Okay, moderating our panel this morning is our very own Professor Jim Holmes from our strategy department. Jim? Thanks, Mike, and welcome everybody to Newport. If you don't feel sufficiently welcomed already. The organizers in their wisdom asked me to say a few words of my own about fleet design before determining, before turning to our distinguished panel that will come afterwards. I guess my chief recommendation would be a common one around here. Look back in order to look ahead. What would the masters of strategy say about future challenges and the way ahead in fleet design? I think they would remind us of timeless precepts of naval warfare. In particular this, you cannot exercise command of the sea without winning it. Strategy is about setting and enforcing priorities. If forced to choose strategy, or excuse me, combat must come first. Peace time presence must yield to it. So we should structure our fleet to win maritime command and only then worry about platforms and capabilities that exist mainly to harvest the fruits of command. Think about it. The purpose of any fleet design is to give political and military leaders the implements they need to win in wartime and persuade in peacetime. Winning in wartime is simple. We design build and configure forces to overpower enemies where it matters and when it matters. Although I should add that Klausowitz reminds us that the simplest thing is difficult amid the impassioned hot house climate of war where the best made plans often come to ruin. So Julian Corbett, one of our standard theorists here at the War College, charts perhaps the best of a pathway to winning in wartime. He spells out three sequential phases of naval warfare. First, if we are the weaker combatant, we can dispute command. We can mount an active defense, denying our antagonist his goals and enfeebling him while at the same time making ourselves strong enough to seize the offensive and prevail. If we're the stronger contender, we can skip that first phase. We can go on the offense immediately. We can vanquish the enemy fleet through battle or bottle it up in port through a blockade. Only after we control vital waters can we land troops, bombard foreign shores or regulate shipping through vital sea routes. In other words, only then can we reap the blessings of command. Now Corbett does allow that circumstances might compel us to deviate from this pattern, but he thinks that such cases are rare. As a rule, you can't get to that third phase without going through the hard work of fighting for and winning command. Even when he seems to deprecate the importance of capital ships in fleet design, as he does, he nonetheless reaffirms that capital ships are the protectors of lighter vessels, the cruisers and flotilla craft that fan out in large numbers across the sea to patrol important sea lanes. No protector, no maritime command. Hence the primacy of combat platforms in fleet design and hence the primary primacy of arming as many ships as heavily as possible. Distributing lethality is a must to use the common slogan for this concept. But peacetime diplomacy also hinges on combat. In order to persuade in peacetime, we must feel the fleet able to win in wartime and we must also convince important audiences that we have the resolve to use that fleet to uphold our security commitments to allies and friends overseas. As he so often does, Henry Kissinger explains in pithy fashion how we can deter, coerce and reassure in times of uneasy peace. Capability and the willpower to use it constitute the sinews of strength as Klausowitz teaches us. It's the job of statesmen and commanders to convince key audiences we will use that strength to keep our foreign commitments. So we have to make believers out of adversaries in order to deter or coerce and out of allies and friends in order to reassure. Our maritime strategy and the larger policy it serves will fall short if we fail to dishearten those who need disheartening and to comfort those who need comforting. Bottom line, if budgetary or other constraints compel fleet designers to choose between ships, planes and assets that exist mainly to fight for command and capabilities that exist mainly to exploit command, they must opt for the former. There is no projecting power onto foreign shores, policing the sea lanes or doing other things that we deem worthwhile unless we can seize control of waters and skies from which we can project power or that we want to police. Everything else must come on a not to interfere basis with this elemental function. Otherwise, we may neither persuade in peacetime nor win in wartime, and thus we might find ourselves in a very bad place. Now with that, I want to turn to our distinguished panel. I am thrilled to have these three panelists with us. To my immediate right is somebody who needs no introduction to students here at the War College or to our graduates, Professor Jeff Till, who's booked Seapower. Now in its third edition going on, a fourth edition Jeff tells me is one of our standard books that we reach for in order to answer pressing questions about Seapower. To Jeff's right is Ronald Rourke, a very long time analyst for the Congressional Research Service, much decorated and I would commend his bio in the conference pamphlet to you. And he will undoubtedly leave us his reports, his reports about Seapower and about China and so forth or must reads for anybody who does this sort of thing. To his right is that Professor Allison Russell of Merrimack College of just north of Boston, an expert on cyber warfare. I certainly just on a personal note, I hope that she is correct about cyber things because I know everything I know about cyber I get from her. So I hope that she will, I hope and I expect that she will contribute a lot to this talk about fleet design. With that, Jeff, please take it away. Thank you very much. It's a great honor and a real pleasure for me to be here again and to all the students sitting at the back of the hall, I apologize. My theme is, what it will be when the, yeah, my theme is set by E. M. Forster, 1910, who said, I'm going to go back to it actually. Only connect, live in the fragments no longer. He wasn't talking about force development, but it applies to force development. It needs to be seen within the context that sets its objectives and shapes its responses. And I think the big advantage of doing that is fundamentally that it encourages us to think about force development as simply another form of strategy. A strategy of means, if you like. Now, we all know what the basic problem of force development, fleet design, military acquisition is. It's all, as Jane Austen also famously said, the truth universally acknowledged that the acquisition of military material is the most demanding form of human activity. The reasons for that are basically speaking that we're preparing for an unpredictable future. We're looking through a glass darkly. We simply don't know what to expect. Typically, also, there are very long lead times, like Britain's carriers, for example, starting in 93. It won't be ready for another four or five years yet. That encourages iterative tinkering by everybody, politicians, naval staffs, builders, and so on. The result is that the project costs more, comes later, and can do less than originally hoped for. There's always a result's commitments gap. I don't know a single navy anywhere that hasn't got one. It's one of those things. A lot of these problems derive essentially from that wider context. Effectively, it's the whole maritime scene. I think of navies in every aspect of them as simply part of a maritime environment and then a national environment. Many of the problems and many of the approaches have to follow on from that recognition, if you like. I think, basically, in purely logical terms as it were, the decisional system for producing what we need when we need it is something like this. You have kind of four tiers of decision, if you like. The first one sets the objectives at the high national level. The second one decides priorities, allocates resources. The third one, which is typically the Defense Department or Ministry of Defense, if you like, decides the military objectives. And right at the bottom, the fourth one, the Navy Department identifies what the naval contribution to this is going to be. At every stage, the relevant decision makers have to reconcile ends, objectives, ways, methods and courses of action and means, resources, tools and procedures. And major problems at any level can cascade downwards. But there's also a feedback system as well. It's a very poor strategist who, at least to some extent, doesn't define his objectives with some sense of what his resources are. So at the very top of the hierarchy, if you like, the key decision is to identify national objectives. And this has to be done that people lower in the hierarchy can address the strategic issues of deciding how those objectives should be met. Policy at the top, strategy thereafter. And perhaps the first step is to develop and publicly articulate a maritime vision for the country rather than the way that President Joukawi in Indonesia and even more remarkably President Xi in China has actually done. Here he is, looking around the place with himself, as I think he's due. You've probably all seen this very long quote about China's maritime dream. I know it's a long quotation, but it's worth knowing because this is a very rounded view effectively of what the maritime future should be and sets an admirable context for development. And what we've seen since, of course, is a build-up of the Navy, the Coast Guard, amphibious forces. It's a package that includes industry, in every sense of the word. Maritime diplomacy, if you like, using all of this as a key part of China's foreign policy, particularly with the One Belt One Road project, which is simply dual-dropping in its level of ambition. And backing it all up with dramatic actions. This is actually President Joukawi bolstering public support by blowing up foreign fishing vessels in Indonesian waters. China doesn't do that quite, but it's maybe something I'm thinking about. So fundamentally, what's required at this kind of level? Well, I would argue top-down clarity. Otherwise, you get rather bland statements about what the objectives are in defence of national interests, when and where. Options are maintained, not prioritised. There's talk of balanced approaches towards the future, which in practical terms offers very little real guidance to decision-makers lower down in the hierarchy. And when this happens, people lower down in the hierarchy wherever they are, either follow the same line and preserve options rather than determine priorities, or more insidiously, they decide their own way forward in the light of decisions that they think the policy-makers above them should have made, but didn't. Amongst the consequences of this are political, economic or military decisions at the operational, rather than the strategic level, and that they are made largely for sectoral reasons. Instead, it has to be thought of as a national enterprise, as Australia's Chief of Navy recently emphasised. Of course, it's bound to be competitive, because the maritime case in all of its aspects is up against everything else, every other element of national policy. And it may well be heavily influenced by contextual issues, like the argument about whether the state should intervene in or take a big role in the national economy, defence industry and so on and so forth. So to sum up the task of the top two tiers is to decide policy and set strategy at the national level, so that those lower down know what they're supposed to do and the resources they have at their disposal. So let's slide down to tier three, which is the Defence Department. Well, I suppose the UK approach is pretty commonplace. Basically, have a national security strategy, decide what it is every now and again, have a five-yearly defence review, and then produce an annual defence white paper of some sort. That kind of pattern is fairly common. But what it throws up, as anybody looking at this process would very rapidly discover, is a huge tension between whether this process should be strategy-led or resources-led. It's always said to be strategy-led, but it's