Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Michael Duffy from Time Magazine. And I welcome you all to the what if session, what if robots went to war? Now, that title is a little unwefy. It's not something you've seen before, really, in a forum setting like this. And it sounds a little bit more like something out of Star Wars than out of Davos. It raises the specter, I think, in some people's heads of giant clone armies amassing on large battlefields for final conquests. And what we're going to talk about today is something a little more complicated, a little more challenging, and perhaps much closer than many people realize. And that's why we're here today. It's also part of a series at Davos this year that the forum and Time Magazine are cooperating on that we call what if, that tries to get past today's headline, past this week's crisis and beyond, perhaps for both governments and businesses, the challenge of meeting the quarter, to try to sort of invite all kinds of people to look well beyond the year, to consider possibilities good and bad, black swans, white swans, things that we haven't had a chance to think about, haven't had a chance to contemplate that might actually occur in a timeframe that would surprise you. Some of the other ones that are being discussed this week here at Davos are what if a lot of people started living to 150, what would that mean? There was another one tomorrow co-hosted by Rana Faroohar, my colleague at Time. Essentially that's the question, what if your brain could confess your sins? That comes out of, these are all tied together as you can see, living to 100 robot armies brains. Anyway, so these are kind of new sort of focus and framework for some of the sessions here and we think they're gonna be provocative and interesting. We've also twinned these conversations with a poll that I invite you to take now. You can log on to wef.ch slash vote and there are three questions we're asking today here in the room. We invite you to do that, leave your browser open and it will refresh with the other two questions. We've pulled these questions online for the last week to 10 days at time and so we have results from beyond this room and we're hoping to get your thoughts about the questions from here in the room. So while you do that, I'm going to introduce our fantastic panel today to talk about essentially autonomous weapons. And I wanna say something by the way, I'm gonna ask each of them a very broad opening question but they're kind of joint opening statements so we can move to issues quickly. Sir Rajakar is the chairman of British Aerospace and has been, which is one of the terms of global reach and influence, one of the most important defense contractors in the world and has been for a long time. Angela Cain has been in conflict resolution for the UN and other NGOs for several decades and she's now a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation. Stuart Russell is at UCAL Berkeley. He is a professor of computer science and is one of the leading spokesmen in the field of trying to limit these weapons and their use. And of course, Paul Wynfield is at the Bristol Robotics Lab. Alan Wynfield, excuse me, is at the Bristol Robotics Lab in the University of West England. So we're glad to have them all today. We look forward to a good conversation and we'll take some questions in the after part of this. I wanna start with Stuart. You have been outspoken in the last year about these weapons as they, and something has hastened your concern in the AI field. So could you talk a little bit about how that has taken place? Sure, so I think actually, I should apologize on behalf of the AI community for not addressing this issue much sooner. I think if we had started to understand 10 years ago where things were going, we could have avoided a situation where we may be heading into a very undesirable arms race. So a couple of years ago, the United Nations started to take seriously the possibility that we would have autonomous weapons, which means very precisely weapons that can locate and attack targets without human intervention. So I wanna be very clear that we're not talking about drones where a human pilot is controlling the drone, is looking through the camera and is choosing when to fire the missile. So those are off the table. Well, I should say they're already on the table in their millions and there's nothing we can do about that. So the first question that occurred to everybody in this debate, which the UN began and has held several sessions in Geneva to try and understand what to do. The first question is, can these weapons, if they are making decisions on who to kill, can they follow the laws of war? And the laws of war are quite difficult even for human commanders and soldiers to follow. They involve making sure that you're not attacking civilians, that there is military necessity for the attack. For example, we're not allowed to shoot at pilots who are bailing out of an aircraft on a parachute. So there are many rules about engagement that are quite complicated. Proportionality is the risk of collateral damage, proportional or reasonable, given the value of the target that you're trying to destroy. So these are very difficult things for AI systems to work out. The task of actually finding people and killing them is relatively straightforward in comparison. So that's the first set of debates that have been going on. The second question that comes up is a strategic one. And we have to get away from the idea that well, instead of having a human soldier or a human drone pilot, we're just gonna have an AI system doing the same thing perhaps eventually doing it better. And wouldn't that be great because then human soldiers don't have to die? That's an extremely naive set of questions to ask. It's sort of like saying that if we replace spears with cruise missiles, that we'll use the cruise missiles in just the same situations that we would use the spears. That's not the case. And the characteristic, the defining characteristic of autonomy is not so much that you don't have to put your soldiers at risk and so on. It's that you don't need a human being to carry and direct the attack. So a million machine guns can wipe out everyone in New York City, but only if you have a million soldiers to carry them and five million human beings to support those soldiers and a whole nation state to pay for all that. But a million autonomous weapons needs only one person to launch them.  That's a little piece of code for those of you who are not coders. And off the machines go and do their stuff. And do we really want to put the power to wipe out everyone in New York City in the hands of individuals who just need to be able to afford to buy those weapons? They don't need to be a nation. They don't need to have political support. They don't need to be part of the international system. They don't need to be subject to sanctions and so on. So from a strategic point of view, I think this could be an extremely bad idea. So those two considerations, humanitarian and strategic, led us, that means the AI community to come together and over 3,000 scientists and engineers in the AI community wrote an open letter in July saying that we really need to have a treaty banning these weapons. Thank you. And we're gonna come back to the treaty and how a ban might work in a minute. Sir Roger, talk to us a little bit about how you see the technical and other opportunities and challenges in the space. Well, I think the starting point in answering the exam question about robots is the definition of the robot that you've just given is the extreme version. And there are two layers before you get to the extreme. There's the quite simple robot, which is used in warfare today, that does the dirty jobs, you know, that looks for mines, you know, that gets involved in firefighting, that keeps people out of harm's way. And I don't think anybody would object to that. That's a sensible use of technology. The second layer, I think, is a little more complicated, where the technology is much more sophisticated, the use of sensors, algorithms, decision-making capability and learning capability are embedded in the device. But the linkage is still back to the human being. And that, I think, takes some of the burden of decision-making away, you know, through the assimilation of data and the ability to understand the theater of war, without removing the responsibility from an individual, you know, the person that actually decides to finally deploy the weapon. And I think that is very important. And, you know, my own judgment is that that is the use of technology without straying into areas where, on an ethical basis and a moral basis, you would find difficulty in operating. If you have the man through the umbilical cord linked to the machine, then the man is still bound by the conventions of war. I mean, whether it's the Hague Convention or Geneva Convention. And if that man does something wrong, there's an audit trail, there's a responsibility, you know, there is no anonymity when a person presses the button. That level of sophistication is developing now. It is available more and more, certainly in aircraft. It's available in air-to-air missile activity. And again, it removes some of the risk, but it doesn't take away or absolve the individual from responsibility. The final level, the fully autonomous machine, I think is a very difficult area. Something that can decide what its target is, how to address it, adjust its behavior and deploy the weapon without any human intervention is taking this to another level. And I think what that does is place the AI weapon in an area that becomes completely devoid of a sense of responsibility. It's removed from any sense of ethical or moral concern. It actually finds difficulty in discrimination and actually observing the basic rules of war that exist and are clearly broken by human beings, but exist as a framework is something that a machine can do with no emotion and no concern and no sense of mercy or discrimination or even identification of what is friend or foe. And I think from a technology point of view and there are people here that know much more about the depth of technology than I, we still have some way to go before we could produce a machine, although there are 40 countries working at it now and the potential of a $20 billion market in a few years' time. Although people are working at it now, I believe there's some way to go before anyone would believe we have a fully automated weapon carrier that we could deploy with confidence of no technical risk and reduced moral concern. Maybe we can come back to the timetable in the next round, Angelo. Talk to us a little bit about how the international community, is it properly configured to either ban or regulate this or just manage this kind of conflict wherever to come to pass? Well, I think that Stuart has already spoken about the international initiation of this debate. Now, I must tell you that I find that it came too late. It really is still too late behind it. And that is also true because you have a very glacial pace of international negotiations and they haven't even really started. And I remember there was the special rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission on, and I have to kind of look that I don't get the title wrong, on extraditional summary or arbitrary executions. Executions is the word here. And he put out a report in 2014, 2013, about this issue, which was very comprehensive. And I at the time was undersecretary general and high representative for disarmament. And I tried to get member states involved in this to say, you must really look at this question because the technological developments, AI, robotics, are so fast, it's overtaken us by events. And the pace of looking at this issue in terms of international law is far behind it. And the time was not ripe for it. The first time that member states really met, and that is under a convention that is called on certain conventional weapons, the so-called CCW, they met. But of course the CCW only has two-thirds of the membership of the United Nations. And what happens is that there are many countries and many representatives in the international community that don't really understand what is involved. They don't have this development. I mean, this development is something that's limited to a number of advanced countries and they're going ahead with it. But what is very concerning is