Hi everyone. I'm Sophia and I'm going to be talking about YOSO. YOSO is joint work with Craig, Shai, Hugo, and Tal at Algorand and with Jesper and Bernardo at Orhus University and the Concordium Blockchain Research Center. YOSO stands for You Only Speak Once and as the name suggests, it describes a class of protocols where no participant needs to speak more than once. This kind of protocol is particularly useful when dealing with a strong adaptive adversary who can kill or corrupt a party as soon as it speaks. In this work, we make two contributions. We define a formal YOSO model and we show two MPC protocols with guaranteed output delivery within that model. Before getting into our contributions, I'd like to give more motivation for the YOSO model, in particular in the context of MPC. Let's start with the usual MPC scenario. So imagine that Alice, Bob, and Charlie want to compute a joint function f of their secrets x1, x2, and x3. But the problem is none of them are willing to reveal anything about their secrets except for the function output. So one approach is for the three of them to find someone that they all trust and send their inputs directly to that trusted party and then have that trusted party publish the function output y. But trust is hard to come by and it could be that there isn't any one party that all three of Alice, Bob, and Charlie are comfortable relying on. So using secure multi-party computation or MPC for short, Alice, Bob, and Charlie can instead outsource the computation of f to several parties. They don't have to trust any specific party. Each one of Alice, Bob, and Charlie only needs to trust that some of these parties are behaving honestly without necessarily knowing which ones. So in other words, they need to trust that if an adversary is controlling some of these parties, maybe by having installed malware on the machines, that adversary was only able to corrupt up to some threshold T of the parties. So then during the MPC protocol, these parties talk to one another and as a result of that conversation, Alice, Bob, and Charlie learn the function output. The first guarantee we want from MPC is that as long as the adversary corrupted fewer than the threshold T of the parties, Alice, Bob, and Charlie learn the correct y. So the adversary shouldn't be able to trick Alice, Bob, and Charlie into accepting the wrong output. But even more than that, we demand the strongest MPC guarantee, which is guaranteed output delivery. So the adversary shouldn't even be able to carry out a denial of service attack and prevent Alice, Bob, and Charlie from getting anything. And of course, we also want privacy. So we want to be sure that the adversary and the machines she controls don't learn anything else about X1, X2, and X3. Okay, but now let's come back to our assumption that the adversary corrupted fewer than the threshold T of the parties. If we only have a couple parties and we have a very powerful adversary, maybe it's unrealistic to assume that she can't corrupt more of the parties. And if that happens, we don't get any of our guarantees, we don't get guaranteed output delivery or privacy. So however many parties we think our powerful adversary can corrupt, we need to involve enough parties in our computation to make sure that our threshold T is higher than the adversary's corruption power. If we think that the adversary can corrupt up to a million parties and we're running an MPC, where the corruption threshold T is equal to half of the participants, we need to make sure that we have at least two million participating machines. But once we involve millions of parties, maybe by outsourcing to blockchain, we run into an efficiency problem. Almost all MPC protocols require that all participants talk to all of the other participants. And when there are just a couple of participants, this isn't so bad. But when we have millions of parties, this gets to be prohibitively inefficient. And in fact, the goal we want to set for ourselves to avoid this kind of inefficiency is that the total communication of our protocol be sublinear in the number N of participants. So this means that in a given round of the computation, only a small set of parties, which we'll call a committee, should say anything. And in this picture, our speaking committee are the parties colored in blue. The issue now is that once this committee has spoken, the adversary who's always watching the network sees who spoke and learns that this committee of parties might be important. Since the committee is relatively small, the adversary might be able to quickly target all of them for corruption, maybe with some sort of zero day exploit. So we want to make sure that even if we're dealing with a powerful adaptive adversary, who's able to instantly corrupt anyone they want, our protocol still gives us the guarantees we want, as long as the adversary is limited to corrupting T, which we take to be half of the total number of parties. In order to do that, we need to make sure that even if every party is killed immediately after it speaks, we still get our guarantees. And that's why we come to the you only speak once or you so model. After the first committee is dead, if the computation isn't complete yet, we need another committee to pick up the torch and continue. But as soon as that committee speaks, it might also be killed. And so yet another committee, the pink committee must rise to take its place and carry the torch and so on and so forth. So in the you so model, even if every party is killed as soon as it speaks, the computation must carry on to completion. Now that we have our motivation, let's move on to our contributions.  The great thing about our model is that it cleanly splits you so protocols into two components, which can be considered totally independently. So the first component is RA, which stands for role assignment. It deals with how committees can be chosen in such a way that the adversary can't anticipate who they will be. And the second component, which is role execution deals with what these committees will do once they're chosen. Let's take a quick look at role assignment. We've seen this kind of role assignment in a number of places already. Most notably, we have Bitcoin where the role of block creator is assigned through proofs of work. And this has exactly the property we're looking for, which is that no one knows before the minor speaks that that particular minor has won the right to publish a block. So even the most clever adaptive adversary can't target the next block minor until it's too late. And they've already played their role. Algorand does something similar, but without proofs of work. They use verifiable random functions to run a lottery. Just like in Bitcoin, no one knows who the winners of the lottery will be until they've spoken and thus already played their part. Bitcoin and Algorand are different from NPC protocols in that the roles parties play don't require any secrets. But if Alice, Bob and Charlie want to outsource an NPC, they will have to secret your their inputs to the appropriate committee. And they can't know the identity of the committee. If that identity is public, this tells the adversary exactly who they should target. This leads to a difficult question. How can we enable the sending of a secret to one specific party without knowing who that party is? The work of Ben Hamouda at all from TCC last year gives a really elegant solution using something called nominating committees. And we also have an ongoing work on E print with an alternative approach, which supports a higher threshold team. Both of these solutions results in the publication of a set of anonymous public keys. So the owners of the corresponding decryption keys know who they are. But no one else knows who owns the corresponding decryption keys. So once that's done, anyone can encrypt a message under one of these keys and broadcast it without knowing who will be able to decrypt. Only the party holding the corresponding decryption key will know that this message is intended for her, and she'll be able to decrypt it. The guarantee we need from the real assignment mechanism is that at most a threshold T prime of the members of the committee should be corrupt. And we take T prime to be half of the size of the committee. Once the rules have been assigned, we can move on to executing the protocol. The execution can be specified in terms of roles, not the machines executing those roles. And examples of roles are the first member of the third committee, or maybe the verifier in the seventh NISIC. The roles communicate with one another over broadcast channel and through private communication to future roles, who haven't spoken yet, using the anonymous public keys. The specified protocol need only be secure as long as at most the threshold T prime of the members of each committee are corrupt. And it's up to the role