Show me the money. What's up, money geeks? Mr. V here, welcome to another video, guys. So in today's video, I want us to talk about a question that a lot of you guys have been asking me in the comments section. Mr. V, how much money do I need to make $250 a day? That is the key question that I've been getting from a lot of you guys. So I wanted to break it down in a video so that everybody can just listen to this or watch this and make their own decisions. Before we get started, guys, if you're new to the channel, we took a part how to earn money, how to save money, how to invest and build wealth. Also, I share with you guys my strategy on how I make $250 a day trading stocks in the market. I've actually created a playlist that if you want to watch, I'm going to hook it up here so you can definitely go watch it, where I give you my strategy. I show you my setup, my hotkeys on the Weibo platform and all the things that I'm doing. I'm actually documenting them. So I have that playlist. Definitely go check it out. Watch it or share it. Tell me anything that would find it useful. So how much money do you need to make $250 a day? That is a very tricky question, right? And now my simple answer to that question is, it depends.  And the more money you have in your account, it makes it even more easier for you to lose more money because you get lousy. You think that you have a backup plan if you lose money, you still have some money to trade with. Whereas for somebody that doesn't have a ton of money, they would actually take their time, follow your strategy, make sure that they pick their entry points properly. They use just top loss as it's supposed to be used to cut your losses early and get out. So if you have $1,000 to trade the market, you can make $250 a day. That's very, very possible. I'm not saying it's easy, but I'm saying it's possible. And here how you can go about it. If you have $1,000 a day, what I want you to do is, once you go into a trade, right? The first thing you wanna think is, how much do I want out of this trade? What percent gain do I want out of this particular trade? Ideally, if you can make 5% in the trade, that is really good. So 5% of $1,000 is $50. So if you're going into a trade and you know you can get $50 in that one trade, that's pretty good. And when I say I make $250 a day, I would never claim that I make it in one trade. So because I don't want to have to take that risk and give back profit that I've seen in my account. So whenever the profit comes, I take that profit, secure that profit and wait for another opportunity. You are trading the stock market. There's always gonna be opportunities. And that's the one thing that gives a lot of people. A lot of people trade like there's no tomorrow. Trade like there's no other opportunity after that one. So they're trying to make it happen in that one trade. They'll chase the trade up, they'll chase the trade down and end up losing money in the process. So again, if you have $1,000 that you wanna trade, you say you wanna make 5% of that $1,000, which is $50.  Once you get in, again, put your stop loss. Say, okay, I'm willing to risk $10 to make 50. Put your stop loss. And as soon as it hits that stop loss, it kicks you out, you lose $10. But at least you save yourself enough money to be able to go back and get a trade. And then as soon as you go in and you make that $50, take that and get out.  You can use all the techniques. Again, this is based on how much you've been trading and what your understanding is. You can use all the techniques, like using a trailing staff that can actually help you secure more profit if you start to go up. But stuff like that, again, if it starts to go down, it would also kick you out, so which is a good strategy. And again, for a lot of you guys that are thinking that, oh, I have seen this video, Mr. Visa, he's made $250 a day trading the stock market. And I have $1,000 or $2,000 and I wanna do it. I'll just tell you to pump the brakes. Just hold on. Don't rush in and jump into the ocean with sharks. What I want you to do is take a step back. Go on the Weibo platform, which I've actually done a video about is how you can paper trade on the Weibo platform. So definitely check it out on the channel. Go on the Weibo platform, paper trade, test the strategy, make sure it works. Because again, this is my strategy that I'm sharing with you guys. So test the strategy, make sure it works. If there's any tweaks that you can add to the strategy that fits your particular trading need, definitely take it. I make sure it works before you get out and go into the ocean to swim with sharks. Again, one of the other benefits of using paper trading with Weibo is that you can sign up for your paper trading competition where you can win up to about $500. So if you haven't already signed up for Weibo, this is your opportunity. Links in the description below where you get two free stacks, not one. Two, for just signing up. When you sign up and you start paper trading, you can actually sign up for the paper trading competition and win money. And that's how you can test your strategy. What better way to do it when you're testing your strategy and then you can win money in the process if your strategy is actually working. That's something that I want you to consider, guys. So going into trading, ideally, if you have $1,000, you can definitely make $250 a day. If you have $10,000, you can definitely make $250 a day. Again, it comes down to your execution and your strategy and your composure. A lot of people take emotions and put it as part of their trading strategy. Emotions and trading make a very bad combination. So don't do that. Just keep your emotions in check. As a matter of fact, when you sit on your desk to trade, don't even take your emotions with you.  They're gonna make you lose money in the market. And guess what? The market is a jungle.  That's how bad the market is. So by the time you go in there, you should have a plan. You should have your entry plan. You should have your exit plan. You should be very, very confident and know exactly what you're doing. Most people trade again, like I said, with hopes. You go in there and see the stuff and just buy it and hope that it goes up without understanding or even doing any research to see, to know why that stuff should go up or it should go down or even listen to the news. Hope is not something that you can use in the stock market. You don't hope that things go up. You might go in and maybe it works out for you one or two trades.  You make money and then it was like, oh, it worked. That's not a strategy that is guessing the stock market. That is playing with fire.   So be very, very careful. To conclude this, I'll say, if you have anywhere between $500 to, I don't care, five, 10, 15, 20,000, you can certainly make $250 a day. The only thing that I'm asking from you is that you stay disciplined. Set your goals. Set what percentage you want to make. With Weibo, the entry form gives you the opportunity to be able to put a stop loss and take profit. That's one of the things I love about the platform. And you do the math for you. You can calculate how much profit you're gonna make and how much you're willing to lose. So if I put my stop loss, I would say, okay, I'm willing to lose, let's say, $50 to make $200 or $300. Bam, and put that trade and let it go. And so once I'm in the money, I start moving my stop loss to secure profit. So there's other ways, there's a lot of ways that you can actually go about doing this, but the goal is not to focus so much on the amount because you're thinking, oh, if I had $10,000, I would be making a lot more. If your strategy cannot execute very well for you to make $250 with $1,000, and that strategy might be a little bit difficult. If you wanna implement it to, we'd say, $10,000, you might make money, but again, you're exposing yourself to lose a ton of money in the process. So let me do the comment section. What do you think about this? How much money did you start investing with and how much money do you plan to continue investing with? Again, with me, my strategy has been, I do this more so from the mindset of a business. So I have my capital. Each month I take out my profit and I keep that same capital. My goal is to grow that to, say, $50,000, where that would be my capital and then anything that I make each month of that $50,000, that's where I keep it in my pocket. So it could be 5% of $50,000, 10% of $50,000. That would be where I'm gonna transfer out of my margin account as my monthly income. So that's where I'm gonna approach it. So let me do the comment section. How are you going about it? And also, if you're looking to get started with investing, Weibo is currently doing a promotion where if you deposit $100, you get two free stocks, not one, two, just for signing up and depositing $100. What's somewhere between $8 and $1,600? So definitely take advantage of this.