very often not. Looking at it, it's really clear, in the British case at any rate, that fundamentally this is a question of accepting that security is widened, and that means involving other departments, other government departments, and so on and so forth, which means a different kind of approach to thinking about forced development. It's also, of course, going to be joint. It's a question of balancing hard and soft responses. This means the ability to strike a balance between the hard and soft uses of naval power, or military power, and to make sufficient preparations for a latter as well as for the former. Great power competition is not the only game in town. We should worry about low-level threats too. They have a nasty habit of turning into high-level threats later. This may involve engaging meaningfully with allies and partners, partly because it has the advantage of narrowing the gap between resources and commitments. The next phase, Dan deciding and delivering naval support, the N's Ways and Means approach applies just as much here as anywhere else, and the Navy will have its own institutions for how it delivers it, whatever which ever Navy we're talking about. I'd like to remind you of something that Admiral Mullen said not that long ago, which I think is just the point I'm trying to make. Effectively, we need to address this business of forced development as seriously as we address war fighting. It really is a strategy of means. It really is just as important. And it's a question, of course, of identifying what you need and why, not simply basing one's aspirations on the number of submarines or whatever it is that somebody else has got, knowing why that's the case and constantly saying why that's the case. Otherwise, you tend to relegate strategic thinking relative to the operational and tactical. I think it needs to be explicitly promulgated to constantly all the time. It doesn't need to be ambient. I think one of the problems that the Royal Navy's had over the last 50 years or so is the assumption that everybody knows why we need a Navy, and it's manifestly clear that they don't. What this needs, of course, in terms of people, and I absolutely emphasise the point made by Harlan down there, is the people aspect of all of this. What we need are smart political advocates, political operators and smart customers for industry. Hence the importance of rigorous PME. And I'm not just saying this because I'm in Newport. I think it's very significant that the Chinese, for example, are engaging in a massive PME reform as we speak. So what does force development actually involve? It's basically speaking fleet design and fleet operation. The aim is to provide government with choice when facing an uncertain future. Maybe big ships are particularly good at that. I think this is an archival point that we might want to discuss. But clearly it needs to be effect-based, not platform-based. And I don't have any problems really with the principles that Frank Hoffman came up with recently about what those principles should be for both fleet design and fleet operation. It needs to embrace uncertainty. It needs to be strategically driven. It needs to be risk-informed. It needs to emphasise versatility over adaptability. And it needs to maintain balance. Balance also, I would argue, between long-term conceptual and shorter-term nuts and bolts delivery of capability.  So one of my conclusions, broadly speaking, it needs top-down leadership. And I mean at the national level and every other form and every tier. You need to have a coherent maritime ends-ways-means package where it all hangs together. It clearly requires a holistic approach with every other aspect of relevant government activity within the state and within the world. It needs constant articulation and checking because things will always change. The decision you made last year is already last year's decision and it constantly needs refinement, if you like. It also requires strategic patience. There are no quick and easy fixes in this business and anybody who says there is is mistaken. But basically, I suppose the bottom line of all of this is really taking the strategy of means seriously and preparing for it. Treating force development, fleet design, fleet operation, seriously as a strategy of means by devoting significant human resources to the task, alongside those committed to the generation of war-fighting skills. Skimping on the tail to save the teeth just means fewer teeth in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you to the Naval War College Foundation. I'm delighted to be here. I think this has been a great day and a half so far. And I have the task today of discussing cyber. And cyber has come up quite a bit since we started yesterday. In fact, almost every presentation or panel has mentioned cyber in some way, shape, or form. Starting off yesterday, Admiral Richardson talked about networked fleet in terms of increasing capabilities. You can increase the number of ships you have to increase capabilities. You can increase the capabilities on those ships and those platforms. But you get the exponential curve when you network them. And I think that is absolutely that I'm in full support and full agreement with that. That is a way to dramatically increase capabilities. But then we heard General Neller talk about operating in environments with complex terrain, contested environments, the battle of signatures, the proliferation of technology. All of these are cyber issues. They're issues beyond cyberspace, but they're also issues within cyberspace. It is a very complex terrain. It is an ever-changing man-made domain that is very complex and can change on a day-to-day basis. It is a contested environment, and we do have to plan to operate within cyberspace as a contested environment. And the proliferation of technology on our end is fabulous, but it's also happening for our adversaries, and so that poses additional challenges. So whether we're talking about more ships, whether we're talking about big ships or smaller ships or older ships or newer ships or competition with China or a peer competitor or bifurcated fleet, the cyberspace aspect and those questions still matter about how are we networking these ships and sensors and platforms together. And as we move forward in that direction, I would like to ask the question of what if we do that and we move forward and network everything together in this seamless integrated system that we can fight with and deploy with. But what if we lose the ability, the access to cyberspace on which we depend? So what if someone else, an adversary, has the ability to cut off our access to cyberspace within the region in order to deny our ability to operate or to enter or operate effectively within cyberspace in order for an adversary to achieve political or military objectives? Are we planning for that? That is what I define as strategic anti-access area denial operations in cyberspace, similar to blockades in cyberspace. This can be done, but what are the implications? In networking our fleets and networking all of our systems are our refrigerators or our cars. Cars have been, you can hack into cars, it's been possible since the mid-90s to hack into cars and to manipulate them while someone is driving them. Refrigerators have been reported to be involved in cyber warfare. So as we go forward with the Internet of Things and connect everything to everything, we should also be thinking about what does that do to our capabilities if we suddenly lose access? We've created in cyberspace a modern, a new center of gravity. And as Thomas Schelling points out, the ability to hold that at risk, the threat of pain against that center of gravity provides a strategic advantage for an adversary and the ability to leverage that to achieve political or military gains. So that's an issue I think is important to discuss as we move forward with the robust connectivity and the resilience. How are we protecting ourselves from losing access altogether? Because if you think of the implications of this to deny operators, ships, craft, the fleet, the ability to use cyberspace, particularly when deployed, how would that impact operations and warfighting capabilities? That's the scenario we must plan against even as we move forward to greater connectivity because this is possible. Access to cyberspace can be disrupted, it can be denied, it can be cut off. There are a variety of ways in which it can be done. The first is by attacking the physical layer of cyberspace which is where satellites are, where fiber optic cables, undersea cables are, where servers are. That's the hardware that makes cyberspace possible. That's the physical elements that make wireless technology possible. Those can be disrupted, they can be dismantled, they can be destroyed, mitigating or destroying your ability to use cyberspace until they're repaired. It's also possible to disrupt access to cyberspace at the logic layer. So using root servers, internet exchange points, border gateway protocols, where the functionality of cyberspace is, where the rules are, where the bits and bytes are. Through cyber attacks like distributed denial of service attacks can overcome those systems, can make it temporarily impossible for the system to function as it's intended. Then there's the threat of EMPs, electromagnetic pulses. That's a truly terrifying scenario because of the broad implications that it could have. This is something that if we can think about it here and we can talk about it here, I would absolutely guarantee that the Chinese have thought about it and they're thinking about it and they're planning for it, and probably the Russians as well. If they're doing that, we need to be doing it as well. It's important because cyberspace is a center of gravity and although it enables so many wonderful things, in terms of operability, we need to make sure that we can protect that from not just small intrusions or that could have big consequences or failure of a particular operating system, but rather failure to access the entire domain of cyberspace. So that's what I think is incredibly important for us to think about and for the purposes of the Navy and our discussion today. I think that there's two different ways to think about using this concept of strategic A2AD and cyberspace. The first is for coercion and compelence. It's more cost effective to coerce than to fight and it's a useful tool to have. It requires investment in the requisite physical and technological capabilities and plans to make strategic A2AD and cyberspace a viable option. There's a variety of different ways in which you could implement this and a lot of it depends upon your target. Whether it's China or North Korea or Iran, those would all be very different scenarios that might require different capabilities, but they can be planned for. But as you move forward with planning to use strategic A2AD and cyberspace as a coercive tool, there are three things that I think we also have to keep in mind and make part of the planning process. The first is we have to consider ways to mitigate or control the impact beyond the intended target because the funny thing about cyber attacks is often they have unintended consequences that can be just as important as the intended consequences. So we must plan for that, including scenarios in which using this as a coercive tool might affect our allies or our partners in ways that we don't want. So consider ways to mitigate the impact beyond the intended target. Secondly, consider reversible methods to facilitate post-crisis stability operations and that might seem a little counterintuitive, as I'm saying, go forward, make plans to coerce using this tool but then figure out how to reverse it. But we have this luxury in cyberspace where sometimes some things are reversible. So after you achieve your desired political or military goals, you're able then to help reestablish connectivity in a faster way to help get the country back on track, to help rehabilitate it so that it can become stable and functioning sooner and reduce the reconstruction time overall. So that's the second and the third point is to consider the U.S. vulnerabilities that are inherent in a globally distributed force. If this is a tool that the United States