what needs to be understood is exactly what both of you already mentioned. And that is that the conduct of war might be relegated to a machine. And I find that it really started with the drones. The drones were used initially only for surveillance. Now they're used for a lot of other purposes. And that is something that has expanded very rapidly in a very small number of years. And so the concern that was raised in this letter that the community published in July was very, very well taken. But the monopoly of the conduct of war is really being taken out of the hands of humans, or it could be very shortly taken out of the hands of humans. And I don't agree with you, Sir Roger, when you sort of say it's still the human element, because I think that when what we've tried to do ever since the end of the World War II is to basically limit the conduct of war or limit the conduct of conflict. But if you have someone who's sitting somewhere 3,000 or 6,000 kilometers or miles away, pressing a machine to direct a robot or direct an autonomous weapon against an unseen enemy that might be a target, but not a person, I find that that is a very different experience from actually being on the battlefield. And the other problem that I have with this is that when you look at all of these games that are coming out, whether it's invasions or something, there are these robots and they stretch out a hand and they have like a little weapon and it immediately kills people. And that means there is a desensitization of what it actually means to have a war, to have a battle. And that I find very dangerous because it makes war something that's costless other than an economic cost, but not a human cost. And that's really where it's going. And I find that that really needs to be addressed. And I can come back later on on what actually is happening on addressing it and how I see the way forward. Thank you. Alan, you have been involved in robots and ethics, which isn't something people necessarily put together for a very long time. Sum up how you see the ethical challenges here. Sure, the first thing I should say is that I was one of the signatories of the open letter. So I strongly support the work of the International Campaign for Robot Arms Control. There are clearly huge ethical implications as well as technical objections. And I think Sir Rogers already alluded to some of the technical problems but we'll perhaps return to the technical problems. But staying with the ethical, essentially, if you give a weapon the ability to decide when to fire, when to pull the trigger if you like, then you're giving the robot or the AI system moral agency. And the problem is, of course, you don't need to think very long about moral agency to know that with moral agency comes responsibility.  Now, we cannot build an artificial full moral agent and probably won't, I'm sure, Stuart, you'll agree with me, probably won't for, in my view, for hundreds of years. I mean, some AI people, you know, colleagues are more optimistic than that. But the point is that we simply cannot build a robot or an AI system that has moral agency. So for me, there's a kind of ethical red line which is, you know, going from humans being ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger and robots. And I think we should not, we cannot cross that red line. This gives me a chance to actually pull up some, I'm now queuing verbally the magic, the magicians who are somewhere who are going to pull up the results of our first, there it is, like magic. If your country was suddenly at war, would you rather be defended by the sons and daughters of your community or by an autonomous AI weapon system? Well, this isn't that surprising. But that perhaps the margin is, is this in the room or is this beyond the room? I'm guessing this is in the room. This is the room, okay. And is there a broader poll that you could also show us on the same question that was taken over, yeah, well, closer, interesting, I mean, that's surprising. Now, I think we turn this question around in the next version of the, where if your country was suddenly at war, would you rather be defended by the sons and daughters? This is, this is the, can we have the question that follows and while you get that up, can it be invaded? This is the turned around version. Okay. You can show us the results from in the room now. Or maybe you can't. An autonomous system is not in charge of this. This is still in charge, the human system is still in charge. Well, if they get it up, we'll talk about it. But it goes to the question, I think, of how people feel about, are beginning to wrestle with it. Can I go back to what you were saying about, that's definitely not a poll result. What were you saying about how, what would have to change in the way we actually work through the kind of bands we've worked through on chemical and biological and in fact, nuclear testing. Is there anything like a framework for that to make Stuart's band come true? I think that basically what happens is that you have to have an international debate. And my concern is really that this international debate is so slow and it needs to be invigorated by the scientists, but it also needs to be helped by the industry because the industry's an extremely important player. And you asked me about the chemical weapons part. And the chemical weapons is very interesting. It's the first treaty that was really elaborated with the involvement of the industry. It's never happened before because it was always somehow the monopoly of the states who really negotiated that. And I think that's one of the reasons why the chemical weapons treaty is a success. So I'm all in favor of bringing in various stakeholders into this debate, not only to inform some of the member states who are a little bit, let's say not as advanced in their knowledge about these issues, but also to bring them into the loop because what you don't want is you don't want a treaty that only gets signed and ratified by let's say 60% or 75% of the member states, but that rather gets to have more universal membership. Now, what is the mechanism for doing this? And as was said, in Geneva, there's a group and that meets under this convention, the CCW convention, and what it was is it basically deals with issues that somehow fall outside of the scope of some other treaties. And we have a huge body of laws that have been developed. I mean, think about the Geneva protocols, for example. All of that was developed after the Second World War. You have an additional protocol. And so you have these additional protocols that have been signed by member states and they are largely enforced. And even if the member states didn't ratify, very often by signing them, they agree to the moral obligation of observing them, for example. And that's extremely important. And there is actually under Article 36 of the Geneva Convention. Now, the US has signed it, but not ratified. But what it says, and I would like to read it because it's really important because what it basically says is in the study, development, acquisition, or adoption of a new weapon means or method of warfare, a high-contracting party, i.e. a state, is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would be prohibited by this protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the member state. That's extremely important. Now, not every member state is signed it. A large number of states are signed it or are ratified it. The US has signed it. And so they do their own, let's say, a study and assessment of how, for example, robotic autonomous weapons would function, that they're not obliged to be transparent about this. So what you need to do is bring together these stakeholders, scientists, industry, and particularly member states, and then look at, where are we with international humanitarian law? What do we need in order to get something to address this? That's the first step. Do we even have a definition of laws of a legal autonomous weapon system that we can all agree on? And I wouldn't spend too much time on the definition, because you get mired down in language and so forth. But on the other hand, under this convention that I mentioned, there is a possibility to add a protocol, because already by the time there are new weapons that were invented, think of cluster munitions, think of other weapons, you can add another protocol that only applies to that. So you already got the framework. And I think that that's the way to go. But you need to get everyone around the table. It needs to bring together a kind of a gelling of the stakeholders. And that, again, includes not only member states, but particularly scientists, as well as the industry. Stuart. Yeah, so it's worth mentioning, I think, that as part of the internal review that Angela mentioned, the United States actually decided that autonomous weapons could not satisfy the laws of war. And they have an official policy, beginning in 2012, which runs for 10 years, which disallows the design and production of autonomous weapons. So they require that appropriate levels of human judgment be involved in every single attack against humans. So the US is, in fact, despite its leadership in this technology, and despite the fact that most other nations are, to some extent, terrified of the United States' technological abilities in this area, is the only country that has actually banned these weapons as part of its armed forces. So from the US point of view, it would seem relatively straightforward and desirable that this ban should be extended to all the other countries that might potentially be enemies at some point so that we don't risk having a strategic deficit. So Roger, I was going to ask you a question. If you could first a technical one, then a sort of more political one. For those of us who aren't knee deep in defense procurement, is this technology most advanced in air rather than sea and land? I presume. I'm guessing, but I don't know. Or maybe that's not true. And then I was going to ask you, how does a defense procurement contractor manage a situation where the technology is running so far ahead of the protocols, or at least the apparent protocols, to manage and oversee it? OK. Well, from a technological point of view, I mean, there are levels of sophistication on land, sea, and air. And certainly, it is a matter of record that in the air, the type of unmanned aircraft that are available now are very sophisticated and able to learn from their own experience. So that's moved on a long way. But there are shields that protect us from missile attacks which use learning technology. So there is a level of capability that exists. It does not exist, to my knowledge, in the fully autonomous weapon that has been under discussion. I just want to make a couple of points if I may, just picking up the points. I mean, first and foremost, I mean, I am the chairman of a company that manufactures equipment. I am not an advocate of this type of equipment, nor is my company. And as a human being, I mean, I share all the concerns of an autonomous system, which I think removes all sense of moral and ethical concern from war, which in itself is a difficult issue, to a level that is almost incomprehensible. So I want to be very clear about that. I do believe that what we have seen as we move towards certain types of robot is an extension of the distancing of a combatant one from another. And your point about the risk of desensitizing, I mean, I completely agree with. But that is what's happened over hundreds of years. I mean, the thought of soldiers in arm to arm combat with swords is somehow much more concerning than with rifles. And the separation of man from the actual experience of killing is something that's been going on for many years. This is an extension of it. It is important that governments draw the line where we move into territory where, frankly, we risk becoming the architects of destruction, but simply spectators on the event. And that's not good for anybody. So your point about the engagement of weapon manufacturers, I think is absolutely valid. And I think there is a complete understanding that lines need to be drawn. We all recognize that even when they are drawn, chemical warfare, cluster bombs, others will use those and seek to use those. So the rules aren't an end to the problem. It is human beings that both create the problem and are the problem, because their pursuit of power and territory will reach out for any weapon at their