Well, folks, something happened today that early yesterday that's quite embarrassing. My Zelda fan card needs to be revoked, especially my Zelda expertise fan card needs to be removed. Now, why did I even have a Zelda fan? It's not because I have fancy sweatshirt and a whole bunch of merchandise related to Zelda. That doesn't... You can't buy your way into being a Zelda mega fan. I actually used to be someone who made a living talking about creating theories and being an expert in the Legend of Zelda field. I ran a Zelda fan site in ZeldaInformer.com for roughly 10 years as editor-in-chief did that for a living for a while. Before that, I did other various Zelda fan sites, podcasts and news reporting. Really, since I was 12, I'm 35. I've played every single Zelda game known to man, including the CDI ones, including all of the Tingle games and the spin-off ones. I played everything start to finish at least one time and most of the Zelda series I have played multiple times. In fact, the game that I am losing my fan card because of is one that is not only rated as the greatest game of all time. It also is one that I just beat two months ago. And yesterday we had a podcast! Oh folks, we had the Nintendo Prime podcast. It was back. It was glorious. We had some good talks. And while Andres Restart was on there, he brought up this idea of remastering, remaking Ocarina of Time and would it sell well and all this.  But right after that, we got into a little bit of something because I don't rank Ocarina of Time in my top 10 Zelda games of all time. And he wanted to know why. And we went through my list of games I ranked ahead of it and stuff like that. They weren't really necessarily in perfect order because I have to sit down and think about it. Doing it off the top of my head is a bit difficult. I actually have the list written down somewhere. But that's neither here nor there. One thing that came up, what he mentioned was undeniably great about Ocarina of Time is, well, the ending. How the ending went, the whole sequence and everything. And this is where I went off the rails. And it's not just that I was wrong about the ending. It's not just that I forgot how Ocarina of Time ended. I literally misremembered the entire ending of the game and was so vehement that I was remembering it correctly that we ended up in a 40 minute back and forth. We call it an argument. We weren't really mad at each other. We talked after the podcast for a bit. But here's a small clip of the idiocy I was spewing last night. So another thing that I think Ocarina of Time handles better than most games period is just how it ends. It has one of the strongest endings. This is not, you're making a face, but this is not like an alien opinion. This is a common opinion. That game had a really, really awesome ending. The whole sort of lead up to the castle, trying to find the castle, getting to the top, hearing the build up of the organ up the steps, finally duking it out with Ganondorf. Rescuing Zelda.  You think he's dead, but then the tower starts to crash. You have to race down with Zelda, running with her, fighting through stalfos, getting attacked by fire and rocks and crashing wall to get out in time. That's all exhilarating. And then everything just crashes down and you think you're done. You just gone through a gauntlet because the fight's hard. Like Ocarina of Time was challenging. And even going down the tower's challenging. But then after that, there's one more fight. And he evolves into Ganon. That's when he becomes Ganon, which is also a crazy thing. It shows when Ganondorf becomes Ganon, which is a huge story thing. And you have that fight, and there's this moment where he knocks out the master sword and you also don't have access to Navi. Like, well, you get Navi during the Ganon fight, but you don't have that. But the point is like, there are these moments that that entire series of battles does. It makes you feel uncomfortable for moments. And how does the game end?  And, you know, then it has a pretty somber ending, which I think is kind of cool. Most games don't end that strong. Breath of the Wild did not end that strong. It took me, when I was a kid, it took me two years to be documenting the thing. This was because I didn't own it. I kept having to rent it from a blockbuster. So it was one of those situations where I didn't get to play it as often as I wanted to. I thought everything about that sequence was epic and cool and amazing. I didn't think the actual fights were that difficult, but the escape sequence and all that, that was hard. Like the tennis match was not that difficult. The, you know, going underneath his body and slashing his tail, again, not that difficult. At that point, I had faced harder things in the game than those fights. However, however, the whole sequence of events is really cool. And the Oregon plane, that I agree, that's all really, really cool. And there hasn't really been moments really comparable necessarily to that exact thing in other Zelda games. There's been attempts at it that haven't really been as great. I would argue, though, that none of that's even the ending.  And when you get sent back to being a kid, I understand in the grand context is pretty timeless, but whatever.  All this epicness doesn't matter, because I have to do it all over again, just to get the same ending. But by the way, I did play all the way to the end, again, thinking that it would be different. And it wasn't. I just got sent back to being a kid again, which created an infinite time loop, which to me meant nothing I did mattered. The real story here is I'm stuck in an infinite time loop, and there's no way out. And that's the real story of Ocarina of Time, is there's no way out. Now, you find out later, the time I explained Hyrule's story, I grow up and find out that's not really what's happening. But as a child, what else am I supposed to think? I'm sending you back to your childhood, so you can have a childhood.  It felt like the game ripped it from me. It ripped my entire journey from me and said, here you go, become a kid and do it all over again. That's what it feels like. I know they explain it in some different ways, but factually, you restart the game. That's not how I interpret it. I interpret it as they have already acknowledged what's to come. To me, it was like the most disappointing ending to a Zelda game I've ever experienced. You go through all this, your whole goal is to save Zelda, and you're trying to be awesome, and you finally get to the end. You're supposed to have this nice happy ending, and you're going to be with Zelda forever, and it's going to be all great. Whether we're boyfriend or girlfriend, it doesn't really matter.  Oh, you didn't have your childhood. Oh, we're going to send you back in time. And guess what? Nothing that you did happen or mattered. So I understand that there's alternative explanations, but I'm telling you, if you forget the explanation, and just think about that experience, first time experience, playing through the game, you get to the end, you get sent back, and you're like, okay, the game's not over. I'm still playing.  