assignment mechanism to guarantee that this is in fact the case. I want to mention two existing protocols that are compatible with this model. So the first one is the work of Ben Hamouda et al. from TCC 2020, which deals with maintaining and resharing a secret from committee to committee. Another cool protocol is fluid MPC, which is also at crypto this year, and they describe how to do MPC with abort. They don't explicitly use a role assignment mechanism, but their protocol could be combined with one to get YOSO style guarantees. In our protocols, we prioritize preventing denial of service attacks. So we aim for guaranteed output delivery instead of security with a board. And this brings me to our two MPC constructions that achieve this. Let's start with a construction that uses computational assumptions. In this construction, we're going to use one global public encryption key. And in the slide, this is the lock in the upper right corner, and it's available to everyone. The corresponding secret key will be secret shared among the current committee, which is in blue. Anyone can provide an input to the MPC by encrypting a secret to the public key and broadcasting the ciphertext. But in order to use this for MPC, we need several properties of the encryption scheme. The first is that decryption should be as non-interactive as possible. This means that each committee member should be able to derive a partial decryption from the ciphertext and its key share. And these decryptions can be combined to recover the plaintext. So on the slide, this recovery is through addition, but it doesn't have to be. And as a side note, so of course before publishing the partial decryption, the committee members need to erase their state and their key shares to make sure that our adaptive adversary can't learn the key when she corrupts them. All right. So another requirement is that the secret key can be reshared with minimal interaction. This is necessary because otherwise once our blue committee speaks, the secret key and all secrets that haven't been decrypted yet are lost forever. So in the same breath in which they publish the partial decryptions, we want our blue committee to reshare the secret decryption key to the next committee, which is the one in green. Now, what we have lets us maintain secrets and reveal them at the appropriate time, but in order to support computation on those secrets, we need an additional property. We need our encryption scheme to be homomorphic. If it's fully homomorphic, then we're basically done. We can have the blue committee perform the entire computation homomorphically and publish partial decryptions of the output that can then be combined to recover the output itself. But using a fully homomorphic encryption scheme wouldn't be concretely efficient, so we might want to use an additively homomorphic encryption scheme instead. Then we would use beaver triples to enable every multiplication. I won't explain beaver triples in the interest of time. I'll just say that they can be used for multiplication, but their use does require some interaction, and they can be generated for us by committees that don't hold decryption key shares. Each of our key holder committee members then performs only linear operations homomorphically and uses a beaver triple to do a multiplication, which involves the decryption of some masked values. Our blue committee performs this decryption of masked values, and in the same breath, they need to reshare the secret key to the next committee, which picks up the computation from there. This next green committee does more linear computation, and the next time a multiplication needs to be done, it again uses a beaver triple, and again in the same breath, hands the computation over to the next committee, which might do more linear computation. And finally, when the computation is over, the last committee decrypts the output. This whole thing is very similar to the CDN protocol from 20 years ago with basically minimal changes to enable the passing of the computation from committee to committee. That's all I want to say about the computational protocol. So next, let's take a look at our second construction, which is information theoretic. It might seem a little funny to consider an information theoretic construction when it'll need to run on top of a computational roll assignment protocol, but we think it's still interesting to try to minimize the necessary assumptions. Trying to eliminate assumptions altogether turns out to be quite challenging in the YOSO protocol. Most information theoretic MPC techniques use something called verifiable secret sharing. Like all forms of secret sharing, verifiable secret sharing, or VSS, proceeds into phases. We have dealing where the blue party deals the secret to the green parties and at some point down the line, the green parties might try to reconstruct that secret. However, in VSS, the dealing phase has an extra verification step where the shareholders and possibly the dealer talk more to make sure that everyone agrees that we have a valid reconstructable sharing. The problem with this in the YOSO model is that after this verification step, everyone has spoken. So the fact that the green party has once had a valid sharing is now totally useless since they're probably dead. A simple yet powerful solution to this is something we call future broadcast. So in a future broadcast protocol, each of our parties takes the messages she would have sent in the future and shares them to a separate fresh committee that's in charge of then sending that message on her behalf. This lets our parties speak once but at the same time schedule multiple messages that can be sent at different times in the future and can be triggered by arbitrary conditions. Our parties schedule some messages for the verification step and some for future use, whether for reconstruction or within an NPC. One great thing about future broadcast is that it can use a less powerful tool than VSS. We only need robust secret sharing, which doesn't consider a corrupt dealer. And this is perfect since if our dealing party is corrupt, she could say anything anytime she wants in the future and we don't really need to commit her to something at the time of the future broadcast itself. Another neat feature of this scheme is that if we think of all the values sent using future broadcast as resharings of the original share, we basically for free get the values held by the set of red and orange committees are equal. This is true since the honest members of the green committee will always honestly reshare their actual shares and as long as there are enough honest green parties, the corrupt parties will not be able to tamper with the reshared values. So there's really much more that we need in order to get from verifiable secret sharing to a full-fledged NPC. For instance, we need our parties to be able to prove that something they publish is a product of two things that were shared. And there are many more subtleties and techniques that we need to get to our NPC that I just won't go over. This is a really simplified picture. Each of these tricks uses layers upon layers of additional committees which makes our information theoretic solution far from practical but it's still a really interesting feasibility result. That's all I want to say about our second construction. So to recap, the Yoso model gives us a neat separation between role assignment and role execution and in our work we show two Yoso NPC protocols, one of which is computational and one information theoretic. Both of those get us guaranteed output delivery against an adaptive adversary which can corrupt up to half the total number of parties and they both have total communication which is sublinear in N which is really cool. Finally, Yoso unearths a huge number of open problems. Basically everything we've asked about NPC before, we can ask again in the Yoso model. So for instance, notice that our computational construction requires some setup in the form of the distribution of the secret key to the first committee. We can ask can we get efficient protocols without setup? Can we get constant round protocols without setup? Can we do best of both world's protocols which get guaranteed output delivery when half of the parties are corrupted and unanimous abort if there's a dishonest majority? And so on and so forth. There's really, the sky is the limit here. Thank you everyone for listening and I hope to see you at the live session.


They fake being okay. So maybe keep an eye on people who you feel are not okay, who pretend to be okay. Maybe that's been you at some point in your life. I know it's been me. So keep an eye on people, look in on people who are a bit quiet in your world. And the friends you have that check on you when you're quiet, they keep us in your world. Who do you need to check up on today? Cheers, love you guys.