disposal. We have to be very careful those weapons aren't provided to the wrong people with the wrong ambitions. And my question about the challenges of managing a little bit for just a company where the protocols don't always keep pace with the technology, or... For me, that's pretty straightforward. I mean, there's no industry more regulated than the industry I'm part of. And there's no company that acknowledges and obeys the regulation more than we do. Others, I'm sure, do the same, but certainly no more. And within the organization, we have ethical judgments that are made as to what we will and won't do even within the bounds of so-called legal acceptability. So there is an opportunity for management to exercise judgment and to draw a line in the sand, but always within the framework of international law and the disciplines that go with the challenges of being a weapons manufacturer. Alan, I was going to ask you, if you're being attacked, does it matter whether the weapon is autonomous or not? Yes, it does profoundly matters. In fact, that's perhaps an opportunity for me to reflect on the results that we just saw. And if I recall correctly, I think that the poll said something like 80% odd would prefer to send AI systems to war than people and almost the opposite in terms of being attacked. And with very great respect to colleagues around the room, it reveals an extraordinary confidence, a misplaced, misguided confidence in AI systems. I've been building real robots for 20-some years. And as soon as you take a robot, even a well-designed robot, and put it in a chaotic environment, it behaves chaotically. In other words, it makes mistakes. So it's very important to understand that the current state of the art and in the relatively near future. That sounds very human, by the way. Absolutely, yes. I mean, the more we put robots into an unstructured, a chaotic environment, that includes the home. I mean, I'm not just talking about the battlefield. The battlefield is just the extreme version of this. So robots, I do an enormous amount of public engagement. One of the things that I try and help people to understand is just how poor, how weak our technology is. And I think that the press and media have played a part in hyping up the technology. Of course, it's exciting to see headlines about when will robots take over the world and stuff like that. But the truth is that they're not smart enough and will not be for a very long time, even to be able to do the kind of things that we're talking about. Well, I have to say, I disagree profoundly with that. So what plots do we need? We need the ability to perceive and maneuver. We know that self-driving cars now have extremely accurate perception of their environments. They can detect moving vehicles. They can find people, buildings equipped where you can buy a four-ounce radar that can look through walls and find human beings inside buildings. So the ability to maneuver quickly through streets and inside buildings has already been demonstrated for quadcopters. The tactical decision-making, when was the last time you beat the world's best chess computer? I don't want to play chess against computers. They are as far beyond the best human as the best human is beyond me. So the physical platforms are really, really accelerating in their capabilities. You can have a drone that I can carry in my hand can cross the Atlantic without refueling. So the physical capabilities, the tactical capabilities, and the perception control, they're all there. And when I talk to my colleagues who build quadcopter control systems for a living, they say, if we had a Manhattan-style project within 18 months to two years, we could deploy these in the tens of millions. And they could be used to go into cities to find people of a certain characteristic. So this is just like a nuclear weapon that kills everyone. We can kill all males between the age of 12 and 60. We can even distinguish by what clothing they're wearing as to whether we want to kill them. So this is something that is not decades in the future. We're not talking about systems that have to be as intelligent as humans. We're not talking about systems that are in the business of taking over the world. They're in the business of carrying out the instructions that humans give them. And if humans choose to give them instructions to wipe out all males in a certain city, they can do that. I'm just going to make one observation right now. I mean, I think the point you make is that this is such a rapidly developing field. And things that we regard as pretty normal today, even five years ago, we would have found quite extraordinary. I think we also have to respect the fact that good ideas are not the preserve of good people. And because of that, we have to draw the distinction, I think, between finding the rules by which people are supposed to live by, but ensuring we do not allow ourselves to become at risk from people with good ideas, but bad objectives. I was going to open this question to everyone, but it's a very good question. Let me just respond very quickly. As far as I know, no one is proposing a ban on weapons that can kill drones. Drones don't carry humans, and so killing them is not a lethal act. So defensive anti-drone weapons, absolutely. I think we should develop them. But if manufacturers are producing these weapons in the millions, then bad actors will have access to them. I think it's very difficult for ISIS, for example, to develop their own indigenous capability to manufacture millions of extremely effective, miniaturized, intelligent drones. I think that would be easily detected, and we could put them out of business. The definition of bad people does move around, of course. But coming back to Anguilla's point about the collaboration of industry in the Chemical Weapons Convention, it's really important, because of the ease of taking ordinary industrial chemicals and applying them to weapons. And so they keep track of precursor chemicals, and they make sure they're not selling them to the wrong people and so on. This is essential, and I think we might have to look at the same kinds of measures for people who are making ordinary commercial drones, which are wonderful technology. They have all kinds of uses, both for services to individuals and humanitarian goals and so on. But I think it's possible to work with them to make sure that they're not diverted to the wrong purposes. They can be GPS limited, so they can only stay in certain regions and so on. There's an old arms controller expression that chemical weapons were sometimes referred to as the poor man's nuke. There was a low. It was worse. The bio was worse. And this technology is cost a barrier to entry, because of course, as Sirajah said, it's one thing if it's seven Western countries that have this technology, it's quite another if it's something that anyone can build in their backyard or in their basement. So does that enter into this? And it's our ability to regulate it? No, it is. And I think that what we have to say, and I think Sirajah said it before, there are very good uses for automated systems, and IED control or mine clearance or something. There's a lot of it that's being used underwater, for example. But on the other hand, I think that what we also need to look at is that when you look at, for example, a nuclear weapon, it's not that easy to make a nuclear weapon because you have to get hold of the materials. I think that with robots or drones or whatever it is with autonomous systems, the entry level is much lower. It's much easier to manufacture that. And that, to me, is the greatest concern. And that, to me, is, and I say to the example of, for example, the drone, such a fairly recent. I mean, how long ago did we start drones? I mean, maybe not even that. The First World War. Well, OK, fine. They weren't drones used in the past. Sorry, but I mean, it's accelerated to such an extent over the last 10, 15 years that I am concerned that this development is just accelerating. I mean, you were talking about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the fast development of technology, and that's just part of it. So we must make sure it doesn't get into the hands of the wrong people or that it is applicable in terms of being able to reciprocate. I mean, we already have 3D printing. People are printing their guns, et cetera. It's just a matter of programming it. And that's really what concerns me. And that's why I think we need to get industry in there. We need to have larger stakeholders. And I really tried to get member states to focus on this. I mean, starting after with Christopher Haines, we had this big consultation. But it's only started in 2014. And there hasn't been that much progress. And there needs to be more progress. Can I say to you that I think one of the big challenges, and it's true of anything that is in high technology, whether it's cyber or whether it's this kind of automated system, the people who have the job of making the judgment as to whether it should be something we legislate for, very often do not have a full understanding of where we are in the process and the risk and how close it is to being a reality. So there's an education process required for those that become the legislators, which is I think all our responsibilities such that we can create an environment which is at least controlled, although we know we're heading towards creation of machinery that is very dangerous indeed. We're going to open the piano up to questions from the audience. So be ready. So I mean, I absolutely agree, Angela, the cost of entry is very low. And when you can buy an autopilot for a small flying thing for $50 or something, and it's really quite a good autopilot. But where I am here, I feel compelled to come back on Stuart's disagreement. Yes, I mean, I do agree with you that you could build systems now which are pretty indiscriminate. But I think discrimination is much harder. So I'd argue with you that we cannot, in fact, build systems that can really distinguish between a combatant and a noncombatant. In fact, we don't even have a good definition of what a noncombatant is. Yeah, I mean, we could get it right 60% of the time, 70% of the time. And don't forget, self-driving cars need to be 8.9s, so 99.99999% reliable. You can't afford to make one mistake even every 10 years of driving. Do you think ISIS needs their drones to be that reliable in terms of discriminating civilians from soldiers? No. And in general, in warfare, our systems are nothing like that reliable. Unexploded bombs litter London even now from the Second World War. So I think 80% is pretty good for military equipment. So I think that would be very easily achievable with present-day technology. OK, so now this is your chance. And I know there's a microphone. Please identify yourself. Hi, Sue Chan from the Telegraph in London. This is one for Sir Roger. You spoke in very plain terms about the need to draw lines in the sand on these sort of weapons.  And what are you going to do to ensure this technology doesn't get into the wrong hands? Well, the one thing I've learned in my lifetime so far is the danger of making a prediction. What I would say is this, that the company, first and foremost, only operates within absolute laws and government guidelines of requirement. It does not choose what it makes or what it does. First, second, at this time, the company has a strong belief, as does the government, that the separation of decision making from equipment, the removal of the human, is fundamentally wrong. And therefore, the only development we are doing, and indeed intend to do, is against that definition. For all the reasons that have been said by people who have never met before, or I'd never met before, there is a common belief amongst human beings that to allow machines to choose where to fight, what to fight, how to fight, and to liberate weapons is a very dangerous thing to do. And I think as human beings, until that sense of risk changes in people's minds, nobody will want to do that. What we have to do is to make sure that this development stays mainly in the hands of people with the right motives and does not stray into the hands of people who don't have those kind of moral convictions or concerns. Yes, here in the front room. Tony West from the United States, and it's been an interesting conversation. I will say there is a sense of inevitability to whether or not these systems will be actually developed and whether or not they will stay in the right hands. But my question is really one about deterrence value and asking if you all could comment on that. It can be argued that as terrible as nuclear weapons can be, their existence, whether you agree with the Strategic Defense Initiative or not, its existence created a deterrence context which kept the peace. And so is there an argument that perhaps the United States is wrong to be the only country saying that we shouldn't develop these weapons? Maybe the answer is more of, since others are developing these weapons, why not develop these weapons such that the existence of them might create a deterrence value? Your thoughts on that? Alan? Wow, that's a really tough question. I think perhaps part of the answer's already been given which is that the cost of entry is so low to this technology that actually it's absurd to think it could be a deterrent. If you're suggesting that we should develop something which deters others when it's so readily developable, could be developed. So I think my short answer is no. Yeah, so I just come back to the point that defensive anti-drone weaponry, anti-missile systems are currently legal and they're not proposed to be banned because they don't kill humans. And I think the US has been for more than a decade now holding competitions to see if we can develop systems that can destroy these drones.  