That's definitely your interpretation, and it may be part of the reason why you hate Zelda. No, that was not my interpretation at all. Were you not sent back to being a child where nothing new did happen yet? That's not true though. Oh my god, I'm making myself sick. Did I really say that? I literally had the ending playing on loop back here, although it's like a 24 minute thing right now they're doing the whole escape from the castle running down it while the rocks are falling. Look, I'm sorry. First off, I owe a major apology to Andre's restart. We've already taught behind the scenes, so we're all good.  I also need to apologize to my audience, the hundreds of you that were in the chat, well really tens of dozens of you that were in the chat, telling me how wrong I was and saying what an embarrassment it is. You're not wrong. You're right. It was completely embarrassing. Beyond all of that, I need to apologize to anyone who watched the podcast after the fact because that entire segment is near unwatchable, not just because I'm so vehemently wrong, but because I'm constantly cutting off Andre. Now I want to be a little bit fairer to myself on the cutting off point. So we had a new setup for our podcast yesterday and like literally 30, 40 minutes into the podcast, somebody mentioned that Andre's restart was peaking and being too loud, so he turned down the microphone on his side. However, the problem is that turned down the volume on our side as well. So from that point moving forward, I could barely hear him.  In the future, there's ways we can remedy this. We can go back to wearing headphones, which I really don't want to do. We don't really have the most comfortable of headphones. We've tried numerous different types. Honestly, we just need to get some really expensive ones that are comfortable to wear for long sessions because otherwise it just hurts. But it is what it is. I also have my children sleeping in the house, so I don't want to necessarily have all the noise blacked out around me with headphones. So that is something that we obviously need to correct before the show, not during the show. That way, there's not all of a sudden, I can't hear our guests for like half the show. That's not good. So that's one thing that led to that. And another thing is just, yeah, I was so wrong and everybody knew it. It is one of the most embarrassing moments of my Zelda fan life. I just beat Ocarina of Time two months ago and swore by this concept of a time loop ending that doesn't exist.  Honestly, moments like this happen. And I call this my old man moment, right? Because I'm in my mid 30s, right? I'm not getting any younger, you know? By the time, you know, Breath of Wild 2 comes out, the next Zelda that comes out after that, I'll probably be in my 40s. And reality is, my memory might not be working as well as it once did. Apparently even my short term memory from two months ago. I don't want to blame that. I'm just being dumb. There was a moment last night that I was laying in bed thinking about this after the fact and I go, why the hell do people watch me on YouTube? I mean, I know I'm a fun loving guy and we have giveaways, including one right now, for a Switch OLED bundle and $100 to a charity of your choice. All you got to do is be subscribed to the channel. But beyond my personality, which you guys can have a lot of fun with, and you know, we'll have some drinks on live streams and I'll be bubbly and we'll have, man, oh man, oh man. I always felt like no matter what I said or did or was wrong about in gaming, I could always fall back on the fact that I know my Zelda and I know it back and forth because I've been covering it for so long. And then this has such a bad brain fart to the point that at least to a 40 minute, essentially me bitching and being completely wrong for 40 straight minutes on a podcast and wasting everybody's time, including our guests. I don't know that I could forgive myself for that. Other people have come on to say, Hey, it happens. But not like that. Other people might be wrong in a moment, but it doesn't go on for 40 minutes where you feel like you're laughing at your guest when really you're the one that should be getting laughed at you. I mean, I completely own it. I messed up. It wasn't entertaining. It wasn't fun.  I'm no longer consider myself an expert at anything in video games.  I have no idea. What I do know is I messed up. I'm sorry. It is what it is. My Zelda fan card has, you know, my Zelda mega fan card anyway has been revoked. I'm still looking forward to Breath of the Wild 2, no matter why. We'll see if I decide if I want to put in the work to re-earn that Zelda fan card and get back into Zelda fan theories. Then again, I'm the one that gave myself the Zelda fan mega card. Nobody else gave it to me. So I guess I'm just revoking my own self opinion. So this video is all about me not only apologizing for my massive mistake, but also revoking something that I imaginearily is that that's what I'm saying. That's a word right now. It's probably not gave to myself. Whatever. It is what it is. This is not the video I thought was going to be made today. You know, I thought we were going to have a cool podcast. Get back to the news. We did do a quick little news video on sales earlier today, but man, oh man, oh man.  Man. No, I'm not retiring. Sorry.  I ain't going anywhere, folks. The hackers couldn't take me down. The haters couldn't take me down. And me being so blatantly wrong about something Zelda related. So to all my haters out there, if you thought this met the end of Nintendo Prime, and to everyone out there that thinks my Zelda fan card should be thrown in the shredder and burned for all eternity to that.  So yeah, I'm good. I'm good over here. We're all good. Andre's restarted me are all good. There's no issues there. I do feel really bad about the type of content I put out yesterday. It is what it is. It's embarrassing. Maybe the most embarrassing thing I've ever done on my channel, even more embarrassing than like a couple of years ago when I was really ebagging and stuff. And I fully admit that happened. And that was really embarrassing. This is worse. This is something I always thought I was an expert in. And then I mess up that badly. This is the ending right here. Look at this. This is the ending of October of Time on the N64. I know this ending. I've experienced this ending two months ago. What's wrong with me? I'm just getting older. I need to be a little more less stubborn as well. I got this stubborn nature to me when I'm so sure about something that I'm so obviously wrong on.  I could have looked like literally the ending takes about 24 minutes, 20-ish minutes or so. I have a computer right here. I could have played the ending under that whole debate and just, oh, yep, I'm wrong. And I didn't. I gotta be better. I'll be better in the future, guys. I'm sorry about that. That being said, I ain't going anywhere, baby! Nintendo Prime is here to stay! Love it or hate it. Hackers couldn't take me out. Haters couldn't take me out.  Can anything stop this hype train? I guess YouTube could just decide to terminate my channel again. Yeah, by instance. Ah, folks, I'll catch you guys in the very next video tomorrow.


