less impressive with rushing workload and touchdown shares. Joe Mixon winds up as Spiller's top comparison for me as a type of back you can lean on, but who may not be the most dynamic ball carrier in an NFL offense. The tape shows a lack of game-changing speed, and Spiller opted not to run the 40 at the NFL Combine. All that said, while the film alone will look good, not great, the details are there for a strong fantasy performer in the NFL.


that one was three layers of fiberglass and that came out great I did an earlier one with two layers of fiberglass a little I could probably get away with it but it's a little floppier than I would like so I'm gonna throw it back in the mold here put another layer inside it I'm thinking I can use this as tops for the pontoons that's roughly where the pontoons go obviously not at that angle I just stuffed it in the stuff over there that is gonna be cool and another one over here yeah all right I think it's swim time I'm toast for today I've been working on this area back here with my leftovers looking pretty good I just need one flange up in the front here and that should be all locked in nice and strong I got the front pontoon holder in pretty good or it's a tiny kayak it's a wee little kayak I could totally fit in that so I got this top piece out of my mold there rewax it it's waiting right now and then I brought it over here to see how it fits in this thing and the pontoon had shrunk this way it was way too skinny I was like well let me just start prying it anyway like 15 minutes later I got the thing in there and it was in so tight I thought if I knocked it the whole thing would just like fly out at 400 miles an hour so I immediately ran over and got some resin and glued it in don't come out this overnight because if it rains it's just gonna fill up with water because this is on the inside and the bottom part's on the outside we need to flip it upside down very carefully chickens eat them it's like a five inch long beetle yeah about that chickens are too afraid of them oh I just got these all sanded what a horrible ordeal that is all sanding fiberglass it's like itchy dust producing anyway and then I sealed this with two layers of fiberglass all the way around so that should be airtight now I did poke a hole in the top here so that it could be airtight so otherwise if there was any expansion or contraction it would pull or push out along the seam and make a hole so I did that one I got this one too and they're looking beautiful and I am not looking beautiful oh I just wore a mask for like two hours and the sun and full-body suit there's just a pile of sweaty man in here now I'm gonna I'm going to take care of that situation better feel good getting up in the morning before breakfast get a bunch of work done oh great stuff I did not yet stand this part that is the easiest part to do just rolled a whole bunch of resin on here blackened resin real thick hoping that when it's laying on its side like this the stuff will just kind of self-level and it looks like it did a pretty good job hopefully this will minimize sanding pretty good surface other than all these little bits of dirt I have a messy operation here there's lots of dirt overall though yeah this is flipped over now I'm just sanding off the drips that came from the other side yeah this guy back here all finished and I love the way that looks so functional so once I get these pontoons done then all I need is the arms to connect them I can throw this in the water and at least test the the pedals motors not here yet


What's everyone take down here. Welcome back to another video today. We're going to be talking about a WWE 2K 2022 new features. Let's get right into this. So for this video today, we're going to be talking about the new features that should be added to WWE 2K 22. Now, at this time, not all of them are confirmed, but they would definitely improve the game. Of course, last year we didn't get the game because WWE 2K 20 was trashed to a lot of people. For me, everything worked, but a lot of people had a lot of errors, glitches and a lot of problems with the games. So hopefully they fix and take that into account and make a way better game this year because they had two years to make and finally release this game. So let's just dive into this up first is superstars. Overalls will change automatically depending on how they perform in either real life or in universe mode. Now, this is something that a lot of people have wanted for a while because a lot of other sports games include now the WWE live would be depending on how the superstars perform in real life in the real WWE would affect their overall ratings in the game, which I think would be very cool. But if you play universe mode, it might be very cool. If you have a superstar that's on a win streak, having their overall increase a lot more and stay permanently at that overall level. Now, they have something similar in WWE 2K 20, where depending on performance, they might have an extra boost where their overall might be increased by two, three or sometimes even five, but it's