My research question is how should we organize the liquidation or the winding up of the state of a deceased person in order to explain what this topic is about, I need to place it into a broader context. When a person dies, he or she leaves property behind and the law needs to deal with the fate of that property. The area of law who deals with this question we call the law of succession. When we talk about the law of succession usually the question we are most interested in is the question of who gets what. Even though this question of who gets what is obviously very relevant from a practical point of view, my research question is a different one and it is the question of how. How is the desired distribution of the assets actually implemented? How do the assets get into the hands of the heirs or legates? At first sight it is a very simple question. The law simply needs to transfer the ownership of the asset from the deceased to the successor. However in most succession cases matters are much more complex and the reason is that the desired distribution is too complex to be brought about in a single step. I want to illustrate this point by providing two examples. The first example refers to a testator who writes in his will, I want to give a legacy of 50,000 euro to my loyal friend Martin. Usually the 50,000 euro will not be available in cash and lie in the testator safe. Rather it will be necessary to retrieve the money from a bank account first or even to sell assets from the estate. So we see the need in such a situation of a person who is in charge of carrying out these acts of transformation and we can call this person an executor or a liquidator. A second example to illustrate the need of such a mechanism refers to the fact that in a typical succession case there are not only assets to be distributed but also liabilities. These liabilities might arise for example from the deceased's funeral. They might also have existed already during the lifetime of the deceased. So the deceased had with other person the money he owed them. If we want to protect the creditors of the deceased again we need to designate a person who is in charge of paying these liabilities. From basic requirements of justice it follows that it should be the estate assets that should be used in order to pay these liabilities. So we understand that in many cases it is not possible to simply transfer the assets directly to the beneficiaries. Rather we need a more complex procedure. We first need to assess the situation. So now we come back to my research question which asks how this mechanism should be structured and there we can distinguish different questions. We can ask for example who should be in charge of the liquidation. Should it be someone nominated by the testator? Should we allow a beneficiary to act as liquidator or should we insist on nominating a neutral independent person? Also we need to design the general framework in which the liquidator operates. We need to decide for example whether he or she shall be able to act freely or whether we want to subject this person to a close supervision for example by a court or by some other state institution. Another question which we need to address is what happens if the liquidator mismanages the assets and thereby causes damage either to the creditors of the deceased or to the beneficiaries. My method is both comparative and historical. This means that I do not look only at the law of Germany but also include other legal systems in my analysis and these are both legal systems from the present and from the past. The historical legal systems I look at are the Roman law of the antiquity and the English law of the Middle Ages. There are two reasons for choosing these legal systems. One of the reasons is that these legal systems, the ancient Roman law and the medieval English law are the foundations of our modern legal systems. They are the building blocks so to speak. A second reason for this historical approach is that both the ancient Roman law and the medieval English law have developed over many centuries step by step and have developed towards an ever increasing complexity and this long development process helps us to understand the problems related to the liquidation of the states because the problems unfold step by step before our eyes. The contemporary legal systems I look at besides German law are in particular French law and English law and on a minor extent I also look at Italian law, Swiss law and Austrian law. The comparative approach is especially useful to show us the huge variety of solutions for the liquidation of the states. The many possibilities that we find in current law in the current legal systems to deal with the problems we are interested in. A first key finding refers to the general methodology of comparative law. When I started my research I realized that many prior studies on my topic were too formalistic in their approach. They focused too much on questions of concepts. Hereby the mistaken idea was created that the current legal systems in Europe partly are so different that a meaningful comparison is not possible, that these systems are incommensurable so to speak. I realized that it is necessary to adopt a functional approach which takes the problems that need to be solved as a starting point. The reason for this is that these problems are basically the same everywhere. They are universal so to speak. If we start the comparative analysis by looking at the problems that need to be solved, a system neutral point of reference from where we can proceed to a meaningful comparison and a fruitful comparison. A second key finding of my research refers to the substantive level. I realized that the topic of liquidation of a state is so complex that there are no easy solutions available. There is no silver bullet so to speak, even though sometimes this is suggested in legal writing. The reason for this complexity is that there are so many different interests involved, interests which need to be taken into account but which are often conflicting. Every lawmaker is faced with trade-offs. This means that the more he takes into account one interest, the less he is able to take into account another interest. I can illustrate this point with two examples. One is the trade-off between the salarity and the cost efficiency of the liquidation process and the accuracy of its outcome. In other words, the more we want to make sure that the assets get exactly into the hands of those persons which are supposed to receive them, the more costly and the more cumbersome the liquidation process becomes and vice versa. A second trade-off refers to the interests of creditors on the one hand and beneficiaries on the other hand. The more we make sure that the interests of creditors are adequately protected, the more we need to limit the interests of the beneficiaries and vice versa. There are three points which I can mention. The first is that my findings increase our understanding not only of foreign legal systems and the way they organize the liquidation of the states but also of our own German legal system. The second point is that this enhanced understanding can be of direct practical value when we deal with concrete succession cases and especially cases which have an international dimension. The third point refers to a possible future reform of the German rules on the liquidation of the states. It is generally agreed that in their current form the German rules are very unsatisfactory. They are regarded as overly complex and impractical. So my findings could give the German lawmaker access to foreign experiences both positive and negative experiences and thus provide inspiration for future reform. Although I look at many different aspects of the liquidation of the states and often in great detail, there are still many other issues that need further exploration. I hope that other researchers will build up on my work and will go down further the path which I opened up and follow the approach which I advocate. On a more general level, I hope that my research contributes to the general comparative discourse in matters of succession law. Such a discourse does already exist but it is clearly lagging behind the development in other areas of private law for example the area of contract law.


Prince KB says artists shouldn't be featured unless they contribute to the music. DJ Prince KB has come for artists who feature on tracks but haven't contributed to the making of the music and has taken the opportunity to defend fellow musician Sir Trill after backlash last week. As the battle of who wrote what continues among SA musicians, Prince KB has weighed in on the debate over artists who do or do not contribute to the music making. After Boel supposedly equated Casper Nyobist's contribution to nothing on the MA piano hits E. Yathandana during an interview on Max podcast and Chill. SA has been split on how they feel about the rapper and other musicians who allegedly do the same. Host hitmaker KB had some thoughts to share on the matter. Advising his fellow industry compatres, the star said artists who don't play a part in the composition of a song shouldn't get a feature on the said song. He believes those who are just there for the aesthetics have no place on the track, and it hurts to see these artists benefit from others' hard work. Don't feature artists who don't contribute to the music composition or lyrics. People who are just there for aesthetics, now deals are coming in and they must be paid because they are on the title of the song. It hurts. He tweeted. Users weighed in on Prince KB's thoughts, with many sharing their own verdicts on all that has unraveled during the past week. Earlier this week, the musician also took the opportunity to defend MA piano musician Sir Trill. After he received backlash for the song Shia in Dota Dubai with Kanye Mba and for allegedly canceling an interview at the last minute, Prince KB swooped in to defend the musician, saying the supposed attacks will kill his career before it started. This is how you kill an upcoming artist's career, instill fear in them just because they can't make the interview. This wasn't gonna make it to social media if it was an artist's radio respects, KB wrote.


I forgot to start recording. Great. I hope I see you guys on my channel. If you're new here, hi-ho. My name's Lydia and today I'm on a boat. Yep. I'm on a boat. Maybe in a moment. And yeah, that's fun. How do I look to my green today? I think. Smile, mommy. I like that open up. My hair looks so green today and it makes me so happy. I just want to turn your thumb and it'll be back to its normal self.


