Now, the state magistrate court sitting in Adrekity has ordered the remand of the three suspected murderers. They are suspected of killing a seven-year-old girl, Demilade Fadare, in Adrekity Correctional Center. She was alleged to have been murdered when her mother sent her an errands to buy pap, but couldn't be found. This was until some hours when a lifeless body was found in a neighbor's house. The alleged murderers are Mr. Banji Olajiga, his wife and their daughter, Oluwashi Kemi Olajiga, whom the deceased family claimed is mentally sick. The presiding chief magistrate, Mako Fahala, ordered their remand, paying an advice from the Department of Public Prosecution, DPP. Chief magistrate Fahala adjourned the case till January 10, 2022. Any time I come from Potakot, I used to give the man. My brother would tell me, let come and greet our daddy. His brother said, he was one of those who supplied the blocks I used to build in my house. Even my younger brother, he has some blocks between two. So, they are more or less a family friend, just a family friend. A very good person for that matter. The fact that I don't, no, no. What has happened in court today is we will call it from K. Which is a form of a request to the courts to remand the defendants and custody. Pending the time, legal advice will come out from the Ministry of Justice. The case file now has been ordered to be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice for them to review it and come out with the position on what court should be in respect of the case. So the matter has been adjourned to next year, that's 10th January. So we'll come back to the courts to to inquire whether the advice is out or not. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Do you want to motivate and inspire people? Is poetry your creative outlet? Do you want to deepen your connection to other cultures? Your voice is an instrument of influence. It can be used to motivate, bring people together, and to change minds. Communication that inspires, entertains, and informs is a key skill that employers want in this competitive economy and increasingly diverse society.  So I think anybody can be successful if their desire to succeed is greater than their fear of, like, failing. With a communication studies degree, you can find opportunities as an influencer, motivational speaker, lawyer, human and public relations, communications manager, corporate training, and event planning and management. The salary ranges from 60,000 to 100,000 plus. I chose communications because I didn't exactly know specifically what I wanted to do. I also love the versatility of communications. Like, there's so many different ways or things that you can do within communications and it's nice because for me, not knowing exactly what I wanted to do, it provided a lot of different avenues that I could go down. Studying English is a wide open path.  They influence people and that can instigate change in the world. At Highline, we have an award winning literary journal, our tourist 2021 that students, staff and faculty create. It is filled with poetry, stories, essays, photos and artwork. Do you really want to improve your writing? Learn how to get strangers to tell you their darkest secrets? Journalism provides students with skills to do research and write clearly and quickly. Journalism teaches you how to develop interview skills and how to organize your writing so you can say what you want to say and be clearly understood. At Highline, you can work in our student newspaper, The Thunder Word, to get experience with a publication. A degree in journalism can lead to jobs in print, online and broadcast media and can be a great help in graduate school in many fields. Whether you want to be on sports center or you just want to write like a pro, this is a program for you. I love that I get to be with people from various disciplines. I also love knowing that design is more than just knowing how to create something. But it's about knowing that you can have such an impact on someone through your design. I would say just do it because design is everywhere. You can easily find something that will suit you and a world without design is like a peacock without its feathers. We experience art around us every day. It's everywhere, always changing. You can be a working artist. There is so much money to be made in art right now. Degrees in interior design prepare students to enter both residential and commercial design fields. Multimedia design will teach you how to use a variety of mediums to create promotional videos, brochures, web design and interactive presentations. Our visual communications program offers the fundamentals of graphic design so that you can develop creative solutions for branding and visual identity in many realms. Our world language program offers American Sign Language, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Latin, Japanese and Spanish. Bilingual jobs are on the rise. Learning a new language will open up a whole new world and careers to explore like translator, interpreter, immigration officer or teacher. What I love about design is that I'm able to utilize like all these technical skills but then have a creative sense in it. Like even though I'm making, for example, like an instant noodle package, I still have some type of control in the way I want it to look and still thinking about the persona or the person I'm trying to sell it to, for example. But it's really cool to see what I can create using all these different applications that I never knew I could do. And I think that's what I especially love about it. Highline's newest bachelor's of applied science degree in integrated design takes a holistic approach to design by combining passion for visual design technology and problem solving with accessibility, equity and universal design. I really love that we have this really big focus on human centered design. So all the things we're creating, it's not just for the sake of creating it, it's to solve a problem that a certain audience has. And I think that's really fulfilling because you're not just creating things for yourself. So that's what I like about our program is like we use all the different disciplines, combine them together and then we solve a problem. This degree integrates the threads of design philosophy, design technique and equitable design for global community. The bachelor's degree is a wonderful way to apply an AAS degree toward a deeper level of design expertise. Become a part of the next generation of forward thinking designers. Whether you're a new student or like if you're like me, a transfer student, do what you can to build community. It's really the difference between being that car to class, class to car student and the person who has a really life changing experience.


Quadratics, those little equations with an x squared in, you should know that when they're graphed, if they're a positive x squared, they'll look like this, and if they're a negative x squared, they'll look like this. In this video, we're going to discover how the equation of quadratic matches up to the graph of the quadratic. So we'll be able to connect the solutions from factorizing to the graph and we'll also be able to find the y-intercept. In part two, we're going to look at the turning points and the axes of symmetry of the quadratic. So there's a few things to discover about the graphs of quadratic, beyond the fact that they're either u-shaped or n-shaped. Before we get started, another name for the solutions are roots. So three and negative one are the roots of this quadratic. So let's jump straight in and have a look at the graph. What do you notice about the roots when factorized and where the graph crosses the x-axis? I'm sure that you spotted that when you factorize a quadratic, the roots are exactly where the quadratic function crosses the x-axis. This information is really helpful when sketching a quadratic. What do you notice about the y-intercept and the equation of the quadratic? Did you spot that the number on its own in the equation is the y-intercept? So straight away when we have a quadratic equation, we already know what shape it is, so positive x squared is a smiley u-shape and a negative x squared is a sad n-shape. And we can really easily work out three points on its graph without having to draw it using a table of values, the y-intercept and the 2x-intercept. This means we can do a really quick sketch and label some values, so the sketch for y equals x squared plus 2x minus 8 would look something like this. Because negative 8 in the equation gives us the y-intercept and factorizing the quadratic gives the roots negative 4 and 2. So here's two for you to do, sketch the quadratics giving the correct shape and labeling three points on the axis. Watch out for the negative quadratic, pause the video, sketch the quadratics and click play when you're ready to check. You should have sketches that look something like these, with these values marked on. So there we have sketching quadratics making use of the roots and the y-intercept. In the next video we'll also look at the turning points so the maximum or minimum point on the quadratic. They make use of the fact that quadratics are symmetrical, so we'll also discover what the axis of symmetry is.


