Everybody has always wanted to fly, and whenever people hear the term jetpack, that's what they really think about. So what we've done is we've reduced the amount of force, we're not able to fly with our jetpack, but we have instantaneous thrust and we can pretty much trigger it to allow, you know, for faster movements, agile motions and so forth. With the project being called 4MM for a four-minute mile, our overall goal is really to get any soldier or any test subject at the time to be able to run a four-minute mile that wasn't already capable of doing so. Well, I started doing this research kind of by accident. The team at the time was just at the infancy of this project, so they initially came to me because I owned a welding business and was also a student here at the university. And so we were developing robots that could assist amputees, and DARPA came back to us and asked us, could you develop robots that could assist able-bodied people and make them be able to run faster or do things that they couldn't do before? And from there, things just kind of clicked because I was really interested in the robotic process, so the fact that I could work on designing something and then turn around and weld up a prototype the next day and on the same day really reduced our overall time as a lab on getting ideas from concept to prototype. We certainly had doubts about could you make someone run faster? And in fact, Jason and I tried to use a towing force with a golf cart to see if you could pull someone and allow them to run faster. So I personally ran around a track and then decided that yes, with the correct pulling force, you could get someone to run a four-minute mile. But the problem is how do I apply those forces? Do I apply the forces on the trunk? Or do I design an exoskeleton that applies forces at the hips and ankles? But the more that we kind of researched into it and found out potential applications, we found that in a warfare type arena, this could be potentially the difference between life and death. If you think of, you know, a Navy SEAL or an Army soldier that has to get in somewhere quick and do whatever they got to do, but maybe get out of there just as quickly. So these devices can really help soldiers to not only accomplish their goals and succeed in their missions, but potentially save human lives as well. We're incredibly engineered as is and augmenting our abilities really becomes a difficult, challenging research project that you don't know what the answer is going to be. Over trials, over a 200-meter distance, we definitely saw a decrease in time and a decrease in what they call metabolic cost, the amount of energy required for a person to run at high speeds. You ran with the jetpack three seconds faster, but you're also carrying an extra 11.2 pounds. I really wouldn't have nearly as much accomplishment without faculty and people here like Dr. Sugar that I work with. And if I can continue to work in this field, if I can continue to make wearable exoskeletons and robotic devices that assist people, then I'm feeling like I'm able to accomplish just about anything.


Your Excellency, President of the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Your Excellencies, Heads of State and Government, distinguished delegates, very warm greetings from Habaroni, Botswana. Mr. President, on the 10th December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This monumental achievement was a fundamental breakthrough for humankind, being one of the foremost documents to elaborate the fundamental principles of human rights. Yesterday, the 10th December 2023 marked 75 years since that historic day, and it is only fitting that we gather today as a human family to commemorate such a momentous milestone in our collective history. Human rights are at the very centre of all international and national issues humanity is confronted with today. This places a special responsibility on nation-states, as well as the international human rights mechanism and bodies to periodically re-examine approaches, re-calibrate responses and re-indicate themselves to ensure the fulfilment of the purpose and intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On this occasion, we have the opportunity to recommit to ensuring that the full enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms transcend the realm of aspiration and finds domain in the reality of the lives of all people. Botswana firmly believes that the human rights pillar of the United Nations is an integral and indispensable constitution for the effective attainment of human rights across all spheres of human endeavour. Our conviction is predicated on our national values and principles of democracy, inclusive governance, rule of law and innate human values of compassion, dignity, sympathy and courtesy collectively rendered as upon which Botswana was founded and continues to be sustained. Botswana has ratified six out of the nine main human rights treaties and continues to strive towards comprehensive implementation as well as timely reporting. As part of the fulfilling obligations and commitments to the advancement of human rights, Botswana has issued a standing invitation to and is committed to cooperating with all United Nations human rights mechanisms, special procedures and mandate holders. Mr. President, Botswana is deeply concerned by and strongly condemns the increasing global incidences of human rights violations, with some of them likely befitting the category of gross violations. This is a flagrant departure from the virtuous ambitions we espoused in the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. As members of the global community, it is our sole duty and responsibility to commit the necessary political will and resources towards the noble ideals we signed up to. This is not only for current populations, but also to be queued upon the youth and future generations, a world in which they can thrive and reach their fullest potential. Mr. President, I wish to seize this opportunity to reaffirm Botswana's commitment to advancing human rights and freedoms at the national level and globally. In that connection, allow me at this juncture to make the following pledges. Firstly, Botswana will enhance opportunities to the economic empowerment of citizens by 2024, particularly youth, women, and people living with disabilities through increased public investment programs, including agricultural development, water reticulation, land ownership, and bridging the digital divide. Secondly, Botswana will continuously strengthen the national human rights institution to ensure full alignment to the Paris principles. Thirdly, Botswana will continue to adopt measures to address and combat gender-based violence. Fourthly, Botswana will strengthen her collaboration with civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights and create a conducive environment for civil society participation in that regard. And in conclusion, let me reassure you, Mr. President, that Botswana will continue to uphold the responsibility and mandate to strengthen international law, peace and security, promote human rights as well as the rule of law. I thank you, Mr. President.


I'd like you to turn with me in the Word of God to the 10th chapter of the book of Numbers. Numbers chapter 10, we want to read just 10 verses together out of Numbers chapter 10. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers chapter 10 verse 1. Thinking this morning about sounding the trumpet. Looking the trumpet, look with me, and the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Make thee two trumpets of silver, of a whole peace, shalt thou make them, that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly and for the journeying of the camps. And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And if they blow with but one trumpet, then the princes which are heads of the thousands of Israel shall gather themselves unto thee. When ye blow an alarm, then shall the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward. When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey, and they shall blow an alarm for their journeys. But when the congregation is to be gathered together, you shall blow, but you shall not sound an alarm. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall blow with the trumpets, and they shall be to you for an ordinance forever throughout your generations.  Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginning of your months, you shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings that they may be to you for a memorial before your God, I am the Lord your God. Now this morning I just want to point out to you in this interesting passage in the book of Numbers that there are several types of signals that God ordained to be sounded out with these two silver trumpets. God told Moses this, he said, I want you, or under your authority I want there to be made two silver trumpets, and they have various purposes. One of them is the calling of the assembly, and the other is for the journeying of the camps. And shortly we read about a trumpet for an alarm, and other references to trumpets. I don't want to take a lot of time there, but I want to suggest to you this morning that we have heard all of those trumpets this weekend. We've heard the trumpet that has called us together for assembly. We've heard trumpets of alarm. Now we're about to hear a trumpet call to journeying. It's interesting to note, and I had made some notations on that that I didn't end up somehow managing to get in my book or in my Bible, but I'll share with you. As I recall, you'll notice in verse three it says, when they shall blow with them. Them is plural. That's two trumpets, both of these trumpets. When they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble at the door of the tabernacle. A double trumpet blast meant the calling of the assembly. Verse four says, if they blow with but one trumpet, then the princes which are the heads shall assemble themselves together. There are a time for the leaders of God's people to come together. Verse five says, when you blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east part shall go forward and other parts of the camp. The Septuagint has even a further reference to all four quadrants of the camp, I believe. Alarm trumpets and which direction they were to journeying. I think it's interesting to note that I believe if you would look at that word alarm, it's been a good while since I've done this in the original Hebrew language. It implies a staccato blast. It implies a variegated sound versus a long even sound for the calling together. An alarm trumpet is a staccato blast. It's an alarm trumpet. We've heard all of those trumpets, so I want to repeat that again this weekend. We've heard the trumpet call and again this morning even more of us have came together. The trumpet call and a long even blast was the trumpet call for assembly, perhaps of two trumpets for the gathering together of God's people. And we have assembled for three days. That's not an alarm blast, nor should it be my brothers. The call to come together should not be an alarm blast. We need the people of God. It is a serious call, the call to assemble. The trumpet call to assemble is a serious call, and we need the people of God. And I thank God for His people. We need each other. God has not called us to be islands. We need to come together. That's a serious call from the Word of God. In fact, the 10th chapter of Hebrews reminds us of that call when the writer of Hebrews says, breaks into this urgent cry even for assembly, even though it's not an alarm. Hebrews says, having therefore brethren boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he has consecrated for us through the veil. There's a ripped veil this morning, through the veil that is to say his flesh and having a high priest over the house of God let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. But he doesn't stop there. He said, let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering for he is faithful that promised. And he doesn't stop there. And he says, and let us consider one another. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching, we have heard this weekend the trumpet call of assembly. We want to seek to be a part of the potent blessing of the body of Christ coming together as serious soldiers. You follow that phrase in the New Testament. Paul says, when you are come together in my spirit, when you come together, you'll find that phrase a number of times the call for assembly.  