Welcome back, everyone. And if you're just joining us now, welcome to the symposium. We're going to kick off our second speaker's paper now. So our second speaker is Dr. Lukas Hassis from the University of Oldenburg. And Lukas is a postdoctoral researcher and research coordinator of the UK-German collaborative project prize papers. The prize papers project is part of the German Academies Programme of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities. It is based at the University of Oldenburg in Germany and the National Archives of the UK. Lukas's research focuses on 18th century mercantile culture, Hamburg merchants, letter writing practices, materiality studies and praxicological approaches in historiography and global micro history. Lukas is also a lecturer of early modern history at the University of Oldenburg. His book, The Power of Persuasion, becoming a merchant in the 18th century. A micro historical study of the establishment phase of a Hamburg wholesale merchant in the year 1744 to 1745 will be published in January 2021. So without further ado, Lukas, I will hand over to you. Thank you, Anna. I now have to screen. Can you see the presentation there? So I can see a Word document. No, that's wrong. That's wrong. Wait a second. I'm sorry about that. That's okay. The perils of Zoom conferencing. Yes. Once again. There we go. Now I can see your presentation. Putting boundaries. That is good. Once again, thank you, Anna and Greg for the invitation. Putting boundaries mercantile strategy and the benefits of maritime neutrality for a Hamburg merchant in France 1744. In May 1746, the merchant Anthony Lutkens appeared before the British High Court of Enreality in London. Lutkens, a resident of the city of London, but with German roots was acting on behalf of his nephew, the Hamburg merchant Anton Lutkens who have a year ago had suffered the loss of one of his merchant ships through an English privateer. The ship Les Pérons was assessed by the English ship of war during its voyage from Brest to Hamburg. It was suspected to be carrying French goods, therefore considered legitimate war loo during a time when England was at war with France during the war of the Austrian succession. Sitting in court in May 1746 Lutkens task was, however, to protest the confiscation of the ship. Lutkens was instructed by the ship owner to argue that the ship and its goods were actually of a lawful point of origin from Hamburg. Hence ship and goods would represent rightfully and truly property not of the French enemy of the British Crown, but on the contrary of a neutral trading partner, the free and imperious city of Hamburg. Thus, in turn, the generality would be nothing less than obligated to re-deliver the loot to Hamburg. In the ensuing proceedings referring to the ship in its alleged original German name, Die Hoffnung, Lutkens challenge was to convince the generality board of an unlawful appropriation of neutral property and his allegation would indeed prove successful. He presented supposedly clear evidence of the neutral status of the ship, as well as its goods. One example of which being the ship's sales contract, another the bill of lading, and finally he provided the court with the ship owners Hamburg passport denoting him as a legal citizen of the imperial city of Hamburg. The official experts investigating the case did not lack experience. Philip Stevens, Secretary of the Admiralty and Proctor for the Captors, and Philip champion Chris beanie proctor for the claimants. However, in this case, they never let them nevertheless felt for a trick or rather the overwhelming burden of written legal proof left them with no other option than to finally release the ship. Ultimately, the ship Die Hoffnung was restored and it would proceed on its voyage to Hamburg. This outcome notwithstanding the case left the English with a bit of an unpleasant aftertaste. Thus, it was likely not without reason that the British authorities eventually kept at least one part of the share of the spoils, one particular piece of evidence. Before proceedings, there had been one name that appeared repeatedly in regard to both the ship and its goods, a rather fantastical figure who was somehow involved, but still not individual libel in any of the legal matters. The active person in question was the wholesale merchant Nikolaus Gottlieb Lütgens. And the item the English kept is his complete business and letter archive found hidden among the cargo of the ship. And that with good reason, Nikolaus Gottlieb happened to be the registered lease holder of the ship Die Hoffnung, the hope. Furthermore, he was also the brother of said Anton Lütgens. Living and trading for several months in the French town of Brest, in the house of the French merchant Roudin as a commission agent for French goods while being on a business trip through France. So it came as no surprise that Stevens as and Crespigny were slightly suspicious regarding the involvement of this merchant in that case. However, they did not find any irregularities in the documents contradicting the presented pieces of evidence. Their suspicions would not engender further consequences. And with this failure, they, their verdict became a tragic error, because it was indeed Nikolaus Gottlieb Lütgens, who actually cheated the British authorities in May 7046. And how we succeeded in this regard is the general subject of my paper today as a vivid example of Hamburg merchant's mercantile strategies and their gray zone practices in mid 18th century Atlantic trade. The decisive background story starts at the beginning of the year 7044, when Lütgens decided to write a confidential letter to his younger brother, Anton Lütgens. This letter apparently must have slipped by the court proceedings, just as the following letters between Nikolaus Gottlieb and his correspondence. It was a shame for Stevens and Crespigny, who just missed out on understanding the situation they were dealing with, but a stroke of luck for an historian investigating Hamburg commercial involvement at a time when the colonial powers cornered the world's trading markets and Hamburg merchants supposedly were forced to play the second fiddle. In my research, which will be presented in the book, The Power of Persuasion, I therefore enjoyed the privilege of being able to analyze this extensive letter archive of Lütgens, which still stored as a former piece of evidence at the UK National Archives in Kew. This archive, in turn, is allowing me to revise research tendency towards a marginalization of Hamburg participation on the international stage of business in the 18th century. In my paper today, during the process of uncovering Lütgens master's stroke for court, I will present two of several activities through which Hamburg merchants successfully participated in Atlantic trade and international business, decidedly benefiting from their neutral role in a contemporary world of conflict. Based on a thick description of what I shall from here on term, an operation of brotherly endorsement, realized via correspondence, I will illustrate the strategies, the legal limbo, the subtleties and the contingencies of commercial trade and shipping business. These two decisive ways through which the anti-addict merchants entered the Atlantic sales markets, literally through the back door. On the words of another Hamburg merchant Bartolt Herzog, these special ways with which the hamburgers could fill their bags with species taller, but none of which are ordinary money bags, but rather heavy hop and sake grain bags that almost crick their bags. The prerequisite for Lütgens deception of the board of the British Admiralty is the same as a prerequisite for the voice activities and commission trade and shipping business. It is the mercantile commitment to a distinctive skillful and particularly shrewd letter writing practice. The correspondence brought the word to a merchant's desk, why that happened, how that could happen and what effects it had on Hamburg trade activities. The first subject of my presentation, it will then set the stage on which the specific features of the operation of brotherly endorsement become clear and significant. In the second part, I shall subsequently present an alternative story of the events preceding the court proceedings in May 7046. Tending to correspondence was a pressing demand and an ordinary fact of life for every merchant. It remained the backbone of European long distance trade. For Hamburg merchants, the judgment of Francesca Trevellato regarding the role of correspondence during the 18th century is of particular significance. Why is that the case? In the 18th century, the most lucrative, the core business of a wholesale merchant was the wholesale trade with colonial goods. Thus, Hamburg merchants were faced with a problem. Due to the protectionist and mercantilist policies and restrictions by the colonial powers of the century, Lütgens traveled and traded in France. They were legally strictly forbidden to trade directly with the colonies. Therefore, also the direct access to sugar, coffee or tobacco sales markets was denied to them. So they had to find alternative ways and routes to trade in these goods. With these alternative routes, however, they became very successful. What did they do? What did they do? Literally drawing from the motto, when to crevel the third rejoices, Hamburg advocated and put effort into staying out of any acts of war between the colonial powers. Over centuries, Hamburg persisted in its neutrality in international politics, sticking solely to trade activities. And by doing so, they opened the floor to the colonial powers to cooperate with them, and likewise to benefit from a trading partner that contributed and commercial customer without simultaneously strengthening the power of the colonial enemies of the time. Hamburg merchants were welcomed in the markets of France, the Dutch Republic or Britain, legally secured through special commercial treatises like the peace treaty and commercial treaty of 1716 between France and Hamburg. The Elbe City became one of the number one importing harbours of the time. Thus, by making a virtue out of necessity, the Hamburg merchants were following a second motto. If their access to the Atlantic world was restricted, then they would simply wait for its products to arrive at their market store steps. Hamburg merchants established a dense network, supply and support between Hamburg and the mainland shipment supports of Atlantic trade, so Bordeaux, Anand, Brest, Bilbao, Saint-Sébastien, London, Amsterdam. Within these cities, their role became that of logistic intermediaries. One of their main areas of operation therefore became commission trade. That is, as commission agents, they accepted or sold