Current air defense systems have a really hard time with them. So I think that technological development will continue. But they're really as offensive systems.  As offensive systems, they're not particularly effective at deterrence because the kinds of systems we're talking about have their greatest effect against undefended civilian populations, for example. And I don't think the US is prepared to launch that kind of attack. Even if it's happened in 9-11, the US suffers a significant attack on its population centers. I don't think we're gonna go and then say, okay, fine. Let's take some random city in the Middle East and wipe out its population. That's not gonna happen. I can debate for a long time the deterrent or rather non-deterrent effects of nuclear weapons, but that's not the forum here today. But on the other hand, I think that what we need to look at also is that the entrance to this technology is very low and it's not going to remain in the hands of those states or those companies that currently have it. I mean, this is basically what we have seen and that's what we really need to deal with. And I would like to see, and Stuart already mentioned that the US has actually a Defense Department rule that they have, I think 2012 or 2013. And I would like to see the United States taking a much higher profile. I mean, who took the initiative among the member states to actually put this on the table? That was France. That's now being continued by Germany. But on the other hand, I would like to see those countries and those stakeholders who actually have knowledge about this and who can do the education, as Sir Roger said, very important to take the lead in all of this, to basically elevate the debate on this. Because it is right now, it has seen as something positive in a way by many people and that I find very dangerous. Yeah, the myth that somehow if we wanted to have a war, we would just have our robots fight each other. And then when the robots had finished fighting, we would say, okay, so we lost grapes. Okay, so we lost that means that you can take all our women, you can take all our wealth and we will be slaves for the rest of time to your country because our robots lost. Come on, guys, we could play baseball and decide that we lost and therefore you can enslave our population. This is just not how things work. A country gives in when the human cost of continuing the war becomes unacceptable, when the government can no longer, in any reasonable way, guarantee the safety of its people. That's when a war ends. It's when it's basically, you're putting your hands up or you did. And so this idea of robot-only warfare is just a complete red herring. It's a game. It's a game. I mean, everyone has this. It's interesting that, yeah, that's right. The next level is a video game and the trouble is that for most people, these things start to fuse when they think about it. The point I would make just about the deterrent, I think the nuclear deterrent, and I accept we would have a separate debate on that, but I think is effective because of the scale of destruction that it offers and that we have still the evidence of what a very extreme attack can do from the Second World War on millions of people and that's so vivid in people's minds it acts a deterrent. The trouble with the robot conversation is people stray to the video game or the Star Wars movie. It doesn't feel the same. Yet it is just as dangerous and potentially lethal in a different way, but it doesn't feel like that and that's why when the panel voted, there was no concern about putting robots to war because somehow it didn't feel a terribly dangerous thing to do. We haven't seen it yet. So there's a clause, one of the protocols of the Geneva Conventions called the Martins' Clause, which says that at all times the human person will remain under the protection of the dictates of public conscience. So if you think about that photograph of the small Syrian boy lying drowned on the beach and what effect that had on the policy of the European Union countries.  What is that going to do? What is public conscience going to say at that point? It's public going to say, oh yeah, this is just war, this is how it works. Or either going to say we crossed a moral line that we should never even have approached, that we should never give the decision to kill humans to a machine. And the decision to kill humans is a heavy moral responsibility that we have to reserve for ourselves and we have to take responsibility for it. I don't think there's any question what would happen after that point, but of course then it would be too late. Then the weapons have already proliferated and defense postures of many countries already incorporated autonomous weapons into how they operate and it's very hard to reverse at that point. We have time for one more question. I was really struck by your use of the word game and how you echoed it, Roger, because sometime between Christmas and about I would say the 10th of January in the US, the FAA asked all Americans who had a drone to register them and the number was something like 189,000 in 12 days or 15 days. And fast growing. And fast growing. And of course not everyone has registered their drone or drones. So that told me that there was a, talk about, that's of course an autonomous weapon, but it does suggest a fascination with the technology that is somewhat beyond the expert level. We have a question here in the second row, if you can, yeah. Hang on. My question is that if I listen to all of you, you have the feeling that, you know, borders are crossed. So maybe one of the actions the country should take that they ban all the video games or, you know, stuff where fighting is just normal. Well, we're past, I think your question is, is there some way to regulate rather than ban? Right, maybe you should just ban all these games where people get desensitized by, you know. That kind of forms a session on banning video games, which I'm not in charge of, should be on the list perhaps for tomorrow or next year, but I'm not sure we're capable of dealing with it today. No, no, but the conclusion here is that, you know, you're all worried about the fact that people might cross a line, yeah, because they are desensitized. And therefore, that might be a plan to raise this issue in the public even more so that maybe some action is taken there. It's a food chain. Yes, I think public awareness is very important. So when we published a letter in July, there were over 2,000 media articles describing the letter and its contents. The Financial Times main editorial said that we have to avoid this nightmarish future. That was the word in the headline of the editorial. So some people took notice and that was good, but there are still a lot of people who didn't hear about it. And there, if you mention killer robots or autonomous weapons, their only exposure is the Terminator robot. And, you know, when we look at Terminator robots, they are large, slow-moving, heavy, vulnerable, and incredibly inaccurate. They shoot hundreds of bullets without hitting anybody. Come on, guys, get real. The robots we're talking about, when they shoot a bullet, it will hit its target. So we're thinking about systems that weigh less than an ounce, that can fly faster than a person can run, and can blow holes in their heads with one gram of shape-charge explosives and can be launched in the millions. So being attacked by an army of terminators is a piece of cake compared to being attacked by this kind of weapon. And perhaps the protocol has to extend beyond the weapons systems themselves. Can we go to this last, two down? Thank you, Big Lee, Switzerland. I see two trends. On one side, we have mass-effect weapon, and on the other side, we have extremely pinpoint individual weapon. And probably in future, one will need something which is in between. The real war will try to target as much as possible, but at the same time, there should be a certain scale of effect because if there are big wars, the efficiency will imply something which is more than just a few pinpoint people. So where do you see the future between less than the nuclear weapon, less than the very mass destruction effect and the very individual pinpoint targeted? Well, that range of weaponry exists today. And it can be taken from a very simple pistol all the way through to a very pinpoint-accurate missile which can take out a moving target with absolute precision. It's very expensive, but it reduces collateral damage. Over a period, each level of weaponry has been developed, but they all have the common denominator of only being unleashed by a human being, and that is still the line in the send. Final thoughts? Let me just add something, and I find it very interesting because we have used consistently the term war. Now, it used to be that wars were declared among member states. You haven't had a declaration of war among member states. I think since the Second World War. So it's really incorrect to speak about war, and we speak about war on terrorism and monarchy, but it really is conflict. And that, I find also very dangerous in a way because we're looking at it as something that's very limited. It's something that is defined maybe by geographic scope or maybe by a certain other consideration, but it's not really a conflict ration. It's not really something that is a large-scale something, and that's why those miniaturized weapons, including now what we're looking at is, for example, nuclear weapons that are being miniaturized, if you so want, very dangerous because what it means is that you're not setting off a world war, but you're setting off something that is much smaller and therefore it makes the temptation to use it much, much more easier to do that for commanders and leaders. Right, and that's part of the thing that is accelerating so quickly that you talked about at the top. So I think we have a fairly short time horizon to act. If something doesn't happen within the next two years in terms of essentially drawing all the main parties into a serious negotiation, what's called the group of government experts where the nations contribute experts who will write out the technical details of the treaties, if this process does not get underway within the next couple of years, it may be too late. I agree with that. Alan, you get the last. So I mean, I'm delighted that the panelists are essentially in broad agreement about the unwisdom, the danger, yes, of autonomous robot weapons. So what I would invite, if the audience members and those people who are watching on TV agree with us, then please write to your representative, your member of parliament, whoever it is, and tell them that, because I think this is something that our policymakers need to know. They need to know from us that it's we, the people, that it's something that is not acceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Alan. Thank you, Sir Runder. Angelo, Stuart. Thank you. Thank you all for coming, and we'll be here getting ourselves together for a little while if you wanna come up and talk. Thank you. Thank you.