only temporary. It's not permanent. If they had a permanent thing that could do it automatically, I think that'd be great. Of course, WWE games are notorious for having the accelerator, which you could go and manually change all of the overalls for all the superstars, but you have to pay for that. It's like a DLC. I think if it automatically did it based on performance in real life or in universe mode, if you have somebody going on a lot of wins, I think that would change how people play to the game. And it would absolutely be awesome. The next feature is WWE universe mode draft and contract signings. This one here is similar to GM mode back in the day for SmackDown versus Raw, but realistically, I don't see it happening. If they were going to add this elements to universe mode or into the WWE games, they should have done it back in 2016 where they did the brand wars. Once again, SmackDown versus Raw in real life and the brands mattered. Now the brands don't matter so much. Once again, it's all mixed up in a way. I do like how raw and SmackDown have separate tag teams, world titles, minor titles and women's titles, but they still are a little mixed up. But this still would be a great feature to add in universe mode if they were to take the right approach to it. Next would be to add a lot more new or returning legends to the game. One legend that was taken out and we really don't know why was Vader. And I really think that a return of Vader and other legends that were taken out of the game in previous games would be amazing, especially with the facts that WWE is releasing a lot of their current talents for the past two years. There might not be a lot of talent. So to bring back some of the old legends that were in previous games, I think that would be very amazing or to even up that and include some legends from the Attitude Era or mid 2000s and just bring them and put them in the games as well. I also think wrestlers that return just for a cameo, whether it's an anniversary or legends nights or the Royal Rumble, I think that would be awesome to include them in the game as well. For example, Carlito was in last year's Royal Rumble, and we also have the hurricane who returns sometimes in the Royal Rumble. He's also a producer backstage, along with other wrestlers that showed up for legends nights and different things like that. JBL and Farouk would be absolutely amazing to have returned in the game, whether they be a tag team from the old days or JBL as the iconic JBL would be amazing, but returning some of these legends that make cameos in legends night and different things like that would be pretty epic. The next feature is for career mode, and that is decisions and win and losses actually matter. Now, how previous WWE games were back in SmackDown versus Raw, you can either select a current WWE superstar that is in the game on the roster and play a career mode as them, which was a lot of fun, or you could create a new wrestler, a created wrestler and do a career mode as them. Currently, previous WWE games over the past few years, you could only create a new wrestler and play a career mode as them. If they brought back that you could go and select a WWE superstar and play a career mode of them, I think that would be a lot more fun. But on top of that, have career mode where wins and losses actually matter. Now, in career mode, you have to win the match, sometimes in a specific way to advance to the next scene or the next match in career mode. You have to win, whereas back in SmackDown versus Raw, if you won the match, great, that would boost your ratings and help you get closer to the championship. If you lost the match, you still move on to the next match. It's just it didn't help you any way whatsoever. And the career modes back then were a lot longer than they currently are. Now, when it comes to making decisions, I remember back on SmackDown versus Raw, when you're playing as a WWE superstar, there sometimes would come a part where you would have to pick one of four wrestlers to be your partner in a huge fight. If you picked the wrong person, they would either attack you or make you lose the match and then you'd start a rivalry with them. If you picked the right person, they would actually help you win that match and get you a step closer to the championship. So if they brought back where decisions actually matter, where based on what decision you select and who you select to be your partner in different elements like that, actually make and change up how the career mode is progressed, I think would be amazing to see. The next feature is one that I would love to see brought back and that is create a finisher. They had this a few years ago and it was a lot of fun, but they ended up taking it out because of a lot of the finishers would be glitched and they didn't want to deal with that. I think that they were to reassess and make it better. And whereas there would be no glitches with the custom finishers, I think that would be a lot of fun and a very new element, especially if there's a finisher you love that is not part of the