goods for the account of other merchants, but in their own name. Thus, the benefits were clear. That way, the Hamburgers could legally bypass the colonial restrictions and access the markets of sugar, coffee and tobacco indirectly, making profit from the commission fees and at the same time, they could offer very broad product range. The colonial powers on the other hand enjoyed the advantage of having a wider distribution area, e.g. through the Baltic area or the hinterlands of the Holy Roman Empire. And with regard to the export sector in general, through the reclassification of their goods as neutral goods, they even had the opportunity to cross colonial borders. So Lutkens, for instance, traded and transported French and English goods at the same time, which directly leads us to the second main area of Hamburg trade participation, the shipping industry. Hamburg merchants were highly active as private entrepreneurs in the sale, purchase and hiring of merchant ships, with which yet again they made these bad fellows with their bourbon neighbors, who suffered greatly due to the uncertainty of international waters with regard to the privateering activities of their enemies. The Hamburg merchants provided a logistic infrastructure that was relatively, relatively safe. Hamburg ships maneuvered relatively freely between the different territories controlled by the various naval powers. In short, on the North or European playing field of the colonial maritime sector, the Hamburgers became wildcards. Put together the two fields of operation evoke a clear picture of the role and integration of Hamburg merchants in international business. By no means do they appear to be mere victims of their circumstances, but quite on the contrary, they definitely made the best out of their situation, using existing legal loopholes and mercantile strategies to trade in order to transport colonial goods. And by doing so, furthermore with their commission trade activity and shipping industry, they acted as, in my opinion, as no less than the friction reducing lubricant of Atlantic markets. There is however one final limitation and requirement coming back to travel out as assessment. Hamburg merchants had to spend a great deal of their time at the merchants desk. In the Hamburg case correspondence was not only the backbone of trade, it allowed them access to trade in the first place. Letter writing became the core activity in trade business because most of their business was settled on paper. Containing a French, the Hamburg French long distance network as well as carrying out commission trade and being profitable in shipping industry it all relied heavily and first and foremost on doing the paperwork. The loophole of Hamburg participation in trade activity was as simple as it was ingenious and obvious it was letter writing. The merchants transcended boundaries, undermined limitation and crossed borders via mail. They let the paper speak and thereby literally brought the world into the offices and to the desk. The question where Nikolaus Gottlieb Lütkens would find a suitable place to plan this mercantile undertakings should now be foreseeable. Most definitely, the operation of brotherly endorsement originated from a private chamber in a French merchant house in Bordeaux in 1944 in March, equipped with quill pen and paper in secrecy, Lütkens devised his plot to trick the English. This episode will show the complexities and still the imponderable factors of Hamburg commission trade and shipping industry. It will reveal how Hamburg merchants cope with the potential risks and uncertainties of the activities during concrete realization. It will show the power of correspondence and the power of persuasion by group perspectives. In the spring of 7044, Nikolaus Gottlieb Lütkens traded in Bordeaux as a commission agent in the French German house of Biedmann and Amber. During this time, he primarily dealt with French sugar. As it happened in April 7044, he planned to send 20 barrels of Martinique sugar to Hamburg in the name of the German Dutch house of Herzl and van Boebert in Hamburg. For this purpose, he took a six-part share in the French ship La Dominienne. The other parts of the ship carrying 40 more barrels of sugar were held by the French merchants, the Chigarizien, and Biedmann and Amber. The ship departed, but on its way to Hamburg, it was captured by the English. A month later, in London, appearing before the Admiralty Court, grandfather Anthony Lütkens, whose name already sounds familiar to us, represented him before court. In the interest of the other partial owners of the ship, Nikolaus Gottlieb asked his grandfather in the letter to try his best to reclaim the whole 60 barrels of sugar. So not only the 20 barrels of sugar. On the 8th of May, his answer arrived stating, so the answer of Anthony Lütkens in London, if it would be the case, of which I'm not perfectly sure about at this moment, that all of these 60 barrels of sugar would name Herzl and van Boebert as well-known certificated Hamburg citizens as their original owners, the prospects of getting the goods back would be promising. His grandson got the rather obvious hint. Without further ado, all the sugar was re-labeled as Hamburg property. This was done in accordance with Herzl and van Boebert, who of course, clearly accepted the offer. Respectively, in their own letter in June, they thanked Nikolaus Gottlieb for grasping the opportunity to take all the commissions for the Chigarizien, and Biedmann and Amber, too. The respective bills of lading were received by Anthony Lütkens in June 1744. The result was that the reclamation of the goods now labeled as neutral Hamburg goods proved successful. The sugars were released for further transport. Within this episode, the aforementioned advantages of Hamburg commission trade become obvious. However, as the crucial factor of the practical implementation of the operation, the writing reveals itself with its power and its malleability as the decisive instrument forging and controlling the activity, the Hamburg lubricant masterly did its duty. This success notwithstanding with this episode, one issue still remains. As luck would have it, the English did free the cargo, but they kept the Schibler dominion, due to it being a French ship. The transshipment of goods was inevitably delayed. Even Nikolaus Gottlieb was powerless. At this stage of his life, he himself was unfortunately not yet in possession of a Hamburg citizenship, and only such a Hamburg large citizenship and passport would have enabled him to act legally as a neutral merchant. For the English authorities without a passport, he therefore clearly was conducting French shipping business, which meant in turn that again in the words of Herzer, the English were right in confiscating your ship, since you are staying and trading as a resident of France, enemy of England. This was a great pity. Accordingly, his grandfather in London admonished him strongly desiring that Nikolaus Gottlieb would eventually become a Hamburg citizen with an attested passport that classifies him as a neutral hamburger and a Protestant. The problem however was that Nikolaus Gottlieb Lütkens already had other plans, namely to stay in France. Nonetheless, he would find a solution to the situation and actually learn from his mistakes. Two days after receiving the root reminder from his grandfather, he wrote a letter to his brother in Hamburg, Anton Lütkens. Anton happened to be a merchant apprentice, 20 years old, working in the house of Lüer Lüers in Hamburg. Therefore, the letter to Anton was enclosed in a letter to his master, Lüer Lüers. In the letter to his brother, Nikolaus Gottlieb revealed his plans, writing the following impressively telling sentence. Since I'm not yet a citizen of Hamburg and I'm on voyage and because of terminal of war, which all leads to the consequence that my ships could be in danger and ideas springs to my mind. How about if you, my dear brother would become a citizen of Hamburg instead and would sell you and I would sell you all of the ships and ships parts that I'm holding at the moment, performer course. I would therefore draft a notarial contract issued in Hamburg, certifying that you are the original true and real holder of the ships. At the same time, however, I would borrow the parts back from you, but you will nevertheless be paid a reasonable easing rate. Anyhow, if God forbid any of the ships should be taken, you could legally pledge on your Hamburg passport and we will get the ships back. Your profit would be 2100 mark in two years without doing anything. It's a very sophisticated strategy. At the same time, speaking from the perspective of Anton in Hamburg, what sounds like a proposal was actually clean. Anton had no other choice than to agree, since his master was simultaneously receiving a letter with the same wording. Still, the offer was lucrative for Anton. In his response letter, he thanked his brother accordingly for the generous offer. Anton's Hamburg passport was issued within days by the Hamburg Senate. Furthermore, all of the ships of Nikolaus Gottlieb-Bürttgen's nine ships in total were signed over to Anton and become notoriously attested as lawful Hamburg property. Every single one of the ship sales contracts was reissued. Helzand von Boebert congratulated Nikolaus Gottlieb in the next letter with a pronouncement from now on all problems should be solvable and their opinion should prove entirely right. All of the ships that Nikolaus Gottlieb bought in the following years will immediately receive the owner's name of his brother Anton and therefore stay relatively safe on international waters. He himself in turn nevertheless remained a French resident for the next one and a half years without a hand up passport, leaving him the opportunity to search for a place of settlement in France. Again, what becomes clear in this episode is that also the Hamburg shipping industry, its pitfalls, correspondence therefore provided an accurate foundation to overcome these difficulties or in Lutken's own words, they helped to create facts that accurately quote, feed the greedy hungry mouth of his counterparts, a statement which should ultimately become especially true in the case of one very special ship. But in 1744 in Bilbao, as an originally English ship that was taken by the Spanish, the ship also immediately became part of the operation of brotherly endorsement. Thus, the ship operated without disruption for almost a year. In the meantime, however, the ship would change its name from Le Bretagne to D'Hoffnum and Les Barons and her later fate is already well known to us. The German in between us. In May 1746, Steven's and Crespigny and the British High Court of Royalty fell victim to a very