The role of the United States Magistrate Judge with Judge D. Brock Hornby, United States District Court for the District of Maine. Judge Hornby formally served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Maine from 1982 to 1988. He is currently a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. For the most part, United States District judges have little control over what appears on their docket within their constitutional and statutory duties. District judges must conduct every proceeding and decide every issue as it comes their way with limited assistance from law clerks and occasionally as staff attorney. Congress, however, has created, recently I might add, in the scheme of judicial time, a separate category of judicial officers to whom Article III District judges can actually divert some of their workload and who can be a tremendous help in managing a busy docket. I speak, of course, of United States Magistrate judges. The primary sources of Magistrate Judge authority are 28 United States Code Section 636, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72 through 76, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 3 through 5.1, 32.1, 40 to 41, and 58, and the separate rules for Section 2254 and 2255 cases. It is convenient for discussion purposes to consider the authority of Magistrate judges in two categories, civil and criminal. Section 636C of Title 28 allows a Magistrate judge to exercise the full range of authority of a District judge in a civil case if the parties file a written consent. The appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contains a sample consent form. If the parties consent, the Magistrate judge can resolve every issue in the case, preside at the trial, whether jury or bench, and enter the judgment of the District Court. The only peculiarity is that the parties may also elect to appeal the Magistrate judge's decision to the District Court, which then operates like a court of appeals, or they can take the ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals. Except for a few districts, the usual route of appeal is directly to the Court of Appeals. Rules 73 to 75 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lay out in detail the procedures for any appeal from a decision of a Magistrate judge who has entered judgment in a case. If the parties do not consent, there is still a wide range of things the Magistrate judge can do in civil cases that will relieve a burdened Article III judge. On motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, motions to certify or dismiss a class, and motions for injunctive relief, a Magistrate judge can make a report and recommend a decision to the District judge. If the parties are notified of their right to object and fail to file an objection, they waive any objections, both in the District Court and on appeal. If one or the other party does file an objection, the District judge must make a de novo decision, but the judge then has the benefit of the focus provided by the Magistrate judge's recommendation. On all other pretrial matters, for example, discovery motions and case management issues, the Magistrate judge is authorized to resolve the issues. Any appeal to the District judge can yield a reversal only if the Magistrate judge's decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This very relaxed standard of review obviously makes the District judge's reviewing role easy in most cases. If the defendant consents, Magistrate judges may conduct all the proceedings in a misdemeanor case, including presiding over a jury or bench trial, then enter judgment and sentence the defendant with the full authority of the District Court. In both felony and misdemeanor cases, even without a consent, Magistrate judges can conduct initial appearances under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, preliminary examinations or probable cause hearings under Rule 5.1, detention or bail hearings under Sections 3141 through 3144 of Title 18 United States Code and arraignments where the plea is not guilty. Only the pre-trial release or detention order is subject to review by the District judge. Magistrate judges are also authorized under Section 636 of Title 28 to conduct suppression hearings and to consider motions to dismiss or quash an indictment. For these, they make a report and recommended decision that the District judge must review de novo, but the District judge then has the advantage in the suppression context of being able to review a transcript rather than sit through the entire proceeding. On other criminal pre-trial matters, such as discovery, motions for bill of particulars, et cetera, Magistrate judges can also make the decisions. The review by the District judge is then only for matters that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A Magistrate judge is not able to take a guilty plea or to impose sentence in a felony case, although some districts have experimented with a recommended decision on a guilty plea.  They can of course conduct their own probation revocation or supervision of release revocation hearings in misdemeanor cases where they have imposed the sentence. In other cases, they can issue warrants and conduct probable cause hearings on a revocation for a District judge, and indeed can conduct the revocation hearing and make a recommended decision. In habeas corpus proceedings under section 2254 or 2255, Magistrate judges can also review the record, consider the briefs, conduct evidentiary hearings, and make a report and recommended decision that the District judge will then review de novo. In short, Magistrate judges have an exceedingly wide range of authority which, if exercised, can greatly assist an Article III judge. I have not even discussed other routine incidental matters such as criminal complaints, arrest and search warrants, removal of a defendant from one district to another, appointment of a lawyer for an indigent defendant, receiving indictments when the grand jury rises and the like. Let's talk now about how Magistrate judges are actually used in practice. Perhaps the greatest strength of the Magistrate judge system is its flexibility. In other words, the duties of Magistrate judges may be formulated differently from district to district in order to serve the best the needs of each particular district. However, the workload of the district is allocated. District judges should make clear that Magistrate judges have been appointed to exercise judicial authority and they should not be delegated non-judicial duties. I will try to describe the most common ways in which Magistrate judges function around the country, ranging from the most universal to the most unusual. Magistrate judges are used countrywide to preside at trials or to take pleas in petty offense cases that arise on federal property. In areas with significant national park property or large military bases, this can be a significant part of the docket. In more serious criminal cases, Magistrate judges are used everywhere to review criminal complaints, applications for arrest and search warrants, to conduct initial appearances under rule five, preliminary examinations under rule 5.1 if there's no indictment, and removal hearings under rule 40 and to conduct detention hearings. These are matters that frequently come up with little or no notice and the availability of Magistrate judges means that a district judge does not have to interrupt an ongoing trial or sentencing proceeding. In districts with more than one Magistrate judge, a rotation system is sometimes established so that one Magistrate judge exercises these preliminary criminal duties for a set period of time. In many districts, Magistrate judges are used in civil cases to resolve discovery disputes and other pretrial matters such as attachment and garnishment. They also frequently conduct settlement conferences and perform or supervise alternative dispute resolution services in their districts. An important number conduct the initial rule 16 conference and issue the scheduling orders, thereby fulfilling an important docket management function. Many also conduct final pretrial conferences. In some district, Magistrate judges have developed an extensive expertise in social security disability law and are assigned the entire social security docket in the federal trial court. Often, the parties consent to their resolving these cases completely. If not, the Magistrate judge issues a report and recommended decision that is customarily adopted by the district court. If there are no procé clerks to handle prisoner cases, Magistrate judges may develop an expertise in prisoner litigation. They then handle all the requests to proceed in form of operas and conduct the initial review for whether a matter is frivolous or malicious such that it can be dismissed under 28 United States code section 1915. They are also authorized to conduct evidentiary hearings on conditions of confinement. In some districts, Magistrate judges go to the prison facility to conduct hearings. Magistrate judges are often asked also to review state habeas corpus case records under 28 United States code section 2254 and to bring the case to a recommended decision. They are less frequently asked to conduct the section 2255 or federal habeas corpus proceeding because the district judge who has presided at the trial or guilty plea and has imposed the sentence has firsthand knowledge of many of the issues raised in the section 2255 motion. In a substantial number of districts, Magistrate judges conduct hearings on contested dispositive motions such as motions to suppress in a criminal case or to dismiss an indictment or motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in a civil case. They then issue recommended decisions. District judges who use Magistrate judges in this fashion find that the process often simplifies the matter by the time it reaches the district judge on review. Although there is the added cost to the court and the parties of an extra layer of review. In almost all districts, Magistrate judges are now trying civil cases to final judgment by consent of the parties and the number of such cases is growing. Civil Justice Reform Act plans in many districts are encouraging such