It is an honor to be here and I have to, pardon me, I have to second Yoshui's statement that this is a dream for a formal verification engineer. I mean the amount of interest in the room and this beautiful field that those of us who have you know devoted a lot of our professional and how do you say, personal lives too. It's amazing to see so much enthusiasm so I feel very fortunate to be a part of this group where such great work and awareness is happening around formal verification, static analysis and so on. So I'm very excited today to launch our Amandra contracts platform which is formal verification in the cloud for smart contracts initially targeted for Ethereum. So what powers Amandra contracts is our formal verification engine that I'll talk to you about called Amandra but what we've done is we've taken the Ethereum virtual machine and formalized it within Amandra given a full bit precise operational semantics to the instruction set of the Ethereum virtual machine and then from that we're able to build a stack of tools that work at many different levels powered by techniques such as symbolic execution something called principle region decomposition and ultimately both automated and interactive proof. So I'll walk you through many details show some examples and then I hope we can do lots of demos because there isn't that much time but please find me if you're interested and sign up. So before I get started I want to show a two minute video that gives some background on what we do at aesthetic integration and really how we got here. So now I will hand over to Hudson because I think he has to man the sound. Thank you. What's plaguing today's electronic financial markets? The world economy is built on a staggeringly complex tangle of algorithms, competitive pressures and economic recession have contributed to increasingly opaque and unstable markets. The effects of glitches and unfair advantages can be devastating, cratering the competence of investors and ultimately hurting the general public. Regulators and the industry have worked tirelessly to define what safe and fair markets are. What's been missing is a way to analyze and regulate all of the algorithms underlying the solution is formal verification, the science of correct algorithms. Other safety critical industries already rely on formal verification to make their algorithms safe. Amandra by aesthetic integration is the world's first formal verification solution for financial markets. Consider the building of a bridge, a design flaw may be catastrophic. To make it safe engineers use powerful computer-aided design tools which analyze designs for safety automatically. Powered by latest advances in artificial intelligence, computer science and mathematics, Amandra brings unprecedented rigor to the electronic financial markets, analyzing the safety and fairness of algorithms before they're deployed. Financial algorithms are unfathomably complex. They can be in a virtually infinite number of possible states. Examining 100, 1000 or even 100,000 test cases isn't enough. We must consider every possible case to answer definitively. What can possibly go wrong? Amandra allows designers and regulators to fix breaches of safety and fairness before they affect markets. Let's build safer, more reliable and regulatory compliant systems that all of us can trust, saving everyone time and money. Amandra by aesthetic integration, the logic of financial risk. So thank you. Thank you very much. So just a bit of background, we are aesthetic integration and our work before Ethereum and you know also work that continues vehemently has mostly been with financial algorithms like dark pools, matching logics, exchange matching logics, connectivity layers for instance between venues and different trading systems. So we have worked with a number of top investment banks on formally verifying regulatory properties of their core infrastructure algorithms. Last year after DevCon won something very exciting that has really been a huge catalyst for us in growth is we won something called the UBS future of finance challenge. So this was a global competition between 620 companies, 52 countries and we ended up winning the whole thing and I think a major reason was we took the design of UBS' dark pool and actually analyzed it for regulatory properties, showed how certain issues that were settled with the SEC could be found automatically and many related things. So also at the sort of middle of the summer a little bit before we finished what is to our knowledge is the world's first formally verified dark pool design for a major investment bank where we of course in the process fixing many aspects of their system were able to prove 114 fairness and safety properties ultimately about their collection of order types. And we recently closed our seed round backed by Google's Chief Business Officer Phillip Schindler which is leading to some very exciting things of getting formal verification out to the masses and democratizing this technology that has up to now been been quite arcane in many ways. So my co-founder Dennis, he was head of the central risk trading desk at Deutsche before we founded AI in my background. So I did my PhD in formal verification at Edinburgh. A lot of what I did was around something called an SMT solver called Z3. So I co-authored a lot of the core mathematics of Z3, the linear decision procedures and then went down to Cambridge as a postdoc working on safety and fairness of collision avoidance algorithms and then we realized we could apply many of these same techniques to financial algorithms. So we all know the problems that are motivating formal verification being taken up in our community so I don't need to belabor those. But there are some other aspects that haven't been mentioned at least that I've seen. And in addition to the need for automated auditing tools around correctness, fairness and safety, of course mitigating subtle bugs and so on, we also need fundamentally robust tools for risk management. So I'm talking here for those of you in investment banking where you have exposure. Imagine an investment bank goes all in on Ethereum and five years from now has 100,000 smart contracts in a portfolio. What is their exposure? How do you calculate risk? How do you price, for instance, derivatives and structured products that are expressed as ultimately Ethereum bytecode? And that's another place where we see formal verification as being utterly crucial. So some of the things we're building on top of our formalized EVM in a mantra are around exactly this risk management, calculating Greeks and market exposure linked directly to the semantics of the bytecode. So EMONDRA leverages a number of recent breakthroughs in formal verification. SMT, which is powerful automated proof techniques combining SAT solvers, what really powers formal verification for hardware, combining those techniques with richer mathematical theories, things like reasoning about arrays and bit vectors and nonlinear and linear inequalities and so on. Model-based automated induction plays a huge role. So when you have algorithms that ultimately iterate or when expressed in a logic may be expressed as recursion, you typically need to prove theorems by induction, either by techniques like writing out inductive invariance, as we saw with the work of Christian and Yochui with Y3, or with proving inductive lemmas that then get used, for instance, as rewrite rules. These are all bread and butter for formal verification, but we now have much more powerful tools for, for instance, using counter examples to help us guide the way we inductively generalize, which is something you often need to do when proving theorems by induction. But fundamentally what we're doing with the EMONDRA cloud is aiming to really democratize access to these techniques and make them usable to developers and non-developers alike. We all need them and need them to be easy. So fundamentally you give EMONDRA two things, a smart contract, let's say expressed as Ethereum bytecode, for instance, and a property you wish to verify. And EMONDRA will work to either give you a proof of that property or work to show you a counter example where a property fails. And then there's, I'll show you many ways that you can get involved in that process and interactively work with EMONDRA. So EMONDRA is a programming language, a mathematical logic, and a reasoning engine all in one. It's a formalized subset of a functional language called OCaml. Crucially, when designing EMONDRA, you know, we set out to design our dream formal verification system. And one of the most important things is having first-class counter examples. So in EMONDRA we're always working to find counter examples to false conjectures and actually reflect those into the runtime and into the logic so that you can compute with them, which is really crucial. So there's, let's see, I really don't have much time. So I want to just show you, oh, it's probably impossible to read, but this is a little bit of a walkthrough of our formalized Ethereum virtual machine in EMONDRA. And the way you formalize this, because EMONDRA's logic is also an executable programming language, you actually just feel like you're writing a simulator for the virtual machine, writing an interpreter, defining precisely the memory model, the storage model, all of the instructions and how those operate on the state, and then ultimately there's a top-level state transition function, and then finally that's iterated, right, until you run out of gas or reach an exceptional halting state or you halt in a nice way. So in EMONDRA, by the way, we are releasing our EVM model under Apache 2.0, and so our hope is that the community will manage this, port it to other systems, and it can be something that evolves as the, you know, design of Ethereum evolves. But what I'm showing you here now, this is a very, very low-level interface, but I've loaded into EMONDRA the model of the Ethereum virtual machine. I've also loaded in some bytecode. Those are now in the runtime. Those of you who know OCaml will see that this looks just like you're at an OCaml top-level redevelop print loop, but actually everything you write in this language is also reflected into mathematics, and you can then reason about it. So I'm now asking EMONDRA here to decompose the state space of effectively the virtual machine interpreter running that piece of bytecode, and what this is doing, it's ultimately using something called symbolic execution under the hood, but it's telling me the possible behaviors of this piece of bytecode with respect to the actual semantics of the instructions. So this tells me that actually this piece of bytecode, which is for a simple name registry, it only has two possible behaviors with respect to arbitrary symbolic storage, and one behavior it would go toward execute at program counter 17 if it doesn't run out of gas, and it would update the storage in the other behavior it I believe would halt, you just told me, it would halt at 8 and would not update the storage for instance. So now I'm actually, let me see if I can pause this for a second. We have two minutes, you can't read it unfortunately, but these are theorem statements about the execution of this bytecode. So these are the formal specs of how this name registry should work, and we're asking Amandra to prove those for us, and it does, which is great, directly about the meaning of the bytecode, so not at a higher level, but really at the actual bytecode that will be executed on the EVM, and now we're asking it to prove some things that have mistakes, and what happens is in this case we can ask Amandra to show us where its proof attempt failed, and then we can ask Amandra to also mine that for counter examples, but these are very useful for understanding these what we call sub goals for understanding why something isn't true. So I don't have time to go through this, this is a higher level, so we have a higher level language that is a subset of Amandra, subset of OCaml, that we can compile to the EVM, and so one of the things we're working on is proving the correctness of that compiler with respect to the EVM semantics, so hopefully we'll finish that by the end of the year, but I wanted to show you these region decompositions, like I did of the possible behaviors of that piece of bytecode, we can scale this to very complex algorithms, so this is a smart contract encoding effectively the matching logic pricing function for an exchange, and we asked Amandra to decompose its state space, it told us there's actually only 107 different possible behaviors, and now I can go through and we have this hierarchical tree representation as a baroni diagram that's interactive, you can go and experiment and see what are the different symbolic behaviors of this function with a map to its state space, and we're getting on the right, you can't read them unfortunately, but constraints on the input that would cause a certain output, and these are all expressed symbolically, and so now we know, even though this has an infinite state space, the system itself only has 107 possible symbolic behaviors, so we have a new website that launches today, you can go to it's www.amandra.ai, and it is, if you click on Amandra contracts, you can sign up, and we're adding a certain number of people each week as we scale up, but effectively it's Amandra now in the cloud, running in Google Cloud with something called Code Envy, which uses Eclipse Che and a number of things to spin up docker containers for you and have Amandra, so I see I'm out of time, but anyways we are building this stack also with a smart contract auditing API, and finally thanks to our incredible team, and I hope all of you will get involved, and the community can really make use of Amandra and join us at amandra.ai. Thank you. Thank you very much.