decides to use for coercion or the threat of using it, we must remember the implications that might have for particularly the Navy as it's forward deployed in far-flung corners of the globe and what the ramifications might be. If we threaten to use this, what might happen to our globally distributed force? How are they vulnerable, where they are and what does their defense system look like to prevent it against being a backlash for this? So that is the first part about compelence and coercion. And now I think that is a good way to move forward to think about that, but I think it's absolutely essential that we look at deterrence as well. Because as I said, if we're thinking about this, potential adversaries are too. So deterrence has the triad, the denial, punishment and cooperation. And for the denial aspect, we need robust, redundant and resilient systems in cyberspace, just like everywhere else. We need to improve the technological and computer systems continuously through self-healing systems, active cyber defenses, and even in some cases, creating an analog gap, making systems a little bit dumber sometimes in order to make them more robust. So as we move forward with robust connectivity and high-tech fixes, we also have to take a step back and say, are there places where in order to make a more robust comprehensive system, we might want to make something a little bit dumber so we can ensure we have that capability should everything else be in jeopardy. So we want to think about that as a cohesive package. We also want to think about satellites. They're incredibly important to military operations. Is there the ability to launch satellites as needed to re-establish communications? If a satellite, if there's an anti-satellite missile that takes down a satellite or something else that takes it down, that dramatically affects connectivity and comms. What does that ability to re-establish connectivity and launch a new satellite look like? How can that be done in the midst of conflict situation? Where can it be done from? What type of communication is needed in order to send the message that you need a new satellite and then launch the satellite? So taking a look at the satellite piece is really important. Third, we can also diversify cyber-connectivity whenever possible. So different systems using different programs, perhaps different logic systems, of options might help to mitigate the effects of a cyber attack and provide for a more redundant and robust system. I think we need a war game for conflict in which we don't have connectivity. So you start a war game and what happens if you're suddenly without connectivity? How do you proceed? What happens next? I think that's an essential part of the planning. I think for the Navy in particular, there's a real opportunity to invest in Navy-specific innovation. The Navy's demands are unusual. You operate in remote locations with a very long lifespan for platforms with multiple sensor systems that are networked together. What do you need in terms of cyberspace and technology that can support that? And maybe it's not so... that market is not necessarily readily noticeable to other services or in the private sector. But there's an opportunity there for Navy-specific innovation to support the Navy-specific needs. So that's all for denial. For punishment, I think that the U.S. needs to adopt a cyber strategy and policy, a comprehensive one, and particularly one that includes a response to a strategic A2AD attack in cyberspace. I think the U.S. needs to decide what it would do. Would it consider that an act of war? Cyber blockades are a real thing. They've happened against Estonia and against Georgia by Russia both times. In any other domain, blockade is considered an act of war. There were cyber blockades conducted against those two countries where they acts of war... they can be considered acts of war. They clearly align with blockade operations in every other domain. In the case of Georgia in 2008, they were already at war, so it was sort of a moot point. In the case of Estonia, a NATO ally, the President of Estonia said this is an act of war. This is a blockade in cyberspace. So we need to have a policy about how the U.S. views cyber blockades as well as how does it view something like a strategic A2AD attack in cyberspace. It is hard to make policy on cyber security, but I fully agree with what Harlan said earlier. It is not too hard. That is not an excuse for not doing it. It needs to be done, or to address emergent technologies. That is fine, but we need to have a policy. We need to establish what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior in cyberspace. Lastly, with regards to the cooperation leg of the triad, we need to develop a common framework internationally for agreement regarding access to cyberspace. We need something like a UN treaty on access to cyberspace. We have it for other domains. We have it for nuclear weapons. We need to decide collectively the international community whether this is something that we are going to fight over actual access to cyberspace or we are just going to fight within cyberspace and over capabilities within cyberspace. So that is an area that also needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. So my big takeaways on cyber security and fleet design and particularly this question of strategic A2AD in cyberspace is we need to anticipate these strategic attacks on cyberspace. We absolutely need to plan for it. We need to be pessimistic and expect the unexpected. Cyber is what Rumsfeld would have called a known unknown vulnerability. We know it is a vulnerability, but we don't know how it is going to manifest itself. And so as we protect against specific intrusions and certain network attacks, we also need to be protecting our access to the domain as a whole because it is so fundamental to operations. And lastly, given Moore's law, how can we predict fleet cyber needs 20 to 50 years out? We have no idea what the cyber landscape is going to look like in 10 years, let alone 20 to 50 years. So as we move forward, we need to be flexible, we need to be adaptable, we need to be innovative, and we need to be secure. But the cyber question will not be solved once and for all. It is going to be something we have to keep coming back to and we have to plan to keep coming back to it in order to stay on top of it. Thank you. Thank you, Allison. Let me take just a minute and restate some of the cross-cutting themes that I heard that I think are perhaps worth restating. First of all, there's a strategic point, and then you heard this in particular in Jeff's presentation, but really in all of them. And the first one is that maritime strategy is grand strategy. As we know, Mahan defines sea power in a word as commerce, bases, and merchant-enabled shipping. That right there is a grand strategic concept bringing in much more than military implements. He says that the purpose of sea power is to obtain and maintain commercial, political, and military access in that order. He's very specific about that.  This came through in particular when Jeff was talking about China. China is a truly maritime nation in the sense that it sees any implement that can influence events at sea as an implement of sea power, whether that's a Navy gray hull, whether it's an Air Force aircraft, or even more tellingly in the South China Sea in places like that, whether it's a China Coast Guard cutter, or whether it's even a fishing craft man by a militiamen. I think that's a difference in mentality between China and ourselves that is worth bearing in mind because it does create asymmetries. Second point that you also heard a lot out of all the speakers is the resource aspect. If you look around the periphery of Eurasia, Nicholas Speigman, but writing during the Second World War, told us that the Royal Navy during its era of maritime supremacy was a supreme at sea because it controlled what he called the marginal seas around the periphery of Eurasia, whether it's the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, South China Sea, or whatever the case may be. And I think that we heard that the United States, as it tries to maintain its maritime mastery, is under stress in many of those seas today, and thus we are stretched then. And it's easy for us to hear in the auditorium to talk about doing what Clausewitz says and cutting loose secondary theaters, but that's really not a very easy thing to do if you're a decision maker in Washington or an ally to friendly capitals. So I think that's something to ponder as we move ahead. Third, and I thought this was really fascinating, you particularly heard this in Ron's presentation where he talked about magical thinking and fudge factors and so on and so forth, although I think that was my turn, fudge factors, but you do hear a lot of that sort of thing. Corbett tells us that when we think about ships, he says that ships are manifestations in steel of the ideas that are currently in vogue in a particular strategic community. And I think that's an important point. Jeff, 10 years ago commenting on the release of the 2007 maritime strategy, which came right here on this stage in October of 2007, he posited that western navies live in a different world than Asian navies. And when he was talking about western navies, he said we now live in a post-Mahanian world, by which he meant that we live in a world in which western navies think more about how to exploit command of the sea than how to win it. We basically thought there was no one to fight for command who could stand up to us and therefore we could think about projecting power, doing humanitarian aid, police functions and all that sorts of things.  And I think that's what, I heard that again in the different comments this morning, and I think it's something that I actually, I believe is true. And lastly, before I turn it over to Q&A, all of the panelists, in particular Allison, in particular Allison and Ron, reminded us of a very basic point, which is that the weak can win. The strong do not automatically win simply because they have huge defense budgets, large numbers of ships and so on and so forth. If I am a weak power defending my own turf against a far away adversary, I have a lot of options at my disposal, regardless of what genes fighting ships or defense budgets or things like that might say. So I would leave that with you and I hope that that will feed into the Q&A.  Thanks. Good morning, Commander Guerrero from Chilean Navy. I would like to address my question to Professor Till. Morning, sir. In your book, Sea Power, you developed the concept of the navies in contemporary world to put a lot of effort in maintaining the good order and sea. I would like to see your comments on how you match that concept. Presently times, with the fleet design, considering that not a navy, even like a U.S. navy, can be the exclusive guarantor of the good order and sea and partnerships, coalitions and interoperability are key aspects of that matter. Thank you very much for the question, but I think the way that you phrased it, you already know what the answer is. Which is basically to say that the maritime security task, and by this I mean dealing with what we would normally regard as low level threats, maritime crime in its various forms, terrorism, drug smuggling, people smuggling and that sort of thing, is a really, first of all, it's a really serious issue. It's something that no navy in the world can possibly hope to avoid. And I made the point in my brief talk that some of these low level threats can easily escalate into something much more serious, unless they're controlled, unless they're managed. The problem with it is two-fold. The first is the sheer requirements of doing the task are both extensive and diverse. It means that piracy of Somalia takes a different form in piracy of West Africa, for example, or in the states of Malacca. And the responses aren't the same, but they could well be different from the requirements of war fighting. And so that poses this fundamental issue of where are you going to put your money, where are you going to put your resources, and that is something that every navy faces. The second problem that it poses is that the task is simply enormous. It's continuous. We will