Hello everybody, Andrea Maesky here with dental help tutoring. So sorry for the wait. It took me a little bit longer But now the dental assisting free a board exam prep in seven days is now online So I will leave the link for you guys at the bottom of the video here I've had the dental hygiene one available now for a while And it's just taking me a little bit longer to do the dental assisting one because as you know Dental hygiene and dental assisting is different, but it is now online. So I will leave the link for you guys on the bottom again Sorry for taking so long. I've been developing the app right now So that's just why things are a little bit delayed, but you do not have to pay a thing at all You just have to go to the link here Click to get access for free and then you just have to enter in your email and everything that way And you will you will get an email for seven days So one email a day for a week and there's tons of stuff in there In fact, I wanted to kind of to give you guys a little sneak peek So I have developed all of the emails here and just as an example on day five You will get a full 98 page Radiography Module PowerPoint. So if you haven't had a chance to study that that topic yet Don't even worry about it because I will provide everything here for you There's pretty much a mock exam in every email. So again, this isn't something that you have to pay for It will be included in the emails. You will get one email a day For seven days. So this will help you guys study for the board exam And there will also be a coupon inside if you do want to take the full Board exam prep course. So if after you do this challenge for the week, you're still thinking, oh, you know I kind of feel like I need some more help I want to take the full exam prep course Then I will give you guys a coupon for that at the end plus you will have full access to the app also So the app actually hasn't been fully Released yet, but you are able to pre-order it. I believe I have the link I think the second day or the third day email, but I can put it in the first one too for you But you'll have access to everything. So once again, I'll put the link for you guys on the bottom here. Have fun Good luck. If you need help, please just let me know


Hello everybody today. We are making something very interesting something which is new for me and actually it's a challenge for me Everyone can send me an email and schedule a call with me, which will be recorded like a lot did so Let's send me send me a message and he wrote on the email that he has to 2,500 Listings on Autodesk and he has in average five cells per day So he asked me how he can increase his dropshipping sense and make more profits And how he can grow to 10,000 listings to make even more sense So a lot will be here with us today on this interview So you can see how I will help him and how he will adapt his settings to make it on the right way So here we go. Thank you. Hey a lot. How are you? Hi, fine. Thank you. How are you? I'm great So I will Share my screen on part of the things anyway, I will blow everything after the video so people will not see or So first of all, I will make some over beover the store I showed my screen now, can you see it? Yes, I can Okay, so We can see here that you have 2,500 listings 12 orders today. We check it weekly So we see 36 orders on the last week And week before also something same, which is around five orders per day And the first question here. Do you have gift cards? Yes, I do. Yes, I do. For 10% or how much? Yeah, 10% Good. Okay. So the first thing that I want to go over here is Just something for the display just to make it more comfortable for you and easier to work with it Is the fees Setting so as you can see the monitor shows for you here as a minus on the profits And it's not very comfortable to see it like this. So what should we should go to the settings page fees field and Here I should put the settings as paper fees plus eBay fees Minus gift cards percent, which is 10% plus around plus around 2% So this way you will have a better Profits here like it will just look better So this is the first thing because I saw that on the break when you already did it and I will show it soon But you missed it on this part Okay, so this is about the fees The second thing is if you go to your active listing, by the way, actually your situation is amazing and I will explain about this soon why but Your store performance is great because if you Go I still want to improve the situation But I want to say that a current situation is great and let's see why You have five sales per day If we check the average cell, let's go So your your total purchases is around 100 Here have more here have less around hundred forty dollars per day So it means that if we take 10% from this, it's 14 dollars per day in profits, right? Yeah So right now your your profits are 420 dollars per month Without your payments to Autodesk and eBay Now on eBay your store subscription right now is premium on which story Right now it's a premium and I think next week I'll upgrade to encore Cool so according to this file you can see plus minus the Fees which you pay when you are working with a premium store. We can see that the price per listing is 108 Well here, it's almost half of this So if you take your store and you just increase your Products number by 4 so you will have 10,000 listings. You will have around 20 orders per day your profits will grow from a 14 dollars to 56 dollars and Your fees will be decreased it means that if we take 14 Okay 56 dollars per day This is per month. So your uncle store will cost you 300 dollars Autodesk will cost you 325 so minus 304 eBay minus 325 for Autodesk and you will see that you will have around 1,000 Dollars in profits So the first thing here which you should understand is what I'm always trying to say this strategy doesn't work Well, if you have low number of products because as you grow I'm always trying to explain this as you grow Not only on eBay, but also in Autodesk. So this why I really Put attention on this because your situation now is great I will show you how to increase the sales but actually right now if you just Doing the same and increase your number of products by 4 By multiply for you will see that your sales will be around $1,000 per month in profits for one store now actually per store the average profit Which is great for the low shipping in this method is between 1,000 to 2,000 So the other things which we will do on this video will help you to go more to 2,000 profits $2,000, but you are actually on the right way so This is the first thing the second thing here is when we go to active listings I just checked your store with all so I know what I show here Your breakman now is 855. How did you calculate it? Took the PayPal 3 Plus the eBay minus the gift card plus it was first 2% and after I talk Clayton that I saw that they pay a lot of taxes so you told me to change it from 2 to 5 So the tax Will be part of the 3% additional 3% Cool. It's the first of all following. This is right if you are paying taxes on Amazon This is really the right thing to do, but you can do here two other things the first one is if you go to monitors page and then you go to Amazon settings You have here the option of the dynamic breaker and Now I recommend you to put here on the not sold by Amazon the regular formula of the 915 for eBay plus for for for PayPal minus gift cards plus two plus two So here it will be 5 55 for not sold by Amazon. Why because usually for not sold by Amazon you don't pay taxes and Here on the top one you can put the 855 this way you will be covered when it's sold by Amazon But when it starts all by Amazon, it will not pay taxes. So your prices will be less and you will sell more This is the whole thing the second thing is That actually recommend you with your revenue Just buy tax exempt account because if you buy tax exempt account will cost you around $150 lifetime.  I Calculate the tax that they paid from the start of the month from the first it was around 40 bucks So it's a lot of money in three less than two month. It's the bunny the money come back Yeah, exactly. So this is something which I really recommend for any drop ship or with actually Five sales per day. It's already worth it. So This is something which I really recommend you to do so if you don't take the taxes on use them Dynamic break event if you take the taxes on just use the lower one 515 I think it was what I showed before Yeah, better better to buy the takasem Yeah, exactly And now I see that you unchecked here the allow suppliers table I recommend you to check it Because it will decrease your number of out of stock by around two three percent and You don't really have any minuses with it So just check it. It will decrease the number of out of stock and add more sales for you Do you know what it means the No, okay, so on Amazon ran out of their scans Amazon We have the buy box, which is the main page like the page which you see immediately when you go to Amazon to any product on Amazon and If you go on this side Here we have the other sellers on Amazon new so this is a supply of stable or sometimes the buy box is not on in stock so Yeah, oh to this will go to the other sellers it will check which of them a have a feedbacks and Over hundred feedbacks and then it will just go and monitor from these servers For example this seller it would