game. If you could go and create it, that would be awesome to see. One feature that they had a few years ago and they ultimately took it out, but I would love to see brought back would be when face paints would wear out the longer the match goes on, which is something that would bring a new realistic effects to the games. Now, that's something I'd love to see brought back because it's something that does happen in the WWE. The face paint does not stay the same all the time. It does wear out as the match does go on. And I really think they need to bring that back along with changing or erasing the face paint off of a WWE superstar in the game as part of the roster would be awesome because sometimes superstars will change up their face paints or sometimes just take the face paint off period. And that's something that I really think they need to bring into the game. Right now, if a superstar has face paint on, sometimes you can change the color of the face paints, but you can't erase the face paint totally, which is something I think they really need. Now, the last two things are ones that I honestly don't see ever happening. And that is number one GM mode. I think, again, if they did it back in 2016, that would have been perfect. But how things are now where there's no raw or Smackdown general manager, I think that'd be very, very hard to pull off. But something that I think would be fun for a video game, but it's not something WWE currently does. So it wouldn't really make sense. And the last thing that I doubt is going to happen, but I would love to see would be WWE superstars that are in the game as part of the roster, having some of their older music and entrances be returned for the video game. Now, sometimes they do this with select superstars, depending on what the story mode is going to be for the game. They did Kofi Kingston, Daniel Bryan and The Miz a couple of years ago, but sometimes they don't do enough. I think if they added a bunch of old entrances and music for various superstars that are in the game, I think that would be very epic. If you wanted to do kind of a retro universe mode, I think that would be a lot of fun. Or if somebody is now part of a tag team and you want to split that tag team up and give that wrestler their old music back for their solo entrance, I think that would be a lot of fun and spot on. I just don't see that is going to be something that 2K is going to do because it's not something that is currently in the WWE. So these are the features that I hope to see in WWE 2K 2022. Comment down below what features you think are going to be as part of the game. And I'll see you guys in the next video. Please take care. Peace.


Yeah, I feel that I take advantage of my opportunity every time I step in the court. It's so bad, but we took a loss, so that's more important thing, so I wouldn't talk about my personal performance at all. What was the difference, you feel, down the stretch with this team as you talk? Got some momentum in the second half. I think that from the last game we took advantage in our hands, that we pushed each other together. And I think that we have to grow to the next game even more. But I think we were on the right path, even though we lost, we had some amazing team spirit. And I think if we start to build that up, we will be a playoff, a good playoff team. Kenny said that he doesn't feel like you're afraid of the moment or afraid of anything. And that you have a chance now to take advantage of the opportunity to get regular playing time.  Exactly what he said. I'm not afraid of the moment. I'm built for this. I'm only afraid of God, so this is my time. And also, when you first started playing, some of your shot selections were a little questionable, a little off from three-point. Do you feel yourself growing more comfortable in finding better spots for yourself? Yes, I'm talking to the coaches a lot. I'm talking to my individual coach. We were watching film a lot, and I think I grew up in that stand-up point to running to the corners, playing in the system. And the team has helped me a lot in that. Is it a little more off the ball and catching shoot stuff than what you're accustomed to, what you came up with? Yes, of course, as you see, I feel more comfortable with catching the shooting. But I didn't show my weapon yet of the pick and roll playing, so I need more space to do that. But I'm good with this potency right now. And also, he said the other night that he feels you do a good job spacing the floor for Spencer. Are you conscious of that when you're out there trying to do that? Yes, Spencer is a fast player. Spencer is a player who can get bucks for us, so I wanted to give him a space. So as I told you, I will do anything that will help in my team work. So what's the process like earning everybody's trust, the coaching staff to put you out there and also the teammates you're out there on the floor with? Just do the right things, you know, coming into practice every time. Even in the morning, you know, get the shots up, be focused all the time. And I think that comes naturally.