never win this battle. It's always a question of managing it to survivable proportions, if you like. And that means that there's no victory in all of this. This is simply a question of maintenance. And that is extremely demanding in terms of resources. And as the US Navy has frequently said, you can't do it on your own. You need cooperation. You need partnership. You need engagement. You need a forward presence and all of that. And so does all the other navies that have maritime maintenance of good order at sea as a high priority. So it kind of underlines the point I was trying to make that great power competition, of course, is critical. And of course, there's now rather more emphasis on it than maybe 10 years ago for very understandable reasons. And I wouldn't deny that for one moment, but it really isn't the only game in town. And this means that force development, fleet design and all of that is always going to be a question of balance between the kind of forces that you prepare for great power competition and the kind of forces that you prepare for everything else. And you simply cannot afford to ignore everything else. So basically, I think my answer to your question is that this is something that all navies have to take extremely seriously, almost irrespective of their strategic position. But I would say that there is a great recognition of this fact almost everywhere you go. And let's not forget that this is fairly new. If you looked at naval relations before the First World War, for example, you wouldn't see any of this, or not much of this sort of thing. But these days, we can almost take it for granted. And when you start to take something like that for granted, you sometimes forget how novel and how new and how important it actually is. Hello, I'm John Hanley, and I first want to thank you all for a very stimulating discussion. I have any number of questions, but I decided to drop the bomb anyway. Every time you do a transaction these days, you leave a digital footprint. And we have become exceedingly good in this country at going after some people that are very hard to find and try to minimize their digital footprint. But IS came out not long ago and published lists of U.S. military folks saying go after them. Here are some targets. Now, what if all this warfare starts to evolve? Right now, people around the country, there's lots of money going into tracking every time any of us does any electronic transaction on knowing who we are, how we likely vote, what type of messages we want to hear, et cetera. And suppose we get into a world where I'll call it unrestricted deterrence, going back to our PLA, our Forest Colonel friends, on unrestricted warfare, where it's as much about calling up Xi Jinping or his fellow on folks and saying, I know where your daughter goes and buys her clothes at the University of Michigan. And I know how you live, what your bank accounts are, and so we've had movies in the state, et cetera, to sort of project this type of world. And so just thinking of, if we take the type of thing that's going on commercially and project this in the compelence and deterrence, any thoughts on where this is going to take us and what this means for naval forces if we can get into a naval force architecture? Thank you for that question. I think that's a very interesting thing to think about. I think that we could go down that path. I think that that is definitely within the realm of possibility, that that can happen. But I think there are a couple things that we could do to try to avert going down that path. One of it is agreements about what we will and will not do with data, state-to-state agreements. There needs to be all sorts of agreements with cyberspace, there's private sector agreements, there's state-to-state agreements, international organizations, but this is something that states can say sort of like international law and Geneva conventions that certain things are off limits. Now that won't prevent everybody from doing those things, but it does establish some rules of the road essentially for what states are going to do in cyberspace and try to hold each other accountable so that certain targets, certain actions are off limits going after someone's daughter where they are and how they're shopping or away at school or something like that. That is a known illegitimate target in a sense because if we don't do things like that then there's nothing really stopping anybody from using that as leverage and that can be scary. The only other thing that might hold someone back from doing that is the knowledge that everybody can do that. So someone could do that to the US, the US can do that to that country. There is this proliferation of information about everybody everywhere, whether it's information we put out there publicly on Facebook or wherever in our emails or if it's more private information that's somehow stolen by foreign government and now they have that access to everything in your personal history, that's all out there basically or that is all gettable in a sense. And so if rules are not established then I think there might be a natural counterbalance, counterbalancing that happens. Well if you do that to our people we'll do that to your people. And eventually that might become a bit ineffective or just too much of a hassle for states to really want to deal with and that might force them towards common agreements a bit more. But I agree that that is a troubling scenario where there's so much information about everybody. Whether they want it out there or not it's there, whether they are involved in the military or in defense or in government or not there's still information about them out there that can be used as leverage. So I think it's important to establish some boundaries. There is a difference on the same bearing but a much greater range all the way in the back there. Thank you, Lieutenant Commander Ian Starr, U.S. Coast Guard. Also a cyber question. I've been reading a lot lately recently about so-called left of launch cyber warfare as a way to deal with nuclear states. So kind of a two-part question. As the world returns to great power competition between nuclear states one is left of launch warfare an actual viable tool or is it more of a magic bullet? And the second part would be is U.S. cybercom and the various supporting cyber elements adequately positioned and structured to deal with the four plus one threat of nuclear states and cyber savvy extremists? Thank you. Thank you. Those are two great questions. To take them in order for the left of launch capability I think it's, is it a magic bullet? Maybe, but it might not work every time. It might be a magic bullet that works once or twice. The ability to impede the launch of a nuclear weapon I think that's fabulous. I think better to not have it launched than to have to shoot it down midair for sure but I think the best scenario is to not have it on the launching pad in the first place. So while I think it's an important capability to have and absolutely one to keep improving and working on I would prefer to see more diplomacy involved so we don't get to that point. I think if we could make more investments in other types of deterrence then that might keep us from having to use that type of cyber tool. But if it comes to it, I think it is important to have those types of capabilities ready to go but there is a question, once you use anything in cyberspace it's out there for everybody else to see. It's out there for everybody else to use to try to copy or to plan against for the future and so sometimes you can get away with using the same tool in cyberspace multiple times but you lose the element of surprise and that is a huge advantage in cyberspace to have that surprise that someone doesn't think they have a vulnerability. They don't think that their system can be compromised and then they find out at the most inconvenient time possible for them that in fact there was a vulnerability and somebody has exploited it. That's a wonderful strategic advantage to have if you're the one using it. But I think it has its limitations and so we're better off trying to go for diplomatic solutions so we can reserve those tools for when we absolutely need it. And to the second part of your question is cybercom adequately staffed, prepared, or organized for that? I don't really know. I could hazard a guess. I think that there is some restructuring that could be done. I think this is one of the challenges inherent in cyberspace is the fact that we're still getting our arms around it in a sense. It's a long time at this point, but I think as a society, as a general public, we're still figuring out which direction it's evolving in and what we want to do about it. And I think cybercom is doing a great job of addressing it. Is there a more optimal way to go about it? I'm not entirely sure. Got time for just one more. Sir, please.  And to me, that's not one of the many issues that could be the core issue. And this is the response from anybody about fleet design or cyber. And it goes like this. About five years ago, when I was talking to a scat of technology companies and looking at where to invest and what to analyze, I wondered why the cyber security companies that are public weren't bigger and weren't making more money. So I quickly found out that because they sell their programs to small companies, but the companies that spend the most money have their own people. So then I went to the companies that have their own people and I found out how they do it, how they protect themselves, how virtually everybody's getting hacked, but there are a few people that don't get hacked. Then I asked the Navy, and I found out that the Navy and the military can't afford to have 10 or 15 or 20,000 cyber software developers. They can't afford it. So if they can afford, you know, this kind of hardware and fleet, but they can't afford to have cyber men in house to protect it, and they're put in the position where everything could be handcuffed and turned into a pile of junk. My question is, in terms of affordability and overall strategy, should we go in the way that... You know, I just came from a big national tech conference and, you know, the joke is two kinds of companies out there, those that have been hacked and know it and those that have been hacked and don't know it, but essentially there are companies to protect themselves. I know how they do it. I know how they portray it, but I don't know the innards because that's secret. But if we're going to have fleet design, should it all be smart or should some of it be dumb? And what are we going to do about the fact that we can afford these ships but we can't afford the cyber tools in the... And by the way, the Navy and the military have no culture to support those kind of software developers anyway. Isn't it time to start thinking about redoing the tech culture of the military? That is a great question. Just to start... I'm trying to remember all the pieces of it. To start with the end, is it time to... How does the Navy protect itself compared to... Yeah, and I think that... I think that... You don't go one way or the other. I think you probably go both. I think the biggest thing is to make sure your systems are redundant, are robust, redundant and resilient and include a mix of smart and dumb. I think you have to go smart. I think that that gives you the best competitive advantage, the best edge, but I don't think you have to go smart in the same way for everything. I think some things can be smart in a different way so that you have more resilience or more redundants.  I don't think everything, but I think it needs to be a mix. I think it needs to be a hybrid approach in order to assure the most comprehensive system. Yes, I would. I think the question is the false one, if I may say so.  And that's part of the question of having a balance. We all remember from the Cold War days that a lot of the stuff that Soviets had was really, really high-tech. A lot of it was agricultural, frankly. Both were useful in that circumstance, so you have to have both. Please join me in thanking the panelists for a very stimulating panel. So another brilliant panel, and thank you so much, Professor. Hey, so we're going to do 20 minutes. That would be 11.05, right here.