not take because it's just launched seller and it's not the trustful seller on Amazon But if he would have here other sellers which also trusted with feedbacks and good reviews So it would pay them this way will decrease the number of out of stocks sell more and have less Out of stock in your soul actually Okay, thanks So it also players table and change the break event with tax exam Well, those might all let's see what he did here. I tried and check it before So here the settings are great Because it's great This also a check which also great Turn down. This is great. Cool. So it seems like we checked Cool, you are also using a hip ship on cool So you're really using most of the important settings so the only things which you need to Fix here are the break event the Dynamic policies actually the dynamic breakman. Sorry the tax exam the What we talked here about more the supply or stable the supply table. Yeah, the fees setting And just increase the number of products when you get the 10,000 listings You will see that the store not only it will not only be a Multiplied for says it will be more because you will get more traffic We'll get more sense and you always will remove the bad selling products and instead of these products It will upload new products. So it just matters of time When you will have in your store more selling products than non-selling products And then you would just go forward and increase your sales every month. So I also recommend it to go to the 10,000 as soon as possible Even if you will be on the break event Proceeds for the first month. We'll see that after one month. It will be immediately grow And that's all I will also help you here with the pricing so you can really Grow is it in succeed? We'll talk about this after the video One thing here, how do I find products you're using finder or not? I do use a finder Mostly I use the one that those that they sold eight times and the coupon I need to I need to restart them and of course what they're collecting me told me Okay, so for the finder I recommend it to put the recurring upload so it will upload for you every day This way you may will see a lot of traffic in your store And this is also something which we saw that affects sales a lot About which finder categories to upload. I'm sure the playton already showed you on the mentorship group And This is about the recording uploads. You are using the coupon products also, right? Yeah, the coupon and those that sold a eight time Plus a time in month something like that Cool, it's the best category there is Cool and the most important thing actually everything which we talked about will not work if you don't do this I can't check it from the monitor, but just will tell it to you This is very important to give a good customer support I will also post a video about this very soon I talked with the account manager on eBay like business accounts manager And they got an email from them for our accounts which managed by eBay About is that actually customer support is what eBay? eBay cares the most now So it's very important to answer all of your customers very fast And I don't know if you're using code orders or not if you're using so it's great If not, so just be aware that you should upload all of your taking time all of your clicking up the numbers on time So it's late I'm using only the auto others. I was at first. I was not using I woke up Half an hour hour before just open the laptop and start order After I found out that there is the auto order. It's amazing. It's a different thing Everything is doing for you the emails Update of the tracking number. I recommend it to him cool, so great so first of all, thank you and So this is something which is really important to upload the tracking numbers on time You don't need actually to do anything because of the auto orders so all what you need to do is to care about the Returns cancellations to do it on time. Don't miss any cases. This is super important And this is why usually people get the MC 011 Because they don't put attention to cases cases just closing without any Cellular attention, which is very bad for eBay I will also show the email check that from the account manager from eBay He just told me if you don't answer the cases don't answer the terms or just don't answer your customers Your account will be suspended. It's just matter of time. So this is something very important and I wouldn't actually to make another video with you in around two months when you get to the 10,000 distance Because I really want to see the progress and I promise you that you will see the results So let's go and thank you for the video. Do you have any questions? No, I think you answered everything Okay, cool Thank you very much If someone else want to create a videos with me about Histors or about any question that you want me to answer or just send me an email I will post my email address under this video. Thank you very much for being here with us today Thank you a lot. Thank you. Good luck everyone. Thank you. Bye. Bye


Personal notice, danger's my stock and trade. If the job's too tough for you to handle, you got a job for me, George Valentine. Write full details. Say, did you ever hear of a fearless clown? Well, just in case you haven't, that's the title of our Let George Do It adventure. Now, you're probably wondering what a clown has to fear in the first place, unless maybe it's a nasty elephant. And in the second place, how would you know when he's behind a couple of inches of grease paint? Well, all I know is that a very nervous girl is most concerned about a certain clown, and she's telling George Valentine all about it. Dear Mr. Valentine, I'm sure you've heard of Fofo, the fearless clown. Maybe you've already seen his circus before, but it's here in town, opening tonight with an all-new show.  But I know that he's not. In fact, if Fofo should happen to die, I am the person who killed him. What I mean is, Mr. Valentine, I've already practically confessed to his murder. It's your job to keep the most horrible man in the world alive. Sincerely, Relita. P.S., I'm the girl in the strawberry-colored tights. Hey, there she is, riding the lead elephant. How could you miss her? Oh, you spotted her before, this Relita? The tights, darling. Or didn't you notice them, foolish question? Opening parade. She said we could catch her after the performance. That's a good idea. And take a step later to get down off that elephant any other way, wouldn't it? Brooks, see, I'll tell you a secret. You don't get down off an elephant. You get it off a duck. Oh, George! George! Oh, no, take it easy, Angel. That's the star of the piece, that's all. Fofo himself.  He must be quite a guy. George, he's got a snake. It came right out of his suitcase. Sure, sure. It's a good act to lead the parade with. But look at it. George, it's a cobra. Take it easy. See, take it easy. Putty nose and the clown rig is what makes it look so excited. Oh, he's jumping rope with it. Brooksy, I'll tell you something. The fearless little man with his snakes. Hey, look, he's turning somersaults now in front of the elephant. But he's the man you're supposed to keep alive. Don't worry, I told you. For your information, there's not one snake in this circus that doesn't eat with Ford's teeth. What? Yeah, sure. It just looks dangerous, that's all. That guy's not crazy.  Maybe he is, too, I don't know. Well, I should have known, but... Relief is over. He's charging. What? Come on, get through the crowd. That child of mine surely didn't hurry. That elephant just went crazy. Fofo didn't even see him coming. You didn't even have a chance to keep him alive. Brooksy, what I want to find out was in the first part of her latest letter. Maybe it was the elephant who trampled him, but remember, she said, if Fofo should happen to die, I'm the person who killed him. Well, it looks like poor old Fofo has gone bye-bye. And you know what? They'll probably blame it all on that nice elephant. We'll find out what's going on behind the scene in just a minute. But first, let's take time out for this. Now let's get back to George and Brooksy. Right now, they're backstage at the circus. George. The usual doctor says he's still alive. They got him into the ambulance as fast as possible. He's on his way to the hospital right now. Mr. Valentine, it was an accident, wasn't it? Well, George, you saw it yourself. An elephant just went crazy or something, didn't you see? He charged straight ahead if Fofo hadn't been so close to him. Sure, sure, I saw it all right. Relita, I think you'd better tell me about yourself in a hurry. Yes, of course. Well, it's really quite simple. I'm new with the circus. I do a little acrobatic dancing. I used to be with an act in nightclubs. Well, it's rather hard to say this. I'm married, you see.  