What's up everybody, Jason here for jaspyscasebrakes.com. This is our last filler guys, where we're giving away three spots in the $650 mixer that just sold out earlier today. So last three spots have been given away here in 2014, limited football one box break round on teams number three. And the way this works guys is first, we just do the break, randomize customer names and teams. Everybody's a team in the NFL, we distribute the hits out, and at the end of the break we'll take all 32 customer names, randomize them, and the top three names each will get a spot in the mixer. Now earlier today guys, we actually took out four spots and only sold 28 spots total. So what we're going to do here guys is we're going to use the same dice roller to do the randomizer for the customer names and teams. But we're also going to do a randomizer for just the customer names, and the top four names will win an extra spot in this break here to get an extra entry to win a spot. So good luck guys, let's roll the dice, and we got ourselves a4 and a4, ate the hard way. Good luck top four, get our extra spot in this break. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, all right eight times, Don, Daniel, or sorry Don, Dan, Daniel, and Don. So there you go, extra spot in this break, right, put you right there, and we're going to put a little character sign to show you guys if you guys win a spot later in the break, that's because you won a free spot in this one here. So there you go, so that'll be eight times now, customer names and teams, and this will be the final list here for the giveaway at the end of the break as well. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, Don, Daniel, Don, all right, so eight times on the teams, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Patriots down on the chargers, all right, and again, stick to what you got guys, I'll quickly show you your teams. All right guys, let's see what comes out of this box, Joe Flacco to 3.99. Victor Cruz to 3.99, and converted tight end now, but of course, came into the league as a quarterback. Nice three-color patch to 1.99, Logan Thomas. We have a Travis Swanson autograph to 1.99, 14, yeah, because it'd be Garoppolo, I think Johnny Manzell of course at the time was a popular player, but not really obviously anymore. I don't think well this is 14, I gotta look at the draft class actually, I think that hasn't been better than Garoppolo though, we must be just missing some names, and Vontes Burford, I think this is the year where the linemen were all, were all selected for us, right? Or no, Gidevion Clonio was number one that year, Bordeaux, Sammy Watkins, well Khalil Mack, well I guess quarterback maybe, Khalil Mack of course is a big one, Anthony Bars in there, Ebron, OBJ, no actually Aaron Donald actually would be the top rookie, I mean maybe he wouldn't sell for the most, but I would assume he is the top rookie by far. Brady Cooks is in there, Teddy Bridgewater at the end of the round, got Derek Karn 2014 in the second round, DeMarcus Lawrence, it's actually not a bad draft, but I guess there is no standout quarterback in this draft of course, but looking at the list of players in this draft, it was actually pretty strong, it's not bad at all, Carlos hides in this draft as well, but yeah, yeah well I mean I think rookie Aaron Dahlons are not bad, but again this box price isn't isn't the craziest box price either, 2014 stuff is not crazy, that is for sure, but yeah it's QBWs, I mean you only have Johnny Manziel, Blake Bordles, Bridgewater, Derek Carr, I'd assume Derek Carr sells way better than Jim McGrawbler right, Savage is in there, Agin McCarran, Aaron Murray, all right you guys so there you go, last three, top three sorry, get into the mixer, good luck everybody, roll it, snake eyes, two times, what happened to this list, why did this get moved, hold on guys, what happened to it, that's weird, all right there we go, should be fine now, I didn't realize it was all messed up guys, I'm gonna be against it and tell me, all right two times, one, two, two times, Daniel, Jason, and Don last bomb, oh wow, after two times, there you go top three you're in, congratulations guys, after two times, so you three are now in the mixer and coming up next is the mixer itself,


It is my deep conviction that unless we guarantee freedom of the press throughout the world, in the next generation, we'll be fighting World War No. 3. That was the voice. Those are the words of Kent Cooper, author of the book We Dramatize Tonight. As the national broadcasting company, in cooperation with the Council on Books and Wartime, presents another of the most widely discussed programs in America, Words at War. Kent Cooper's book Barriers Down is the tragic story of monopoly of world news. You'll hear more from Kent Cooper himself later on in our program. But right now, let me tell you this. For the more than 30 years he's been with the AP, Mr. Cooper has been known to newsmen and editors as the fightingest American who ever tried to ensure world peace through the freeing of international news. He knows as well as any living man that one of the first steps on the long road toward war is the deliberate creation of prejudice between countries. His book Barriers Down reveals how international slander is spread. To begin with, not so long ago, this was the outside world's opinion of the USA. It is my belief, sir, that the people of America aspire only to the shallow dignity of the almighty dollar. You see, from Peru to China, from Greenland to South Africa, the world's press pictures this nation of ours. It's a sort of gigantic Wild West show, perpetually popping with machine gun fire, echoing with the clam-baked histrionics of politicians, or soothing its jazz-shattered nerves with copious quantities of bathtub gin and marijuana cigarettes. Get sore? Sure, you can if you want to. But here's the tragic joker. Not only were they being prejudiced against the USA, but the press was prejudicing them against one another. The English? They're a race of shocky bears. French? Why, they have the capacity of a vulture. All of them, my hair, are decayed.  The Poles are cattle, and the Russians are the devil's disciples. Silly, you say? Sure. But it caused 12 million men to die on the field of battle. Hey, how'd all this get to happen? Quite simply, my friends, stick around and I'll give you the lowdown. Mine is a tale of fostered prejudice and ignorance, of public opinion shaped and molded, of distortions and unvarnished lies manufactured behind the heavy doors of government ministries, of hate for their neighbors deliberately stirred in the minds and hearts of men. Mine is a tale of the monopoly of world news, of the rigid control of its free flow and circulation, a tale of the suppression of truth and the perversion of news and public press. It begins many years ago with the world, our world, divided up like a birthday cake between the three leading news agencies of Europe. Agencies, front and center, report. Reuters of London. Avace of Paris. Word for Berlin. In the beginning, how did you divide the world for the control of the sale and gathering of news? This is one time truth will out. How did you divide the world between you? Here's how. To Reuters, exclusive control of sources and news dissemination in Great Britain, all the colonies and dominions. Egypt, Turkey, China, Japan. Sovereign rights to the sale of foreign news, to the press of Mexico, Central America and the West Indies and in all lands wherein England exerts influence. Thank you, Reuters. And you? To Avace of Paris, absolute control of news distributed throughout the French Empire. In Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Exclusive rights to the sole distributor of world news in South America. Thank you, Avace. And you? To Wolf of Berlin, the territory of the whole German nation. Sole agency for the transmission of foreign news to the subsidiary news agencies of Sweden, Norway, Scandinavia, the imperial Russian Empire, Austria, Hungary and the Balkans. Thank you. Now, just who gave you three permission to divide the world up between you? No one. We just arranged the thing between ourselves. How do you like that? The world, partitioned, shared according to the best business procedures by contract. Each agreeing solemnly not to invade the domain of the other, going by the impressive title Alliance that are understood and called Cartel. The world, cut up with no crumbs left over, wrapped up and delivered. Delivered to whom? To the newspapers these agencies served? Not on your life. But delivered to the imperial demands and maneuvers of their respective governments. To say it more boldly, these agencies functioned as privately owned propaganda agencies for cutthroat international politicians. Maud Mazelle, take this memo to the Avace News Agency. To Mr. the Director, it is to the best interests of France that the United States be represented as a crude and cultured nation to the people of South America. You see what I mean? And so for years, through the channels Avace controlled, went news that was slanted, twisted and colored towards their government's ends. Not only Avace, but each of these agencies poisoned the air between nations, created friction when friction was needed to attain national ends, allotting to themselves the power to decide what the people of each nation were to know of the people of any other nation, and in what shade that news was to be presented. And they did it by owning and controlling subsidiary news agencies throughout the world, financially controlled by Havers of Paris, the Dutch Agency, owned by Reuters, the Portuguese Agency, owned by Havers, the Belgian, half by Havers, half by Reuters, the Spanish Agency, owned by Havers, the Bulgarian Wolf, the Russian Wolf. And if any of these agencies became restless under their humiliating subservience and tried to break away, well, it just could not be done. Why? Well, it would cost millions to do it. They controlled the cables, held all the franchises, one