My name is Jeff Hemingway. I'm the NRCS soil health specialist here in South Dakota and today We're going to talk a little bit more about our tabletop rainfall simulator And we've got it set up here But for the most part what I really like to do today is talk a little bit more about actually collecting a sample Properly for the simulator and at some point it makes a huge difference on what we have and what we're really looking at To get that sample and have it react like we think it should So let's go grab a sample Okay, we place our cutter. We remove some of the residue because of hairpinning Potential and and that's gonna like to say it is a lot of times residue, especially if it's moist will move Along the edge of that cutter will not cut off completely, but if we remove some of that residue On the soil surface and set our cutter try to drive it in very uniformly putting pressure on the corners again part way in We want to remove some of that material out in the front so that we're not bending up our funnel out in the front And then we're going to continue to drive in that cutter Okay, so you're going to drive it in Uniformly down to that soil surface is actually at the front of that that funnel in other words even with the front of that funnel And then we're going to actually remove that sample And try to keep the material in it. I'll put that 2x4 on the top of it Again, I'm not digging a hole all the way around everything. I'm just taking out enough so that I can get my spade underneath Cutter itself and to the bottom of that sample Take it off as uniformly as possible. In this particular case We end up with we've got a plated layer down in this no-till system. That's an area of compaction We can actually see that That it's fairly uniform on the bottom. It should actually be a nice granular structure all the way down We'd like to see that but in this particular case, it's not that's not the case We're going to uniformly shear that off An interesting thing to me is that you can still see that we have some pretty good macropores through that plating this Still going to infiltrate fairly well for a no-till sample, but you'd like to see a lot better granular structure and a lot better Soil development that's an issue for this producer Coming out underneath that cutter In this particular case, we don't have to cover anything. We've got good residue cover We've got two good structure because of that rye And again, just as we were in that pasture type situation That written for development We've got our soil hanging on the bottom of that and then we can go through and shear that off to the bottom We did end up a little hairpinning along the edge. That shouldn't really bother just too much But I think you can see that cell structure and then if we take our knife and then Pick that a little bit at the bottom making sure that our back reports are open to the So the bottom we should have really good infiltration with this sample Again, I'm gonna move enough soil on the edges of it so I can get My shovel up underneath it as I mentioned before keep that two by four on the top of it so that that soil is Stays in place as much as possible Okay, so now we're gonna lift that out and you can see here That it basically sheared itself off unlike the other sample we had And I don't really have to shear it off just too much But the interesting thing of course is as as we start rolling this over and start looking at it training not to lose any Material these the structure is a lot different on the bottom very few of any macro pores at all Because of that soil structure It's really not going to infiltrate water very well at all It's just not and in fact as loose as it is on the soil surface and we'll put this over here on my Two by four normally I take a like a wet newspaper I'll put that down And you can see inside that some of the material that Sound the surface is this moves around. We'll put that back And we have stored those samples all the time and the way we actually do this is I do this Outdoors out in the field, but I'll box on my sample so they don't dehydrate. They can't dry out The example here is I'll take a plastic bag and put it in a box something like that And we'll take the sample itself and ideally you can store them in the cutter itself. I have pressed them out That's really a challenge to get them back in and not have that preference Preferential for what the box is about but for the most part what we're talking about is the best way to do that is that to preserve those samples as in Is to seal this thing back up?


Operators and maintainers from the 127th Wing's Air Refueling Group completed a round of training days last week, designed to give on-the-job experience for its new members, as well as furnish the skills of its full-time and drill status guardsmen. So in addition to the Agile Combat Employment Training that we've been doing all summer, such as our hot pit refueling leading the way there and our wet wing defuels that we've done during Northern Agility 22-1 and 2, we are also doing a mass surge exercise within our own refueling group to bring in our traditional guardsmen and our full-time guardsmen and a lot of our new folks that are just coming back from school that haven't seen some of these things before, to train all together and we're going to get a lot of KC-135's airborne all at the same time to practice for our combat and contingency operations. First day we're going to start with a three-ship formation, refueling some F-16s. The second day a four-ship formation, really dynamic, we're going to take off, go refuel a C-17, push north into a military operating area and refuel some of the 127's A-10's and then after that we're going to recover as a four-ship back into Selfridge for a tactical arrival, tactical overhead back here. Day three will be another three-ship formation, refueling another set of receivers and it's really good training for everybody in the whole air refueling group. Comprised of the 171st Air Refueling Squadron and 191st Maintenance Squadron, the 127th Air Refueling Group has operated with the KC-135 Stratotanker since 2007, providing aerial refueling, air mobility and expanding global reach for the United States Air Force. For the 127th Public Affairs Office, I am Staff Sergeant Drew Schumann.