common form of trickery in the sea business of the 18th century. In contemporary German mercantile literature, this willy strategy was listed under the term of Luchendreirein, defining the mercantile strategy of providing false or dubious passports, flags and bills of lading for merchant ships in order to circumvent capture. However, in the case of the Lutkens brothers, things were not that simple. The main profiteer and mastermind of the whole situation was surely Nicolas Gottlieb Lutkens, a merchant trading and shipping from a French port without possessing a neutral Hamburg passport. However, the documents Anton, Anthony Lutkens presented to the British High Court of Royalty had been all in all legally valid and binding sealed by the authority of the Hamburg Senate. So how can we evaluate the situation. In my opinion, the operation of brotherly endorsement ultimately delivers a textbook example of how Hamburg merchants could become part and took advantage of the colonial world map surrounding them. In a particular case, the phenomenon of Luchendreirei was reinterpreted in a legal manner. Lutkens acted perfectly within an area that was generally predestined for Hamburg merchants, a pre-existing gray zone, and he pushed the envelope in the true sense of the world. The only thing that remains problematic here if at all would be moral qualms regarding the fact that the true and real owner of all these ships was a 20 year old apprentice. To conclude my presentation with a view regarding this point from Nicolas Gottlieb Lutkens himself as a response to a letter from his younger brother Anton, who had complained about this vague feeling that he is not at all the real owner of the ships Lutkens rebukes him. Think about it, if someone buys a house and then rents his house to another person, who is the real owner of the house, the landlord or the tenant. Thank you. Brilliant Lucas. Thank you so much for that great paper. Really interesting stuff and great use of of micro history and the prize paper archives. I'm going to open up to two questions just like last time and but just to let you guys get your questions in order and put them in the question chat I will kick off Lucas with a question I actually have a couple. So, when you when you talk that letter writing is everything, right that this is the way that strategy is made. You know this is this is something that for historians that that look at strategy post 19th century is inconceivable because for them that's a period where it starts to be written down and published books and it starts to be theorized in a way that is very, I suppose, academic, you could almost say. So, I was wondering if the if you have any record or any knowledge of strategy being passed down within the families in a way that is not just letters. So a sense of, you know, writing a book for how to conduct your, your merchant business in times of war for the next generations or if it was all just done, and sort of in hand and training as you go. Thank you for the question. I think, in the case of Lucas his father or the priest, which makes his sense, his case even more interesting. So, but his two grandfathers were merchants so we learned a bit from them. In general, it's a learning by doing things, especially these conducting these, let's call it gray zone practices, and doing this kind of secret thing in letters. This is something they would learn in practice and learn by doing. He did his apprenticeship with the Dutch merchant in Hamburg. So maybe it's also a place where he learned this thing but I did not find any, let's say, book or anything with strategy in his belongings in this personal archive. I find everything that he owned doing the years in France. And the interesting thing is that there were no books in it. So it's only letters really 95% letters and then both relating and so on and so on, but I don't find any books, and I find some books in the list of him, his personal belongings, but it's a Bible and so on. So interesting. The interesting thing is in my opinion that these gray zone practices should not be written down in a book so that everyone can conduct them. But I think it's really kind of giving from given from merchant to merchant and especially when they're doing these trades among themselves within the letters. So it's more kind of a network thing I think. It's also where I learned about these practices I couldn't find them in the books, or anything, and in contemporary manuals or something, but I learned about them in the letters themselves and writing and reading letters from both perspectives. So, incoming and outgoing letters. This is where I learned about these things and this is interesting thing. I find that really interesting as well because if you look. So your period you're looking at 1744 1746 ish. So by the time that we get into the Napoleonic Wars and looking at prize affairs there. You actually start seeing the publish tracks written by, you know people who practice in the prize courts, saying, This is the stuff that the merchants are doing this is how they're trying to evade our laws and we have to crack down on this. This sense of the development of the law and the development of the practices over this period of time which I just as I just think is delightful probably because I love the prize papers. And so, Greg.  And again, because this is an interesting thing, because they learned like like they learn from the experience of years and years and years of merchants kind of tricking them. So what I have is of course the legal literature about neutrality what they have to do to be neutral and so on, but what they do about it, how they really kind of perform these neutrality in the letters. So this is what I learned only from the letters, but it's as you said it's interesting to see that they kind of learn in the course of time of course they were also very good already in 7040 and the 7040s. So that we have a lot of cases where they came behind the ideas and the tricky but in this case it was kind of hidden thing. It's wonderful I think I think the prize papers are so far although your project is changing this and an unappreciated archive of strategic thinking in a way where it just has not been used so far, of course until your book comes out. So there's a question from again from Professor Greg Kennedy. So he says, if letters become currency and hold that value. Then is it the case that multiple copies are required, and thus copiers as opposed to authors. And does that system introduce the opportunity for those making copies to gain knowledge that could be sold outside of their own work. He says a malware of their day. That's an interesting question because they in these letters and this is also something special about the prize papers that we find letters which are still in their original form. So we find letters inserted in letters and a lot of copied letters in the letters. So they use this practice to copy other letters from other merchants for the information policy. So they copied themselves or they copy letters from other merchants and they leave some information out they put some information in so it's really kind of an insider game. Once again. Yes. In Lutkin's case, the point is that he himself copies all the letters so he is not at this stage of time. He's, he's on his own. So he doesn't have a partner or an associate on anything or clerk.  So in this case I can't identify what changes if someone else copies the letters. And say is if the information comes out of the circle. So if someone uses the copies, which has been have been sent in the letters and show them to to another merchant so this happens three or four times that the information came out, and Lutkin's wasn't amused amused about it. And so he also always used response letters to kind of rebuke the partner and confront him with the thing that he will be out of the network if he does this again. So of course copying letters is a practice and it is used widely. And if it is used by merchants to show information which is not to be seen for others, then it always ends up in rebukes. So this is what I can say, but in Lutkin's case he's the one who copies the letter so he's also controlling what what's inside the letters. What you say really reminds me of of of of Lamecky's point in his book about trust and the networks of trust between merchants in the sense that if you, I suppose if you were caught selling that type of information. You would, you would be unemployable, and you would be an absolute outcast for the rest of your life in any sort of merchant circles, because that was the only way that those networks could survive. And so he planned his marriage in letters to so it was an arranged marriage, and this information came out too too soon. So this was a kind of really a big thing because someone told told another merchant and this is where you can see the effects of if, if these circuits are crashed. So this is really comes to the point. I do have another question for you and just to remind all of our participants that if you do have a question, please just pop it in the chat or in the Q&A section which you'll find as a button on the bottom of your screen. So look at when you were, we're looking at the correspondence and then obviously the court documents that come from from Britain. Did you ever find any evidence of your merchants corresponding directly with the proctors or advocates assigned to their case, or not really. That's a pity. I don't have the letters between himself and his grandfather. This is really something that that's a pity, because there we would have a lot of strategy and strategic thinking. So it's kind of his grandfather does the best in his, what he can do, but I don't have any correspondence between them. So I only have them regular mercantile correspondence between him and the, and his grandfather, but not with relating to the case. This is the problem. I don't, I don't think I've ever found the correspondence between merchants and proctors either. No, it does not. It does not seem to have made it into any sort of extant archive or it's you know sitting in the private papers of someone's house somewhere in Hamburg or over here in Britain. How should we do that? How should we trick them? What should we do? So no, no letters, but we should ask the people in TNA if they find have found such such letters. I'm sure they found some correspondence because they find everything. Absolutely. Brilliant. Well, Lucas, thank you so much for a brilliant paper, and for kicking us off on on maritime mercantile strategy. So, folks, we will be back at 515 for Professor Stephen Neff's paper. And until then, and, you know, get a coffee, have a little break and we'll see you again soon. Thank you very much.