We've heard another trumpet blast this weekend and it's a trumpet call of alarm and war. The second chapter of Joel, we read those words, blow you the trumpet and Zion sound an alarm in my holy mountain. We know on down through that chapter, those words were brought back of the last days there on the day of Pentecost and quoted again from the prophecy of Joel. Our brother already referred to the 58th chapter of Isaiah where the prophet says, God says to his prophet actually, cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet and tell my people their iniquity in the house of Jacob their sins, yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways as a nation that did righteousness and forsook not the ordinance of God. They ask of me the ordinances of justice. They take delight in approaching to God. Yes, that's the story of many sad situations in America today that there are people who take delight in approaching to God, so to speak. That was the condition in Isaiah's day, but God said you left up your voice like a trumpet and we've heard that trumpet call this weekend, the trumpet call of alarm and war. It's a staccato blast. It's a variegated sound. It's an alarm warning. Have you ever heard a siren to evacuate the building? Have you ever heard a warning? There's a tornado nearby. It's an alarm warning, a trumpet call of warning. We have heard those this weekend. We have heard the alarm trumpet of the innocent bloodshed that is going on across our land in America. And will we plug our ears and retreat into the avoidance ethic that we heard about? It was a sobering call to me. Or will we pray and boldly preach and ask God to show us what should we do for these children and for the society around us that doesn't even have a standard of right and wrong anymore? Will we lift up a standard in love and in compassion and in holiness? The trumpet, alarm trumpet of innocent bloodshed and abortion. These days we've heard the alarm trumpet of the plague of immorality across America. We heard that, brothers, and I thank you, those of you who have taken part in sounding that alarm so effectively this weekend, brothers and sisters, will we listen? Will we declare war? Will we weep? The call and the second chapter of Joel is let the priests, the ministers of the Lord weep between the porch and the altar. And we what witnessed and experienced personally and observed weeping of the ministers of God this weekend because of this sin. Save thy people, O God. Give not your heritage over to reproach. Will we weep? But will we not stop there? Will we fight? Will we fight? This is a trumpet call of alarm and assembly for war. Will we just let our children and our congregations listen to the spirit of the age and the doctrine of Balaam? Or will we carry on with a resolve to go to battle, to cut off arms and to pluck out eyes? And the Bible doesn't just say to cut off your arm, brother. Pluck out your eye, sister, and just set it nearby where you can reach and get it again if you happen to need it.  Pluck out your eye and cast it from you. Get it out of there. Remember that stumbling block is where we go to war against the plague of immorality and seek the blood of Jesus Christ for its cleansing and purifying and sanctifying power, O the blood of the Lamb that washes from sin at any cost, brothers. Will we do that at any cost? I so well remember the day a man came into my office and said, I've been addicted to immorality for years and I'm ready to be done whatever it takes. That man got victory. I've noticed through the years when someone reaches that point, they have victory. Whatever it takes, whatever it takes, God called men of God to that last night. He's still calling today. I've heard the alarm trumpet this weekend of the jihad of Islam. Will we cower in fear, brothers and sisters, or will we march? Will we hear the sound of the trumpet and march, letting perfect love well within us and cast out our fear and go with compassion and with grace to those from differing backgrounds such as Islam and reach out to them and invite them into our homes. I was convicted by this. There's a young man, Muhammad, that I've met in our local university in Ellensburg nearby and he came out to our home. My wife had a thought this way and sought if there were any international students that might not have a place to go for Christmas dinner and Muhammad called up and said, when I come to your house and he came from Saudi Arabia, what a blessing, a nice time we had and we've met together and we've shared sense but he told me some time back he sent me a message. When Ramadan is over, I want to come out to your house and have a meal and I want to make you Arabian coffee and I've been busy and I've been cumbers and I responded but we haven't made it happen and I'm ashamed this weekend. Will we reach out in love against the jihad of Islam or will we read the paper articles or the news articles and talk and fear and retreat and have government, other kingdom opinions about all of this and not do anything ourselves? The trumpet call, the trumpet call. These deceived ones are entering our communities by the hundreds and by the thousands. Will we reach out with the love and truth of Jesus Christ and the gospel that can still cleanse a man and a woman from sin? I don't care where they've been. The blood of Christ is able to do that yet and it can do it and is doing it for those coming out of Islam. We've heard that trumpet call this weekend. We've heard this morning the alarm trumpet of the evil of divorce. God says in the book of Malachi, I hate divorce. You want to know how God feels about it? It's pretty simple. That's what God says. I hate it. I hate it. There are probably situations in this room with deep pain.  We recognize and we heard at the beginning of this service that the handwriting is on the wall. Meenie, Meenie, Tycho, Eupharston, and as the king saw that writing his knees began to shake and his bowels were loose and he began to have great fear and trembling and that night it was over for that king and for that kingdom. But the handwriting is beginning to write on the wall in America. What will we do? In our churches, in our situations, will we retreat in apathy or will we rise up in courage? It's a shock, a great tragedy. Some weeks ago I received the reality that a couple I married, I married some beautiful children several years ago, haven't had a close connection and the man left his wife for men. It's a shame and yet it's a reality in our land and a bleeding sister and there's repentance and there's opportunity for that man to turn and find Jesus Christ. We've heard that this weekend, but will we lift up a clear standard? Will the trumpet give a certain sound so that we know? Remember, there were different kinds of blasts. I think Paul knew what he was talking about. If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, it's not clearly an alarm warning, then who would know whether this is a battle trumpet or not? Maybe it's just let's get together and have a nice time trumpet. No, we need to give a certain sound when it's an alarm, a staccato blast, alarm. The trumpet must give a certain sound. Well, we have heard these trumpet calls this weekend. A war trumpet, are you ready? But remember, brothers and sisters and maybe there's someone that's wandered in here that doesn't even realize this for sure. But I want to remind you, I want to make it very clear that the weapons of our warfare as we respond to this battle cry, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. That means they're not fleshly. That means they're not pistols and they're not knives and they're not rifles and they're not cannons and they're not torpedoes and they're not those kinds of things. Though our weapons aren't carnal, but they are mighty. In fact, they're a lot more mighty than those weapons. In fact, they have the actual ability to pull down strongholds and to cast down imaginations and every high thing that would dare to exalt itself against the knowledge of God and to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. That is mighty weapons, brothers and that's the weapons we're going to be using as we go forward into war from here. Those flesh weapons should be as strange to us as Saul's armor was to David. No, that doesn't work for me. I'm going in the name of the Lord God of Israel. But you know, I want to remind you, there was a day, there was a day when David missed the trumpet. He missed the battle trumpet. There was a day the Bible says when the kings go to battle and David stayed at home. He didn't hear the trumpet. He stayed at home at great loss to the kingdom and to his own life. We've been reminded of that this weekend and last night especially. Will you stay at home? Probably some of the most vulnerable times in my life when the enemy, when the temptations come knocking at the door of my heart is if I've relaxed a little bit. It's time to just rest a little bit from the battle. There's a land of rest coming. Oh, land of rest for the eyesight. When will the moment come when I shall lay my armor by and dwell with Christ at home? But it's not yet. It's not yet. Don't stay home when the kings go to battle, brothers. Let's be a part of the battle. Let's be a part of the battle. Our weapons are mighty through God. God has not shortchanged his church and I must close. I want to read to you one more passage of Scripture. If you would turn with me to the third chapter of Revelation. Revelation chapter three. I want to read verses seven and eight. And I want you to read out loud these verses with me this morning. Revelation chapter three versus seven and eight. Would you please join me in reading these verses out loud? And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write. These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth. I know thy works. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it, for thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name. Thank you. Did you notice those words? Did you see who was speaking? This is Jesus Christ this morning. And I believe he's speaking that message as he spoke it to the churches. It includes us this morning. It's Jesus. It's the one who has the key of David. It's the one who the first chapter of Revelation when John saw that vision of the glorified Christ. Do you imagine that? This was the Apostle John. This is the one who lay on Jesus' breast and said, Lord, is it I? This was John who that disciple whom Jesus loved. And now he heard a voice and he turned and there was one behind him.  And he said, I am Jesus. I'm Jesus. I have the keys of death and of hell. I am he that liveth and was dead and behold I am alive forevermore. Amen.  That's the one who's speaking here. He's also the one who has the key of David. He says, I can open and no man can shut. I can also shut and no man can open. But he said this and I want to leave you with this this morning. He said, behold, I have set before you an open door. Just consider those words for just a moment as we close. Behold, that word is an alert call. It means stop and take a look at the reality of this. Behold it. Don't just glance at it. Stop and look, behold. Now let's look a little further. Behold, I, that's Jesus. I, Jesus said. That's the one who has the keys of death and hell. That's the one who can open and shut. That's the one who, he said, the Father has given all authority unto the Son. That's the one that men are gonna stand before in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ Jesus according to my gospel. That's the one who said, behold, I. He has the authority this morning. I. Let's go on in that verse. Behold, behold, I. Behold, I have set before you. Before you an open door. I want you to think about that, brothers and sisters. There are a lot of doors behind us. A lot of life is behind us. In fact, every moment before this moment is behind us. You can't change the past. Not one of us can go back and change one day of the past. It's the past. Apostle Paul had some griefs, but it was the past. What did he say? Forgetting those things which are behind. Forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things which are before. I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Brothers, this morning, Jesus said, I have set before you an open door. Forget about the lost opportunities. Forget about, yes, sometimes we can learn lessons from the past, but we can't dwell on the failures of the past. We're talking about doors before us. And Jesus said, I have set before you an open door. And no man can shut it. No man can shut it. An open door. Oh, what a blessing this morning. God can do that. God can do that and take courage, brother. There are doors open as you look at these areas where the Spirit of God has raised up a standard. Will you stand? Will you look at the open doors and don't wring your hands at the doors of the past? They're past, but God has open doors before us. He set them before us. But remember, remember, we'll soon be hearing the trumpet call for the journey of the camp to leave this place. I want to remind you of one more trumpet. One more trumpet. Apostle Paul said, behold, I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed. We shall be changed. There's a last trump coming. There's a unconverted one here this morning. If there's someone here who has not yet repented of your sin and given your life without reservation to Jesus Christ and allowed his pardon payment of the blood, that incorruptible blood to pay for your sin. There's still time, but I don't know how much time because he that opens the door before us is also the one who can shut and no man can open. You remember those virgins? Lord, Lord, open unto us, open unto us, that the door was shut. This morning it's still open. There's yet a trumpet. Are you listening? Are you ready for that trumpet? May God bless us as we go from here. God bless you.