In this video I'm going to show you how to take off that plastic extruder that came with the Ender 3 v2 and replace it with the metal extruder from TH3D. My name is Jim and this is the Edge of Tech. Like I said today we're going to be replacing the plastic extruder that came on the Ender 3 v2 with a metal extruder from TH3D. This is a super easy thing to do and we're going to go through it quick. A matter of fact once you do it once or twice it actually only takes about five minutes to do. So we're going to go through it step by step we're going to get it changed out and it should perform much better than the plastic extruder that came on the machine. The reason why we're doing this is because a lot of times the plastic extruders either wear a groove in the arm or the arm actually breaks underneath it cracks then you'll notice that your machine isn't extruding correctly. One of the good signs of a broken extruder for the plastic version is that your gears will be turning but the filament isn't going through and I'll tell you what if you look under the little arm the one that you squeeze on the plastic extruder you might find a little crack in there and that is causing it not to have enough tension to push the filament through. It's one of the reasons why we like to go with the metal ones. Now the Ender 3 v2 has an extruder on there that they actually put a metal insert in the arm where the filament goes in. While I do think this is a great upgrade just from being straight plastic because I don't think it will wear a groove in there quite as fast I do think it's still going to be an issue. We're going to swap this out today and we'll be one step closer to having an Ender 3 v2 pro. Let's do it. So the first thing you want to do is remove any filament that's going into your extruder. Just heat up the hot end and pull it out of the machine.  Now we're going to start by taking the old extruder off. So pull your cabling out if you have it in there. Then you want to take off the blue extruder handle that came from Creality. I want to pull out the little C-clip here. Now take off your Bowden coupler here and that leaves our extruder and the stepper motor right here. Now if we're looking from above we want to remove this spring first. So you can take the allen wrench that came with the kit or any other allen wrench you have.  Then you want to take off the arm which is this screw back here. That'll remove the arm and the pulley. The next thing I want to do is take off the gear so I'm going to take my allen wrench and just loosen those grub screws. There's two of them one here and one back here and that'll allow the gear to come off and it'll be free like this. Then take your next allen wrench and you want to take out the three screws here but this is where we want to be careful. When we take these out the stepper motor could fall so you want to hold underneath here while you take these out and when you get to this third screw it does get really loose so you just got to be very careful. Lift that up and take our stepper motor and set it straight down on the bed of the printer. So this is everything you get in the THRD aluminum V2 extruder kit.  So now we take the stepper motor and we're going to push it up through the bracket. We're going to take our new plate and set it right on top. Then we're going to take the shortest little M3 tapered screw and put it in that corner right there and it goes in this corner. You can see that that corner is already tapered in the aluminum and we're just going to screw this down so it holds our stepper motor and our plate in place. Now we might need to adjust the plate a little bit when we get these other screws going but at least now it's not going to fall on us. Something to point out, you want to make sure that it's facing this way. So this is where we're going to put our boat and coupler we took off earlier and the filament is going to pass through this way here. If this is facing this way it will not work. The next thing we want to do is take our little gear here and put that on. So we're going to slide it down like this. It's very important that one of the grub screws here match the flat spot of your extruder. So I zoomed in a little closer to show you that this is the flat spot of the extruder shaft and this is one of our grub screws and you want to kind of align it with the hole that goes through here. You can tighten them both in. Now we have the metal gear installed. Now what we're going to do is put the pulley on our arm here. So what you need is a little lock washer, the M4 bolt and your pulley. So we will take the pulley, we will set it on like this. So take your lock washer and put it on the end of your bolt, put your bolt down through the pulley, then take your M3 own wrench and tighten it down. Now you just want to go so it's tight and this should still spin. Now we're going to put the insert in. So take your insert and put it in the corner here.  So turn it over, then take one of the included washers and put it on just like this. So I flip this over and this is the inside of the arm. We're going to take one of the M3 bolts and tighten it down right into the arm here. So now what we have is our sleeve, a washer on the back and an M3 in the side of the arm. Now making sure that the washer does not fall off the bottom of your arm, slide it back into that back corner and it should sit down just like that. Once you make sure your cap is pushed down all the way here, tighten the screw down. So once it's tight it'll be pretty hard like that. Now you don't want to go that tight because your arm needs to move. So I just go to tight so it can move but it's not crazy loose. It's not moving up and down. Now we take the spring that came with the kit and squish it in between just like this. You want to make sure your spring is lined up there because we're going to take another screw and we're going to put it right in here to hold that spring in place and make sure it's tight and it should be in the center of your spring. The end of this spring is around that other screw we put in here and this end of the spring the screw is coming through so it can no longer pop out and then when you press in it gives us this nice spring and it gives us great tension with the new stronger spring here. Next step is just to simply install these two bottom screws here with the remaining M3 screws that are in the kit and they just tighten right down into the stepper motor nice and tight so that doesn't move at all. Now take the boat and fitting that came with the kit and turn that right into the end. Take your wrench that came with your printer and give that a good like half a turn past hand tight. Now I removed the old boat and fitting from the end of my tube so we want to take and push this one in as far as it goes and you want to make sure this is super tight in there and inserted as far as it can go. Then you can take the included Creality C-Clip put that right here and that's it. Something I always do is I take a cut piece of filament I push it in just to make sure everything moves freely then when you let it go that gear should be grabbing it. We can take the included Creality knob and put that back on and when we turn it you can see our filament is going in and out and the gear is grabbing it nicely. Just a quick heads up it's always good to recalibrate your E steps on any machine that you change out the extruder or hotend on. You can see a video above about recalibrating your E steps and it's also linked in the description below but make sure you do that because it's very important because it's probably going to change. So that's it we've successfully installed the TH3D Aluminum V2 extruder to the Ender 3 V2 and now we have a much better extruder installed on this printer. This is going to last a lot longer than the plastic one does even with the little metal insert I think. There are a lot of people that still like the plastic extruders and that is totally okay. I prefer the metal ones myself and I really like this upgrade because it's cheap it's very fast and it's super easy to do. Again you can do this in about five minutes and all you need is your allen wrenches and the wrench that came with your Ender 3 V2. Well I hope you guys learned something today and as always keep printing. Hey everybody I hope you liked the video. Give me that thumbs up if you did hit that subscribe button if you haven't already and the bell right over here to get notified anytime we go live on Monday for hot makes or we put out a new video. You guys rock!