My name is Bernard Bukowicz and I will be the moderator of this year's UBU World Leaders Forum taking place on 17th of October in Frankfurt. What are the technologies or some of the technologies which will reshape our industry within the next 5 to 10 years and what are the challenges to implement them? And in addition, how will the new partnership with the private sector drive the development of new technologies within the framework of the UBU? And these are just a few of the questions which we will discuss with our speakers and discussants during the event. A successful and inclusive digital transformation calls for joint approaches and innovative partnerships. For this year's UBU World Leaders Forum we bring together experts from the wider industry to discuss with us how new strategies and business models can move forward the postal agenda and the postal digital revolution. Are you interested in this discussion and please join us in Frankfurt on 17th of October or follow us on the UPU live stream portal. I'm looking forward to seeing you there.


My talk doesn't start for eight minutes, but they give me permission to tell you something outside my talk first, which I totally want to do, because there's something great that happened last week, and it was way too late to get it in my talk. So forget about this for eight minutes. We'll get back to that. What I want you to see is the link vulnerability. How many people know about the link shortcut vulnerability? Yeah, not even half of you. That means you guys can totally take over those guys. So on my website, Sam's class.info, they had Wi-Fi on my airplane, so I got this working on the plane to another conference. I just got back from them, and we did it down there. This is awesome, and you don't need to know anything. So I wrote it up here, and I tried to get it in the speaker's corner, but I was too late to do it. So go to Sam's class.info, and you can take over everybody around you, and everybody in the whole blasted world right now. This is one of those rare times. So what's going on is the Microsoft has a vulnerability that was found in their operating system so that link files, the routine that draws the picture on the screen on the icon has a bug in it, and I don't know exactly what it is. It's something like a buffer overflow, but anyway, you can put malicious binary in that file. So just viewing the file and seeing the icon means you're owned. So you can do it, and GloriousHD more put it in Metasploit, so all you do is load up Metasploit, issue the same old commands you always use in Metasploit. You tell it use exploit, show payloads, choose a payload like reverse TCP Metropeter, and then your victim, just you have to trick your victim into going to a website, an internet explorer, or going to an SMB share, because what you make is a malicious server, but if they go and view your server, the IE will pop to Windows Explorer, and they will see a window with these two files. And when this was originally found in the wild, it was traveling on USB sticks and it was taking over power stations through SCADA. But the first step of that attack, which is a three-stage attack, was this one, which is awesome. So as soon as you see this shortcut and the little picture appears, it's all over. You are owned. It has injected this Dill into memory and executed it, and if you're using Metasploit, it goes up phone back to you saying, please control me, and you control it, and you own that box. And that's what these instructions show you how to do. Metasploit looks like this when you're running it. Then when they connect, it does all this complicated stuff back and forth, sending more and more stuff over to the victim. And eventually, when it's done with all that hogwash, you get a session open. And then you just open the session, and you have a command prompt on that machine, and you can do whatever you want to it. I, of course, just go to the desktop, make a directory called owned, and your victim will just see directories start appearing on the desktop. It's wonderful. And there's nothing you can do about it. At least easy. There is no Microsoft patch. There are some things you can do, though, and that's, of course, the serious side of this. This is an awesome demonstration for students to get their attention, and it'll be homework for all my students next semester, but it'll be old and tired by then, like all my other homework, stuff that's been patched, so you have to get an old machine that's not patched, and then you can see it. But right now, you can do it to real living machines. And if they want to be patched, they have to go off the map. And you can use Sophos made a nice tool that will patch it Microsoft Security Essentials apparently detects it because we tried it in the classroom two days ago in Orlando, and a guy with Microsoft Security Essentials, it popped up and saved him. So that's cool. So if you want to be safe, probably the most reasonable same thing to do is put on Microsoft Security Essentials. I imagine the other antivirus products will eventually catch it too. And maybe they already have. But anyway, there's a Microsoft workaround, but it stinks. You have to hack the registry, and you have to turn off the display of all icons. So anyway, so all your icons look like dirt. So it's not much fun. Anyway, this is great for me that the previous speaker ended a bit early, because I was thinking, I can't add this to my talk. And this is exciting. So you should all take over everybody around you at Windows, and then you can laugh. Because at Defcon, you can do this stuff. And this is as far as I know, when it's not common that you have these living zero days with no patch, but it means that every server on the internet running Windows and almost everybody running a Windows machine in here like me is probably vulnerable. As a matter of fact, I am vulnerable. I never go around to patch in my own box. Which is commonly the case, attacking boxes, you never patch them, I never run the firewall, right? I'm always getting all that junk out of my way. So yeah, you could take me over actually, but you have to trick me into clicking on your link. Anyway, let me see if it's time for my official talk yet. Looks like it is. Is there an authority figure? There you are. Is it time to get started? Okay, he says it is. Alright, so let me depart from that, which is great stuff. But it's not my official talk here, which is also extremely important. I'm here on a mission from God. Okay. Which is IP version six. Now, I've heard about IP version six for years and years, and it was like this total waste of time that I didn't really care about. And it seemed all complicated. And about three years ago, for some reason, I got all excited. And I tried to do it. And I got my best student, we spent six weeks replacing the firmware of routers with DDWRT and putting on things that were supposed to make it rod IP version six, and we couldn't make it work. We just got fed up and gave up. One other student of mine actually got it working because he had a Cisco router at home. But it would cost $200 a month to get IP version six to your house. And I said, Well, you know, there's no point teaching anybody anything yet, because there's no equipment worth having yet, that you can afford in your house. And I better wait for them to do that. But in the back of my mind, the reason why I thought it would probably be okay is because there's class D and E just sitting there. 32 class A is enough to last us five or eight more years. So I figured there's really no crisis coming. But then I went to Hurricane Electric in Fremont, California, I went to a talk there and they told us about IP version six and Aaron, the American regional internet associate number, internet number association, something like that. The people that really hand out the IP addresses were there and they said they are not going to hand out D and E for general use. So we're coming into a time of crisis and nobody is ready. And I knew this was my mission from God to make sure all you people know about the crisis and what you can do about it because it's easy this time, thanks to Hurricane Electric. So I'm Sam Bown. I teach at City College, San Francisco and everything my talk and everything is all on the web. All my stuff is always available for anybody to use. So let me show you why I care. IP version four, we've all seen these addresses 192, 168, 110. And of course, in binary, that's a 32 bit binary number. And then we're all know how to subnet that and everything, but there's only 32 binary numbers. So there's only two to the 32 of them. And that's only 4 billion. And that's ridiculous, right? There's 7 billion people and how many devices do you have on your body right now that need an IP address? I must have four. And when I'm in my house, I have another 12. And you know, there's no way 4 billion is ever going to cut it. So that's a problem. IP version six is the answer.  