Hello, everyone. Welcome to another IR capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today we are going to discuss the just concluded COP28 meeting in Dubai. In fact, I am speaking from Dubai at this point, just having completed the conference yesterday. However, as every COP or the Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, are always very busy and very intricate negotiations take place. And each COP deals with one particular issue or the other as it happens. Of course, general objective is to implement the Framework Convention to make sure that greenhouse gas emissions are controlled and at the same time make sure that development takes place in developing countries. This is the general objectives. So, since 1962, sorry, 1992, when the Convention was adopted, the first COP was held in 1995 in Berlin. Between 1992 and 1995, most developed countries went back on their commitments made in Rio de Janeiro. So, the 1995 Conference of Parties in Berlin, which I was the Vice-Chairman, became a very important landmark because all the good news that they had given us in terms of balancing development and environment and also the provision of technology and financing for developing countries to make sure that they have sufficient resources to employ environment-friendly technologies and to establish industries. The technology was available in the West, but the cost of using environment-friendly technologies was always higher, much higher than what we would normally do if we were polluting the atmosphere. So, the idea was that developing countries will be allowed to increase their emissions for the sake of their development and at the same time make sure that the carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. So, therefore, all the commitments that was made there was that the developed countries will control their emissions and in fact, they accepted mandatory cuts on their greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, they will also pay for the kind of technology that the developing countries need for their own development. But in those three years between 1992 and 1995, developed countries changed their tune. They said in Berlin that they were not going to do anything unless the developing countries like India, China, Brazil, etc. also undertake mandatory commitments on cutting off emissions. This was the argument that they made in Berlin. This was not acceptable to us. So, we struggled very hard several days of negotiations. Finally, we were able to save the commitments of 1992 and accordingly, there was a Berlin mandate was formulated on the same basis of 1992. But when it was formulated in a Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the West openly defied it and said they will not sign the Kyoto Protocol, which was based on the Berlin mandate and the whole thing became a came into a standstill. And so some years later, it appeared that if an alternative way was not found involving developing countries also, nothing would be done in terms of economic development and protection of the environment. So, in Copenhagen, there was a meeting where the big five or six countries, including developed and developing countries, and India played a big role there at the heads of state level. And they came to the conclusion that an alternative route has to be developed. And that alternative route was to tell all the countries developed or developing. Nobody has any mandatory cuts. Everybody will make voluntary cuts and those will be reported to the UN. And the objective is that all these commitments, voluntary commitments put together, we have to ensure that the annual increase in global warming should not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius. That was the objective on the basis of which all countries made their declarations to the United Nations. But when they added it all up and calculated as to what would happen if all the countries were to honour their commitments, that itself is doubtful. And not only that, and as a result, the global warming will go up to 3 degrees Celsius. So, if that happened, then there is no future for the world. But still, they persisted with that program and that is how the Paris Agreement was reached. So, the Paris Agreement, according to the Paris Agreement, we agreed it should all be voluntary. But how do you mean the 1.5 degree requirement from 3 degrees? And that became a big challenge. And so, it turned out that even the Paris Agreement was not going to be helpful or not going to be decisive because the voluntary declarations were made were not adequate. Then again, some years passed and the idea of even voluntary cuts were eliminated. But objectives of Paris Agreement are to be respected. So, now the focus is on the whether we can reach a level by which the global warming will not exceed 1.5. And what can we do about that? So, many countries were asked to find a year in which they can have zero emissions, net zero emissions. That means you may have emissions which should be balanced by other activities which would reduce the global warming. And so, the United States said that they could do it in 1930, China said they could do it in 2030, China said they could do it in 2050. And India rather reluctantly agreed to 2070. And we are moving very systematically in order to reach that objective. But the resources are not coming. But even within our own limits, we have been trying to do that even though Prime Minister has been pointing out that India is 17% of the population of the world and our emissions are less than 4%. So really, our commitment should not be that much because we are a big country and where we need emissions in order to continue that development. So, in each of these COPs, they deal with a particular issue. Earlier, it was reduction of emission generally. But since this COP was being held in an oil producing country, the idea was brought out that should be like in Glasgow, a coal was to be phased out. There was a big fight on that, whether it can be phased out or not. And so finally, the compromise was it will be phased down in the sense that we reduce, we don't phase out. So a similar exercise, the main exercise which was done in Dubai was to see whether we could work in such a way that generally the fossil fuels consumption can be phased out. And this is something like which the oil producing countries will never accept it, they had not accepted in the past. In fact, in 1995, we suggested that use of fossil fuels should be reduced. The OPEC countries that is oil producing and exporting countries walked out of the G77 meat line. And it was a crisis and G77 was without the OPEC countries. So having done that in 1995, how are they going to accept any kind of phasing out here? So till the last day, till one day before the conference was over, there was no agreement on this. The oil minister who was the presiding over the COP28 made it very clear that they were not going to do any phasing out. That's not possible, it's not practical, it's actually their survival. Without oil production, how are they going to run their nations and progress? So this discussion took place and it was no conclusion was reached till yesterday evening. And when we all left the conference premises, the closed indoor discussion were taking place. And only this morning we were told that an agreement was reached and the specific language is still not seen anywhere. But the president of the conference announced that reached an agreement which is that a transitional period will begin. It is not phasing out or phasing down or anything like that. But a transitional period which can accommodate the requirements of the OPEC countries and the other countries. And that has been not very fully explained, but he said that combined with some other steps. Like multiplying energy production through other means etc, they may be able to transition it. It's not phasing in or phasing out, but transition phase they announced. They said that by entering into a transition phase, they will make sure that there will be reduction or at least adjustment in oil production. And therefore it may be possible for them to transition from one phase to the other. The present phase is utilization of oil resources, but another phase could be anticipated, nothing more than that. That is what the agreement is all about. And the details are still coming out. The other two things they had to do was one is called a stop taking. That is after the Paris Agreement, after all the commitments are communicated. What are the steps to be taken? So as I said earlier, they studied all that and found out that those voluntary cuts were not effective. So the countries have to move on to something else. And the stop taking report which was adopted by COP28. They said that the world is not on a right track. That is the conclusion that they reached. So what do you do with the Paris Agreement objectives? If we cannot meet them, the world has no future. So this has not been resolved completely. But certainly all countries are showing respect to Paris Agreement and saying that they will try to control it. India, for example, has said that by 2017 we will be able to have zero emission provided we get resources and the technology from outside. And the third was about loss and damage to countries, small countries particularly, who have suffered heavily on account of climate change, like storms and various other damaging things which are happening to small countries which cannot accept such huge cataclysms. And so they should be compensated. This is nothing new. There is always this proposal for adaptation. In fact, some writers have been saying that there will be no question of reducing greenhouse gases effectively. And therefore the world has to sit back and brace themselves for what is happening and try to adapt yourself to the present situation. That's a kind of desperate assessment. But that is also there. And therefore a fund was to be established. And this was agreed upon in Egypt in the last COP that is COP22. The fund should be established to meet the requirements of these countries who have had loss and damage on account of climate change, which was a very good decision. But we do not know where the money will come from. Who is going to pledge? We don't know. So, in the final communique of E20C or E28C or E28, there is no mention of this, or at least we have not seen it. But some decision may have been taken, some pledging may have been made. All this will come out only after they actually conclude the calculations after the meeting and we will come to know about that. So, this was generally what happened. First and foremost, a transition period for fossil fuels, which is very difficult to accomplish. Secondly, the sad fact that we are on the right, we are not on the right track. And thirdly, how do we set up the damage fund? So, all these are still loose. There are more things to be decided. And I presume that they will all be put off until COP29. But in any case, every country was enthusiastic about what they have to do. They explained there are many things they cannot do, but they also said that whatever we could do, we would do. So, there is progress to that extent. And also, there is progress not substantially about the fuel phase out. That is fossil fuel phase out. That is the objective. But other countries will never accept that and what they will accept is a kind of, you know, dilution. And reduce the production if possible by finding alternatives. That means even other countries have to now look out for energy production by other means, not simply by fossil fuels. So, this is the situation and more details will be available as we go along. And let us hope that this will receive attention of the member states immediately or this next year or at least when the COP will be held. We do not