Don't switch me, come on! 17! Candy Beam is viable. Hey! I agree, man. How's it going everybody? Datodoy here, back within the round of Dragon Ball Fighters, Rank Matches. This time going back to a familiar team. Android 17, Super Saiyan Goku and Yamcha. I am very surprised we ran into another Android 17 player, but I can't be too surprised when this character is so much fun. They literally, I'm a 6M. They nailed it with this character in terms of fun factor. I still want to see him get a few more tools if they decide to keep up, which got buried there. But, you know, if they do make a Season 3, which I think they will, I would love to see it. Like, I've said I'd love to see some new tools for a long time, but especially characters like 17, Ginyu, stuff like that, maybe bringing a new like, oh, DPs! Invincible reversals are out here these days. Crazy how Yamcha is such a good character. Crazy how Yamcha is such a good character. DP again? No, he didn't. Well, I let that one slip. I let that one slip, but wait. Gonna go down here, wait. Hold on, let me get out. He got me. Wow. I did not expect that. Let's go. Do I get there? Oh, no. Oh! Alright, this game is a scramble. Oh, it's 17 versus 17. I didn't think he'd change out. Don't switch me. Come on. Oh! Oh! Oh! 17. I don't know why that happened. That was too good, dude. That was too good. Am I dead? I'm dead for that. Oh, my God. You know what?  That was really nice. Definitely more of a fear factor than an actual mix, but I'm gonna keep it real with you. That is too funny for me to care. And it's not like I can't win this. Oh, the down heavy was too early. What's 17 got for us? Gonna drop it here. That's fine with me. Have to spend a bar, but we might as well get Gojita back here. What's the Aussie DPs? Watch this read. Oh, no. Oh, why is that not invincible to beams? Arxis, you know what to do. Would that be too good? Would EX, would EX Wrecker be too good to be invincible to beams? I don't think so. I think it would be fine.  It's not like he's top tier. It's not like he's like, oh, no, one more thing and he'll break the game. We got GT Goku for that, baby. Oh, it is invincible to Super Dash. Most of them are, though. Why did I EX that? Oh, get off of me. Not today. If you're taking out 17, you got to do it the Super Dash way. That's correct. I didn't think it would be so fast or I wouldn't have opened my mouth. I'll be honest, guys. But we still have level three sparking, so this is totally possible. Hey! Do I have another jump? I do, okay. I wasn't keeping track. I'm just going to keep corner on this. The dash in?  We'll take that from there. Dynamic. All right. Now we just got to worry about one more Goku. Is he going to go air to air? Stay on the ground. No, he jumps back. Super Dash. Okay, it's time to spark. I don't know why I'm... Let's go. Let's go. That's probably death. Yeah, that is death. Wait, that might not be death, actually. It wasn't.  Keyblast straight up for game one. I'm not going to lie, though. That was a lot closer than I would want it to be, but that was sick. Let's go. Rematch. 17 versus 17. I got to get him back for the mix. Oh, and I took a free ride. Sick. I wish I didn't get... No, I didn't mean to spark. Definitely let the... I was too excited, dude. That's fine. We'll make up for it. We'll make up for it by taking the win here. Let's go. I should have just done 2S.  All right. He sparked up two at least. I mean, that's the one silver lining we could take from this. Oh, yeah. You got to watch out for the mash, dude. Oh, come on. I wanted to do it. Oh, he got me. Oh, I didn't expect him to do it. Oh, wow. We're just... Another pop-off. Let Goku go. My Goku is actually way too hurt. Nice. It wasn't too high. I probably should have gone for... Yeah, I shouldn't have gone for 17. No. I let him go down to the ground. I really should have gone for Gojira. Don't know why I didn't. Maybe I just wasn't thinking. As usual. Can I fell a slip out of here, though? We're out. We're out. Oh, he stopped me in my tracks. I thought I was clear. I thought I had the all okay, but we didn't. Get 17 back on the ground. He's going to stay down. Let's go. Stay on the ground. Face the consequences. I gave you a chance to get up. That was a sliding. But Goku's not going to...  Oh, come here and grab. He doesn't have sparks, so it's not like he... Oh, he did it again. All right, one more time. I'm upset. I'm sick.  I mean, it was genius, but also I'm upset. Air to airs are not my speciality. I gotta stop. Somebody has to stop me. For my own health, somebody has to stop me. Air dashed in. That's going to catch Super Dash every day of the week. Level three won't kill. He's forced to keep... He's got to keep playing the combat role with me. Level one. Either respect the ground or become the fertilizer that feeds it. Ah, he didn't say the line. Fuck. No, no, that just sounds like fan fiction. I'm looking for beams, but... Oh, that was a great angle one. I didn't even think that would hit, to be honest. That was just a great angle. Oh, you need to go. You got to make those decisions a little earlier. Let's go. We're keeping the assist around. And you know what? I might treat myself to a little level three knockdown. Who knows? Oh, I didn't. I came... Oh, okay, we got it. We got it in the end. I was almost very sick that my level three didn't come out. Let's go. What's the mix? What's the mix? What's the mix? We keep it to him. We keep it classic. We just keep it classic. Yasha, give him the boots. All right. So we're up two wins in this set. I would love to bring it home with a 3-0. That would be great. I honestly might go for a fourth game. I'm honest because I'm having a lot of fun this set. Just, I love this team, dude. It's so good. I'm a beam assist real quick here at the start. Let's go, dude. Oh, come on. 17. We're buds. 17. Show them the door, 17. Boom. We landed on the ground. All right. Now, 17 to 17. I'm going to do it again. Too slow. Too slow on my part. I'll take it. I'm sick.  Oh, let's go. Spin one. Spin two. Spin three. Try again. Boom. Hit him with another one. Watch this read. It wasn't a good read. Why did I use that move? I didn't mean to. So, Vanish does get the knockout, though. So, 17, still firmly in the driver's seat. I'm a beam assist again. Catch him in the air to air. Back up. What's he going to do? What's he going to do? Vanish not going to allow it. I am going to take him back to the corner, though. Let's be honest. Let's be real. I keep trying to implement that move into my game. It's just not working. Oh, gets the extension, which means level one will probably kill here. Yep. Good job. Good job. 17 is out. And he was definitely the MVP, that one. Thank you, 17.  Get off me. Get off me. Let's go. Oh, I missed it. Oh, but he tried it. Okay. Can we kill here? This was not the move. Just rapid fire cannon. All right. Let's definitely do another one, dude. I'm moving too. I'm moving too fast. I got to enjoy this team. I can't do two. I can't do two videos in a row with this team back to back. Unless... No, no, no. I can't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got to just keep him moving. Oh, come on. That was supposed to be a 6M. I don't have Super Dash, do I? Yep. That is why you were the best assistant in the game. Oh, too slow on the down heavy. And I got caught. Got caught trying to go for the cheesy vanish. I admit was not the move. Wow, this is a lot of health gone. Oh, and he's got the Dragon Rush extensions. He tried to mix. Reset. Down tech into the beat down. I can see that mix was kind of... I've never seen that before. I mean, great that there was no... There was nothing keeping me there, which is the downfall of that mix. I could just mash and get out of it, but... I can see it working on a player that's... You know, not looking for it. Let's go. Probably should have gone with the actual combo, but... Yeah, actually, get this man with the level 3. All right, Wolfang mix. What is the mix though? Is he gonna sparking? No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't. He tried something. Wait, what was that? Nice. I didn't do the level 1, by the way, because I was so confident my Android 17 would hit. I kind of... Kind of blinded by it. I'm just trying to draw out sparking now. And you know what? We... Never mind. All right, never mind. We're good. I didn't know how to get out of that. There's probably no way for me to get out of it. Building up three bars though. Do we do it? Oh, I should have the extra... The barrier that would have been so smart. That would have been so, so, so smart. Yoncha! That was so cool. Just the EX Wolfang. Just... All right, you're done. The hitbox on that is surprisingly good, by the way. That's what I really look for. Oh, he get rematch again. Let's go one more time. One more time, one more time. This is a huge video, dear. There's nothing I can do off that. I mean, I don't know how I got in the corner. At least he kind of walked back into it. But still, I don't know how I ended up in here. This is not where I'm supposed to be. Down we go. Okay, that's fine. Oh, keep it. Keep him away from me. All right, he gets a vanish. I'm going to vanish as well. No, he blocks it. What are you doing laying in here? All right, 17. Come back out. We got to set it up. Oh, come on. The overhead didn't hit him. That would have been sick. Just hitting them in neutral like that. I've never even seen that extension. Two overheads, like I hit by the classic. Are we going to lose this last one? That would be upsetting because I'd have to leave. And then it would look like I just left on his first win. Like, oh, I'm out.  All right, we got to win just for that reason. I can't make it look like that. DP. I was going to step back and dragon rush. All right, we're good. Back in the game. As long as we can establish control again, dude, that's all we need. Let's not DP more than we have to, huh? Let's keep the DPs to a minimum. I'm trying to play a little bit offense. I am worried about the 17 though, if I'm being honest. Oh, air to air. Oh, he teleported into it. That sucked for him. That was not good for him, dude. Oh, no. Yep, that was not the move. You hate to see it. I'm vanishing, dude. I'm mashing out here. Give me a reason to stay or I'm leaving. What am I doing? I mean, I guess this works too, but... All right, that should kill. Healing, you need to stop. All right, it stopped. We're good. How to take a lot more bar than it should have because of the way I did the combo, but in the end, we got the result. Back dash. Let's go. Walk up, hit him with the yells. The only way I know how to do it. Yonk, back it up. Okay. Let's go. Oh, I messed up. Did I catch up on back dash? I'm going to lose. I'm going to... Why is my confidence so low? That was kind of nice. All right, that's where I'm going to end it.  I got to mix up the video lengths. But yeah, if you enjoyed it, definitely make sure to go down below. Let me know what your favorite moment is. And while you're down there, if you enjoyed the video, make sure to the like button and subscribe to the channel to keep up to date on all things fighters and other fighting games. If you want to watch more stuff right away, there should be some up on your screen, so definitely check those out if you're interested in any of them. I have been Dr. Dwayne. Thanks again for watching this all the way to the end, and I will see you in the next one.