word of complaint, and they could have ruined us. Yes, that's the picture. A tight combination of three agencies dominating 20 countries. And because they could control the press in other lands, because they themselves were often subsidized by their own governments, Havers, Reuters, and Wolf sent through their exclusive channels the tainted, corrupt news loaded with prejudice and breeding hate, all in the name of the welfare of their national state. Havers, Reuters, and Wolf. You did a good job serving your governments. You helped to lay the groundwork for more than one bloody war. You can rest content. Your work was most effective. Gentlemen, step forward. Receive your medals of honor. To a vass of Paris, subsidized by the French government, exercising control over one-third of the world, for disseminating material hostile to the peace of the world, the Legion of Honor. What we did, Monsieur, we did for the love of La Belle France. Oh, like what you've spread through South America, discrediting the United States? The people of South America will readily recognize that the home of world culture is France. The birthplace of Molière, Cornet, Voltaire, neighbor to the north, a great in area only, is a young country formation from La Belle France, which should be entitled How to Cut Throats and Influence Nations. What we did, we did in good faith. Such as the report you sent out when the United States fleet was off the Chilean coast, your slant then was that we intended to drop anchor in the harbor of Santiago without permission of the government, implying we were threatening Chilean independence. But we had no ulterior motives, Monsieur.  Reports such as these. Our official of the German government declared today that his country has only friendly intentions towards France. French men, he said, can depend upon and rest assured of German friendship. There is no cause for alarm. Yes, gentlemen of the Havas Agency, for that the dead thank you. For that assurance of Germany's friendship and others like it, French corpses will maintain their immortal calm. Their sons and daughters, their wives will all thank you. Grateful for your deliberate withholding of vital news, for the lies made necessary by French policy of those years. It is the hands of the betrayed that present you with this medal. To Wolf of Berlin, controlled in its early days by the personal banker of the Kaiser, later as DNB, controlled by the personal criminals of Hitler. To you we award the Iron Cross. What we did, we did for the greater glory of the powerland. By disseminating anti-French, anti-English, anti-American, and anti-Russian propaganda throughout the Balkans and Germany. The state demanded certain procedures. We are Germans. Which procedure comes under the name of premeditated murder? We were patriots. To what? Your nation is murderous kingdom. Your patriotism, the loyalty of gunmen. Ah, but the Iron Cross grows heavy in my hand. And so, for the issuance of hate bulletins to your own national press, for the corruption and lies and animosity you spread through the Balkans, for your share in the deliberate assassination of peace, this Iron Cross. Forged from the ruined spires and girders of smashed cities, from the gaping, tumbled homes of a multitude, sticky with the blood of martyred million. And what shall we award to Britain's Reuters Agency, King of them all in the old days, dominant leader of the World News Cartel, trapped by its own blindness when it could have helped to prevent war? What shall we award you gentlemen? The Legion of Honor and the Iron Cross? Or the bitterness of bombed English towns? The old Reuters is dead. What prejudices we circulated will be spread no more. But it was done. The damage was done.  You men of Reuters were more skillful than the rest, but your guiding principle was always the same. Shall I send out this donator? Does it promote British interest? Yes, sir. Very well, send it. Shall I send out this donator? Does it harm British interests? Well, it might be so interpreted, sir. Then kill it. But we do insist on keeping the record straight. It's true. You men of Reuters cleaned house in 1939. But by then it was too late. For by then the world's most promising student of propaganda had learned all you news agency gents could teach him. This is what he had learned in his own words. Leave us face it as we uneducated Americans are want to say. You sowed a wind and reaped the whirlwind of hate, pillage and fire. The opinions and the prejudices you fostered through your controlled news channels now come back to you. And to us in the shape of shattered towns and blasted hopes of seared flesh and vacant mines and graves and aching hearts. And now, perhaps too late, we've learned the lesson that news is a powerful weapon, a weapon that can cause a war or keep the peace. Or have we learned this lesson? For those who haven't, bring on the grim exhibits. Let the victims come forward. The people who daily bought and read their press and believed. Let them come forward. Those who during the intervening years of two great wars have been read to, preached at and bargained for. Those who have been whittled, coaxed, warned and commanded through poison news. Let the victims come forward. First, Virginia Stevens, born in the town of Coventry in England. The daughter of poor parents, her age seven. Virginia Stevens? She cannot answer. Why not? A child of seven can hardly speak when she lies beneath ten tons of rubble. You will find my baby under our house. If they could find her from so high in the air, surely you can find her from so near. How could they do it? How? In God's name somebody tell me. Seven years old. Was she a danger to them? Could she have hurt them? Could somebody tell me? What made them kill a seven-year-old child? Their brutality made me a killer, too. A Polish teacher of fine arts named Peter Wozik. How? Stormtroopers entered our street in Warsaw one night. She had only gone downstairs for a moment. But they saw my sister. It was night. Later, I heard her crying and whimpering on the stairs. I carried her up. Her clothing was torn. She was bleeding. I put her on the couch and took the gun my father always had. And then I went downstairs. I don't remember how many times I fired at the stormtrooper. In the middle of the street I kept firing, firing, firing. My sister was only 15 years old. That's all. A child. 15 years. They're not human. Lies have made them into beasts. Victims all. Symbols of millions. Victims of all the hate propaganda loosed upon the world. The young, the unformed, made into killers before they hardly know what it is to be alive. I am 17 years old, Herr Leutnant. How long have you been fighting? 34 weeks before I was captured. Four weeks in Germany, 30 in France. You still think you'll win? If the first says so, we will win. How do you feel about this pillaging and murdering of conquered peoples? Those people are inferior races, Herr Leutnant. How can you be so sure of that? Be sure? I have read it. Dr. Goeppels' newspaper says so. Yes, Hitler knew what he was talking about. We saw his prophecy come to pass.  Their avenues of information is tightly guarded as their national frontiers. Educated by a controlled press. Educated to be beasts. And when we are reminded, we weep for their victims. But that is not enough. We must now solemnly resolve to build a future in which the printed word reflects only truth. A free, unhampered flow of news must be guaranteed so that this world war can end forever the hate and prejudice that brings slaughter and carnage in their wake. Hey! Yes? Why didn't they guarantee an international free press after World War I? They tried, my friend. They tried. Representatives of the American press tried to get it written into the Treaty of Versailles. Well, what happened? This. The American delegate wishes the floor? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a proposal to place before this treaty-making body. A proposal which I believe will make future wars such as the one just concluded impossible. Will you please state your proposal, Mr. Delegate? Gentlemen, I propose that in the writing of this peace treaty we include the principle of a free international press guaranteeing the unhampered flow and transmission of news and thus make the world's news serve the public good and not the powerful few. Stand by. Stand by all you unborn generations. The moment is a delicate one, unexpected, unforeseen. The chairman, worriedly eyes his neighbors, his free hand frets nervously at the Green Bay's tablecloth. His gavel has poised and bewildered suspense as a dead, tense silence. World, listen.  