know where COP29 will be. There were rumors that it might be in Moscow, but that is not likely to happen in the present situation. So, some other country may have to opt for it. India has opted for a conference after three or four years that was announced by the Prime Minister in Dubai. And the Prime Minister of India promised very strongly that we will fulfill the Paris agreement commitments. Only thing is we need resources and we clarify that this will be done. And in fact, in many ways, India has fulfilled our commitment as regards protection of the environment in India. COP is an annual conference to progress. There is no change in the convention. The convention remains the same. So, to follow the conventions, you need to create program of action. That is what the COP does. And then they review it next year. So, it is an annual process in which they review the implementation of the framework convention of climate change as well as later agreements. Like Euro protocol also exists, but nobody bothers about that. What we have is the Paris agreement and also later this facing out. So, these are all being reviewed annually by the parties to the convention, the conference of parties. So, 28 have finished since 1992 and many more will come. So, that is the exercise that the COP does. It is a review conference or convention. No new convention. So, we are trying to meet our own program. We are formulating our own programs to reach the targets. That we have told them how much we will be able to use. And on the basis of which we launch programs to meet the objectives. And we have done fairly well more than several others. So, in order to meet the target of the Paris agreement, we have to devise programs. And then that will be reviewed to see whether it is actually meeting the requirement as we envisage it. No, there is only one agreement, which is a joint agreement which all the participants will, over 200 countries will endorse it in one way or the other. Maybe with some doubts, but it will be generally accepted by all the delegations. And that is still to be seen because only this morning the chairman put out the text. And it may take a couple of days before that is known as to how many have accepted it.


Coming up next, we have Susan Hack. She's going to talk about credulity and its consequences. Now, she's at the University of Miami. She's a distinguished professor in the humanities. She's a Cooper senior scholar in arts and sciences. She's a professor of philosophy, excuse me, and a professor of law. And as a professor of law, she teaches about scientific testimony, which she's going to talk about a bunch right now. She's, check this out, she's one of the Sunday independence 10 most important women philosophers of all time. That's a cool t-shirt. Here's her haiku. Most of what I know, I learned from Monty Python's philosopher's song. Please welcome Susan Hack. Thank you. I have to say, that thing in the Sunday independent is something of a burden, but never mind. All right, now, let's see if I can work this machine. OK, I ought to admit, I am very risk-averse. The very idea of gambling makes me itch. So if I scratch a little, forgive me. I never thought I would find myself here, especially not with people I can relate to. When I thought about what to talk to you about, I began recalling several words that my students last year didn't understand. Poor kids, where have they been all their lives? There's a pattern to these words. First one they didn't understand was pejorative. They thought it meant demeaning. Oh my God, suppose it did. Then I couldn't say to them, look, the idea in your paper isn't bad, but the writing's terrible, we're going to have to fix it. That would be demeaning. This is terrible. Tendentious, they just look at me funny.  They have no idea what the word means. I'm by now more or less bilingual in both British and American English, though my American accent's terrible. But I always go to both dictionaries in case there are interesting differences, which there sometimes are. The OED says, credulous means too ready to believe. Marion Webster says it means ready to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence. I noticed that the first of those, the Oxford one, makes the word inherently pejorative, whereas the American one doesn't. I shall actually play on those two senses in the course of the talk. Credunity in the neutral sense, the Marion Webster sense, is, I think, part of human nature. Indeed, if children didn't mostly believe what they were told, they wouldn't learn as fast as they do. Richard Dawkins, I believe it, is once called children, information caterpillars. I thought that was one of his better lines. But as we grow up, most of us learn by experience to curb this innate credunity to some degree. I think that's why Alexander Bain, who was a remarkable psychologist, philosopher, character, described our entire intellectual life as innate credulity tempered by checks.  I take it credulity is a matter of degree and that some people are more credulous than others. And most people, at least most of the people I know, are more credulous on certain topics or with respect to certain sources than they are on other topics or with respect to other sources. So it's not a matter of are you credulous or aren't you? It's a matter of with respect to whom or what. From in what follows, I'm going to use the word this way. I'll distinguish being too ready to believe, I'll call that credulity. Being too ready to dismiss ideas, I'll call that the doubting Thomas attitude. And proportioning your belief to the strength of the evidence, I'll call that the rational attitude, just for shorthand, there's nothing deep in the names. You'll notice with this three-fold distinction, essentially what I'm doing is adding one more line to Aristotle's doctrine of the mean. Aristotle had the idea that the virtues were at least often a mean, an intermediate between two extremes. So that courage would be the mean between cowardice on the one hand and rashness on the other. And if I can go back for a minute, I've simply added another line to Aristotle's. Some people are credulous about political discourse. Most people of that tendency, I think, are more credulous about political discourse of one persuasion rather than of another. Some people are credulous about religious or mystical claims, or about religious or mystical claims of one kind or another. Some people are very credulous about gossip or certain kinds of gossip. At least I think they must be because the stuff I read in People's Magazine and the hairdresser, actually, it's enough to curl my hair by itself. It doesn't need any. Some people are credulous, especially, about medical treatments or dietary advice. Some people are about investments or, if they won't throw me out of the hotel, lottery odds. A lot of people, I regret to say, are very credulous about universities and other institutions' publicity materials and such. Maybe I'm a doubting Thomas on this subject, but every time the university administrator uses the word excellence, I just dive under my desk. And some people are credulous with respect to scientific claims. For example, to claims made by perfectly respectable scientists, which are, however, at a certain point in time, pure speculation. They may play out, they may not, and people too often go for them, not knowing whether or not they will play out. And credulous, some people are also credulous about claims made by well-known scientists about fields which are outside their competence. A scientist is not a general practitioner. He or she is usually quite a specialized person, and his opinion about the likely success of some speculation in another area is probably not worth a great deal more than mine. Credunity about scientific claims is by my lights a form of scientism, which in my mouth is a pejorative word meaning being too deferential to the sciences. And I think scientism is as undesirable as its opposite, let's just say, undue cynicism about science. That was the point of this book. Well, any point of this book, I don't know if it's big enough for you to read, but I can just about see the subtitle between scientism and cynicism. Don't buy this book if you don't have your own teeth because you can't pronounce the subtitle. This doesn't mean you shouldn't believe any scientific claim you can't check for yourself. If it meant that, you shouldn't believe many scientific claims at all. It does mean you need to be aware that within the sciences, there is a continuum from the really, really well-established to fairly well-established to, they're quite well-established to the quite speculative, to the purely speculative. You should also be aware that you need to figure out whom to trust on topics beyond your competence. That's not easy. That's actually very hard because by definition, if it's beyond your competence, there are things that they understand that you don't. You also need to be aware of what can go wrong with scientific inquiry and of how evidence can be misleading, how a scientist may be trapped in a pocket of misleading evidence through no fault of their own. This doesn't require you have a sophisticated theory of evidence. It does require, I think, that you have some intuitive grip on how complicated evidence can be. One thing that I feel kind of passionately about is that you need to understand evidence doesn't just have to support the claim that you're asking about. It also has to be reasonably secure itself, supporting the claim however well won't do it if the evidence that's doing the support of it is supporting is itself floppy. And there also has to be enough of it because if there's something really important that you're missing, all the evidence you have, however strongly it points in this direction, may be misleading. I might have been the only person in the country who didn't laugh derisively when Donald Rumsfeld made that remark about the unknown unknowns. I actually think, whatever you think about in the Secretary of Defense, I won't go there. He might have a future as an epistemologist because relevant evidence that you don't have and which moreover you don't realize is relevant really can screw up your belief system, something alarming. You also have to understand that a person's reliability is a source of information. Doesn't just depend on whether he's honest. It doesn't just depend on whether he's a good guy. It also depends on whether he's competent in the matter. And these are two quite different things. And it requires that you be willing to recognize when you're just not in a position to have a belief on this or that question. One thing I notice is, I do this, I seem to do this a lot more than most people. Sometimes my husband says, do you think this will happen? And I will say, I have no idea doing this. And he will say yes, but do you really think it will happen or not? And I said, no, look, when I say I have no idea, I mean I have no idea. Being willing to say I don't know is a very important part of avoiding the bad kind of credulity. All right, now my title promised credulity and its consequences. What are the consequences of credulity? Well, first of all, a credulous individual is a gullible individual. By the way, when I was playing with the dictionary, I discovered the origin of the word gull. I didn't know this before. Apparently it's a metaphor for you. The way gulls cram food down their beak when you can cram false information down the throat of a gullible individual. Because a credulous individual is gullible, he's susceptible to conmen, to crooks, to fakers. Moreover, credulity is infectious. People like to conform. If everybody else is believing this, they feel kind of awkward about saying, I don't see it. Moreover, okay, I think this is probably the best line ever written on the subject of