What's up, everybody? Jason here from jazby's case breaks.com. We have Just filled up a little filler here for 1819 prison first off the line. We're getting away four spots and this is a fat pack of chronicles number 376 So we're doing number 376 as you can see Nick has already uploaded the next one So 377 is already on the website and then of course guys just to show you guys the bio and the intro here Of course in the item description is this is a super high-wares high-reward type of break guys this first Well, we will do the break we'll randomize the customer names and teams and Give you guys a random team and then we will distribute the hits out of this one pack right here Then at the end of the break will take all three customer names and the top four names will win a spot in the $280 1819 prison first off the line one box break round teams number two So let's do the break guys dice roller here customer names might go down to Peter I'll be down here. So good luck. Let's roll it and we got ourselves a four and a four and a two for six times So good luck one two three four five six We cannot Ryan, but we will do that tomorrow though We'll have that no huddle all day tomorrow and all night and yes, just go just depending on the player you're waiting for Majority of the time. It's really not panini is that keeping us from not getting our redemptions Really the players not wanting to commit time to sign their autographs at the end of the day Yeah, I mean I know some people may be breaking this early and that's all good, you know, but We just want to stay with between the guidelines and lines of being a Like can you be happy with this and not breaking early because I know they can crack down on certain places that are high-profile and We'll just we'll just stick to the release days, of course Well, I know we see some people breaking that stuff early. So T rules down to the Phoenix Suns All right, so this is just a quick little filler. So I'm not gonna really go through all your names But show you guys some of the bigger teams. So they go Grizzlies there Pelicans are here going to Chris He going to Peter Michael going to Lakers Of course everybody else there Well, technically actually you can't break any new product. So I believe six in the morning of release day It's not really like 12 midnight actually. I Believe it's six in the morning or something like that eight in the morning your time Because if it was 1201 we would probably definitely be doing that all the time if we had it actually of course That's always a thing too. Sometimes we don't get the stuff into release day. Sometimes we do get it a day or two before Yeah But I said some people are probably doing it already have been doing it over the weekend I know that some people online and Facebook groups and stuff like that got boxes already. So Oh, just depends. But um, yeah, I mean if we were able to do midnight breaks We definitely be doing them for sure especially we have the product, but I believe it's like six Eight in the morning your time you can start No, no problem John Morantz, we got Trey young Terence Davis, Jared Colver, Kobe whites, Luka Donchich We got Stefan Curry We got another Kobe white here Cameron Johnson, Jordan Poole, a little Zion KPJ and Jackson Hayes-Bronze Oh, is it really? Yeah. Well, you know with COVID this year They don't think they got all the photography they wanted through rookie photo shoots, you know, like the rookie premier, so But you would think by now they would have some type of photos of some of these rookies that I've been playing but I Think that a lot of these cards are already produced like way ahead of time. You know what I mean? Way ahead of time. So it's like They're not like printing out Panini prism like within the last two three months while the season started Like they already have this stuff already planned right when like they get drafted and stuff So that's probably why they don't have too much photography on some of these teams and players And then I want to all like just draw over their jerseys and stuff. It's a little wack Alrighty, so the switch seems really quick now guys and here are the customer names again. I bought into the break Here are the dice roller and let's click the roll and it's three times. So remember top four Get a spot in the break itself and it's a two and a one for three times. So good luck one two and Three three times Top four get in Daniel Peter Matt and Robert Wolf Congratulations top four get in there you go Boom, so I appreciate you guys the next one's already in the store. Let's get that one rolling as well Jaspies case breaks.com


Let us move on to the next topic. How can I generate ideas? So this is linked closely to the word creativity that we use often. So we will look at this issue of creativity in some detail. So here are some quotations. The quotation shown below, imagination is more important than knowledge. Who made this statement? Again pointing towards creativity. Imagination is creativity. Reason can answer questions but imagination has to ask them. In research it is very important to ask good questions. It is not sufficient to solve problems which others have framed. It is important to ask good questions. This is also a part of creativity. Let us look at difference between intelligence and creativity. Now here when you use words like intelligence and creativity, of course, they depend on your definition. Now somebody may say I include creativity in intelligence. Then what I am discussing will not apply. So I am using words as they are understood by many. And as they have been used even by people who have done research in psychology in early days. So here are two examples.  See there are very many intelligent tests. So a particular test was applied to many people to see what kind of results it throws up and what achievements the people have made. So they have got intelligence scores, IQ scores for a large number of people by using the test. And they have also tried to study what these people have done in their life. What was their professional achievement and so on. So this person, Marilyn Wosawant, those scored 228 on the IQ test. Person was merely a question and answer columnist for Parade Magazine. This was the professional achievement as a person. On the other hand, Richard Feynman scored only 122 on the same test. Which is less than many run-of-the-mill physicists but is a Nobel Prize winner and recognized as the last American genius. So this is trying to point out that creativity and intelligence are not the same. Okay? So we need to understand intelligence and creativity each of these two terms properly. Intelligence and creativity are not the same things. Intelligence in a domain means the ability to function at a high level in the domain but creativity involves asking new questions and altering the domain. This is the difference. Let us read this again intelligence in a domain means the ability to function at a high level in that domain. So what does it mean? It means, let us say we are teaching various courses to students and then we are setting questions based on whatever we have done in the class. Sometimes the question can be difficult also and then you assign great point average to students based on this particular system of evaluation. In a rough way we can say we are testing intelligence whoever gets high marks is a person who is functioning at a high level in that domain in the particular subject. This is the meaning of functioning at a high level in that domain, ability to function at a high level but creativity involves asking new questions and altering the domain. What would creativity mean? Creativity would imply if a student has asked some question and the result of pursuing answer to that question that subject itself has got changed or a new area has got added to the subject then that is an act of creativity. So research involves creativity. If you see people who have made impact they have changed the world. That is what is the meaning. They have changed the world so you alter the situation as a result of your thinking process. So if you solve problems efficiently you may not alter the situation you may not alter the area. Though you are able to function at a high domain and such people are definitely required there is no doubt about it but we are trying to understand the difference between intelligence and creativity. One can be highly intelligent but rigid, non-creative or lacking in the kind of single-minded passion that drives creators. Now let us define creativity much more clearly so one definition of creativity as given in psychology this has been the statements arrived at after doing some research it is the ability to look at the same thing as everyone else and think something different. So this is one definition of creativity it is the ability to look at the same thing as everyone else and think something different. Another definition it is the ability to take a fresh look at familiar objects and situations enriched by past experience but not constrained by it. So whenever you try to look at a situation or a problem definitely you will make attempts to solve it based on your past what you have been taught and so on. So you cannot avoid it but you should not be limited by it. That is the important thing. So you may use that as a starting point but you will not end there. That is the meaning of this so ability to take a fresh look at familiar objects and situations enriched by past experience but not constrained by it. Now let us illustrate these definitions with examples. Let us take creativity in expression see creativity is there in different areas creativity is not restricted to only mathematics or science it is in literature it is in day to day life. The important thing to understand if you want to be creative is that it is there in day to day life. You have to have a taste for it and note this creativity and if you do that then creativity will develop in you also. So here are some expressions of creativity supposing person wants to express warmth so this is a statement made by one of the American diplomats who was in India when he was leaving this place after many years. So he said during his farewell speech during the coming winter our vivid memories of India will warm us as we face the snows he comes from a place which is very cold. So this is one way of expressing warmth so you see if you see the words here all these words are very familiar there is no bombastic language it is a way you connect the various things together. Humor often humor is an example of creativity. So there is some person who did a lot of research on capitalism and communism so then people asked him so what is the gist of what you have learnt after all your research. So he said this is what I learnt capitalism is exploitation of man by man communism is exactly its opposite. So what is the opposite of exploitation of man by man it is exploitation of man by man. So in his research at least he felt ultimately there is no difference I mean whether you agree with this or not is a different question but this is his conclusion his put is important this creativity. Disgust this is one example last century there was lot of discussion among philosophers on matter and mind are the two different or are they same and so on. So one student of philosophy he summed up after he went through different courses and he was asked so what do you feel at the end of all this you know education in philosophy he said what is mind does not matter and what is matter never mind right that is the feeling I get after all listening to all these debates it is so confusing. So just so discussed here is another example of creative piece I am trying to give you day to day examples I am not trying to give you a very high examples of you know height in creativity in literature and so on with a specific reason to tell you that creativity exist in day to day life and this is what we need to see if you want to develop creativity in you and you should appreciate creativity in various things that will help you to do good research in your own area. So someone uses used only two words roses and thorns to distinguish between several attitudes in life optimistic roses life is full of roses pessimistic life is full of thorns life is both roses and