That's all it could have been. Relita, we do need to know your story, but maybe not all of it. Well, it's... Fofo is very attractive and charming. Anyway, he saw me... He saw me act and I met him. He wanted me to come with the circus. Now I have to stay with the circus. What do you mean? I think he must have enjoyed being in danger. I got mixed up with him. What do you think I mean? Okay, okay, emotional blackmail. Does that make it simpler for you? I wrote exactly why I was going to kill him. Well, don't look like that. I didn't give him the letter or go out and buy a gun. In fact, I just tore it up. Or, no, what I mean is I put it in my wastebasket. I'd worked on my steam, I guess. Anyway, I wrote everything to my husband instead, and I mailed that, and he understands. Well, why were you so frightened? Why did you want me? After the show that night, I came back to my dressing room and the note I wrote to Fofo was gone, disappeared. Somebody had taken it out of my wastebasket. Uh-huh. You wanted me to find out who and get the letter back, huh? Yes, whoever had that note could murder Fofo and use it to put the blame on you. And I don't know who that could be. I don't know the people around here yet, but Fofo's so popular I can't imagine anyone else wanting to use that letter. I would kill him any day of the week. What? Otto! The show must go on, but somebody else can lead the band, huh? I wanted to find you, my child. The leader, she will be all upset. I said to myself... Otto, what did you mean?  Oh, uh, these people. Brooks? Mr. Valentine. He's sort of a detective. Well, naturally, I would expect that. Well, Lita was just telling us that she doesn't have many friends around the circus yet. So? She has me and my brother, too? The boy, Freddie. Have you seen where he is, Lita? No, I haven't, but... Oh, what did you mean when... Sure, come on, let's have it.  Everybody knows that. My foot, you see? I didn't always toodle on an oboe and wave batons in a striped coat. I would suddenly wire Otto the Magnificent. So one day I fell and was injured. But Fofo, you think he would help pay my two years of hospital bills the way the law says? Then why did you come back to his circus? Why not? Perhaps to kill Fofo. I don't know. But neither does Fofo. That's what makes it interesting. Oh, Otto, stop it. You shouldn't say things like that. You are very mixed up, my child. And very innocent.  Light past tense. He was popular because he always liked to have around him the people who hated him. If this makes no sense, why try to understand that he's dead, isn't he? Yeah, yeah, practically killed by an elephant. Otto, is that true? That there were others besides me? Then that letter I wrote isn't so important at all, is it, Mr. Valentine? Everybody hated him. Even my little brother Freddy, the sweetest boy in the world, and a good entertainer too, but out of a job. You think, Fofo would give him work? No, no, Fofo laughs. He thinks it is funny I should have to support my brother. Skip it, Otto. What about the man who was with the elephant? What? The one walking alongside when it happened in there, a trainer or whatever he is. His name is Boxer. Well, I don't know. But he probably hates Fofo too. Okay, thanks. You've covered up enough for a leader. What? George, where are you going? Well, I'll start with the snakes, I guess. Here, down this way, I guess. You sure that snake is locked up tight in that box? Well, Susie, don't you worry about her, Mr. Not a fang in the circus, didn't you know that? Homeless is a ten-foot piece of garden hose or a garter snake. Yeah, well, never mind showing me. Just keep the lid shut, huh? Sure, all right. Some people don't like snakes, I guess. Me, I kept it in my bathtub at home ever since I was a kid, and me, I had him... Got him over there? Yeah, yeah, there he is. Got him all chained up separately. Well, that's the sheriff's work. Poor old Lemmy. You know that elephant's been with us almost five years? He... Oh, hello, Boxer. Me is all it's on. I'm George Valentine. Oh, yeah. Sheriff's and word. Snoop on that. Oh, not exactly. Boy, look at the chains they got on him. No, what's the matter, baby? All right, all right, show them the snakes. That's what you come down here for, ain't it? No, sure, Boxer. Take it easy. There we go, Susie. Don't eat up all his hay now. I better not let that snake get so close to his trunk, had you? Look, Mr. Valentine, the AMA here wouldn't care if a snake crawled up his trunk. Okay, okay. Hey, look, get her out of here, will you? That's good, thanks. You're welcome. All right, Susie, off we go. Back to bed. So it wasn't the snake, yeah? Come here, Mr. Valentine. All right, don't be afraid. The AMA won't step on you. All right, oh boy. Give me your ear, boy. Ah, that's it. Here. Look, what's that? What's your brand? Same idea, only you mark the ear. See? Double X, that's one circus. Triangle, that's another. Crossed lances, little crown. That's for digging trees up for some maharajah. Yeah, a whole string of them. In other words, the AMA has been through the wars, huh? It was older than you or I or anybody else around here. Been everywhere and done everything. And Mr. Valentine never once has caused a bit of trouble. A freight train couldn't make him nervous or jumpy. Then what did? I don't know. Suppose somebody put a lighted cigarette to his ear. Well... Suppose that stick you carry just happened to poke him at the right time. There was only me and the girl on top near him. Nobody did nothing like that. Well, if he's such a peaceful elephant, then how do you explain his actions? Maybe you don't explain it. Animals are funny, Mr. Valentine. Sure, sure, I know. An elephant never forgets. So maybe he didn't like Fofo either, huh?  All right, then what happened? Something sent the Amur off. George? Yeah, Brooks, see out here. I'm just trying to... Come here, quick. Here. Over here, George. What's happened? You hear from the hospital? Yes, but... Here he is. Where? This is Mr. Valentine. That's right. Who are you? George? It's Fofo. Yes, of course it's me. A quick recovery, wasn't it? I think I have nine lives. Wait a minute, wait a minute. It's Fofo. What happened? What are you doing here? Hello, Otto. Well, don't all stand there as though I were a ghost or something. I've been down to the hospital. I was in town. I heard on the radio what happened. George, he died. The sheriff just called. Wait. Wait, I don't understand. Oh, I get it. Somebody else was doing your act for you. All that clown makeup and costume. Somebody... Yes, yes. Ah, but Otto, I'm so terribly sorry. Only you yourself kept asking me to give Freddy a chance. Freddy? Otto. Poor fellow. He loved his younger brother a great deal, and he wanted him to work so badly. It's really his fault, I suppose, that Freddy is dead now. Well, it couldn't be anyone else's fault, could it? We'll return to our adventure with George Valentine in just a moment. Back to George Valentine. Fofo, the fearless clown, seems to be a man with nine lives, because it never occurred to you or the other thousand people who saw an elephant suddenly run berserk and travel him. But the man under all that makeup wasn't Fofo. No, it was really a boy named Freddy who only wanted a job with Fofo's circus. Well, now Freddy is dead. And if your name is George Valentine, you go down to the hospital to make sure of your facts this time. Of course it was Freddy. Who else would it be? He spoke to them, the doctor said, Freddy didn't say anything, Otto. He couldn't help any. No, no. How could a poor boy know who killed him? Otto, Otto, snap out of it, would you please? I know how much you loved your brother, but what's done is done. Yes, yes. Besides, what do you mean, know who killed him? Did I say that? Well, why not? Fofo killed him. How do you figure that? Look, closing time, all around us, people going home. But for the circus, time off, that's all. Two hours between afternoon and night performances. Freddy liked the night performance best. Look, Otto, I asked you why Fofo would kill your brother. I don't know. You mean because Fofo so gratuitously took this afternoon off so accidentally put your brother in his place? It was a new performance. Yeah, that's what the big man told Miss Brooks. New lights, new costumes, new music that works. Fofo wanted to drag some publicity men from downtown to watch with him from out front for a change. That's what he told Miss Brooks. You think it's a lie?  Okay, prove it. I can't. Mr. Valentine, you will waste your time forever if you try to. You can't always win. All right, wait a minute. Come on, hop in. I'll drive you back to the grounds. No, no, it is closing time for me to... Where are you going? I will walk back through the park. I think, go, I'll see you later.  All I mean is for me. It is awful. I will stop trying to say Fofo is evil. I will let you waste your time. This is Dressing Room. The railroad car, George. It's the drawing room. Nice way to live. Shuri's gone. It's through the office part, they said. Here we are. Keep out, private, do not disturb. Nice friendly sort of guy. George, wait. Well, Mr. Valentine, you're snooping, huh? Perhaps you came to steal something, huh? Yeah, maybe I did, Fofo. A letter. A letter? Let me see, you represent Relita, don't you? So I guess I might as well start looking, huh? Where is it, the desk?  You are very shrewd. Now, look, Buster, she wrote a letter. It explained what kind of a guy you are. And why she would like to kill me. So the letter disappears, somebody stole it. It doesn't take much shrewdness to figure you're the boy who took it. Relita's very young.  She's already learned it. Stay away from clowns. But I suppose you got a lot of fun out of scaring her to death. Now, here, you may have it. It has served its purpose. Thanks a lot.  What this guy Otto says about you is true. I think we can skip the psychoanalysis, yeah?  