credulity. By Winincand and Clifford, from whom we might have heard a lot more good stuff had he lived longer, as you see, he died very young. But not before he'd said, the credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat. What a great line. What he means, I take it, is that a credulous population creates the market for conmen, crooks, fakers, et cetera. And for every kind of deceptive and misleading claim. You know, those Nigerians trying to send you wild investment schemes, presumably wouldn't find it worthwhile if there were credulous people out there who jump at the chance. And so, the credulous man is a danger not only to himself, but also to others and to society at large. It's kind of like a virus. Ah, okay. I see this all the time in my double professional life. I thought about talking about how I see it in philosophy and then I thought, no, look, I will talk about philosophy in the morning. Let's find some really fine examples from the law in the afternoon, so that's what I'm doing. First example. Many jurors seem far too willing to believe eyewitnesses. Whom, however, we know are thoroughly unreliable. They are not as many jury eligible people will ask you, will tell you if you ask them, like human video cameras. On the contrary, they are filling in their memory. Only a minority of jurors seem to understand that eyewitnesses degree of confidence that this is the guy he saw is only very, very weakly correlated with the likelihood that the witness is right. This can have really tragic consequences. As you see, a very high proportion of those cases in which people who'd been convicted of a crime were subsequently exonerated when DNA analysis became possible were convicted in large part on the testimony of eyewitnesses. All of them, no doubt sincere, but as usual, many of them mistaken about who they saw. Credulity is also relevant in encouraging expert witnesses who in our system are prepared and presented by the parties to a case, either to trim or very often to exaggerate how sure they are to serve their side. I have a few perfectly horrible examples. Dr. James Griggson, I don't know if he's still with us, but he was known in Texas as Dr. Death. I should explain. Texas death penalty law is, I believe, the only state statute that requires, at the sentencing phase, that the jury satisfy itself whether this person, if allowed to live, would be dangerous in future. And Dr. Griggson testified in, I believe, more than 90 such cases. In all but one of which, the jury sentenced the person to death. In 1995, Dr. Griggson was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for irresponsible testimony in Texas court, after which they took him off the death penalty cases and putting on the nursing home cases where he continued to do his terrible thing. Oh, I also think of the Supreme Court ruling in Barefoot in 1983, where Justice White wrote, admitting Dr. Death's testimony, that Barefoot would be dangerous in future, didn't violate his constitutional rights. It was perfectly okay. This was for the jury to sort out. Even though the Supreme Court had in front of it an amicus brief from the American Psychiatric Association, which said, we can't do this. Our predictions about who will be dangerous in future are wrong two times out of three. You'd be better off flipping a coin. Oh, okay, now if you'll forgive me, I'm getting low-called because every now and then I get involved in Florida cases and get fascinated by the expert testimony at issue. Joseph Ramirez was convicted, not once, but three times, of a stabbing murder, that's to say, convicted once, appealed, new trial convicted again, appealed, new trial. Actually, he's just been convicted a fourth time. I'll tell you about that in a minute. He was convicted in the first three instances, almost entirely on the testimony of a knife mark examiner who said, all that we got left was a bit of cartilage from the neck with a wound in it, half an inch long. And he said, I can identify the knife that made that wound with 100% certainty to the exclusion of all other knives in the world. He even said, I wouldn't care if there were a million knives of identical design. I could still identify this one with 100% certainty. I guess in this room, I can say what I really want to say. Bullshit, I've now done serious looking into this and I'm convinced that this is the story. A knife mark examiner can tell what kind of a knife. And if there's some very distinctive feature of the knife, like it's been worn in such a way that there's a distinctive chip, then but only then can he identify a particular one. Of course, it isn't only forensic witnesses whom Michael Sacks once described as serial exaggerators. I like that. They're always much too sure, which reminds me that David Hume famously said, we distrust a witness when he is too vehement. Why have we forgotten this? If he's banging his fist and saying, I'm absolutely certain you should wonder why is he doing this? Is it because he's not really so sure? Okay. The exaggerations of knife mark examiners, fingerprint examiners, et cetera, are encouraged by credulity on the part of jurors, on the part of attorneys and on the part of judges. So I don't mean to pick on jurors, although I do think one of the reasons it's important to try to teach ordinary people what credulity is, why it's a bad thing, how to avoid it, is ordinary people will serve on jurors. And if jurors are credulous, we are all in trouble. We want jurors to have in the right sense a kind of skepticism about what they hear, to be aware, you may be being lied to, you may be being told something which is a gross exaggeration of what the person concerned is really in a position to say, or he may believe it himself, but he believes it himself because he's a member of a guild. Oh Lord, may I tell you my knife mark examiners story? I was trying to help the public defender working with Mr. Ramirez and was really very shocked by this terrible testimony and began looking into it and I guess it got known I was looking into it because one day I received a bizarre telephone call from California from a knife mark examiner and he said, I want to explain to you the problem is it's East Coast knife mark examiners. We on the West Coast do it properly. Okay, the guys on the East Coast are incompetent, but we do it right. And I said, well, that's very interesting. Would you mind explaining to me what it is that you do and that the East Coast guys don't do? Well, he said, they just take the knife and they make stabbings in dental gel which apparently has roughly the same texture as cartilage and then they eyeball the wounds that they've got left in real cartilage and the thing that they've got in the dental gel to see whether they're the same. Me, yes, I'm aware of that. And what do you do? Well, we take photographs of both and then we eyeball them to see if they're the same. Me, okay, thank you, that was very helpful. I think I need to be in class now. So actually he called me at home which was my husband said, what were you doing for an hour on the phone? Trying to understand if there was anything in these claims and in the end I think the answer was no. This does however teaches me something important I think. The reason he thought what he did was better was that it used more modern equipment. Used fancy photography to get two images that they could compare. And it's another important thing to remember that using scientific technology doesn't necessarily mean that you're getting good upshot. Of course, it's not only jurors who are credulous, it's attorneys, it's some judges. I think many judges eventually get, as one federal judge once said to me, I don't know much about science, but I do know when I'm being snowed. And I think perhaps she was right. I think a judge with a lot of experience in cases involving scientific testimony will get some sort of sense for when they might be being snowed. But I think it's also very clear that some judges are quite credulous about science. I want to talk about the credulity about the peer review process. I need to give you some context. The Supreme Court had never uttered any ruling about scientific testimony until 1993. It had been in existence for 204 years, but not until 1993 did it feel the need to say anything about scientific testimony and when it should be admissible. This was in a case called Daubert versus Merle Dau Thalmasuticals, which was about, initially it was about a drug called Bendectin prescribed for mourning sickness in pregnancy and believed by some to cause birth defects in the children born to the women who took it. By the way, in the last two months, this drug which was withdrawn from the US market in 1984 was approved for sale in the US again, now made by a different manufacturer, a Canadian manufacturer and tall called Dioclesis. I still don't know whether or not it caused this birth defects. I must have read 100 Bendectin cases and it's impossible to tell. Anyway, in the course of this case, the Supreme Court finds itself obliged to say, look, first of all, we think judges should screen scientific testimony, first for relevance, okay, nothing new there and for reliability, that was new. And because most judges don't know anything about science, they then felt, well, we ought to say something about how they're to do this. Well, the first move was to show that it's reliable and you have to show that it's genuine science. No, this was a big mistake. Reliable and scientific are two quite different concepts. Not all scientific evidence is reliable and not all reliable evidence is scientific. Okay, put that aside. And what constitutes genuine science? Oh, dear, now they wheel in Karl Popper. I'm rolling my eyes, but never mind. Then they try to give a list of what should you look for if you're screening scientific testimony, proffered scientific testimony for reliability. And on this flexible list of four factors is peer review and publication. And as I've watched this play out and as I've talked to law students about what they understand by this, as it's called, Dalbert Factor, I've discovered something really interesting. They think that what goes on in the peer review process is you submit a paper to a journal and then somehow or other somebody re-does your experiment or re-does your study and checks everything and only after that's happened is it published. Why, where did they get this romantic idea? I think because American law reviews are not peer reviewed.  And some judges really do seem to behave as if they thought if the paper was peer reviewed, that means it must be right. And I take it everybody in this room knows that it means nothing of the kind. It means perhaps it's quite interesting. It's not obviously mad. It doesn't contain big, enormous, obvious mistakes. That's about all it means. Think of the study of Vioxx, the approved study that got Vioxx FDA approval published in the New England Journal. You don't get any more prestigious than that. If their peer reviewers don't notice something, nobody's peer reviewers will notice it. And guess what? They failed to notice that Merck study kept track of gastrointestinal effects of this drug which they assumed would be favorable for longer than it kept track of cardiovascular effects which they feared might not be favorable. Horrible design flaw. Judges are also remarkably naive, at least some of them I shouldn't be too general. Some of them are remarkably naive about the meaning of statistical significance. They appear to think that if this study is statistically significant, that means it's significant. Well, no, that's not what it means. And this of course makes it very easy for the parties to the case to be impressed a judge with misleading statistics. And now I have exactly zero time to keep talking. And it was quite hard to pack this into half an hour. Phew.