Hi, everyone, it's Jeff Chalon again. This is the last screencast on Test 161. And then this one, we're going to show you how to use Test 161 to actually submit your assignments, which I'm assuming is something that you know you want to do. OK, so let's get started. In the previous ones, we showed you how to run test using Test 161. In the last assignment, I showed you how to configure things to submit. So I'll just review a few of those things. You need to start by going over to our Test 161 at opscast.org server, logging in with your credentials. Now what you'll see here, our documentation is not completely up to date. For now, please continue to use the documentation here. At some point, that'll be fixed and this will go away, but this is the better documentation right now. It's more complete and has the screencasts embedded and things like that. So now, but you remember, I had to do a couple of things to get this started. One was I had to adjust my test161.conf file. In addition to the root dir and the test161 dir, I needed to configure a server, which is test161.opscast.org, a repository, which is a remote repository that I set up on the class GitLab server. Yours may be somewhere else. And then I had to tell Test 161 who I was submitting on behalf of. So that's me, John, about what I need you. And that's a token that I generated here. And just for safety's sake, I will change that token as soon as these screencasts are up. So please don't try to use it to submit as me. Okay, so now here's my public key. The last thing I had to do was configure my Git repository that holds my OS161 sources so that test161 backend could clone it. In order to do that, so here is my OS161 sources. I've just committed some changes to this. Over here in my settings page, and this is on GitLab, over to deploy keys, this is the deploy key I added. This matches this key right here. And that's important. That allows the test161 backend to clone my repository for testing. Okay, so that's all set up. Now I'm gonna walk you through the process of doing your first submission. So the first thing I wanna emphasize here is the test161 is not designed to do a lot of backend testing as part of an iteration loop for you to be in. So the test161 tool runs locally and it runs very efficiently locally on purpose. That's to allow you to iterate, make changes, get an estimate, pretty good estimate of how you're going to do on the assignment before you submit. So before you submit anything, please run test161 locally, look at the output and decide that this is what you want or this is something that you're happy with. If the deadline is approaching, I would also encourage you to submit early. Submit early and often. You can submit as many times as you want up to the deadline, but no times after the deadline will be counted. So if it's an hour before the deadline and you guys are struggling to finish up something, submit a working copy of the stuff that you have. Get those points locked in and then if you manage to get a few more points right before the deadline, you won't be too worried about not getting any points for the assignment. Okay, so let's try to submit things here. So again, the first thing I wanna do is actually run this. So this is essentially just the base sources that we gave you. I haven't really made any changes here and what you're gonna see here unsurprisingly is I don't get any points, okay? But let's try to submit that. Let's see what happens, okay? So now the first thing before you submit is to make sure that your working directory is clean. This is the message you wanna see. There's nothing, no changes in my working directory that haven't been committed and there's no commits in this repository that have not been pushed to my remote repository. You can see that this matches, you know, this repository here. This is my origin matches the repository but I've configured test 161 to use it, okay? So now let's submit. Now you have to submit from your source repository if you try to submit somewhere else. It'll complain. This means you need to be in your source directory so let's go over there and now let's submit assignment one. So what's happening here is that test 161 is checking out a copy of your repository into a temporary directory. It's gonna build things and then before it submits, it's gonna run the test locally. This is pretty important because we want you to get a sense of the score that you're gonna get on the backend server before you actually submit. So you can see what happens here. I check out the latest ref. I'll show you some things that can go wrong in a minute here. I made everything, everything worked okay and then I ran the tests and unfortunately, as I knew, I'm not gonna earn any points for this assignment. And so in this case, test 161 actually short circuits and does not allow you to submit. That's because there's no point in you putting load on our backend servers if you haven't completed any portions of the assignment. Okay? Happily, I happen to have a working copy of the synchronization program that's just lying around. So let me do this, push that in there. And I'm gonna show you a couple of things that can go wrong. So here's the case where I have some uncommitted changes in my working directory. Now it turns out I can bemake, bemake install these guys and I can go over to my root directory and I can run assignment one. And this, I think, some of these should work. Maybe not all of them. Oh, I haven't implemented the reader-writer tests. Oh well, okay. I think everything else should work. Looks like my CV tests are running. So I'm not gonna get full credit here. I haven't implemented the reader-writer tests. My reader-writer locks actually work. So they'll work when we submit it back in. But please don't do this, please write those tests. My synchronization.c just didn't have a copy of them. So again, we're waiting here for the tests to complete. Some of these tests kind of slow, but I think we're into the end. Okay, so I got 20 out of 50. Oh, I also didn't finish the synchronization problem. So what you can see is I have, I'm pretty sure I have working locks. Yep, lock test one, lock test two, and lock test three all pass. And I have working CVs. So CV tests one, two, three, four, five. So that's where my 20 points are coming from. I got zero out of 10 on reader-writer locks. They work actually, but they can't be tested here because I didn't have to write the tests. And I got zero out of 10 on both the way I made it in stoplight problem. Okay. So I hope you wouldn't be satisfied with a score like this, but let's see what happens when we actually submit. So the first thing to do that I want to point out is let's go into my source directory. And let's try to submit here. Let's try to submit this assignment. So I think I'm gonna get 20 out of 20. I submitted my source directory. Everything's being cloned and built. Then here's the thing. Unfortunately, I'm in for a pretty nasty surprise here because what I'm about to find out is that I didn't submit my changes. I didn't commit my changes. So the latest version of my repository is the old version that doesn't have these 20 points that I just added. And so I can't submit. So that's, again, if you look at the good status, I've got changes here, so I need to commit those. Let's say working locks and CVs, yay. You can always be happy in your commit messages. All right, so now I've committed them and get status again. And now let me try to submit here. And here I can show you something else that can potentially go wrong. All right, so test 161 is cloning my repository into a temporary directory. Uh-oh, okay. So this was another error that you might see and here's the problem. The current commit, if I look at the get log for my source directory, this guy, F566, blah, blah, is not in the remote. So the problem is this commits in my local directory but I haven't pushed it to my remote repository. And so test 161 isn't gonna be able to get it. And again, here's another problem. My working directory is claimed and my branch is ahead of Origin Masters. What I need to do is push my changes. Slow, here the internet wifi is, hotel wifi is not particularly good. I'm not sure exactly why this is taking so long. All right, sweet. So now here's the magic message. My branch is up to date with my origin and the working directory is clean. Now let's run, let's submit assignment one. Okay. So same thing is happening over and over again. We may try to make this a bit faster in the future and maybe cash a copy of your remote for us to use. Same thing, gonna run the test locally. And in this case, what's gonna happen, as you can see, it's actually starting to run some of the lock tests, lock test one is running. That's gonna complete successfully. Other lock tests are working. Now I'm under the CV tests before some of these weren't run because my locks didn't work and so everything else sure it's working after that. Okay. I'm gonna go over here and while that's running, I just wanna show you what happened to me before. So I submitted a few minutes ago and this is the output from the test 161 server. So there are some differences between our build environment and your build environment. In particular, we copy over what's called an overlay before we test things on the remote server. So I had something that was working locally. I submitted it, the test 161 system will let me submit it and what happened was it didn't build on the back end. So why didn't that happen? Well, if you look down here in the build app, what should we nicely show you on the webpage? There were the reader writer lock tests were trying to use my reader writer lock primitives but they're not defined anywhere. So this is just a note that you might wanna keep in mind which is that there are