Listen. I beg to inform the American delegate that the question he raised is being taken care of privately. Next business. Next business. And the moment almost grasped, roared by. We should have known that the conquerors would not deny themselves the use of the press as a propaganda arm. For although the battles were done, the war went on behind office doors, soundproof and heartproof. After the Treaty of Versailles, the wolf agency was pushed into the background, but Reuters and Habas gripped the channels of world news more tightly than before. The matter had been taken care of privately. We failed in 1919. We won the war, but lost the peace. We must not fail again. After this war, the press must be free. The techniques of circulating hate and prejudice must be banished from the world. How shall it be done? We are the people, the victims. Tell us how it must be done. Yes. We wait outside the treaty-making rooms when the decisions are shaping. And we stand in streets and squares and in the rain we stand patiently. Tell us how shall we make sure that the spreading of lies will end? Partition of your government. Demand that they include in the peace treaty the principle of freedom of the press throughout the world. We will demand it. Demand that they guarantee that at least one news agency in each nation be owned and controlled not by an outside group, but mutually by the papers it serves. Co-operative non-profit news agency. As Reuters is now at last by the British press. Yes. We will demand that at all. Demand that no news agency be restricted to making agreements with only one over-lord agency, but that each one shall make such international news exchange arrangements as it will. Demand equality to all agencies in the getting of all official news. Demand equal access for each one to transmission facilities, wires and cables. The truth must not be blocked. And with power to punish all violations, the treaty must prohibit the perversion of all news. It must forbid the inclusion of biased nationalistic propaganda in the circulation of world news. Yes. We will demand all these things. For we are the victims. The brotherhood of man is not merely a martyr's dream. It's an objective to be fought for just as any town or railroad line. It's not impossible. It can be won. It can be made the enormous victory of this war. By permitting international news to flow unhindered between the peoples of the earth like a clear untainted river. By letting truth so long wounded and weary move in freedom through the world, peace can be won and held. The slain and the cripple stand at our shoulders now. And like us, they will stand outside the treaty-making rooms, overflowing into the streets and avenues, a great multitude, united in their determination that there shall not be a World War III. Ladies and gentlemen, a footnote to our program given in person by the author of Barriers Down. Mr. Kent Cooper, general manager of the Associated Press. Mr. Cooper. As a newsman myself, I have sought independence in gathering and disseminating the news of the world. I am not alone in seeking that idea. The executives of the other American news agencies are in this fight heart and soul. So are all American newspaper and radio men. Together we shall demand that the peace treaty include a provision guaranteeing worldwide freedom of the press that we need the help of all the millions of freedom-loving, war-hating people in the world. And so tonight, I ask all of you listening in, will you please help us to strike down forever the barriers that stand in the way of worldwide freedom of the press to strike down forever one of the greatest barriers to worldwide peace. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kent Cooper. Tonight on Words at War, we've brought you Barriers Down by Kent Cooper. The radio dramatization was by Raphael Hayes. Barry Kroger was the narrator and Mr. Cooper appeared in person. The music was arranged and played by William Meader and the production was under the direction of Anton M. Lieder. Next week, Words at War will present the radio dramatization of Camp Follower by Barbara Claw. This series of programs is brought to you in cooperation with the Council on Books and Wartime by the national broadcasting company and the independent radio stations associated with the NBC network. Jack Costello speaking, this is the national broadcasting company.


I'm not sure if you can take it off there. A similar time we have to do. We'll see you in a little bit later. Wonderful, wonderful. It was good to see you. I'm so thrilled to say Mr. President. Thank you very much. And this is Richard Mizzo, the Chairman of the Council. Nice to see you. And Dr. Pounce, I'm sure I'm back. I'm so glad to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. This is Greg Hill. This is the President of the United States. My name is Greg Hill. My name is Greg Hill. And this is his big brother, Brian. This is his big brother, Brian, Mr. President. Brian. And this is where this is filled with parents. Where? In Brazil? That's here. And this President, I actually named him, Clemony. He was the founder of the Projects Within Disgrace. There. Joseph Dawson. I know the job. They're gonna be saying. Say hello to Ron. I said, oh, I can't say that. President of the United States. He said, oh, I would never say that to the President. Oh, thank you very much, and welcome to the middle. This is your hand? Yes, ma'am. It's your daddy. There you go. There you go. Thank you. I should do it. Okay. Inside there is a jar, and this seal of the America Sage is engraved on the jar. But inside the jar is filled with jelly beans. Oh. Jelly beans. Okay. I say thank you. You are welcome. Virginia? Who do you have? Mr. President, you could just stay right here. I'm going to put a stand behind the doors. Better talk very loud. There's something about this old office. And from there, there is a dead spot. You can sit right here. Really? I have an answer for this. What? I have an answer for this. You do? I have an answer for this. All right. Of course they want it. They want to write a reference on it. Tell them about you. Step back over here and write a reference on it. All right. Thanks, sir. You know what, half laid it down on it. And that's what I hear with the speakers of the live. But when you leave one of those places, it dries up. By the time I got to the point of using it, I was just trying to figure it out. I'm sorry. I wonder if everybody's seeing it. Okay. Mr. President, one more picture just of these two gentlemen. All right. The problem is the same thing. This creates a different kind of experience with that one. Yeah. I've got to know them. I've got to know them. I've got to know them. I've got to know them. I've got to know them. I've got to know them. Well, after a while, they mentioned the air. It's nice to see you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Who will our knowledge, technology, and our dreams? In the days and months ahead, let this spot be the focus of progress, not only in the field of energy, but for the cause of peace. The theme of this fail, in terms of being cut off, we've seen our economies manipulate our industry's hands strong and our people squeezed between scarcity and inflation. Together, the results were gas lines, bottlenecks, and bureaucracy. A newly created Department of Energy passed more regulations, hired more bureaucrats, and did not solve the problem. It became the problem. Our administration is determined to press forward for real solutions. Already, we have in the world more than a quarter million barrels, an amount greater than 135 days, more than twice as much oil, as was accumulated in the preceding four years. We will increase it to nearly three times our current supply, as a symbol to our allies of our resolve to reduce our vulnerability. We will ensure it unwavering. The amount of goods and services that we produce for each unit of energy went up last year by 4.5%, the greatest increase in 30, but energy is still a great concern. Even when our fuel conservation, we consume 16 million barrels of oil a day. Now, let me give you an idea how many 16 million barrels is. Imagine once a month. We're the world's largest consumer of energy, but we use that energy well. We are one of the most productive nations in the world. Estimates show that the 25 eastern states and Washington, D.C., which expense most of its energy shuffling paper, produce about as much in goods and services but we can't afford to be complacent. Our energy appetite means our energy production must be allowed to keep our production and progress in the world today. Free enterprise. Our economic and energy problems were in large part caused by government excesses and quick fixes, not by have removed, requalated more than 200 energy-related regulations, cut taxes to encourage capital investment, begun to dismantle the energy problems, the decontrol of all of our energy sources including natural gas, and this we shall do. Within our boundaries and just off our shores, experts estimate that compared to our current reserves, three times as much oil and gas are yet to be discovered, strengthening our economy and helping our allies lessen their dependence on imported oil. In 1981, exports from this country of coal reached 110 million tons. That's 20% more than. Though quite small, our use of solar power is expanding. Many people across the country are experimenting with renewable technologies such as wind and geothermal power. The synthetic fuels corporation has also become operational, managing loan guarantees and price supports for some important projects. We're pursuing our goal of energy security while still respecting and protecting our environment. The staggering statistics of progress that I've recited today are growing independence from foreign oil and our increasing sophistication in using our reserves reflect American ingenuity at its best. This progress didn't come about in the last six months. Inflation, which was 12.4%, has been running at a rate of only 3.2%. And last month, the consumer... Well, we will continue to press for a bipartisan budget but the only compromise offered so far has been if our side agrees to raise taxes, the other side will continue to increase spending. You know, trying to end no government in the history of civilization has ever voluntarily reduced itself in size. With God's help... Spend and spend. We don't have a trillion dollar debt because we don't tax enough. We have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much. We must balance the budget but history shows it can't be done simply by raising taxes. For that reason, I've asked the Congress to pass as soon as possible a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. Then there will be no partisan pointing of fingers, there'll be no refusing to compromise and there will no longer be any red ink below the bottom line of our budget. 