The acronym is Expert Field Medical Badge. For the Army it's the best of the best for medical field. So how I would explain it is it's just the best of the best in the medical field as the basic combat medic. With the multi-nationals it obviously brings a lot of, there's a lot of variety, a lot of diversity. I'm coming, are you okay? You get not only, they get to train with us and see what kind of training that we hold and how we conduct business, but we get to see their skills too. Like the last one that I just ran through with was from Estonia. It's amazing how they move through the woods and they learn it the way we teach them, but they add their little twist to it and it's just really neat to watch, really fun to watch. Well to be honest I didn't know what is the FMB until I arrived here and I'm here for training. I do realize that the possibility to gain the badge for me is extremely low. So I enjoyed, I really enjoyed. There are some things just we do differently, some things I have to disagree with, but because I'm here for studying I take maximum what I can from this course. I do like to see how different countries train and what are they doing actually, because as my father told me that to take the information from each source and you decide afterwards what do you live in your head and what you're not. But the more information you got the better it is for you.


If you spit three rounds you don't lose. Spit one, you won't move, go! But my name leaves a different mark in, like a magician's trick to Moses. That's a different part in, male and female drivers. That's a different part in, fat boo against kid boo scoop. They can see the different margins. Just punch, after punch, after punch in abundance. I'll put the squeeze on his pussy, like a Trump introduction. I mean, just picture the stress. You ever seen two man killed by the same bullet? I'll just picture the mess. Two names on a tap, Mitchell and Ness. So it's not battle rap. So it's not battle rap when I say that I can spit with the best. Now you don't want to give me no lip. Pham, just give me that check. Because I never play chess. But I can put you in check now, Pham. I will just aim at your dome. If you don't give me respect, because the block from from, contract from. Them niggas got unlimited tech now. I got it with nothing but real skill. The pen cocked roll. Raise it with the base of your neck where you'll feel still. If you move, you're getting cut into, that's kill Bill.  I said, you know, I'm the real deal. That's why you've got no fear when guys like you want to talk tears. All right. You did checkpoint. And this year, you did Samba. But your career is like, listen. But this year, you did checkpoint. And last year, you did Samba. But you still haven't gone clear. Pham, your career is like a leap year. She ain't seen a birthday in four years, man. Big is healthy. Feel about what your heart has to go through. The pressure on your legs that have to stand up and hold you. When you went for a train company, right? That shows how that lifestyle can mold you. You could just like your trains clear. You don't run when you're supposed to. Whatever you tell yourself, you came into dying. Do nothing else. You can't take a shift off from fate.  Man, I'm breaking your tempo and use the whip to escape. They want it. I tell him pipe down before shocks cause me to blow a fusing. And that's life, sir. I'm mean. I'm the total package. I'm ticking all the boxes like night time. You're fainting. Who really thinks that it's hard, though?  You're going to need more than a barber. Cause you're looking at a man that will rub your phone and then follow you home for the charger. It's over if I clap rounds. This guy will flip from the kick with his soldiers in the background. In the booth. In the booth. I'm too real. You will never smell fear on me. I don't care if you near godly.   Tongue, I want the throne. So I have to come see the kid. Turn my back on blood then. Bring fire like Prometheus.  You turn your back to me. You got your back to the future like Michael J. Real rap credentials. Punch lines. Precision schemes, I mean. I'll lit up the path for you like Michael Jackson and Billie Jean, I mean. At this point, you're just a fundraise. I mean, I'm aiming for paper. So you to target a gun range, but I'm rather...


It's Grosjean on his teammate Rossi. How defensive is Alex going to get? He moves him over there, but there's nothing he's going to be able to do from here. Grosjean's going to go through. Back inside. Inside corner, coming even. Even 14 corner, corner clear. Very Formula 1-S from Grosjean, making it really hard for the trailing car. Grosjean wheel to wheel with the Spaniard again. Now he's going to try and squeeze him over a little bit. Power to Grosjean, second place.


Last class we just stop with a series of transactions and then I was explaining how under some circumstances you decide to realize a sale despite the fact that you have not received the payment for the sale and I said I will qualify the statement and the example that we took was when the firm actually cater to a party to a customer who happens to be a very close friend of the owner of the firm and then the customer says that he will pay for this a little later. The question is how certain the entity is to receive this full payment now there should be some reasonability in the certainty of this sale if I feel my judgment says that yes historically this customer has been paying and that there is no problem with this customer I adopt the principle of conservatism where I am reasonably certain that this sales will generate a cash in the future and hence I decide in recognizing this sale now there are times where even after doing this I do not get the money also but that does not mean that I have not consumed the resources for which the sale for which I did not receive money happened I need to also record that because I did not receive money for the sales does not dismiss the fact that no resources were consumed for the sale usually you will find in some accounting transactions the cost of goods sold gets reduced to that extent the resources that got consumed gets reduced to that extent but I did not generate sale and then the corresponding dual entry would be a bad sale expense and we just write it off as a bad sale expense so we do not actually ignore the fact that the resources have been consumed because the sale value was not collected so you might encounter such examples such transactions in the day to day life and it is on a pure judgment as to how much as the first place whether you will recognize this sale because conservatism is about recognizing the sale and then to what extent will you realize the sale if you feel that this sale will generate only 60 percent 70 percent to that extent you will treat it as a sales revenue or the first stage itself so it is based on judgment for you to decide on the timing whether to recognize it as a sale this period even without collecting cash or just recognize the sale only after I collect the cash so it is about timing as well as how much will I be able to collect later the amount as well the extent to which this sale gets realized both of these depend on the objective judgment that you can take based on historical experiences now having said that let us proceed further now let us say based on that I realize I record this sale of 200 for which I have not received the money because I feel that I am reasonably certain that I will be able to collect this money which happened immediately where the friend paid the outstanding sales now how do I record this transaction now when I the entity has received this 200 rupees as cash so cash as a result of which no longer is my accounts receivable 200 because I have received this 200 so my accounts receivable which was 200 a current asset is no longer 200 because I have already received the money for that it drops by 200 and that is why it is credit 200 now let us assume these were all the transactions that happened during this month and at the end of this month I am interested in knowing what is the cumulative effect of all of these transactions this is the very purpose of a financial statement to understand the cumulative effect of all the transactions that have an effect on the balance sheet and then income statement and how my balance sheet in income statement would look at end of this accounting period in this case let us say it is for this one particular month that I am interested in seeing the balance sheet and then income statement now what how do we go forward in creating this balance sheet and income statement now before we go there what we need to do is now we know that these are the transactions that have happened during this particular month and we need to take each of the account some made them to understand the closing balance for each of the account which means you would see that in these transactions in these 13 14 transactions that have happened the account cash has been affected more than probably 3 4 5 times and we need to understand after all this what is the closing balance for cash for example let us say cash account if you look at what has happened to cash account it started with an opening balance of 0 no cash only after the owner put in money that the firm got cash then if you trace what has happened to cash throughout you would find that there were these entries on the debit side of cash and then these entries on the credit side of cash so in essence what has happened is after all these cash transactions have been submitted we find that the cash is left over with a balance of 5450 on the debit side and it is this balance actually as a closing entry there is usually you do not have to do I am just trying to explain for the purpose of easy understanding what actually happens in each of the closing entries for each of these transactions the first understanding is when you submit all these entries that have affected cash you will definitely notice that the cash will have 5450 excess on the debit side which means there is a cash balance of 5450 and debit and credit need to match to just match that to balance 5450 credit 21,200 credit and debit of cash balances but that is not the point that I want to explain the point that I want to explain to you is at the end of this particular month you find that cash has a debit balance of 5450 this is one account where the balance is 5450 on the debit side likewise you have different accounts and each of them will have a debit balance or a credit balance based on how each of these transactions have affected each of these accounts now let us say I am not sure whether what I have done is correct there might be some mistakes in the entry let us say I am interested in knowing before I proceed further to take a quick check on whether I have followed the principle of dual accounting and whether my debit is equal to the credit and I need to do this interim check before I go to the other adjusting entries and before I start preparing the balance sheet and an income state for which I am going to create what is called a trial balance now trial balance is just a simply a list of all these account names and then it lists the debit or the credit balance against each of these account names and then when we create the trial balance we will see that the debit the total debit of all the accounts is equal to the total credit of all the accounts I will just create one for you to understand let us say we are going to create this XYZ restaurant right and