consents. If the parties are unwilling to consent to the Magistrate judge's jurisdiction in its entirety, they may nevertheless consent to the Magistrate judge resolving with finality a particular motion such as a motion for preliminary injunction or for summary judgment or trying a particular issue in a case. For example, the voluntariness and validity of a purported settlement that must be resolved before the underlying tort can be tried. Finally, the parties frequently consent to letting the Magistrate judge impanel the jury in a civil case, thereby saving the district judge's time to conduct sentencing or other trials. There are some novel uses of Magistrate judges that have not yet received general appellate approval and I will therefore mention them only in passing. These include reversing the presumption of consent and requiring the parties to indicate that they declined to consent to the Magistrate judge's jurisdiction and use of Magistrate judges to conduct Rule 11 proceedings on a guilty plea in a felony case and then recommend to the district judge whether to accept the guilty plea. I have been speaking, by the way, of full-time Magistrate judges. Many districts have part-time Magistrate judges, often located in areas that have no other federal judicial resources. Most part-time Magistrate judges devote their time to misdemeanor and petty offense cases and preliminary procedures in felony cases, but they are able to handle civil duties if so designated by the district court. I turn now to the methods of assigning duties to Magistrate judges. The basic criminal matters are usually assigned routinely by local rule, standing order, or custom and practice. For the rest of Magistrate judges' functions, there are many variations among the 94 districts on how they receive their assignments, but the following basic patterns can be identified. In some districts, district judges refer a particular case to a Magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. The Magistrate judge then conducts all matters up to a specified point, such as final pretrial conference, unless the district judge revokes the reference. More often, a local rule or standing order directs the Magistrate judges have responsibility for certain categories of matters. They then routinely receive all such matters directly from the clerk's office, subject to some adjustment from time to time, depending upon the respective workloads of the Magistrate judges and district judges, and the emergency needs of the case. In a growing number of districts, the entire civil docket is being divided among all the district judges and Magistrate judges as the cases come in. The Magistrate judge is then responsible for his or her docket just as the district judge is. If there is no consent by the parties by a specified event in the progress of the case, then the case is reassigned to a district judge. In some districts, a Magistrate judge is paired with one or more district judges and automatically conducts the district judge's pretrial management and motions. This procedure has also been carried a step farther, such that the Magistrate judge participates on a civil trial list with the district judge and is ready to try the case if the district judge is already in trial unless the party is declined to consent. A district judge may also assign a particular motion or matter to a Magistrate judge, for example, a summary judgment motion, but otherwise retain complete control over the case for all other matters. Whatever the duties the Magistrate judges perform, the remaining question for a district judge is how to review Magistrate judges' decisions if they are challenged. Title 28, United States Code, Section 636 and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear that there are two standards of review. One is de novo review. The other standard is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Generally speaking, all non-dispositive matters are subject to the weaker standard of review. As a consequence, a district judge is not to substitute his or her own judgment for what would be an appropriate ruling in the case, but rather is to determine only whether what the Magistrate judge has done is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In the so-called dispositive category of cases on the other hand, the district judge must review the record and make a de novo decision provided that the parties have properly and timely presented their objection. Even here, substantial economies can be achieved because the district judge may be able to review a transcript quickly rather than sit through an entire evidentiary hearing. The district judge is certainly likely to have a much better focused presentation by the lawyers as to what is in dispute following the Magistrate judge's recommendation. Nevertheless, care and attention should be given in deciding which dispositive motions to assign to the Magistrate judge because the practice can easily lead to wasteful duplication of judicial and attorney time and effort, especially when only questions of law are involved. Then the result is unnecessary delay and increased attorney fees. Customarily in a de novo review case, the parties can be confined to the record made before the Magistrate judge. The district judge obviously has the option to reopen the record, but doing so in any but the extraordinary case is likely to lead to abuse of the process by lawyers. District judges can encourage lawyers to give more credence to Magistrate judge's decisions by insisting that they present all their arguments, issues and evidentiary disputes to the Magistrate judge and not save them for review of the decision before the district judge. A procedure that is also unfair, I might add to the opposing party. Finally, district judges should be acutely conscious of the long-term significance of their decisions affirming or reversing Magistrate judges. To the extent that district judges show full confidence in the Magistrate judge by routinely affirming when they conclude that the Magistrate judge's decision is essentially correct, they will discourage frivolous appeals by the bar in future cases. Routinely second guessing the Magistrate judge on the other hand, or affirming the Magistrate judge but only after a complete reworking of the opinion will probably reduce the time-saving element of using Magistrate judges and encourage future appeals. As in so many other matters in the federal district courts, local traditions and cultures vary greatly from district to district. As a result, in a few districts, there is still resistance to the wide use of Magistrate judges and concern about maintaining district judges' privileges and status. In most districts where Magistrate judges have been widely used and given the full authority available to them under the statute and rules on the other hand, the workload has been handled in a more effective and efficient manner and district judges have been well satisfied with their performance. The Magistrate judges committee of the Judicial Conference has endorsed the view that courts should give Magistrate judges the widest responsibility possible. Full utilization enhances the district's ability to attract outstanding applicants. Some of the best state trial judges have become willing to apply for the position given its responsibility, salary, and retirement benefits. The result has been important and able assistance to the district judges with no apparent loss of prestige or control over the docket. Indeed, more than 60 of your colleagues, district and circuit judges, were previously Magistrate judges and the number is growing. You, of course, must work within the confines and traditions of your own district, but I urge you to give Magistrate judges the widest responsibility possible and to treat these able judicial officers with respect and dignity as befits their important responsibilities.


The opportunity to be given to in that it is a great success for the WIPO Academy at the occasion of 20 years anniversary.


My fellow Americans, some two months ago we were shocked by the brutal massacre of 269 men, women, and children, more than 60 other Americans in the shooting down of a Korean airliner. Now in these past several days violence has erupted again in Lebanon and Grenada. In Lebanon we have some 1,600 Marines, part of a multinational force that's trying to help the people of Lebanon restore order and stability to that troubled land. Our Marines are assigned to the south of the city of Beirut near the only airport operating in Lebanon. Just a mile or so to the north is the Italian contingent and not far from them the French and the company of British soldiers. This past Sunday at 22 minutes after 6 Beirut time with dawn just breaking, a truck looking like a lot of other vehicles in the city approached the airport on a busy main road. There was nothing in its appearance to suggest it was any different than the trucks or cars that were normally seen on and around the airport. But this one was different. At the wheel was a young man on a suicide mission. The truck carried some 2,000 pounds of explosives but there was no way our Marine guards could know this. Their first warning that something was wrong came when the truck crashed through a series of barriers including a chain link fence and barbed wire entanglements. The guards opened fire but it was too late. The truck smashed through the doors of the headquarters building in which our Marines were sleeping and instantly exploded. The four-story concrete building collapsed in a pile of rubble. More than 200 of the sleeping men were killed in that one hideous insane attack. Many others suffered injury and are hospitalized here or in Europe. This was not the end of the horror. At almost the same instant another vehicle on a suicide and murder mission crashed into the headquarters of the French peacekeeping force an ape story building destroying it and killing more than 50 French soldiers. Prior to this day of horror there had been several tragedies for our men in the multinational force. Attacks by snipers and mortar fire had taken their toll. I called bereaved parents and or widows of the victims to express on behalf of all of us our sorrow and sympathy. Sometimes there were questions and now many of you are asking why should our young men be dying in Lebanon? Why is Lebanon important to us? Well it's true Lebanon is a small country more than five and a half thousand miles from our shores on the edge of what we call the Middle East but every president who has occupied this office in recent years has recognized that peace in the Middle East is of vital concern to our nation and indeed to our allies in Western Europe and Japan. We've been concerned because the Middle East is a powder cake four times in the last 30 years the Arabs and Israelis have gone to war and each time the world has teetered near the edge of catastrophe. The areas key to the economic and political life of the West its strategic importance its energy resources the Suez Canal and the well-being of the nearly 200 million people living there all are vital to us and to world peace. If that key should fall into the hands of a power or powers hostile to the free world there would be a direct threat to the United States and to our allies. We have another reason to be involved. Since 1948 our nation has recognized and accepted a moral obligation to assure the continued existence of Israel as a nation. Israel shares our democratic values and is a formidable force an invader of the Middle East would have to reckon with. For several years Lebanon has been torn by internal strife once a prosperous peaceful nation its government had become ineffective in controlling the militias that ward on each other. 