20 years of tax and spend policies resulted in 21% interest rates and we think that's the most compassionate program of help for the people that we can possibly produce. I'm sure that patriots in every country believe that their nation holds the key to world progress but I have long believed the United States of America and her people have a special destiny. Abraham Lincoln said, God would never cease to call America to her true service not only for her sake but for the sake of the world. I believe the challenge of this generation of Americans is to turn our country to a different path, to restore it to the principles that made it great because the free world, indeed western civilization, needs a strong United States. The community of nations must work together to achieve stability, security and peace. This exposition that we open today is another step toward achieving those goals. You know, to those who have refused to take part who are conspicuously absent, who continue to lock their people in misery through isolation and tyranny, we can say to them only we wish you had come but we'll make no effort to hide this wealth of ideals. We believe advances in the human condition can only come from open markets, free trading and stiff competition. Men and nations who ignore those forces will be lost to time. Let the rest of us draw from this exposition a sense of confidence and community. Let us realize that free men and women still have the power to better their lives and raise the standard of living for all mankind. Let us recognize that those things that bind us and keep us strong are democratic political institutions. Our market economic systems, our commitment to liberty and our belief in faith and human dignity. And let us reaffirm our partnership among citizens, among states and among nations. What a partnership it was for this community to bring forth this great exposition. Maybe we should all recall that late in the last century there was a great world exposition and at that time, there was a member of our Congress who actually proposed a measure to eliminate the patent office because he said everything had been invented that needed to be invented or that could be invented. Well, I would be talking into a microphone today. Have a good time and God bless you. Standing by for thee.


So we're in front of the Parliament buildings in Victoria. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has been touring with the Shaked Cottage around British Columbia, giving people an experience of what a magnitude 8 earthquake will feel like. It's important, I think, for British Columbians to recognize that within the next 50 years there's a 30% chance of a significant earthquake. The Shaked Zone provides a fun and safe environment to experience what a significant earthquake feels like so that you can know things you need to do to improve your preparedness for that type of event. Most of the experiences I've heard from people getting off the machine this week are, wow, I really need to do some planning and be prepared personally because this is not what I expected. You know, I'm so used to the 2s and 3s and 4s that we have here locally in our area and I had no idea the intensity of what really happens. The message to British Columbians is that you should be prepared. This is a little wake-up call and a fun one but really a serious subject. Make sure that you have an emergency kit on hand and you know what to do if an earthquake should strike and that is to drop cover and hold on.


Personal Finance PowerPoint Presentation. Retirement Communities Overview. Prepare to get financially fit by practicing personal finance. Insurance is part of our long-term risk mitigation strategy where we follow the adage of measure twice, cut once, putting a formal process in place, something like setting the insurance goals, developing a plan to reach them, put the plan in action, review the results, and repeat periodically. Most of this information can be found at Investopedia. How retirement communities work, which you can find online. Take a look at the references. Resources continue your research from there. This is by Amy Fontenille, updated September 19, 2021. In prior presentations, we've been talking about different types of insurance. We then moved on to the medical insurance, and then we talked about long-term care, and now we're going to be discussing the retirement communities in conjunction with those discussions, which you can take a look at for more reference. So choosing a retirement community is a big decision. Your choice will affect your and your loved one's finances, quality of life, and in many cases, health and longevity. Here's an overview of the four main types of retirement communities, how they work, and their approximate cost. We first have the independent living, also called senior apartments, or 55-plus communities. Independent living facilities are for older people who don't need any special medical care or assistance with daily activities. So these are people who are fairly self-sufficient within the independent living. They consist of private apartments that usually include a kitchen or a kitchenette, and common sizes ranging from studios to two bedrooms. Rent can range from 1,500 to 3,500 a month according to the senior living website, a placeformom.com, which is a catchy website that you can check out. But what about dad? Where's dad in this equation? In any case, rent depends on apartment size, geographic region, and amenities. Some independent living communities also have a high buy-in fee. Others have a small entrance fee of perhaps $750 to $1,500, and still others have no buy-in or entrance fees at all. Some independent living facilities include utilities, meals, housekeeping, basic maintenance, and scheduled transportation for errands and doctor visits to the monthly rent while others assess these charges separately. So you're going to have to do some homework in terms of what would be included, what would not be included in the different areas. So overall, the cost can be similar to what you pay if you continue to live at home, but independent living communities offer a maintenance-free lifestyle and potentially greater opportunities to socialize. Assisted living communities are for people who don't need the high level of care provided by a nursing home, or some assistance with activities of daily living. So as the name implies, assisted living is going to have some assistance involved, but not to the level of the nursing home. So assistance might include help getting dressed and bathing and toileting, as well as medication reminders. Assisted living can also be appropriate for patients with early-stage memory loss, dementia, or Alzheimer's who need extra help, supervision, and security. The average monthly assisted living rate for a private room, board, housekeeping, and some personal assistance was $4,300 per month in 2020, according to the report on long-term care by Genworth. Genworth estimates that by 2029, the cost will raise to $5,611 a month. That's quite specific for being able to predict out to 2029. But in any case, the cost of assisted living can vary depending on where you live, but the cost per month in Washington, D.C., for example, is much higher, $6,000 than the national average. An assisted living facility in Arkansas is much less, costing an average of $3,500 a month, according to Genworth. Nursing homes. Living in a nursing home is for individuals who need extensive medical care and is the next closest thing to hospital care. So this is obviously leveling up from the assisted living to the nursing home. Nursing homes also help with activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, getting around, and bathing. Some nursing homes are set up to feel more like residences, while others feel more like hospitals. The annual cost of a private room in a nursing home room averaged $105,850 in 2020, which is obviously quite expensive, which is why this kind of fits into some of our discussions with relation to insurance. So that's according to Genworth's survey with a semi-annual private room coming in not far behind at $93,075. Because nursing homes are so expensive, it's a good idea to consider purchasing long-term care insurance well before you might need it. So obviously, these costs are quite high, so that's where the consideration for the long-term care that we talked about in prior presentations comes into the discussion. So it isn't always possible to get into the nursing home you want when you need it. Many have waiting lists. Some do not accept Medicaid patients. Also, some facilities are only open to certain categories of patients, such as patients who require acute care. Some nursing homes may expose residents to the risk of elder abuse and other problems. Continuing care, continuing care retirement communities specialize in providing a long-term home for older people. Residents can stay in independent living as long as they're self-sufficient. So they have the option to transition into assisted living and nursing care if needed without having to relocate to a new facility, which can be obviously useful. Continuing care facilities are the most expensive type of retirement community according to the AARP. Interest fees can range from $329,000 to $1,000,000. Monthly fees on top of that range from $3,000 to $6,000 or more depending on housing type, care level, and other choices. The cost also depends on the type of contract the resident opts for. A life care contract, also called an unlimited contract, is the most expensive upfront but locks in a long-term price. So clearly if you're saying I'm going to do this for the life span, then you'll be locked in. You don't have that kind of end date which you can say, okay, time's up and we're going to kick you out of here type of thing, which obviously wouldn't be a good situation. So a modified contract covers specific services for a certain term and the price can go up at the end of that term. A fee-for-service contract can be thought of as a pay-as-you-go plan. While it requires no commitment, you will always pay the current market price. So what's the bottom line? Along with the considerations above, it's important to evaluate the financial stability of any facility you're considering, especially if it has a large upfront fee. You should also check with the facility's complaint history before committing to a community see whether you can arrange a short-term stay perhaps two nights to get a sense of what it's like to live there.