Okay, so These are just some really common tools you were made to helping code And I forget the most two common ones are the flow charts and pseudocode So flow charts, I'm sure everybody know what that is, right? Yeah, you've seen it before Yeah, just bunch of boxes and arrows, right? It's like that. What about pseudocode?  So it's fake code Not the real code. That's where it is So it's it's more like a English Instruction to code the program. You basically write what happens in the program What should happen every step of the way to solve the problem and not actual code So the flow charts have rules Flow chart has some rules that you must follow Whereas pseudocode is no rule for that Okay, there's no universal rules that your pseudocode must follow this syntax or this way or that way None of that you can use add emojis if you want to right sketch Any language you want you can use whatever you need to do to make something meaningful to you and your team Okay, so that's that's the code flow chart is yeah as you go The hierarchy chart here is also kind of important if you have a really large program Like you fill something like facebook for example, right or even like amazon Dot com site you're gonna need or something really really High level to see the big picture and that's when you use the hierarchy chart here We'll see you guys some examples in here So here is a again just some definitions I'm gonna go right into this term here The word algorithm I'm sure you heard it before as well algorithm is a series of instructions So solve a problem It could be as tiny as one or two lines to as many as 10 20 lines or more code. Okay A lot of algorithms you may hear of like searching and sorting Um, you know finding something in a long list like search In any other so what is the shortest path? From one point to another point if you have a lot of different routes, right? So all those are different types of algorithms that you can create and some of these algorithms are already developed by some, you know computer scientists So there's no need to reinvent the wheels if it's already there Because you know most of these algorithms have been tested and tested again to maximize the The fastest or maximize the Computation times already so But again, we're not going to focus too much on That part other than what it is and how you can design your own algorithm Okay, so here is an example of how you can write a program To determine how many stamps should you need to mail a letter? um So here are some rules saying that you can use one stamp For every five sheets of paper Okay, so one stamp for five sheets if it's more than five feet Then you should use two stamps and and so on right so Again, these are the problems you have to understand what it is doing so you can write the code to make it work right, so So the algorithm here you go. You need to request the number of sheets of paper, right? We call it sheets How many sheets of paper you receive I give you one sheet of paper and then based on that input How many stamps should you need and how do you how do you calculate how many? uh Stamps you need right so you do that by If you divide the number of sheets by five that you get the number of stamps for every five sheets you get one stamp so, you know one divided by five you have less than Fives you still need one stamp right? And just say you know round up to the next highest number and and so on so this is the processing part two and three And then once you do the processing part and then you got your answer And then you would output the number you need how many stamps and that's the output So again back to the ideal thing again, right?


Well, the Lagos Chamber of Commons and the industry president, Gabriels, emphasized the need to address trade imbalances, particularly exports to boost the economy and create jobs. Emphasizing importance of supporting economic growth, ventures, like the Treaty Impacts Trade Economy. Dr. Obamidili, I am in board, led the consultant on the Treaty Impacts Consulta Limiting Besides the need for improved technology use in trade transactions and better understanding of trade finance and also international trade among banks. Alright, so one of the things that I informed this is the fact that we realized that for a long time we are focused only on infrastructures and other areas of trade to grow our trade in Nigeria. So we focus on infrastructure, focus on what the CBA is doing, monetary policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy and we are living out, I am talking about trade now, we are looking at the place of human capacity development to help the bankers to be able to finance because sometimes, because of a trend of what is happening in the world, if we don't improve in the way we are going about financing, we are going to ignore and neglect trade transactions that we call our finance and help to grow the inflow of forex into the country because of lack of skill among the bankers. So the reason why the research was done is to open up this space for people to begin to see. So the media and people like you can begin to see these are the issues, these are the challenges in this particular space and this is what we need to begin to do to fix it. So that we don't just look at what we have always looked at, like I said, monetary policy, fiscal policy, infrastructure which are necessary and good but how about the people who are handling the transaction, how about people who are finding the transaction. So in the end of the day the bank does not get this courage because banks in Nespa finance before have been discouraged, they were discouraged because they lost money and it was because of lack of capacity. This is showing that this is the issue and the industry and this is what they need to do to fix it.