16 months ago we were watching on our TV screens the shelling and bombing of Beirut which was being used as a fortress by PLO bands. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians were being killed and wounded in the daily battles. Syria which makes no secret of its claim that Lebanon should be a part of a greater Syria was occupying a large part of Lebanon. Today Syria has become a home for 7,000 Soviet advisers and technicians who man a massive amount of Soviet weaponry including SS-21 ground to ground missiles capable of reaching vital areas of Israel. A little over a year ago hoping to build in the Camp David Accords which had led to peace between Israel and Egypt I proposed a peace plan for the Middle East to end the wars between the Arab states and Israel. It was based on UN resolutions 242 and 338 and called for a fair and just solution to the Palestinian problem as well as a fair and just settlement of issues between the Arab states and Israel. Before the necessary negotiations could begin it was essential to get all foreign forces out of Lebanon and to end the fighting there. So why are we there? Well the answer is straightforward to help bring peace to Lebanon and stability to the vital Middle East. To that end the multinational force was created to help stabilize the situation in Lebanon until a government could be established and a Lebanese army mobilized to restore Lebanese sovereignty over its own soil as the foreign forces withdrew. Israel agreed to withdraw as did Syria but Syria then reneged on its promise. Over 10,000 Palestinians who had been bringing ruin down in Beirut however did leave the country. Lebanon has formed a government under the leadership of President Jamal and that government with our assistance and training has set up its own army. In only a year's time that army has been rebuilt. It's a good army composed of Lebanese of all factions. A few weeks ago the Israeli army pulled back to the Awali River in southern Lebanon. Despite fierce resistance by Syrian-backed forces the Lebanese army was able to hold the line and maintain the defensive perimeter around Beirut. In the year that our Marines have been there Lebanon has made important steps towards stability and order. The physical presence of the Marines lends support to both the Lebanese government and its army. It allows the hard work of diplomacy to go forward. Indeed without the peacekeepers from the U.S., France, Italy and Britain the efforts to find a peaceful solution in Lebanon would collapse. As to that narrower question what exactly is the operational mission of the Marines the answer is to secure a piece of Beirut to keep order in their sector and to prevent the area from becoming a battlefield. Our Marines are not just sitting in an airport part of their task is to guard that airport. Because of their presence the airport has remained operational in addition they patrol the surrounding area. This is their part a limited but essential part in the larger effort that I've described. If our Marines must be there I'm asked why can't we make them safer? Who committed this latest atrocity against them and why? We'll do everything we can to ensure that our men are as safe as possible. We ordered the battleship New Jersey to join our naval forces offshore without even firing them. The threat of its 16 inch guns silenced those who once fired down in our Marines from the hills and they're a good part of the reason we suddenly had a ceasefire. We're doing our best to make our forces less vulnerable to those who want to snipe at them or send in future suicide missions. Secretary Schultz called me today from Europe where he was meeting with the foreign ministers of our allies in the multinational force. They remain committed to our task and plans were made to share information as to how we can improve security for all our men. We have strong circumstantial evidence that the attack on the Marines was directed by terrorists who use the same method to destroy our embassy in Beirut.  The obvious purpose behind the sniping and now this attack was to weaken American will and force the withdrawal of US and French forces from Lebanon. The clear intent of the terrorists was to eliminate our support of the Lebanese government and to destroy the ability of the Lebanese people to determine their own destiny. To answer those who ask if we're serving any purpose in being there let me answer a question with a question. Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks against the multinational force if it were not doing its job? The multinational force was attacked precisely because it is doing the job it was sent to do in Beirut. It is accomplishing its mission. Now then where do we go from here? What can we do now to help Lebanon gain greater stability so that our Marines can come home? I believe we can take three steps now that will make a difference. First we will accelerate the search for peace and stability in that region. Little attention has been paid to the fact that we've had special envoys there working literally around the clock to bring the warring factions together. This coming Monday in Geneva President Jamiel of Lebanon will sit down with other factions from his country to see if national reconciliation can be achieved. He has our firm support. I will soon be announcing a replacement for Bud McFarlane who was preceded by Phil Habib. Both work tirelessly and must be credited for much if not most of the progress we've made. Second we'll work even more closely with our allies in providing support for the government of Lebanon and for the rebuilding of a national consensus. Third we will ensure that the multinational peacekeeping forces, our Marines, are given the greatest possible protection. Our commandant of the Marine Corps, General Kelly, returned from Lebanon today and will be advising us on steps we can take to improve security. Vice President Bush returned just last night from Beirut and gave me a full report of his brief visit. Beyond our progress in Lebanon, let us remember that our main goal and purpose is to achieve a broader peace in all of the Middle East. The factions and bitterness that we see in Lebanon are just a microcosm of the difficulties that are spread across much of that region. A peace initiative for the entire Middle East consistent with the Camp David Accords and UN resolutions 242 and 338 still offers the best hope for bringing peace to the region. Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon. If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism? If America were to walk away from Lebanon, what chance would there be for a negotiated settlement producing a unified democratic Lebanon? If we turned our backs on Lebanon now, what would be the future of Israel? At stake is the fate of only the second Arab country to negotiate a major agreement with Israel. That's another accomplishment of this past year, the May 17th Accord signed by Lebanon and Israel. If terrorism and intimidation succeed, it'll be a devastating blow to the peace process and to Israel's search for genuine security. It won't just be Lebanon's sentence to a future of chaos. Can the United States or the free world for that matter stand by and see the Middle East incorporated into the Soviet bloc? What of Western Europe and Japan's dependence on Middle East oil for the energy to fuel their industries? The Middle East is, as I said, vital to our national security and economic well-being. Brave young men have been taken from us. Many others have been grievously wounded. Are we to tell them their sacrifice was wasted? They gave their lives in defense of our national security every bit as much as any man who ever died fighting in a war. We must not strip every ounce of meaning and purpose from their courageous sacrifice. We're a nation with global responsibilities. We're not somewhere else in the world protecting someone else's interest. We're there protecting our own. I received a message from the father of a Marine in Lebanon. He told me, in a world where we speak of human rights, there is a sad lack of acceptance of responsibility. My son has chosen the acceptance of responsibility for the privilege of living in this country. Certainly in this country, one does not inherently have rights unless the responsibility for these rights is accepted. Dr. Kenneth Morrison said that while he was waiting to learn if his son was one of the dead. I was thrilled for him to learn today that his son Ross is alive and well and carrying on his duties in Lebanon. Let us meet our responsibilities. For longer than any of us can remember, the people of the Middle East have lived from war to war with no prospect for any other future. That dreadful cycle must be broken. Why are we there?  