That is an IP version six address, learn to love it. That is 128 bits long. And the good thing about that is there are enough of them, of course, that is 256 billion billion billion billion. So until we colonize the entire galaxy and have every atom in our body independently addressed to reformat will, we're not going to run out of those addresses. So we will not have to have IP version seven in another 10 years. At least not because we ran out of addresses. And we really are running out of IP version four addresses. Here's the current situation. There are 256 class A's blocks of 16 million, which is how they are commonly allocated. And we are now down to maybe 16 left. And they've already allocated something like six or eight of them this year. They're going to completely run out of them in 2011 at the current rate. It is an estimate because they don't they don't they are not allocated on a regular timetable, but they're going to run out in about one year in about one year, whoever invents the new cell phone, or iPad or any kind of gizmo and wants to sell 50 million on is going to go say okay, I have 50 million more things to attach to the internet. And Aaron is going to say, tough, the internet is full, you cannot attach any more devices to it. This is not going to be fun. So there's a crisis coming. We could see it coming 10 years ago. And we're now down to less than one year left. And nobody cares. Everywhere I go, most everybody about 90% of my audiences have no interest in IP version six at all. They still think the way I did four months ago, it was some piece of nonsense.  And appears the projected timetable. The main reservoir of addresses will run out in 2011. But the regional internet registries will have some leftover, which they can continue to distribute and they will begin running out in 2012. That's the prediction. And then people will really go and there won't be any more IP addresses available. That's the end of the world. The internet's full. Pack up the internet and go do something else. That's not going to be a hit. But let me tell you what's already started happening. I brought up two years ago to my network administration. City College, we have a whole class B address space. We have 65,000 IP addresses. And we're only using 30 of them for public facing web servers. So we don't need them. So I wanted to sell them a long time ago because we're broke. We need money. And I went to my network administrator and he said, you can't sell them. We don't really own them they're on loan or rent from some agency like IANA. But they just changed their policy about a month ago so you can really sell your IP addresses now. Because they said there are only two possibilities in the next year.  So we might as well choose the second of these two alternatives. And now when people apply to them and try to get IP addresses, they actually investigate why you're getting them because they want to determine if you really are going to use them or if you're just hoarding them so you can scalp them and sell them later. Speculator is IP addresses. And that's all coming. So in about a year, panic will sit in and about two years, I think we can really get a million bucks for our Class B. That's my goal. But we'll see. Because we don't need it. What you'll have to do instead of getting fresh IP addresses is you'll have to get IP version 4 addresses from some other company that was smarter than you and already went to IPv6. And that's what we're doing. And that's what all you should do as soon as possible. Anyway, the Department of Defense changed to IP version 6 in 2008. They had a goal and they met it. They had the whole network runnable on IP version 6 in 2008. That is what put pressure on the operating systems like Microsoft put it in Windows XP. And they put it very well in Vista and Windows 7. It's in Linux. It's in Unix. It's in the Apple, although Apple did a pretty bad job of it. But they will eventually be pressured to fix it. The rest of the federal government will switch in 2012 to IP version 6. And therefore, since every large manufacturer has to sell to the government, they have all been pressured into putting IP version 6 in their products even though there was no significant amount of traffic on the backbone in IP version 6 yet and no significant computer consumer demand for it yet. But it's coming and there will be a huge rush for it. And when it comes, there will be mad chaos because we are not ready and most manufacturers and technicians are not getting ready. So the people that do know are going to be sitting pretty and that should be you. And it's going to be my students because whether they like it or not, they're all going to do IP version 6 homework next semester. And my prediction is they will be glad of that in a year. So here's the summary. This is the current state of the internet. And this is our fate. Those who accept soon will have a position of power in the new order. Those who resist will be crushed.  And I looked at Microsoft's recommendation for an IP version 6 lab and it was 260 pages long. And I said, how can it be this hard? It doesn't have to be that hard if you're WIMP.  But you can get started and do the essentials easy and it's fun and it's a game. So anyway, but here's the plan. One plan which is really popular is to ignore it and hoping it just goes away. This is not a practical plan, but it's the most popular one. The other one is to buy a gateway.  So they are going to buy an IP version 6 device that will convert it to IP version 6 to go on the internet. And there are currently four incompatible standards for that and four manufacturers making poorly designed devices to do that. So in the future, actually making a game connect to a game over here is going to require 16 combinations of imperfect transfer translation on the way. And even more than that, Aaron will be giving some talk here and they may get into this. But the IETF guy at the last conference I went to is very unhappy because there's now NAT 4 to 4 changing IP version 4 to other version 4. There's NAT 4 to 6. There's NAT 6 to 4 and now there's even NAT 6 to 6, which was never supposed to happen. The whole point of IP version 6 was going to be end-to-end addressing, but that's already broken because the end-user machines can't handle the multi-homing. And I'll show you a little bit of that later. Anyway, so gateways are in the future and they're going to be a bloody mesh, but companies are not going to use them. What you really want to have is dual stack on your company. This is the goal for the foreseeable future. For the next 10 years we're going to have to run both IP version 4 and IP version 6 on our whole networks because everybody's going to have a mix of devices. And right now you can run IP version 4 only, but in 360 days and therefore all the people that plan more than a year ahead have already begun doing this, like Comcast and Verizon and Facebook and Google, they're already putting up IP version 6 properties, so soon there will be IP version 6 only websites and IP version 6 only end-user devices. I think it's Verizon cell phones are already IP version 6 only. It might be Comcast. I get it mixed up. One of those companies has already decided to use IP version 6 only on their cell phones. Smart meters are IP version 6 only and Japanese televisions are IP version 6 only. And they get converted at the Enterprise network address translation. Anyway, in the short run the trick to get started learning is to use a tunnel. This is awesome. If you tunnel you can take an existing IP version 4 internet connection and you can run IP version 6 over it. Now of course this does not solve the problem. You're still using an IP version 4 address. It makes all your performance in IP version 6 inferior to your IP version 4 and all that, but it means you can learn how to do it now. And then you've got everything ready when you get native IP version 6 from your internet service provider which is coming very soon. AT&T offers it now. I've been told that their latest U-verse and various providers I think Comcast just had their first rollout in California a month ago of IP version 6 directly to the businesses. So it's coming. So the fast thing is to set up a tunnel and you can all do this right now and all my students are going to do it and you should because it's great. You are free tunnel brokers out there. Hurricane Electric ones one called tunnel broker. 