it is a trial balance as of 34 2012 end of this particular month I told you trial balance is just a list of all these accounts now what are these accounts that we created let us say we begin with cash this is a balance and whether it is debit or credit depends on how each of these accounts have been impacted and that we will know when we just trace back each of these accounts and just as we did a summation of all the cash entries to understand that cash as a debit balance of 5450 we will do a summation of each of these accounts and then arrive at the final debit or credit for each of these accounts now I explained for cash that it was 5450 debit at the end of this particular month likewise you will be doing it for all the accounts that you have created let us quickly run through all of them accounts receivable you find that you had an accounts receivable of 200 which you received later so there is no entry for accounts receivable because it is left with a zero balance zero on debit and zero on credit inventory remember you had two transactions one you in fact three transactions you purchase inventory twice and then the inventory got consumed once so after you take the summation of all those transactions that affected inventory you will notice that inventory was left with a debit balance of 550 prepaid expense again debit of 750 we are the end of this month I already told you that have this prepaid expense at one corner of your mind because we are going to revisit this but at the end of this month based on those 13 transactions I have just handle prepaid expense in only one particular way leaving it with a debit balance of 750 which I am recording now which will change very soon because we have not completed with the adjusting entries equipment we purchase remember we purchase an equipment whose value was 7200 and what was the balance there credit or debit you go there paid 7200 cash then likewise the summation accounts payable will be 2200 loans payable the summation would be 4000 paid in capital started with an initial paid in capital of 5000 and then sales revenue 12200 remember you had a 12000 sale once and a 200 sales later then cost of sales was 6000 then wage expense or salary expense we had an entry there salary expense 3000 we had another accounting entry called utility expense was 450 so now this is a trial balance that just records all your transactions the summation of all the equipment transactions so if you take a total of all of them here 6200 11200 plus 12200 will be 23400 so it is basically the summation of these four let me check whether it is correct yeah 23400 now if you are very confident that all the transactions that you have done is correct you can blindly put 23400 on this side as well only then will the summation of all your debits will be equal to summation of all your credits if you are very confident you can just put 23400 on this side as well let me just quickly check also be 6000 750 13000 950 19000 950 22000 950 23400 so the summation of all of this is also 23400 now you see that your trial balance which is a list of all the accounts and against which each of their credit and debit balances get recorded and then the summation of all the debit balances for each of the accounts and the summation of each of the credit balances for each of the account will necessarily match it has to match because you have not compromised on the equation you have not compromised on the duality concept and every transaction that you have recorded you have ensured that each stage the debit is equal to credit now does that mean that my accounting statement the resultant accounting statement the balance sheet or the income statement is correct no the reason is the trial balance will only ensure at this interim stage your debit is equal to credit now if your debit is not equal to credit the signal that the trial balance senses something wrong has happened in the transactions that were recorded and even before you went to create your balance sheet and income statement if you are able to because of the trial balance understand that there is something wrong then you are just trying to control the level of damage by diagnosing the entries even before you went to the balance sheet and income statement so now you just go back to each of the accounting transactions why because your trial balance said that your debit is not equal to credit and then identify each of the accounts where the mistake has happened and then rectify to that for that purpose the trial balance is useful now that does not mean that all the transactions that you have done is correct you have you could have probably erred on the right side you could have recorded some transaction wrongly on the debit side and wrongly on the credit side still your debit will be equal to your credit and your trial balance will not certify that all the transactions that you have entered is correct it is only a marker if your debit balance is equal to your credit balance then you have not compromise on the principle of duality to that extent a trial balance is helpful mind you does not certify the accounting validity of the transactions that you have recorded as I told you could have erred on the right side and changed the debit and credit entry and still your trial balance will balance but then when you look at your balance sheet you will see that there is some mistake it is quite possible such examples I mean such real time cases will happen but never the less we need this trial balance as an interim measure to just take a quick stock and understand whether we have really captured all the accounting transactions correctly and if it is correct the summation of all your debit balance and summation of all your credit balance will match now are we done with this can we go ahead with the balance sheet and income statement is an x question because we are just interested in knowing at the end of this particular month how may balance sheet and income statement will look like now before we actually go into that I am just trying to introduce three more entries and I call them adjusting entries so that your balance sheet and income statement captures the big picture including all these adjusting entries so that your balance sheet and income statement while capturing the bigger picture reflects the correct financial strength and the correct financial performance since balance sheet and income statement are related to both these financial strength and the performance now what are these three adjusting entries the first one is depreciation notice that you purchase an equipment and when you revisit those accounts you will find that the cost of acquisition was 7200 and you have used that equipment for this one month period which means the equipment that is expected to give you some benefits has been used for one month and to that extent you have been benefited now what is the cost of using that equipment for that one month period you have to charge the entity for using that particular equipment for that one month period and that charge is your depreciation expense how much you need to know how long or how much is the equipment's lifetime let's say in this case the equipment's lifetime is 10 years so you know that the 7200 the annual cost of using this equipment hence is 720 now how long have you used this equipment I have used this for this particular month so what is the monthly cost of using this equipment 720 divided by 12 it is 60 so now you know that the depreciation expense or the charge for the entity to use this equipment and that is the depreciation expense is 60 and I need to record this how do I record one I straight away record depreciation expense this is treated as an expense because this is the expense that the firm incurs because it is used to this equipment for that one month period and since this is an expense this reduces the retained earnings since this reduces the retained earnings it reduces your owner's equity anything that reduces your owner's equity is a bit how much 60 why 60 because it is one month period now how do I record the corresponding second entry I bring in what is called an accumulated depreciation 60 why 60 because accumulated depreciation reduces the value of the equipment which was purchased at a particular cost which is the price of its acquisition by that depreciation expense for that particular period suppose I got this for 7200 and at the end of this particular month what happens to the book value of this equipment it would be 7200 minus this accumulated depreciation of 60 so in your balance sheet you would see that the equipment cost of acquisition because your accounting principle says always you will have to bring in the cost principle which is cost of acquisition which is 7200 less the accumulated depreciation of 60 it has reduced the asset value to that extent reduction in asset value is right hand side credit so this is one adjusting entry and we will see how this sits in your balance sheet and income statement when we actually create a balance sheet and income statement now the next accounting entry the adjusting entry is your prepaid expense that is for your rent remember remember you paid that rent of 750 rupees at the beginning of this particular month and I told you that you are treating that prepaid expense as an asset because that gave you a right to use this space for this one month period and now we are at the end of this month and I am interested in knowing end of this month what is the status of the asset liability is my income and when you approach the end of this month ask this question whether this prepaid expense continues to be an asset for you an answer is no because you have used this space for this one month period the benefit that accrued to you by paying the 750 as rent ceases to exist at the end of this month because you have used this so your prepaid expense as eroded it is value from 750 and since it is end of month to 0 now how do we record this transaction your prepaid expense initially was an asset now it no longer is your asset the value of your prepaid expense has reduced so you are not going to write 0 here you are writing 750 here because what we are trying to record is that the asset value of 750 at the beginning of the month has gone down by 750 the resultant prepaid expense is 0 but to what extent it has fallen down it is 750 to that extent it has reduced prepaid expense has reduced from 750 to 0 which means there is a reduction to the extent of 750 in my current asset prepaid expense and hence any reduction in this particular current asset any reduction in this asset is right hand side credit now how will I treat the corresponding entry simply as rent expense 750 expense reduces retained earnings and hence debit 750 now why all this adjusting entry prepaid expense and all this is there any other better way I could have a simple way that I could have treated at the first place on August 1 or April 1 when I actually paid this rent could I have avoided this complicated entry of prepaid expense and then bringing this adjusting entry yes you could have then what you would have done at that point of time on April 1 is at that point of time you would have treated this entire 750 as a rent expense itself so what you would have done is you would have returned cash 750 rent expense 750 so on April 1 at that point of time itself you would have expense this rent at the end of this month also ultimately you are doing only this because what you have done as an adjusting entry is you have reduced the