Now, because of our presence there, she said her daughter could live a normal life. With patience and firmness, we can help bring peace to that strife torn region and make our own lives more secure. Our role is to help the Lebanese put their country together, not to do it for them. Now, I know another part of the world is very much in our minds, a place much closer to our shores. Grenada. The island is only twice the size of the District of Columbia with a total population of about 110,000 people. Grenada and a half dozen other Caribbean islands here were until recently British colonies. They're now independent states and members of the British Commonwealth. While they respect each other's independence, they also feel a kinship with each other and think of themselves as one people. In 1979, trouble came to Grenada. Maurice Bishop, a protégé of Fidel Castro, staged a military coup and overthrew the government which had been elected under the constitution left to the people by the British. He sought the help of Cuba in building an airport, which he claimed was for tourist trade, but which looked suspiciously suitable for military aircraft, including Soviet built long range bombers. The six sovereign countries and one remaining colony are joined together in what they call the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The six became increasingly alarmed as Bishop built an army greater than all of theirs combined. Obviously, it was not purely for defense. In this last year or so, Prime Minister Bishop gave indications that he might like better relations with the United States. He even made a trip to our country and met with senior officials at the White House and the State Department. Whether he was serious or not, we'll never know. On October 12th, a small group in his militia seized him and put him under arrest. They were, if anything, more radical and more devoted to Castro's Cuba than he had been. Several days later, a crowd of citizens appeared before Bishop's home, freed him, and escorted him toward the headquarters of the military council. They were fired upon. A number, including some children, were killed and Bishop was seized. He and several members of his cabinet were subsequently executed.  Grenada was without a government. It's only authority exercised by a self-proclaimed band of military men. There were then about 1,000 of our citizens on Grenada, 800 of them students in St. George's University Medical School. Concerned that they'd be harmed or held as hostages, I ordered a flotilla of ships then on its way to Lebanon with Marines, part of our regular rotation program, to circle south on a course that would put them somewhere in the vicinity of Grenada in case there should be a need to evacuate our people. Last weekend, I was awakened in the early morning hours and told that six members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, joined by Jamaica and Barbados, had sent an urgent request that we join them in a military operation to restore order and democracy to Grenada. They were proposing this action under the terms of a treaty, a mutual assistance pack that existed among them. These small peaceful nations needed our help. Three of them don't have armies at all and the others have very limited forces. The legitimacy of their request, plus my own concern for our citizens, dictated my decision. I believe our government has a responsibility to go to the aid of its citizens if their right to life and liberty is threatened. The nightmare of our hostages in Iran must never be repeated. We knew we had a little time and the complete secrecy was vital to ensure both the safety of the young men would undertake this mission and the Americans they were about to rescue. The Joint Chiefs worked around the clock to come up with a plan. They had little intelligence information about conditions on the island. We had to assume that several hundred Cubans working on the airport could be military reserves. Well as it turned out the number was much larger and they were a military force. Six hundred of them have been taken prisoner and we have discovered a complete base with weapons and communications equipment which makes it clear a Cuban occupation of the island had been planned. Two hours ago we released the first photos from Grenada. They included pictures of a warehouse of military equipment, one of three we've uncovered so far. This warehouse contained weapons and ammunition stacked almost to the ceiling enough to supply thousands of terrorists. Grenada we were told was a friendly island paradise for tourism. Well it wasn't. It was a Soviet Cuban colony being readied as a major military bastion to export terror and undermine democracy. We got there just in time. I can't say enough in praise of our military. Army Rangers and paratroopers, Navy, Marine and Air Force personnel, those who planned a brilliant campaign and those who carried it out. Almost instantly our military seized the two airports, secured the campus where most of our students were and are now in the mopping up phase. It should be noted that in all the planning a top priority was to minimize risk to avoid casualties to our own men and also the Grenadian forces as much as humanly possible. But there were casualties and we all owe a debt to those who lost their lives or were wounded. They were few in number but even one is a tragic price to pay. It's our intention to get our men out as soon as possible. Prime Minister Eugenia Charles of Dominican. I call that wrong. She pronounces it Dominica. She is chairman of OECS. She's calling for help from Commonwealth nations in giving the people their right to establish a constitutional government on Grenada. We anticipate that the Governor General, a Grenadian, will participate in setting up a provisional government in the interim. The events in Lebanon and Grenada, though oceans apart, are closely related. Not only has Moscow assisted and encouraged the violence in both countries but it provides direct support through a network of surrogates and terrorists. It is no coincidence that when the thugs tried to rest control over Grenada there were 30 Soviet advisors and hundreds of Cuban military and paramilitary forces on the island. At the moment of our landing we communicated with the governments of Cuba and the Soviet Union and told them we would offer shelter and security to their people on Grenada. Regrettably Castro ordered his men to fight to the death and some did. The others will be sent to their homelands. You know there was a time when our national security was based on a standing army here within our own borders and shore batteries of artillery along our coasts and of course a navy to keep the sea lanes open for the shipping of things necessary to our well-being. The world has changed. Today our national security can be threatened in faraway places. It's up to all of us to be aware of the strategic importance of such places and to be able to identify them. Sam Rayburn once said that freedom is not something a nation can work for once and win forever. He said it's like an insurance policy. Its premiums must be kept up to date. In order to keep it we have to keep working for it and sacrificing for it just as long as we live. If we do not our children may not know the pleasure of working to keep it for it may not be theirs to keep. In these last few days I've been more sure than I've ever been that we Americans of today will keep freedom and maintain peace. I've been made to feel that by the magnificent spirit of our young men and women in uniform and by something here in our nation's capital. In this city where political strife is so much a part of our lives I've seen Democratic leaders in the Congress join their Republican colleagues send a message to the world that we're all Americans before we're anything else and when our country is threatened we stand shoulder to shoulder in support of our men and women in the armed forces. May I share something with you I think you'd like to know. It's something that happened to the common dad of our Marine Corps General Paul Kelly while he was visiting our critically injured Marines in an Air Force hospital. It says more than any of us could ever hope to say about the gallantry and heroism of these young men. Young men who serve so willingly so that others might have a chance at peace and freedom in their own lives and in the life of their country. I'll let General Kelly's words describe the incident. He spoke of a quote young Marine with more tubes going in and out of his body than I have ever seen in one body. He couldn't see very well. He reached up and grabbed my four stars just to make sure I was who I said I was. He held my hand with a firm grip. He was making signals and we realized he wanted to tell me something. We put a pad of paper in his hand and he wrote Semper fi. Well have you been a Marine or if like myself you're an admirer of the Marines.  They're Marine shorthand for the motto of the Corps. Semper Fidelis always faithful. General Kelly has a reputation for being a very sophisticated general and a very tough Marine. But he cried when he saw those words and who can blame him. That Marine and all those others like him living and dead have been faithful to their ideals. They've given willingly of themselves so that a nearly defenseless people in a region of great strategic importance to the free world will have a chance someday to live lives free of murder and mayhem and terrorism. I think that young Marine and all of his comrades have given every one of us something to live up to. They were not afraid to stand up for their country or no matter how difficult and slow the journey might be to give to others that last best hope of a better future. We cannot and will not dishonor them now and the sacrifices they've made by failing to remain as faithful to the cause of freedom and the pursuit of peace as they have been. I will not ask you to pray for the dead because they're safe in God's loving arms and beyond need of our prayers. I would like to ask you all wherever you may be in this blessed land to pray for these wounded young men and to pray for the bereaved families of those who gave their lives for our freedom.