6XS is one some place in Europe. GoGo 6 is my favorite because it's easy. You don't have to do anything to get a GoGo 6 tunnel up except use Windows. And if you can't stand that you should try one of the others. But here's GoGo 6 and let me just show you because I am on IP version 6 right now. I'm connected with a wire to this DEF CON network. I'm using Windows 7 and so here is my local area connection down here. I have an IP version 4 address of 172.168.233. Now this FE80 address is a link local address that's like a 169.254 address. It can only be used for local traffic but I'm tunneling through the GoGo server. And I should have it running in one of my other pains here. There it is the GoGo client. This is awesome because once you set it up you don't have to touch it and everywhere I carry my laptop it connects to IP version 4 at a coffee house and within a minute the IP version 6 tunnel turns on so I always have IP version 6 and I don't have to do anything to earn that. Because it automatically connects with a non authenticated free account to these guys and I can choose how I want to do it. Right now I'm using the most universal one UDP traversal. It will go right through network address translation and right through everything I can go anywhere. It goes right through firewalls. It sends UDP packets out and inside the UDP packets is IP version 6 hiding inside the IP version 4. And if I want to see my address here is my glorious IP version 6 address. A long horrible mess but I've got it and if I want to see the effect I can go look at the 6SS website. Let's go to this one and just go to 6SS and the awesome bar should find it. Open TNS. Well here it is 6SS. Alright and 6SS are the people that run one of those many tunnels but the particular thing cool about them is at the bottom they will tell you whether you've got it typically or now it's not doing it through me. As always I'm getting a host. Enter website. Oh okay. OK. And here we are at the bottom it should tell me you've got IP version 6. Non-SSL IP version 6 connection. It puts my address there. It's not as clear as it could be but there it shows that's my IP address. You can make your IP address look a little smaller and let me go back to my slides but that shows I connected over version 6 instead of version 4 and that's the point. Now I go back to here and show you actually I'll go back and do a couple other things but I've got my IP version 6 connection up. I can ping. You know you're probably used to this. If I ping yahoo.com I see some replies from those boring old IP version 4 addresses but if I ping google.com I get IP version 6 by default because it prefers it and those are that's Google's IP version 6 address. If you want to see what they've got you do NSLookup in interactive modes you can set the query and set the query to give me the A record which is IP version 4 and the IP version 6 record which is four times longer is the AAA record and now I can look up google.com I can get them both. There's the IP version 4 address for Google and the IP version 6 address for Google. Now most people at Facebook has got my server I'm using IP version 6 DNS server but see Facebook only has IP version 4 DNS records but if you do I think it's v6.facebook.com and I guess not. They do have IP version 6 presence but it's not resolving on me now and I'm not going to struggle with it because something always has to go wrong but anyway that's the deal there so let me just show you the way to do this it's fun. Hurricane Electric made a certification process and I finished it and I can tell my students are going to suffer through it. So here's what you do you first prove that you're an IP version 6 client and then you make it to a certain level then you prove that you run a web server that responds to IP version 6 requests then you set up a DNS server or then excuse me then you set up a mail server that takes IP version 6 email and then you set up a DNS server that takes IP version 6 DNS resolution and hands out that quad-a record and then you set up a DNS server that propagates an IP version 6 glue record to the root of your domain.  Yeah well I didn't you're smarter than me anyway um but the glue record you can learn about it if you do this certification which I highly recommend and it's fun there are steps in it so Google gave me a free cell phone I gave you an Evo which is awesome but they didn't tell us they were going to give us an Evo at this conference then so they mailed me a droid six weeks before the conference so I transferred my service to the droid then when I got the Evo I said this droid was wonderful six week ago but it's junk now it's junk I had my Evo so I transferred to there and it gave the droid away to my students that would get the highest certification and they embraced this this was a hit so they had 30 days to get the highest level of IP version 6 certification one of made it all the way to the end and if you do make it all the way to the top where you have all those things working and you are a sage you get a t-shirt and I told them that if they gave me the t-shirt I would wear it to DEF CON and they mailed it to me right before the conference so this is the awesome t-shirt you get for being a sage and there is every possible fact thank you you get every possible fact about IP version 6 crammed on the back including one typo which someone pointed out on Twitter that should be your homework find the typo on this shirt you have to get it but anyway I highly recommend getting these search and it's really fun and let me check my time here right I may not demonstrate the stages here but there's you take some multiple choice tests and then you just connect it's like a video game you connect it detects whether you got it they say does your web server host this file no get lost keep come back later so it's really a lot of fun and you ought to all do it that's my opinion unless you already know everything about IP version 6 so I promise to say something about hacking since we are security conference and it is actually extremely important to the hackers to be in here fast because IP version 6 is a security nightmare because just to set it up usually have to turn off all security devices just to get it going and most your security devices are not IP version 6 capable so typically you bypass the firewall and everything on the way in so here's just a few things about it the IP version 6 addresses 64 bits for routing and 64 bits for the host the 64 bits for the host are made up by each host they are not distributed by DHCP typically although they can be you just your device just makes up its own address by using its MAC address the MAC address determines the outer six octets the inner six octets are FFFE don't ask me why but that's called the extended unique identifier and it means that everything you send or receive is labeled with your real MAC address and therefore if you were to do something naughty like download copyrighted material they would know who you are much better than they do if all they have is an IP version 4 address so Windows Vista and Windows 7 have privacy extensions turned on by default so it makes up a random number instead of using the recommended EUI which also tends to break and addressing but it does have the effect of protecting your privacy you can turn that off if you want to and many companies prefer to turn that off so that they can tell who's connecting and have policies to let these first this person do one thing and that person do another thing anyway ICMP version 6 good old ping this is optional an IP version 4 and everyone got so tired of it they pretty much blocked it at the router but an IP version 6 you must have it because it replaces ARP there are no broadcasts in IP version 6 there are nothing but multi tasks and you find your neighbors with neighbor discovery protocol over ICMP version 