some changes between the local environment and the remote environment and this is unavoidable. We're not giving you our tests for reader writer locks and so we do need you to write those primitives so that the reader writer locks test can use them. If you don't, you'll see an error message like this. Okay, hopefully that's pretty helpful. You can see that essentially the output of every step here is displayed when things start to build. All right, so now I'm in good shape. You can see that the test 161 program has determined that I'm gonna earn some points. Here's my estimated scores, that's pretty important. And now this is critical. So here are the collaboration guidelines for the assignment. When you submit to the test 161 backend, you're giving us a copy of your repository and we will aggressively use that copy to detect any sort of cheating. So please, you need to certify this. You have to answer yes or no, I'm gonna hit yes. And now your submission has been created. So this is pretty cool. So now you can see what's going on here. So here's my old one that was aborted, but here's a new submission and this page will update live as things go along. So now you can see here what happens is these are expanding and contracting as things are running. You can start to see some points adding up here. I got some points for one of the reader writer lock test which is weird. Oh, my reader writer lock test worked, that's right. I just couldn't test them locally. So let's see here. So yeah, and as this goes along, you're seeing dependencies are being processed and tests are running. So far I've got a 25 out of 50. I'm expecting a 30 because my reader writer locks actually work, but some of the other tests are gonna fail, the way many tests is gonna fail. It looks like there's one test that's still running here, just CV test two. It's pretty slow. You remember that's the one that does all this waiting and things like that, so that one's still going. And in a second, I hope it's gonna finish up. Boom, okay, cool. So that's done, that's done. Everything's gonna collapse and I got 30 out of 50. There it is. So now this page is updated, you don't have to do anything, you just sit here looking at it. I've submitted two targets in total, two to the assignment one grading target. Best score in this assignment is 30 out of 50. This gives you some information about what was submitted. So if you click on either of these submissions, this tells me the commit ID, the repository came from my user ID, and this will show your partner if you submit on behalf of someone else. I don't know what this is, this is interesting. Ehon built this really cool UI for this. So if I drill down here, this shows me everything that was run as part of the test. So this is the build process. Read a writer lock test, CV tests. We'll work on putting these in a better order in the future, but for now they're just kind of in order in which they completed or in order in which they were started, I think. And you can see this highlights where I got points, where I lost points. So my whale mating test didn't work. You'll see that the boot worked fine, but SB1 just failed. Now one thing you may notice here is that the output is quite different than what you would see locally. And this is intentional. We suppress a lot of output when we do the remote trusted testing because we want it to run a bit faster. And we also don't want you to use this as diagnostic output.  It doesn't have the nice print Fs that you see locally where a print switch car is going through the intersection. And again, that's intentional. We don't want to provide that for you because this is not designed to help you iterate. Same thing with SB1, it doesn't seem like SB1 generated any output. I think it hangs. Yeah, SB1 hangs on failure in this particular case. Okay, so this is just an example of how to use this tool. It's pretty awesome. Really happy with the tool. We think it's going to be really help you guys out this semester. And many thanks to Scott and Nihon for putting this together. We're going to keep working on the web UI if you have any suggestions about how to improve things. Or if you have complaints, you find bugs, please let us know. But this is something we'll be using throughout the semester, so please start getting used to it. And we hope that you earn 50 out of 50.  Good luck.


Hi everyone, I'm Joe for jazby's casebreaks.com coming at you with 21-22, Panini 1 and 1 basketball. 10 box, pick your team number three. Big thanks to 10 box break. Big thanks to its fresh case, whole case. Big thanks to this group for making it happen. Thanks to the people who bought their spot straight up. I appreciate it. Here in pick your team number three. Jefferson with that last bottom mojo. Got the wizards last before we pulled the remaining teams for those random number block randomizers. Here's one of them featuring these three teams right here. These are all uploaded. We did the randomizers all in different videos. And there's that group right there. Different group of teams. There are the results there. Thanks, good luck. Now, and here is the fresh case of 2022 1 and 1 basketball. We got fourth and inches for Kansas City. Games tied, minute left. Oh, they get it. Games tied to 17, 17, less than a minute left. All right, one autograph and one base parallel or insert per box on average. Some really nice stuff here. I think the next pick your team is almost in single digits. We could run one back tonight if you'd like. All right, so the first card is gonna be, first card right here, nice. Sneaker spotlight, 94 out of 99. Donovan Mitchell, still Jazz edition here. That's gonna go to Joshua and the Jazz. And the second one is for the Pistons. That's Adrian Dantley, old school Pistons, 39 out of 99, dual relic and autograph. Detroit, that's gonna be for, oh, Detroit's a number block team. So that goes to Detroit nine. That's gonna be on this side right here. That's gonna be for Matthew. Matthew Chirot with Detroit nine. Right, we got Dehunta Murray for the Spurs. And that will be for K. Shun and the Spurs. Oh, and that, by the way, that's also a 22 out of 25. All right, next up is for the Kings. Davion Mitchell, 15 out of 25. Rookie Otto for Sacktown, Bay Area and Backdown. So Sacramento is a number block team, part of that Cleveland group. So that'll go to Sacramento fives. It's on this side. That'll be for Chris. Chris Marisco, Marixxon. Sorry for butchering the name, Chris, but there you go. Got Jaren Jackson, Jr., triple J, 22 out of 30 for Andrew and the Gris. Then we have 75th team signature, Shaquille O'Neal. Wow, that shadow box is really cool. Love the 75th anniversary logo, 11 out of 25. Orlando, it's for Walter. There you go, Walter. Next one. Next one's RJ Barrett, 28 out of 99. Nix, that'll be for the Cleveland group. Nix, eight is for Chris. Oh, redemption. Got rookie autographs. And it's gonna be S. Scottie Barnes, Scottie Barnes, nice. Toronto, Toronto, zero. Zero gets any and all redemptions. So that's for Chad B. Congrats. So Ken C. ended up punting in a way. Looks like they're gonna trust their defense and then go into OT. Corey Kispert, three out of 25. Wizards three, Jefferson. Jefferson with the wizards, got the wizards straight up. Thank you. And we've got another redemption. This time it's a rookie dual jersey autographs purple parallel. It's gonna go to J.O. Jonah, Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan Kaminga. Warriors, warriors come out to play, yay. That's Tamoya, got the warrior straight up. Congrats, we're halfway through his full case break. Next box, Greg Brown III, 16 out of 25 for Portland.  You got a live one here. And it is timeless moments, Ray Allen. 16 out of 49, Matthew with the Celtics. Nice, a timeless moment with Reggie Miller sitting courtside, calling the game at TD Garden on February 10th, 2011. Allen passed the forward pacer to become the NBA's all-time leader in made three pointers. Nice one, Matthew. And there's Jordan Poole, 22 out of 99. Warriors two, that's gonna be for Tamoya. And we've got another 75th anniversary, shadow box autograph. It's David Robinson, the admiral. 11 out of 49, that is nice. That's gonna go to K. Sean and the Spurs, the admiral. Congrats, next one. The Chiefs are gonna have a shot at us. I'm sort of Hail Mary. Hey, you're welcome, thanks for getting in. We got Kiefer Skies, reach for the Skies. 53 out of 99. There's a snake in my boot. Joe with the Pacers. Next one is a wizard that's Christopps Porzingis, Pony. That's what his auto looks like. Dual relic and autograph, that is 16 out of 49. Jefferson with the wizards, Last Bot Mojo. Strikes again, they say 70% of the time. Last Bot Mojo hits 100% of the time. So they say, I'm gonna go for this Hail Mary, three seconds left. Once what happens here, they throw it in the middle of the field with Meagle Hardman. He's got blockers ahead of him. He's gonna scramble around, but no, he's gonna get stopped at the 25. That's a nice shot, nice try though. Three out of 99, Michael Bridges. That is for the Sun, that'll be for Tamoya. And the hit goes this way. And who is that? That's Josh Giddy. Nice, three color jersey, on-card autograph, 30 out of 49. Nice, that jersey really pops in that window there. He's pretty solid, that goes to Sean Maddock. Okay, see, nice RPA. And the last one, good luck. All right, there's Keon Johnson. 85 out of 99, Portland, Wen Shun. And the last one here is Trey Mann. 57 out of 99, Rookie, Duel Relic, and Autograph. Josh Giddy's teammate going to Sean Maddock and the Thunder. There you go, Sean, congrats to you. Congrats, everybody who hit. Thanks everybody for getting into the action. I appreciate it. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com and I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye.