thorns stoic how does it matter roses or thorns you mean roses for you and roses for me so let good things happen to you and to me selfish roses for me and thorns for you all the good things for me and the bad things for you sadistic thorns for you and your blood for me then love roses for you and your smile for me and finally divine roses for you and your thorns for me now you can see he has just used two words roses and thorns all of us have seen roses and thorns right but this person has thought differently it is his ability to see the same thing as everyone else but think something different but he thought that you can use these two words and you know distinguish between the various attitudes in life another definition of creativity in a context of science and engineering as a creative product is a new and useful definition it is a new and useful so usefulness is a very important part of creativity this we should understand as researchers so for example a random tapping of a piano by monkey it generates a new pattern which is not necessarily melodious and so cannot be regarded as creative so you should not think randomly doing something and somehow getting something new is creativity that is not what creativity is ok that may be one component of creativity that you know you are trying to see various combinations and alternatives but all combinations are not necessarily creative this is very very important usefulness is a very important creative so this is important in the context of judging someone else's research or your own research so research is new fine but is it useful only then it is creative so creativity in Indian classical music you know you understand what is the creativity element in classical music what is the difference between someone singing a song which has already been sung nicely and singing a raga in classical music so a person who sings raga in classical music is a creative person why because he is using the same notes as prescribed for singing that raga but the combination of the notes can be different and some combination of notes can be more melodious than other combination the notes may be the same but their combination ok that is the creativity so that is why people say classical music is creative whereas light music where you sing someone else's song and you are singing it that does not involve creativity you may sing it well you may sing it melodiously so definitely you have a talent but that is not creative talent though the singer himself may not be a creative person to that extent so creativity can exist in social relationships even in planning one's life apart from art and science so in fact this is one interesting example that I want to quote in our department once there was a student his name was Ma Shivayana this was the name now I wonder what is the meaning of this name because they have never come across this name so we asked the student so what is the meaning of your name so he said sir the story is like this my father is a very ardent devotee of Shiva and he got a dream after marriage that he will have exactly 5 sons and he wanted to name all the 5 sons after the name of Shiva so he took the word Na Ma Shivaya you know it has 5 letters if you go by the Indian method of writing Na Ma Shivaya and then he named all his sons by simply you write these 5 letters in a circular fashion and then you generate 5 names out of it so the first son was named Na Ma Shivaya the second son you start with Ma first and end with Na so it becomes Ma Shivayana so this fellow was the second son the third one Na Ma Shik you start with Shik so Shivaya Na Ma that was the third son and the fourth fellow is Vaya Na Ma Shik because you start with Va and then end with Shik and the final fellow so Na Ma Shivaya, Yana Ma Shivaya the fifth son was named Yana Ma Shivaya so this is how he named all his 5 sons so whenever he utters the name repeatedly he will always be saying Na Ma Shivaya if you repeatedly utter this you will get this thing chanting of Na Ma Shivaya so whatever it is the point is there is creativity in many things it depends on us whether we can see it in fact I asked the student what is your father so he said my father is a poor farmer that is what he was so creativity can be there in anyone it can be there in anyone it is just that so what is important as we have said some strong drive motivation should be there in this case a strong devotion feeling of devotion is the motivation so some strong drive should be there something that drives you very strongly to do something this drive is the basic element for creativity so let us look at the creative process people have studied how ideas generate or how ideas are generated so you must have come across this statement ideas strike by chance but only to a prepared mind this is a very profound statement ideas strike by chance so definitely there is an element of chance you cannot predict when the idea will strike and what idea will strike you but it strikes only to a prepared mind so there is an element of uncertainty and certainty is that unless your mind is prepared it is sure that you will not get ideas we will see shortly what is the meaning of preparing the mind so now let us look at the stages so normally studies have shown that there are broadly 4 stages in which an idea is generated so first stage is called preparation when you try to understand the problem the situation and so on and understand the components of the problem then you start thinking about it then comes incubation so incubation is a period where subconsciously you are thinking about the problem even when you are doing other things so it is like background music you are maybe doing several activities but in the back what is playing is the problem and its components then comes a time when there is illumination illumination is a time when you think I think I got the solution that feeling when it comes I think I got the solution or aha feeling it is also called the aha feeling now when you get illumination an intuition strikes you which says that you have got the solution but the detail solution is not yet in your mind but you feel that you have got the solution I think I have the solution so that is why there is a final stage which is also important and that is the exposition so in this period of exposition what you have to do is you set out to write the solution in full detail in all the steps logically connecting all aspects so preparation incubation illumination and exposition the important thing is this incubation unless you give a period of incubation ideas will not strike you so one has to concentrate on a problem for some time or for sufficient amount of time and then one should just leave the problem to work in your mind in the background so many times people have got ideas after a nice sleep for example ok so in their dream people say that they have got ideas in their dream people have said they have got ideas after they have got they have had a very nice meal so it has been found that by and large ideas strike after or during a period of relaxation after intense concentration ok by and large I mean they have studied for example great musicians, great scientists and so on and ask them at what point did the ideas strike you so they strike during a period of relaxation after intense concentration so when you are concentrating you may not get the solution please understand this but without you will not get a solution but during the period of concentration you may not get it so you should concentrate right but and you should not get frustrated you know things have not happened and then leave it and then it will keep working in your mind and then during relaxation when you are relaxed suddenly the idea will strike you ok so this gives you some hint on how you should work in your research let us look at requirements for creativity above average intelligence is sufficient example Charles Darwin the great scientist was virtually enumerate so you should not think that you should be very highly proficient in mathematics to be creative this is not necessary strong motivation this we have emphasized several times right strong motivation is very very important so something should be there which you may call it an irrational desire which you need not explain if somebody asks why do you have a strong feeling of devotion right you cannot explain it it is there you may explain it in some different ways but it is only a way of rationalization it is just there in you then hard work discipline organization and then open and flexible mind so this open and flexible mind what does it mean let us see in some detail so according to psychologists they have given definitions for each of these things which you know we use often so what is the idea in defining this to make things at least as precise as possible so that a word is not used too vaguely so open mind a psychologist says is receptive to alternate points of view regardless of the present level of commitment to a belief this is a meaning of an open mind it is receptive to alternate points of view regardless of the present level of commitment to a belief you may believe in something very strongly some approach but that doesn't preclude you from listening to people talking about other methods of doing things another definition an open mind acknowledges areas of common ground with those who hold alternate beliefs and allows dialogue with someone with opposing views without attacking the proponent of those views so there is a statement the quote nothing dies faster than a new idea in a closed mind so when ideas are being generated whether the ideas will actually result in something whether they will flower and develop into something useful and new it all depends on whether your mind is open or not what is a flexible mind a flexible mind is capable of leaping sideways upwards and downwards around a problem before reaching a solution this again has to do with exploring alternatives so when a problem when you are faced with a problem you should explore several alternate methods of approaching the problem in our research also we should not get stuck with one approach so you have a problem try to first at least arrive at different possible methods which may give you the solution and then you pursue a particular approach up to some point and see if it gives you solution doesn't give then you go to the next approach but right in the beginning think of different ways of doing the same thing and only then take up a particular method and approach and pursue that so what are the characteristics of an open and flexible mind some more points it has keen observation it has a wide information base this is very very important when you say a wide information base it means you have to read a lot okay cannot be restricted to your own area a habit of analyzing other creative works there is a meaning of this supposing you are interested in music then what are you doing you know there are several different composers who compose music so you look at one composer see how he or she composes another different composer then try to compare this person uses these instruments in composition that person uses this kind of an instrument this person uses singers in high octave whereas that person uses the bass quality of the works this is what is meant by comparison of the creative works so you can do a similar thing in your own area people may be proposing several new devices try to see advantages and disadvantages of various devices okay people may be proposing various techniques supposing you are doing simulation people nowadays do a lot of simulation there may be several ways of simulating the same thing one may use Monte Carlo technique of simulation one may use a different method of simulation so many times people are not aware of the different methods they simply are they know that some tool is available in which on which a senior has worked you use the same tool right that is what people do this is what is meant by saying that you must be aware of various approaches okay but you may pursue one approach that does not matter right but you must be aware of different approaches and finally ability to criticize and judge the worth of one's own ideas it is supposed to be an important characteristic of an open flexible mind