intervening prepaid expense prepaid expense on 7 on April 1 is now reduced to 0 right and no other cash account is affected cash the fact that you have spent 750 does not change because the prepaid expense has reduced what has changes the value of the prepaid expense itself and the rent expense you are now recognizing 750 you see now how these are interlink to finally affect only two entities cash and rent expense so in your income statement you would see rent expense in your balance sheet will you see prepaid expense no why because the value of the asset prepaid expense is 0 you can still write prepaid expense in your balance sheet but the value of that will be 0 because we have adjusted for it at the end of this month why did we adjust because it no longer continues to be a prepaid expense continues to be an asset so this is one adjusting entry I mean this I chose this to be very specific for you to understand why prepaid expense is a current asset and how at the end of the asset period this account has been adjusted only for that purpose as I told you you can even write away expense it and treated as a rent expense on April 1st itself but for you to understand this I just took it as a prepaid expense what is the other adjusting entry interest expense now I told you that the entity borrowed 4000 from the bank at an interest rate of 12 percent per annum so at the end of this particular month please note that I have used this entire 4000 which means there is cost of using this capital 4000 the cost of using the banks money has to be recorded as an expense though the interest is payable on an annual basis but for the purpose of being exact in the financial performance suppose I want to treat this as an expense for that particular month because it is to that exactitude that I want to understand the financial performance then I can say that you know I am trying to record that portion of the interest expense for that particular month and how do I do that first let us see what is the quantum of interest for that particular month it is a very straight forward calculation 12 percent is your annual interest your loan outstanding is 4000 so your monthly interest will be 40 rupees correct interest expense 40 why debit because interest expense reduce your retainer what will be a corresponding dual entry accrued expense or simply interest payable interest payable is 40 it is a liability which is increased I have not paid the interest but I am supposed to pay interest since a liability has increase it is on the right hand side credit what will I do assume that on May 2nd I paid this interest expense what will you do now I did this end of April because I wanted to allocate even to that specific interest component I wanted to identify the interest expense and charge it so that my financial performance my net profit is exact to that extent I told you May 3rd or May 5th I pay this interest so what will happen nothing can happen your interest expense does not change cash would have paid 40,000 and your interest payable will not change or your accrued expense will be 40 rupees that would be the effect on the accrued expense so you might have a doubt when actually when we pay the interest sometime later are we double counting this interest expense no we are not double counting because I have already factor this interest expense previously all that I have done subsequent to the payment of interest is that recorded the cash outflow because that did not happen previously no cash went out now this cash went out only to offset this interest payable account and my interest payable drop from 40 to 0 so if you take an interest payable concept consolidation you will understand that interest payable 40, interest payable 40 both will balance against each other the closing balance will be 0 which means you have paid your interest and you have accounted for the interest expense only once so in terms of accounting you have perfectly satisfied all the principles you have not overstated your interest expense so now these three adjusting entries the depreciation interest expense and prepaid expenses these three are the adjusting entries that we will have to introduce depreciation expense is something that you cannot avoid I mean as an adjusting entry interest expense and prepaid expense you can avoid as an adjusting entry because it is left to you to choose whether you want to exactly and in this case because you wanted to know your monthly income statement I decided to put this interest expense for that particular month but I can also decide to say no I would rather put my interest expense only after I pay the interest fine because then for that particular amount your net earnings would look better and there is nothing wrong in it likewise prepaid expenses the moment cash left out for the purpose of rent you could have immediately treated as a rent expense instead of creating an interim current account prepaid expense and then closing it to find so let us assume that this rent was for three months then at the end of this month the prepaid expense of 750 let us assume it was for three months it would have dropped by 250 so the closing prepaid expense at the end of this particular month would have been 500 why because you when you actually paid the 750 record in this transaction as a prepaid expense now had I as I told you before I could have also chosen not to record this as a current asset I could have just set 750 cash rent expense for three months cash and expense it right on day one that is also possible but I am just trying to explain to you that these type of adjusting entries you will encounter when you are actually trying to record transactions to that specificity now assume that these are the only three adjusting entries that we have in hand and then in the trial balance we saw the summation of all the remaining accounts your debit equals to your credit because of this adjusting entry will your trial balance change no because in each of your adjusting entry your debit is equal to your credit so if you have your trial balance you will add depreciation 60 debit and then accumulated depreciation 60 prepaid expense credit 750 rent expense debit 750 and then interest expense debit 40 interest payable credit 40 all this will again get added into your trial balance but ultimately your trial balance will balance because your individual debit and credit balanced after taking these three into account are we ready to create a balance sheet and an income statement I would say yes because we have enough transactions for us to construct a sensible balance sheet and an income statement why because we have cash we have some equipment that we have purchased that has been depreciated we have some inventory on the liability side there was owner's equity in it you had a bank loan and I think you also have an accounts payable and then an income statement yes during this month you made some sales revenue there was some cost of goods sold you had some wage some utility expense there was some expense and then you have a net income what more do you need than this to create a balance sheet and income statement so next class when we sit from this data that we have in hand I will tell you how a balance sheet is constructed at an income statement is constructed and then let us understand the third important financial statement which I will be covering next class is a cash flow statement because more often than not people get confused they think income is cash income is not cash cash is the value that you see in your balance sheet while income is an income statement the sales is your income statement entity so how can cash in your balance sheet be equal to your sales revenue in your income statement it is not then how do you know that these two are different while you understand a cash flow statement you will understand that cash is different from income the cash that you see in a balance sheet is the summation of all the transactions that have affected cash either by way of getting consumed or getting generated so you either get cash inside the firm or cash goes outside the firm how much was it at the beginning what happened that we got cash inside what happened that cash went out and how much is the close closing cash this you need to understand for a different reason you need to understand the various sources and uses of cash for that perspective we will create a cash flow statement also so next class we will construct a balance sheet an income statement and a cash flow statement but before you come to next class make sure you are comfortable with this double entry bookkeeping and with these examples you are able to understand why transactions are first titled under a particular account and then why they are entered in the debit side and credit side but this forms the very basis on which your bigger financial statements are being built so you can practice some more transactions you can probably add more to your transactions also and then when we finish balance sheet an income statement next class with additional transactions that you have already added you can build your own balance sheet an income statement so I want you to practice more before we set for the next class thank you


Okay, so this problem kind of covers the whole gamut of everything that we wanted to learn about, that we can gather out of atomic symbol, okay? So usually you'll have something that shows the symbol of the atom and its mass number, okay? This one being S32 or Solve for 32, okay? So we're trying to figure out the atomic number, the mass number, so the atomic number, the atomic number is going to be found on the periodic table. Remember for all of these types of problems, the periodic table is like you're teaching, okay? So all you gotta do is look at the periodic table and it tells you the atomic number for Solve for is 16, okay? So that's that. In this particular periodic table, that one number up in the corner, okay? The mass number, that's given to you on the atomic symbol here, okay? Since it says it's Solve for 32, you know that the mass number is 32. Number of protons, so the number of protons and the atomic number are always the same number, okay? So the atomic number actually tells you what atom it is by counting the number of protons. So in this case, the number of protons is 16, okay? Since the atomic number is 16. And every atom that has 16 protons is a Solve for atom, okay? The number of neutrons, well, all you gotta do to figure that out is to take the mass number, which is 32, and subtract the number of protons, okay? So the number of protons is 16, 32 minus 16 is 16. So the number of neutrons is 16. So again, mass number and the water number, the mass number, right, is 32 minus the number of protons. And again, these will all be recorded, so you can ask, you can just go back to them, they'll go back to them and back to them. The number of valence electrons, so you can just look at, remember the group number we talked about, or the family, right? So in this case, it's one, two, three, four, five, six, right? So there's six valence electrons. And then the number of inner electrons, that's just the valence electrons minus the total number of electrons. So the total number of electrons minus the valence electrons, so inner electrons, okay. And in fact, you'll find that with all of the period three elements, you've got ten inner electrons. And that's it. You've finished the problem. See how this is sitting in the corner here? And what you're supposed to take the one off is six.