what's the people in mind right here coming to you with the video this time we are going to be replacing the broken and dull blade of my lawnmower the tools that we're going to be using for this are this arnold extension plug extractor thing the max power 21 inch blade it is a 21 lawnmower along with air filter and a spark plug that i also got from amazon similar to my previous videos this is not a sponsored video so i buy the stuff as is and i give my honest opinion the first thing i've done is i've tilted the lawnmower over with the oil side up and the air filter side up that way the fuel doesn't go my fuel and my lawnmower were very low so i don't have any risk of it going out but just to be on the safe side i did put a plastic bag on top and make sure to also disconnect the spark plug that way while you're rotating it doesn't automatically turn on in addition to that i'm going to be using this piece of lumber and putting it right next to the blade that way the blade doesn't turn all right just had to go a little bit more medieval with a hammer with a hammer and a wrench just knocked it off again lefty loosey righty tidy and now we're just coming right off now i can remove it by hand and that thing was tight really tight so that is it this is out i had to use a little bit of a wd-40 to get this going now that this is done this comes out as you can see this is the old blade the blade lines are perfectly but the edge is up gone it has lost a lot of metal as compared to the old blade this newer blade is slightly heavier which is good the way that i want to mount and again be careful this thing is a little bit sharp the way that i want to mount is the flange side down take a little bit of penetration fluid just push it in prevents the rust land it in and there you go start tightening it by hand and then take your wrench and start tightening it and for a good measure just bang it once and that's it that's it this is done now we're going to be straightening the lawn mower and replacing the air filter and also the spark plug to replace the air filter just take the top latch off this is the old air filter as you can see it is filthy it is absolutely fill of crud you'll get really bad gas mileage i did try to knock it off a little bit a couple of times but yeah this is done this is a brand new one all white all clear you can't even see light coming through this one so the light is coming around this one that's it very easy just push it in plug it in close the cover and snap it into place so the filter is on just disregard this or just toss it out there is no saving this now to change the spark plug just get the tool that you get from blows or home depot this is the one that i got it works take out the leading cord and the spark plug on this one is at an angle it's not completely straight it's a little bit tilted so take your socket thing plug it in once it connects take the pipe thingy that is there and again left to do the righty tidy and a little bit of push comes out and preferably do change these spark plugs on and the air filter frequently that way you don't end up overexerting the lawn mower and spoiling the engine so this is the old spark plug it's full of carbon this is a new one identical and this one has no carbon at all it's already pre-gapped so you don't have to worry about it just initially feed it by hand and again remember it is a little bit angled and tighten it take your socket thing that you have push it in and just give it a little bit of a tug don't break it because this is very delicate just push it in and that's it spark plugs again dispose of it carefully push the wire in you will hear the click and that's how you replace the blade and also take care of the air filter and the spark plug on your lawn mower as always like comment subscribe if you have any questions about this video or if you want me to provide additional details please feel free to let me know I'll be happy to help hi people take care bye


And our country is at war. Your aircraft has been hit and you're forced to bail out. Does the enemy have the right to straight you as you descend in your parachute? Does he have the right to fire at you while you're down at sea? What right do you have under international law as a combatant without means of defense? As a combatant who is sick or wounded? As a prisoner of war or turn the coin over, what are your obligations to enemy troops who are defenseless? To enemy sick or wounded? To prisoners taken by American forces? What are your obligations to enemy civilians and their personal property? Civilians of every kind and description including women and children. We're talking not only about aircrew members. We're talking about everybody in the Air Force who may find himself in an armed conflict. War has been a fact of life in man's history. It brings out the best in man sometimes and it brings out the worst. Rape, looting, senseless murder, terrorism, and every conceivable form of brutality and atrocity. In the last several hundred years, human rights have increasingly gained mankind's attention. We helped get it started with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. But what about human rights in war? What do we owe the victims of war? Throughout man's history there's been increasing concern with the brutality of war and how to prevent it. One way of course is to stop wars but mankind has not been too successful at that. However, the basic human rights of war victims are protected by the International Law of Armed Conflict. That law applies both to countries fighting and directly to the combatants, soldiers, sailors, and airmen. It applies to declared wars like World War II and undeclared wars like Vietnam and Korea. It tells us what we can do and what we can't do. Basically it's a question of what's right and what's wrong. Central to its concepts are discipline, integrity, and self-control. Although the emphasis is new, the law is not. It's been with us a long time. During the Revolutionary War it was charged that 20,000 American PWs died of disease, hunger, and suffocation on British prison ships. Following the war and independence, our new nation wanted better protection for our PWs in future wars. One of the first treaties signed by the new United States was a treaty with Prussia ratified May 17, 1786. Besides outlawing state piracy, the treaty specified detailed rights for prisoners of war and non-combatants in enemy territory. Later, during the Civil War, at President Lincoln's request, Francis Lieber wrote a complete code for the government of armies. This Lieber code was the first modern law of armed conflict actually used on the battlefield. During the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, Henri Dunant of Switzerland saw so much brutality on the battlefield that he devoted the rest of his life to protection of war victims. His efforts helped create the International Red Cross and led to the first Geneva Convention in 1864 to protect hospitals and the sick and wounded under international law. A later diplomatic conference in 1949 adopted further agreements. These are four separate treaties known as the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims. Over 140 nations have agreed to the principles of these treaties. One of these treaties, the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, covers the manner in which prisoners of war are to be treated by nations in conflict. The philosophy behind this treaty was stated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, philosopher and citizen of Geneva, Switzerland, in the 18th century. He said that a combatant in war, quote, has the right to kill the defenders of the enemy state whom he encounters with arms in their hands. But as soon as they lay down their arms and surrender, they cease to be enemies. They become men and one no longer has the right to take their lives. The 1949 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention states that enemy prisoners are in the hands of the country which captures them and that country is responsible under international law for everything that happens to them. The convention recognizes the human rights of prisoners of war. Basically, prisoners must at all times be humanely treated. They must be protected against physical abuse, mutilation, medical or scientific experiments, acts of violence and intimidation. They are entitled at all times to respect for their person and their honor. Under the convention it is unlawful to torture a prisoner, either physically or mentally, or to use force to obtain any kind of information from him. A person cannot legally be punished for refusal to answer. Reprisals punishing one person for the offense of another are prohibited. Women captives must be accorded treatment at least as favorable as that given to male prisoners.  Regarding quarters, the convention requires that prisoners of war be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Prisoner of war camps may not be located where they may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may they be used to render areas immune from military operations. The treaty requires that food must be sufficient in quantity and variety to keep the prisoners of war in good health without loss of weight. The convention requires that the captor take all sanitary precautions necessary to ensure the cleanliness and healthfulness of camps and to prevent epidemics. Every camp must have an infirmary where ailing prisoners of war may be treated. Prisoners suffering from disease or needing surgery must be admitted to a hospital where such treatment can be given. They must be permitted to enjoy the right to practice their own religion. Captured chaplains and medical personnel are not considered prisoners of war. They have a special status to enable them to visit prisoners and minister to their needs. In short, the convention tries to preserve humane and decent conditions to all prisoners in a conflict. It hasn't always worked out too well, but there is no alternative that's any better in today's world. As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, many are alive today only because of the mutual restraint imposed by the rules of armed conflict. In addition to the prisoner of war convention, there are two 1949 Geneva Conventions which protect the basic rights of sick and wounded and the people who take care of them.  