6 there's a hackers toolkit for IP version 6 THC this rocks and I sent to a Google conference in IP version 6 and they had an IP version 6 network and we were connected and so I immediately loaded in a bunch of virtual machine on top of my Windows 7 it connected through IP version 6 through the virtual nick which I didn't think would work and then I loaded the hackers toolkit which I'd never seen until I found it right there and I did a scan and I was able to find people here you could never do a normal ping sweep in IP version 6 you could not sweep 2 to the 64 addresses to go through your subnet it would take forever but you can use neighbor discovery which is pretty much like just sending a broadcast ping and they just tell you where they are because they need to for ARP it's like the ARP cache and there's a list of everybody at that conference just picked them right up with IP version 6 anyway I just mentioned security appliances typically don't do anything for your IP version 6 yet they aren't ready so you can run torrents over IP version 6 the torrent fiends know this you can usually do that in the blocks don't block it one other thing that's fun is the packet amplification attack you can run a routing header 0 there's a header in front of each packet which can head to more headers and you can use routing header 0 you can specifically specify the path for your packets to take and you can tell it to follow a path that's going to make a loop so much that RH0 has already been deprecated before IP version 6 is even hardly rolled out they've already deprecated a few standards that cause problems and the other one is really funny is the ping pong every subnet in your network should be a slash 64 that's the rule to avoid going mad you could have subnets from slice 1 to slash 127 for the Cisco guys out there and you would use a slice 126 to make a subnet with only two addresses for a point-to-point link but they recommend using a slash 64 for everything because you've got so many addresses you can waste them but if you do if i make one into the cable and in one and the other end and in two all i have to do is send in one packet destined for three and coming from four and this packet will return an ICMP unreachable and this packet will return an ICMP unreachable it will flood the packet completely at line speed one packet that line is dead there are devices out there that really fall for this and if you have a long memory you may remember TFTP had a similar problem TFTP originally as written in the RFCs trivial file transfer protocol said you can send data and it's acknowledged every packet will always be acknowledged if there is an error you will send an error acknowledgement and that will have to be acknowledged and you know they didn't think of this but TFTP works until the first error and then it floods the wire with bang bang bang acknowledging each other back and forth they patched that anyway those are just a few of the problems coming up and i guess i've run out of things to tell you this is everything's on my website if you want it and we're going to have the questions in room 106 and i think i might even have oh i'm right on time i think i will stand at 120 i reckon all right so let's go to room 106 if you've got any questions


Plumbrook, a field station of the Lewis Research Center, is located about 50 miles west of Lewis on 6,400 acres of land. This vast acreage provides the required clear zones needed for safely conducting potentially dangerous aerospace tests. Several large unique aerospace test facilities are located at Plumbrook. These facilities are available to support major national aerospace test programs. One of these facilities, the Space Power Facility, is the world's largest space environment simulation chamber, 100 feet in diameter by 122 feet high. In this chamber, large space bound hardware can be ground tested in a severe environment similar to that encountered in space. The chamber air can be removed to simulate the vacuum conditions of space up to an altitude of about 145 statute miles. Charged argon gas can be added to the chamber while it's at vacuum to simulate the actual space plasma environment of low earth orbit. The very cold temperatures of space can be duplicated by means of a cryogenic cold wall, the very hot temperatures by means of a quartz lamp heater. Even the actual sunlight experienced in space can be simulated with an existing 400 kilowatt arc lamp. In 1989, under a cooperative agreement between the General Dynamics Corporation and NASA, this chamber supported payload fairing separation tests for a new generation of Atlas I launch vehicles. A few months after testing at Plumbrook, the newly designed fairing successfully protected the combined release and radiation effect satellite as it was launched into low earth orbit onboard the Atlas Centaur vehicle. In 1990, the space power facility qualified expensive flight hardware for the SDI program. Here you see a 100 kilowatt power supply being processed in a class 10000 clean room located inside the huge vacuum chamber. Ground testing of this power supply simulated performance in a high altitude space plasma environment. More recently, this chamber supported jettison testing of the 86 foot tall 16 foot diameter Titan IV payload fairing under a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Air Force, the Martin Marietta Company, and NASA. This fairing, the largest ever tested in a vacuum chamber, had internal payload space dimensions approximating the space shuttle orbiter bay. Here you see the 10,000 pound Titan IV fairing being jettisoned under vacuum conditions in the test chamber at Plumbrook. Scheduled for 1993 is the Ariane 5 payload fairing separation test for the European Space Agency and for 1994 and 95, the Space Station Freedom Electric Power Generation System Test for the NASA Lewis Research Center and the Space Station Freedom Laboratory Module Radiator Test for the Johnson Space Center. Not only is the space power facility the world's largest space environment testing chamber, it is also the world's only large vacuum chamber capable of handling the highly radioactive tests that would be needed to develop space nuclear electric power generation systems. This is possible because the chamber walls are made of aluminum, which has a low neutron capture cross section. This keeps the chamber walls from becoming highly radioactive if a space nuclear power reactor is operated inside. The aluminum chamber is contained within a second vacuum chamber that has 8 foot thick concrete walls, which serve as a radiation shield. Adjacent to the chamber is a large disassembly area, which also has 8 foot thick concrete walls. This building can be used for remote controlled disassembly of large radioactive hardware after tests are complete. Although the space power facility has not yet been used for nuclear testing, it stands ready to support such space power supply development programs. Another of Plumbrook's world-class facilities is the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility. Here large upper-stage rocket vehicles can be hot-fired in a simulated space environment. A 38 foot diameter by a 55 foot high stainless steel vacuum chamber is capable of simulating pressures of 1 times 10 to the minus 6 tor or about 115 statute miles altitude. A full-sized launch vehicle up to 100,000 pound thrust capability can be loaded in the chamber through the top hatch and secured to the bed plate. A cryogenic cold wall simulates the cold temperatures of space. A quartz lamp heater array simulates the heat from the sun. The facility was designed and built to safely handle the large quantities of liquid hydrogen and oxygen carried on a fully-fueled Centaur vehicle. In test firings of fueled vehicles conducted by remote control from a blockhouse a half mile away, vehicles experience an environment similar to that in space. At the moment of firing, an 11 foot diameter high vacuum valve springs open at the bottom of this diffuser tube and releases the rocket exhaust products to the spray chamber below. The 150 foot deep spray chamber is filled with a chilled water spray that is used to cool down the exhaust from the rocket. At the same time, huge steam ejectors pump out the exhaust products from the firing and maintain a high altitude condition throughout the tests. In 1987, the vacuum chamber portion of this facility supported testing of