He would never be able to do anything about the way he feels. I might. Sit down, Valentine. You know, you advertise for danger. You're the kind of man I've always wanted to meet. Oh, no, thanks, Buster. My job's finished. What? Yeah, the reason I was hired, at least. So now the coast's clear to solve a murder, isn't it? And right now, I'd rather hear what boxer has to say. That's what I'm doing now. Here, hold a flash, wait a minute. Well, maybe Fofo let it slip, but he mentioned you were claiming the aimer wasn't to blame today. I know, I know, and earlier I said I couldn't see how anybody could have made the aimer do it. I still don't. But you say one of the men heard someone out here. That's right, Miss Brooks. Two nights ago. Rouse about says the aimer was snorting around. Sure. Of course, I told Fofo. But you think he'd be interested if it was murder? You think he'd do anything but laugh over it? All right, skip it, boxer. Just what happened two nights ago? Well, this Rouse about was waked up by the aimer. Came over to see what was the matter. Sure, there was a man here. But he disappeared before he could get a look. Didn't report it. Didn't think it was important until today. George, look. It's a sliver. It's a thin little sliver of wood. What? Looks like a chip from the slightest. Let's see what it looks like. No, wait a minute, look out. It's broken already. Polished white wood. That's not sawdust. Well, maybe it's sharp. That's nothing you're going to hurt an elephant with either. Here, I'll show you how tough the aimer's skin is. Don't poke him. If you think that was what was riling him up when you got another think on it. Hold on, now you listen to me. Boxer, what would happen if you took the elephant here back into the main tent? The way he was when he tore loose this afternoon when the accident happened. I don't get you. But you guarantee to the sheriff to have enough chains or enough men to keep him under control? Sure. All right, the tent's empty now. It's between shows. Everybody's available. George, what do you want to do? Little reconstruction, Bruxy. It just occurred to me that the only one who can solve this crime in a hurry is the aimer himself. You all set on him? You want everything the same. All right, all right. Start your silliness. All sawdust himself. Where have you been? I'm back, aren't I? I guess, Mr. Valentine, I've been thinking about what Fofo should think about. How you can't always win, but you will never teach him. What do you mean? All right, let's get this parade going.  Why aren't you ready to walk through this thing, Fofo? Haven't even brought your snake box in yet. Haven't even started a somersault. No, I will do my part. Don't worry. I'm not afraid. Oh, skip it. It's because you know I don't need to go through with it, isn't it? Is it? Sure. It's because you know I've already got the answer. Have you? Yeah, on the way back from the hospital, I stopped to pick up a book on elephants. Take the aimer here. He's been through the wars, hasn't he? No, that band is making so much noise. Oh, you're with me, all right. But here, look, the brand marks on the aimer's ear. Boxer, give me the stick there. Don't you want me to leave him around like I did? No, I take him. I can handle him. Well, give it to me, I said. Sure, boss. Never mind, never mind. Here, take a look. Three Xs. That's a circus. A crown. Boxer says he must have pulled up trees for a Maharaja once. Crossed lances? Well, in India, that was the best job an elephant could get, wasn't it? Only goes to the biggest and finest battle elephant. You are the expert, not me. I suppose the lances might mean that what are you driving at? The aimer's memory. Something way back in his training. Something he'd do on the right command automatically, fast as lightning. Practically a reflex action. Yeah, there, go on. What's up, Valentine? Oh, let's get this over with, Sheriff. I don't like it. Otto, stop that music. Hey, Otto, stop it. What's the matter? Okay now, play the same tune you played this afternoon. What? What I have told you, everything is the same as it was. Opening performance of the new show was this afternoon. Sure, that's right. Everything was new, even costumes and music. So play that same march. Sure, I thought it was different, Otto. Yes, go on, Otto. You write the music, play it. Mr. Valentine wants everything the same, unless you are afraid to. Be quiet, would you? Otto, your instrument, I remember, is an oboe, a reed instrument. Well, is this white sliver of wood yours? It's a broken reed. What? Somebody dropped at the other night doing something that made the aimer get all excited. Playing softly in his ear, maybe. Testing a composition, maybe. I don't understand at all. Yes, you do. You're wasting time. Come on, boys, you don't need a leader. Play out those same arrangements you did this afternoon. Wait! Let her go. Here we are, Valentine. The aimer and I... What's the matter, Otto? The aimer here is really harmless. But if a man were turning somersaults in front of him and suddenly some horn started blaring out... Wait! No, Mr. Valentine. Wait, boys! I don't know the notes, but something deep in the elephant's memory may be. Battle elephants. And I suppose there must be a call for charge. At least that's what they used battle elephants for. Stop it! Stop that music! Stop it! All right. I am the one you want. Imagine trying to kill me? He's tried it before, but that's what his scheme was. Oh, he had good enough reason, I guess. No, but the irony of it, Mr. Valentine, he worked up such a beautiful way to kill me. I always told him he was never smart enough. And then his plan backfired so tragically. No wonder he fainted when I told him his brother had taken my place. Well, I just talked to Otto back there. He won't say anything. But how can he? Because he can't really prove that you'd caught on to what his plan was. That you had his brother take your place on purpose. Well, and can you prove it? No, of course not. So why talk about then, huh? Yeah, that's right. Why talk about it? George, let's get out of here. Oh, leave me alone for a minute, will you, Angel? Don't you see? Fofo's right. I can't prove it. We will return to our adventure with George Valentine in just a moment. Well, the aimer won't have to be shot now. That's one good thing come out of it. Oh, sure, sure, Boxer. And you can go right on having trouble with your boss, and Relita can still be practically blackmailed by the guy who still got his eye on. Oh, George, stop beating yourself. There's nothing you can do about it, you said so yourself. Yeah, sure. In fact, Otto told me that earlier before he stumbled off to walk in the park. Said I'd waste my time forever if I tried to get back at Fofo. You can't always win, he said. Poor righto wasn't bright enough to get rid of Fofo. And I came along so he never got another chance at him. Maybe I don't mean that, I don't know. Well, I'm with the show. Sure. Listen to them in there. In a couple of minutes, the fearless fraud will come galloping in with his little suitcase, opening the parade.  So we don't like the way it ends, Bruxy.  Come on, let's go. Only... What's the matter? Otto said a couple of funny things. It was odd his not being willing to talk about anything after he confessed. What? In fact, it was funny he didn't confess earlier. The shock of finding he'd been responsible for killing his brother and all. What are you talking about? A policeman getting out of the car as a funny cab. Made me remember Otto's wanting to go to the park. That's all, then, showing up later. Mr. Valentine, this guy's from the park. Yeah, so I noticed. City Park Zoo. We need help fast. Yes. Along about closing time somebody broke into the snake house at the zoo and buddy, our snakes aren't amateurs. Our biggest cobra is missing. You have just heard The Fearless Clown. Another Let George Do It adventure. Robert Bailey was starred as George Valentine with Virginia Greg as Bruxy. David Victor and Jackson Gillis wrote the story and the music was by Eddie Dunstetter.


For the circuit Python Parsec, what I wanted to do was show you how to constrain a range of numbers to a minimum and a maximum that's useful to you. What I have here is a circuit playground express with a potentiometer hooked up as an analog input, so it's being read on pin A2 here and it's got power and ground, basically acts as a voltage divider. If you look at the code, I'm importing the things that matter here, the board, so I get pin definitions and analog IO, I actually don't need time in there, I was using that earlier, I'm not now. What I do is I set up that analog pin, pin A2, to be an analog input that I can read with the phrase analog in, that's a variable name, equals analog IO dot analog in board dot A2. And inside of my main loop, what I'm doing is creating a variable called knob, which is using this key phrase, min max analog in value, comma, my minimum number, I want it to have a minimum of 20,000 and my maximum, I want it to have a maximum of 50,000. So if you watch here when I turn this knob, it's got a little bit of a dead zone at the beginning and then it grabs it at that 20,000 mark and it goes up to, it hits 50,000 and stops there. So what this allows me to do is ignore some of that sort of little sloppy beginning and end zone there, which can vary from potentiometer to potentiometer and instead I use the nice meaty center where it's predictable. And so that is how you can constrain a set of values using min max inside of circuit Python. And that is your circuit Python Persec.