It's time to go behind enemy lines presented by Windows 11, so pleased to be joined by NFL Radio Legend. The voice of the San Francisco 49ers, Greg Papa, thanks for taking the time. Anything for you Mike. I'm looking forward to the trip. Thursday should be a good football game, a couple of really physical teams. I'm looking forward to this. It's great to be with you. Let's talk about this San Francisco 49er football team that has won five of its last six, eight and six overall. What's keyed to come back for the Niners here in 2021? The word that I just used and that's why I think it's strength versus strength with your team and Mike Ravel's mindset, physicality. The win in the line of scrimmage. It's a Kyle Shanahan sophisticated run game. Trent Williams is such a good player. Alex Mack has been a major acquisition at center from left tackle to right tackle. They're dominating. They're just all over. They just, they take all the eligible, they move them all around. It's sophisticated, but it starts by winning the line of scrimmage and then on defense. They're dominating both lines of scrimmages. Their skill players have skill and the skill is trucking you, running over you, breaking tackles. They call themselves the yak bros. That's why I love this game. It's going to be cold. It's going to be, you know, right before Christmas and it's going to harken back to an earlier era and the team that is more physical on Thursday nights, going to win the game. And I know how physical you guys are, but you better strap it on tight because these 49ers, they are not white wine sippers. Remember the, the, the finesse 49ers of the 80s and 90s that won Super Bowls? That's not this team. This is more like Jim Harbaugh's team. Want to do a deeper dive on George Kittle. He's a guy that obviously everybody knows. People in this area know him well. He's got a lot of friends here in middle Tennessee. Since he's come back from the injury, he has been red hot. What's made it go for Kittle since he's come back? Well, he, so the first game of the year, he gets kicked and it really was the Achilles. It's been maybe four or five games, maybe starting with that Ram game where he really got the whole, the whole brunt of his physicality. He's off season home as in Nashville. He built an elaborate workout area in his barn there and he got into his balance beam things. And you can see it to the touchdown that he scored in Seattle, the 48 yarder when he went right down like a balance beam. I called it the, the Rischenkopf touchdown because he got up on his toes. He didn't step out of bounds. So that, that guy, he was such an incredible run blocker, Mike. And what he is, is just a tough sucker. He's trying to, to run right through you every time. We're an SEC country. Everybody knows Debo Samuel here. Entry riddle year a year ago, this year, 12 total touchdowns, taking his game to a completely different level. What's keyed that? The off season, working like George Kittle in the off season, got himself in really good shape.  He's thick-legged. So he's not a great route runner, but what he is, is a, is a point of contact collision guy where he'll just go off like Kittle. I'm going to go catch this football and then you're going to tackle me after I catch it. He knows how to sit down on cover and zone. He's not a man beater. They're using him like a running back. Why take the middle man out of it? He's not a great route runner and they're going to play man on them. You know what, we'll hide him behind the offensive line. So they made him kind of a half wide receiver, half running back, 100% football player. I think he's going to make the Pro Bowl this year, but you tell me what position will he make it at? We did it all in South Carolina. We can't be surprised he's doing it all for the 49ers. I want to go defense right now. So much talk about Nick Bozen. We'll talk about him all week and should be. Who else is making the defense happen? Arden Key. He fits the scheme here, the 49ers run. They're lighting him up inside, over a guard. So Arden Key on that D-Line has been huge. They moved Eric Armstead inside from DN to three technique. DJ Jones is playing great. So you know, those four guys, I would say a handful of guys, but they're starting to lock in. They're shutting down the run. That's why this game is going to be really interesting. And Bosa, he's got 15 sacks, but watch him play the run. He is a great run player. You can see and you can hear why 49ers fans love him. He is an NFL legend. Greg Papa with us. So glad to have you. Thanks for taking the time. Can't wait to see you on Thursday. Thank you, my friend. So are you a right back dancer? Right back dancer. Can't wait to see him. That's behind enemy lines, sponsored by Windows 11.


Hello everyone, I am Sira Satish Kumar, Consultant Clinical Psychologist in the Department of Psychiatry in Manipal Hospital, Spangler. Stress in children, stress in teens and stress in adults are altogether different. What makes a children stressful is mostly the academics, how the parents expect their child to be good in everything, good in sports, good in academics and everything. How the teachers expect their children to be good in every subject, how father want the child to be good in everything. So child is stressed because of the peer pressure. When parent starts comparing the child with the neighbour's kid, with the other school children, child is under pressure. The child is under pressure to perform better, to excel and the child is not able to do it. The child is under pressure. Teen is in pressure in altogether different ways. Now when a child passes out of the school, goes into the college, the adolescent goes through a lot of differences because when a adolescent of the age 14 to 18 goes out of the home to a college, he will be seeing kids, they follow different patterns of lifestyle. Now the adolescent wants to adapt that lifestyle, that is when the differences in the person starts. Now again, there is a lot of pressure to perform well, to excel, to get into a job, to get into a better school after completion of the degree is what the teen falls into the stress. Now there is another aspect which is altogether not given importance which is interpersonal relationship. Most adolescents after the age of 14 and 15 look for emotional dependency, emotional security. So they look for their partners in the form of boyfriend and girlfriend. So that is when the person gets into a lot of stress, when the things are not happening between them. They get into substance abuse and they are not able to cope up with the academics, not able to cope up with the family lifestyles.