flight hardware for the SDI program. Ground testing of high-voltage power supplies in a simulated space plasma environment determined flight performance in advance. This facility may be fully reactivated to support advanced upper stage launch vehicle development for programs such as the Space Exploration Initiative to Mars. The third space environment chamber at Plumbrook, the 25 foot diameter cryogenic propellant tank facility, is being used to develop the technology for storing and transferring liquid hydrogen in space. Recently, an 800 gallon slush hydrogen batch production plant, the nation's first, was constructed at the site to support development testing for the national aerospace plane. Here you see liquid hydrogen being converted to slush using the freeze-thaw method in the generator at Plumbrook. Previously, slush hydrogen had been produced only in leader-sized quantities in the laboratory. In addition to its three large space environment chambers, Plumbrook also has a large hypersonic wind tunnel capable of performing flow tests at Mach 5, 6 or 7. High-pressure nitrogen gas stored in a high-volume tank adjacent to the facility is released and flows through a 3 megawatt electrical heater that raises its temperatures to nearly 2,500 Kelvin. Then sufficient oxygen is added to the hot nitrogen to produce an air composition. The heated air flows through a hypersonic flow nozzle and pasts the model. A large steam ejector also pulls a vacuum on the test chamber to help establish the flow pattern and to simulate a high-altitude condition. The hypersonic tunnel facility was last used in 1974 to test a hypersonic research engine at Mach 7 conditions under a joint program between the Garrett Corporation and NASA. Currently, it's being reactivated by NASA to support generic hypersonic research and is expected to be operational by mid-1993. The four major facilities at Plumbrook, together with the surrounding clear-zone land, the infrastructure and the trained staff, provide a significant national test capability available to NASA, other government agencies and the private sector.


Trevor Burrus I'm Trevor Burrus. Joining me today is Frank H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University School of Law. He is the author of, among other books, The Once and Future King, The Rise of Crown Government in America. Welcome to Free Thoughts, Frank. Frank H. Buckley Thanks for having me, Trevor. Great to be here. Trevor Burrus On the first chapter of The Once and Future King, you write that, quote, the long arc of American constitutional government has bent from the monarchical principle of the colonial period to congressional government, then to the separation of power, and finally back again to crown government and the rule by a single person. Is it accurate to say that we have crown government in the United States? Frank H. Buckley Well, we certainly have something increasingly like that. We have a movement towards an all-powerful president, and it so resembles government back in the days of an absolute steward monarch that I thought crown government was an apt description. Trevor Burrus And this means they have the powers of war and all the kind of things that ... Are they the same powers that the colonial revolution area people objected to that the king had? Frank H. Buckley Well, people like John Adams were absolutely outraged by, for example, Governor Hutchison of Massachusetts in which there was an element of self-interest for Adams. You know, the governors had their coterie of people. They were able to, through appointing people of special places, maintain their control over the legislature. That was all stuff that the revolutionaries hated. They saw it as corruption and they saw it as what was wrong with Britain, and they wanted something pure and cleaner for America, which is not quite what we got. Trevor Burrus Interestingly, it's not just a book about America because you kind of are asking a question about how did this come about, what you call crown government in Britain and Canada, which are two closely aligned or at least historically related systems. Frank H. Buckley Right. Well, I was arbitraging the endless fascination Americans have in everything Canadian. Trevor Burrus Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, Poutine is really quite the top of the score. But you would say that a similar thing is happening in Canada and Britain, that there's extreme power residing in one person or one entity. Frank H. Buckley Well, here's what happened. I mean, the official story of the American Constitution, which is mostly a fiction, had it that what the framers really wanted was a pure system of separation of powers. But to the extent they got that, and they had that for a long time, the separation of powers is inherently unstable. When two wrestlers walk into a ring, we expect one only to walk out. The other is going to be dragged out. So in Britain, one started with something like a separation of powers, but then what happened after 1832 in the Great Reform Act was the House of Commons became all powerful. And when the Canadians looked at what was going on, they had a choice between America, which they knew intimately, and Britain. And they decided on the British form of government. And if you read the Canadian Constitution, it's very strange. I mean, it's written as if Canada is a complete monarchy where the Queen or the Governor-General has all the power in the world. And there was one moment in the constitutional debates where somebody said, well, what's that all about? And the fellow who would be the Prime Minister said, well, oh, that's just the way we do things. It doesn't matter. I mean, it's going to be run by the Prime Minister and the House of Commons. That's kind of interesting. You think maybe one of the reasons for this is because we threw off a king with a war, so there was a fair amount of maybe animosity. So we had to be like, we had to break away and say we don't have this. But for Canada, it was much more peaceful. We can have this and she could still be on our money or, I mean, it was, I guess it was Victoria at the time, so it wasn't she. And the monarch can be on our money and we really don't hate them that much. Well, you know, for the Canadians, as for the British, what they were not worth theoreticians, what they were were practical politicians, as were people in Philadelphia in 1787, they just wanted something that they were familiar with and something which worked. And they saw how the American government had apparently broken down in the Civil War and they decided in 1867, well, that's not quite what we want. Well, let's go back to Philadelphia, actually, because you kind of, you go through, if you really want to read a great account of how the governments of these three countries were created or changed, it's definitely in this book. So you kind of go through a good amount of what happened in Philadelphia. So can you walk us through, let's start at the beginning, as we have Jay's Madison. So you start there. It may have 1787, or we can go back to the Annapolis Convention in 1786, but it may have 1786 and Madison is in Philadelphia and he's got some designs about what he wants to happen. Well, if you really want to go back, you go back to the Alexandria Convention, because I'm from Alexandria, Virginia.  