The first convention requires that all possible and prompt steps be taken to search for and collect the wounded and sick and to protect them against pillage and ill treatment to ensure their adequate care and to search for the dead and make sure they are properly buried. The convention requires that the wounded and sick be respected and protected under all circumstances and treated humanely. No adverse discrimination can be based on race, nationality, sex, religion, political opinions or any other similar criteria.  The second convention protects wounded and sick and shipwrecked persons. Shipwrecked includes airmen forced to land at sea. The shipwrecked, whether sick, wounded or healthy, cannot be attacked. Likewise, airmen descending by parachute from disabled aircraft over land or sea are protected from attack. The convention also protects hospitals, medical transport and medical personnel from being attacked and requires respect and protection for them at all times. This protection applies to various forms of medical transport, ambulances, hospital ships and medical aircraft. Special rules to protect medical aircraft are found in this treaty. Medical personnel themselves are given special treatment because of their humanitarian tasks of caring for all sick and wounded, civilians, enemy soldiers and airmen and our own captured military personnel. The emblem of the medical service of most countries is the Red Cross. A few countries use the Red Crescent or the Red Lion and Sun on a white background. The emblem is authorized only to identify personnel and facilities that are protected. The Red Cross symbol must not be misused. The protection given to hospitals, medical equipment and personnel may be lost if they are used other than to care for the sick and the wounded, such as being used directly to fight. The law of armed conflict emphasizes the protection of civilians as well as combatants. It serves to guarantee their basic human rights in war, including those with different faces, colors, religions or political views than ours, both enemy civilians and our friends and allies. Human rights belong to all. Atrocities committed by the Germans in Europe during World War II and by the Japanese in the Far East were quite common. The lack of a detailed and comprehensive treaty establishing standards of humane treatment for civilians was a major void in the law. I was thrown out of Berlin the same day the U.S. entered World War II. At the end of that war, I covered the Nuremberg Trials. I personally saw and heard the testimony and the evidence. I know what atrocities man can commit against man. Treaties like the 1907 Hague Convention specified in a general way minimum protections due to civilians in war zones. They were to a great extent the legal basis for the Nuremberg Trials. But following World War II, all nations agreed on more specific guidelines for the protection of civilians in war zones and in occupied territory. This resulted in the Geneva Convention for the protection of civilians in time of war. In a conflict, you may find yourself in a war zone. The local population may be hostile or friendly to you. In all cases, the Geneva Convention controls the relationship between you and enemy civilians in your territory and in enemy territory that Americans occupy. The convention is based on what civilized people everywhere consider right and wrong. Basically, it is saying that the fact that you're dealing with enemy aliens does not give you or them license to commit criminal acts against each other. They're not free to murder you. You're not free to abuse them. In your relationships with enemy civilians, the convention requires you to respect, quote, their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions, and practices, and their manners and customs, unquote. You must treat them humanely and avoid threats, insults, and acts of violence against them. The convention protects women against rape and forced prostitution or any form of indecent assault. Regardless of age, sex, or state of health, all civilians must be treated with the same consideration without regard to race, religion, or political opinion. The convention strictly forbids causing the physical suffering of civilians in your hands. This includes not only murder, torture, beatings, mutilation, and medical or scientific experiments, but also any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilians or the military. Civilians may not be punished for offenses they have not personally committed. You may not steal their property or take them hostage. If they themselves have committed an offense, only a court in accordance with due process of law can punish them. There are several articles in the Geneva Convention which deal with the treatment required for civilians interned or detained for security reasons by the occupying power. The rules are similar to those protecting prisoners of war regarding humane treatment and standards for food, clothing, hygiene, medical care, religious, intellectual, and physical activities. In addition, there are judicial safeguards to assure that persons who are in custody receive a fair trial if they are charged with crimes. So far, we've been talking about protections specified in the Geneva Convention and the basic rules set forth there. But the law of armed conflict concerns broader questions about how wars are fought, who fights, what is a fair target, what is a proper weapon. One vital distinction is between what is called combatants or members of fighting forces and non-combatants or civilians, and sometimes the lines are indistinct. Basically, there are rules which cover both. For example, combatants wear uniforms and carry arms openly so they can be distinguished from civilians. No special type is required, but their character as combatants must be identified. Combatants, unless they are surrendering, are proper objects of attack. Civilians are not legitimate targets of attack as such. They are protected under international law, and every soldier, sailor, and airman must try to avoid or minimize incidental injuries to civilians when attacking military objectives. Since weapons are not precision instruments, since civilians are often used in the war effort and sometimes even fight the wars, there will always be incidental civilian casualties. But the object of any attack cannot be civilians or civilian property, which is not a military objective. Churches, museums, cultural and charitable buildings and historical monuments may not be attacked. They should be marked by distinctive and visible signs or be readily identifiable. If used for military purposes, they may forfeit their protection and become legitimate military objectives. In sea warfare, enemy military ships may be attacked, destroyed, or captured outside neutral jurisdiction. But local fishing vessels not taking a direct part in the conflict are exempt from seizure or destruction. Special rules are designed to attempt to protect merchant shipping not taking direct part in hostilities. Scheduled civilian airliners belonging to an enemy state and flying over its own territory or over the high seas may not as a rule be attacked, unless for special reasons they represent a valid military objective. The rules of war also govern what kinds of weapons are legal.  The law requires restraint. The law of armed conflict is inspired by the humanitarian desire of all nations to diminish the cruel conditions of war and to alleviate the suffering of its victims. It's an integral part of military discipline, law and tradition. Military forces act on behalf of their nation.  Self-control and self-discipline, those are the keys. Compliance with the law also serves practical military purposes including military effectiveness. Violations, for example, embitter an enemy and strengthen his will to resist and they cause the loss of our own self-respect. There's no dignity, no honor and no benefit in attacking or mistreating civilians or defenseless persons like PWs. Violations also complicate the peace which inevitably follows war. There are many reasons for nations to comply with the law of armed conflict. One of them is reciprocity. If one country indiscriminately kills the prisoners of war it captures or civilians, its opponent may be inclined to retaliate in kind or worse. The opinions of the world community and the pressures of neutral countries not involved in the conflict also encourage nations to live up to the law. Violations embarrass the nation responsible for them. War crimes tribunals such as the Nuremberg trials are a powerful incentive to abide by the law. And that law is part of our law. It is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to fail to follow the rules of war. The law of armed conflict represents the highest humanitarian ideals of civilized people. The United States and the Department of Defense support the law and expect and require that you live up to it. Details are specified in Air Force publications. It expresses principles that are in harmony with our own national beliefs and traditions. U.S. policy is one of adherence to the law of armed conflict. In following this policy our government knows that there have been many violations by our enemies in recent wars. And it would be naive to presume that violations will not occur in the future. Nevertheless, adhering carefully to the law of armed conflict serves our own interests. It encourages reciprocal compliance and it highlights to the world any enemy violations. It's important that you be familiar with the law of armed conflict. Our national reputation and your own well-being are at stake.