So these are the contents for today, a little bit of background, then I will describe a model based learning situation focusing on the sustainable development goals, then the method I use to assess whether this learning situation lesson was useful or not, and now I will show some primary results and finally I will state the limitations. A bit about the background, the background, I think all of you know about the SDGs, promoted by the United Nations, sustainable development goals, achieve a better world in 2030, the SDGs are interlinked, our SDG is for quality education and through four we can achieve most of the SDGs, education reduces poverty by increasing people's income, educated people are better informed about illnesses and take measures, sports, don't eat that much, don't drink that much, don't smoke, those things, education can empower women to overcome discrimination, the learning situation focusing on the SDGs, the participants were preserved teachers enrolled in a face-to-face English as a foreign language course, three groups of students, first year students participated in the study, in the learning situation, main goals of the learning situation, become familiar with the SDGs, remember they are further students, I asked them and most of them didn't know what the SDGs were, so it makes sense to become familiar with the SDGs, reflect on the importance of each SDG, reflect on how we can contribute to achieve the SDGs, reflect on the role of teachers, they are preserved teachers and they will become teachers, so it makes sense, for sure the students design activities incorporated one or more several SDGs and H5P content, Moodle is the LMS in my region also at university level but also in schools, so when they become teachers in the public system they will be using Moodle and they will have of course H5P too, again it's an ESL course so they should improve their level of English, the level of the class is B1, intermediate level, now we present a selection of activities, the lesson starts building vocabulary related to sustainability, we use H5P activities, on the lab we have drug the words and on the right I find the words, then the lesson continues with discovering the SDGs, we start with brain storming, what do you think are the biggest problems of the world today, it's not Amazon, it's not Netflix, doesn't work, these are the biggest problems, after that we watch a two minutes video about the SDGs produced by the United Nations, it has a hip hop rhythm and it's in English with Spanish subtitles, it briefly describes the 17 SDGs and I tell them after watching the video I will ask you how many SDGs do you remember, so we do an image juxtaposition and then I ask them about the goals, so what is number one and then we see the solution, so it's speaking activity, then once we know the names of the goals, the names of the sustainable development goals, we focus on the goals, on the aims of the goals, so we do some drag and drop and also drag the words to become familiar with the goals of the SDGs, then we move to a more complex activity and then I ask them to think what is the most important SDG for you and to think what they can do to achieve the SDGs, they can either write the short text or record an audio and then we discuss, it's a big one level, so writing, recording and audio and then they are ready to speak about it, it's a class discussion, other activities in the learning situation reflected on the role of teachers because they will have to make decisions, how they incorporated the SDGs, now it's compulsory so they will have to do it, but still they have to think about it, also they design a poster or infographic about the SDGs and we have some follow up assignments, we read the book Malala and also at the end of the course they design activities for primary school students incorporated one SDG and one H5P activity and they are able to do it, so I'm very happy at the end of the course, this was about the three hours method, before the lesson I tested their knowledge about the SDGs and also after and I also asked them what was their opinion about the lesson, so before the learning situation, half of the class didn't know about the SDGs and after the lesson we see that most of them they know it's promoted by the United Nations, about the number before, they don't know how many are there, after the lessons they do, we watch a video, an interactive H5P video about circular economy, so they understood the video because they are able to explain what is circular economy, I also asked them if it's important to introduce the SDGs in my course and as we can see most of them they think it is, I also asked them if the H5P activities help them to improve their knowledge about the SDGs and we can see again that we have positive answers, if they felt motivated using H5P and again we have positive results, main limitations, there's no control group, I don't know if doing that in a more traditional way would be better or not, because I thought it was going to be better, so I use Moodle, that's the platform we should use, a short test about the SDGs and a small sample, three groups and this is it, thank you for your attention. Anyone got questions about this presentation? I can answer easy questions, come on. Easy questions. Thank you. Yes, so you got them to make some H5P activities, what are the preferred ones? What are the favourite ones really, the most popular ones? Okay, I'm very surprised about how they use H5P because I spend two hours teaching them how to create H5P content, I teach them how to use three simple H5P activities and then they design 10 different ones, so I'm very surprised how fast they learn, I would say that all the people maybe don't learn stuff fast, but I would say students 17, 18 years old, they are just fast learners, so yeah, they use all sorts of H5P activities, even some that I didn't teach them how to use, so I'm very happy about that. Any more questions? It's specifically about the SDGs, do you find that they are more present in the kind of curriculum that you are addressing because is it something usual for you to find it in language training in this case because these are pre-service English teachers, do they get this sort of SDG content in the curriculum later on? Okay, our curriculum at my university is from 2011, so it means we have to change it because the SDGs are from 2015, but we didn't have the millennium objectives either, so we are in the process of changing that from top down, but from bottom up, the university encourages us to do that and introduce the SDGs, and now in the public sector, I mean primary school students, secondary school students also, okay, the youngest ones, also it's in the curriculum, in the new 2020 curriculum, so they will be dealing with that. Even if the previous generations didn't, we didn't teach them about that, or some teachers didn't, they will be at all levels, it's a European thing, so across all levels. No, no, it's in the curriculum, it's in the curriculum now, but not at the university level, we have to change it because it takes many years to change things at top down, but yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.