Certainly, you know, the historians understand that the political theorists, for the most part, don't have a clue. And anybody who tells you that it's Madison's Constitution is advertising as ignorance. Madison came to town with the idea of a very different Constitution, which would be one where the people would elect the House and the House would choose the Senate, and both together would choose the President. And he got what he wanted. I mean, that's exactly what happened in Canada. So if you call him the father of the Constitution, you have to be clear which country you're talking about. Because if you're talking about the American Constitution, this was one of those cases not unknown in delivery rooms where the father bore little resemblance to the child. And so Madison, this idea, it was filtration, I think, is the word you use of trying to make sure that he thought that each successive level would filter out better people. But it looks kind of parliamentary, as you say. Yeah, it's parliamentary in a sense that the Prime Ministers are filtered out in that when you vote in Canada, you don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for the local member of Parliament. And the members of Parliament of the winning party get together and then they choose the Prime Minister, which is precisely the filtration idea which Madison had. Its anti-democratic, filtration was explicitly anti-democratic in Madison's view, because he, like most of the Framers, really disliked democracy. And they created this republic instead, but you also write and not aside from the filtration system for the Senate and the House, but maybe one of the more surprising lines in your book is the modern presidential system with its separation of powers was an unexpected consequence of the democratization of American politics and not a prominent feature of the Framers. Well, they didn't expect that the president would be so well powerful for a couple of reasons. One is they were living in the 18th century and therefore they couldn't anticipate the regulatory state. They couldn't anticipate the modern media. They couldn't anticipate the travel problems back then. I mean, it was harder to get around in America at that time than it was in Roman times with Roman roads. They couldn't expect, in other words, that we'd have anything like what we have today where presidents are elected with an electoral college and its people voting. Instead, what they thought was nobody would ever get a majority in the electoral college. And when that happens, the choice of who will be president is kicked to the House voting by state. So in other words, you'd get a House of Representatives picking the president, which is like what they have in Canada. And it didn't turn out that way because of revolutions in technology and communication. And in short, the modern constitution we have is parasitic upon changes in technology.  I mean, it's interesting where you go through a lot of the votes. They vote many times on how the president's going to be created.  But they decide they ask about popular election of president. They ask about choosing by the House, choosing by the Senate. In many different ways, they have a cycling of vote that's kind of interesting. Yeah. And who was the mastermind who put it all together? I mean, my vote would be for Gouverneur Morris as the real father of the Constitution. What happened was, you know, the conference, the convention starts in mid-May. It goes on for four months. And up till September 4, like three and a half months in, we're quite agreed, Congress will appoint the president. And then what happens is a committee is set up to finish, you know, some of the small details that are left outstanding. And they come back with something that's utterly different from what they had before. They come back with, well, really with our present system for picking the president. And in all its convoluted glory. And they present it to the delegates. And the delegates wonder what's going on. And Gouverneur Morris, who's probably the guy who put it together, tries to explain it to them. And he says it's a compromise, roughly, you know. And people look at it and they say, well, you know, we see that the president will probably be appointed by Congress. That's okay. That's more or less what we wanted. They didn't anticipate things. And then some of them did, some of them seem to think that the electors, the members of Electoral College would vote their independent judgment about whether, so they had, so it wasn't pure democratic election. That was filtration as well. And that aspect of the Constitution was praised by both Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. One other difference introduced at the last moment has to do with impeachment. Now, you want to get rid of a prime minister. It's just a simple vote in the House, the majority. You want to get rid of a president, and it's basically impossible. And why is it impossible? It's impossible because you need two thirds of a Senate to convict, right? And up to September 4, it was just a majority. And the change is so fundamental, but nobody picked up on it for the next, for the last two weeks of the convention. There was just too much going on. They wanted to go home. But, but that arguably is as important as anything else in the, in the structure of the Constitution. I mean, put it this way. You know, sadly, Andrew Johnson wasn't impeached. I mean, I, I should like to see presidents impeached more often. Yeah. I mean, for high crimes and misdemeanors and from low Korean crimes and just for the spirit of the thing. But the vote to remove Bill Clinton was 50-50. Now, had we been living under that old Constitution, that would have been enough to remove Bill Clinton. If the deciding vote had been cast in favor of removal by the then Vice President, Al Gore, and would that, wouldn't that have been fun to watch? Yeah. And that would be kind of like a no confidence vote. It would be much easier to get rid of a losing president. I mean, you know, we, we, we might have kissed goodbye to George Bush in 2007 to Obama in 2011. You think that Washington's presence, there are a lot of historians would say that George Washington's presence in the convention, and everyone's understanding that he was going to be president, made them a, not think about the article to the presidential powers as much as they thought about other parts of it, and be not put enough protection in there for people who weren't George Washington and of the character of George Washington. Everybody thought so at the time. Washington was an absolutely commanding figure, really the indispensable American, a person entirely absent from the constitutional histories of Britain and Canada. I mean, nobody, nobody then was as powerful as Washington. And even today, people ask, you know, what would Washington do? Nobody asks, what would Billy Pitt do? Billy Pitt, oh, William Pitt. Yeah, Pitt the younger. Would he go by Pitt to his friends? Remember, there was, there was a quarrel in, in the Simpsons as to whether the Duke of Wellington or Pitt the younger was the best prime minister at Homer slugs and I was somebody. Well, that, that's a good segue to go to Britain. Now, British system, we kind of alluded to it earlier, but I wanted to get a little bit more into it seems that a lot of significant parliamentary changes are at least with the prime minister and the relation to the king occurred during the American Revolution and right after and then, and then further changes occurred in 1830s and you can talk a little about, about how the system evolved in Britain. Well, it was a slow evolution and it really began with Pitt the younger resting control of the finances away from, from George III who conveniently went mad during this period. But by 1832, things had changed out early and it became clear that the House of Lords didn't really count for much and the king didn't really count for much. I mean, the last time that the monarch exercised his or her veto was Queen Anne in 1711, so that's pretty much gone. And that's still true today. Well, yes, although I'll tell you something, the queen is ultimately the last defense against user-patient by a dictator. If for some reason parliament decided to go out of business or give all power to a dictator, you still require the consent of the queen or the monarch for that to happen. Here that role would be played by the Supreme Court, but ultimately the queen has that residual power. It's not all ceremony, there's still something left of her political power in that respect, but only in a case so extreme one could scarcely imagine it. So we had William Pitt and then in the 1830s there was a huge problem with representation in pocket districts and boroughs. Old Serum had a representative and I don't think anyone lived there. I've been to Old Serum. No one, no one lives there. I can guarantee it's been quite a while. Old Serum is a hill near Salisbury, but the constituencies in Britain at that point had been set up in the 16th century and one of them had been washed to sea, for example, so nobody lived there. Two people lived in Serum. But they were still a serving member of parliament. But they still got to pick their member of parliament. Of course, the choice of who would get into parliament at that point depended upon local aristocrats or the king. It was anything but democratic, but nevertheless, Britain was a society where people could rise. Britain never practiced democracy as a theory, but always practiced it as an art. And it is in part the British inheritance in years of colonial self-rule in Britain that helps to explain I think why the American Revolution was successful. And now we're at, after the 1830s reforms, we have no house of, I mean, the House of Lords is pretty much ceremony. Yeah. And we have a more powerful, you think, than originally intended Prime Minister and House of Commons. Well, nothing was intended. Of course, true. Things just grew like topsy. But there was a remarkable switch. And as I say, and in Britain and parliamentary countries, the House of Commons becomes all-powerful and the tendency in presidential countries is for the president to become all-powerful. And one of the things I did in the books since I'm at George Mason and do number crunching was to compare how both of them fare on measures of liberty. And I took a popular, generally accepted measure of how countries are free. And what I discovered was being presidential is really bad if you like liberty. And is that this is for... Well, there are... South American countries. There are about 90 presidential countries and about 60 democratic parliamentary countries.  But roughly it's two billion people live with a presidential system and two billion people live with what I call the Anglo-Canadian model, which has begun in England and first exported to Canada and then throughout the world. And the Anglo-Canadian model is vastly superior, as I say, in terms of protecting liberty. Now, let's talk about some of the reasons why. You list many of them with the characteristics of the president. So we have the separation of powers in America, which is an issue for a grandizing power in the president. So we have presidential legislative power. That's America. What can we talk a little bit about what that is? Well, I think the first thing you want to do is take a look at what some of the anti-presidentialists have to say here in the United States. They worry about things like regulatory reform or whatever. And the point is there is a tendency towards concentration of power in a political leader under any system, whether it's Britain, Canada or the United States. The regulatory state tends to produce a very, very powerful political leader, prime minister or president. So does the modern media. The question then is, which system is better able to constrain an overreaching political leader? And things like the fact that you have to meet the House of Commons and the possibility of a vote of note confidence, constrain prime ministers. And that's absent here. So, you know, Obama can say, for example, if they don't want to pass it, I've got a pen. But both sides, the Canadian, the British and the American system all have this regulatory state to some degree. Is it worse in America, do you think? Only in one respect. And that is because America is richer than any place else. I mean, I expect that they have, for example, an Estonian EPA. But I mean, but if somebody has a problem about, you know, wetlands and Estonia, I sort of see them picking up the phone and telephoning the Estonian EPA. And there are three people in the room. And one of them has a manual typewriter.  Whereas here, you have a, you know, hundreds of thousands of EPA lawyers, you know, with the absolute desire to put you in jail. This is definitely true. Another part of the presidential power you discuss is the non-enforceability powers. Another one of these crown government things that they're, they can now not enforce laws passed by Congress. And there's little that Congress can do about it seemingly. Yeah, one of the most fascinating things that's happening right now is a case called Texas VUS, which is the attempt by the state of Texas and other states to get, to force the president to adhere to the U.S., not Texas, but the U.S. Constitution. And what Obama has done is Obama has really through a, not an executive order, but a memorandum through his Homeland Security Secretary, he's created basically what really looks like legislation offering something like amnesty work permits for about four to five million people. It's so much look like just pure legislation that I found it really quite shocking. And I expected in fact that the Supreme Court would do something about it. Now with the death of Scalia one, it doesn't expect that to happen, in which case one would revert to the Fifth Circuit decision which struck it down. But you know what, shortly after the first trial judgment in the case, Obama said that's okay, I'm not going to deport the men away. So the difference is there are no work permits but nobody's going to be deported. So the thing is, how do you force a president to enforce the laws? You know, I mean can you, you can't issue a mandamus order saying Obama do this. I mean it's, it's been done. It's been done for example when courts have ordered mayors to desegregate and things like that. But at the level of, you know, the grand constitutional theory it's hard to see the Supreme Court even had Scalia been there to do that. Now compare that to a parliamentary system. In the parliamentary system, in a parliamentary system, firstly there'd be no need because what you'd be talking about is control of parliament by a prime minister who's, you know, the leader of a party in a majority, typically. And so they pass legislation. So he would be able to, he would be able to do what he wants but you know if, if, if he mucks it up in some way, I mean he still has to meet the house and, and run for election. And he has a, there's a form of daily accountability which really doesn't exist here. I mean a good example would be the Benghazi hearings, which were very important here in Washington and probably not too many other places but in parliament for example the opposition has the ability to keep the prime minister's feet to the fire as long as they want. And it's not a matter of some hearing which may or may not be covered. It's the main business of parliament. The House of Commons is really the opposition's playground. It's the opposition who decides what's going to happen. It's the opposition really which sets the rule. It's the opposition which says this is going to be our issue. And if, if we have something that resonates with the public we will stick with this for a full month if need be to bring the, the, the party in power down. You know, Trey Gowdy's hearings were nothing like that. But you know, it sounds like you're very much supporting, you are supporting a parliamentary system but they... Well, I'm 229 years too late. But they have, they have drawbacks. I mean, as you said, Britain and Canada have extremely powerful crown rule governments themselves. They're just better than the one in America in your opinion. Yeah, I mean there's, there's a natural tendency towards the restoration of a steward monarchy if I can put it that way. There's a natural tendency, I mean the stewards were moderns and it was the opposition at the time, Sir Edward Cook, one of the most repulsive people in British imperial, parliamentary history. It was the opposition which was in today's term kind of all fashioned. Modernity favors the centralization of power in a, in a leader. But as that's so dangerous one has to ask, yes well what system is better able to control the guy? So, you know, daily accountability in the house, the motion of non-confidence, but also the idea that you have to make a name for yourself in the house to get ahead. And, and parliamentary systems are really good at ferreting out the thin skinned and the grandiose and the people of problems with power and the nasties. And it's not the case, for example, that many of the, without getting into names, it's not the case that leaders who dominate in the polls or who here were presidents in the past would always succeed in the parliamentary system.  I mean, you have to, you know, you have to deal with people who will stand 20 feet away from you and, and ridicule you and take it and respond with wit and judgment and information and in Canada in two languages and not something too many people here could do. You mentioned centralization as being the inevitability, maybe, is the way it's, it's the natural process to centralize power, but does that mean that therefore we should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation or we should be living in smaller provinces where centralization isn't so dangerous? Well, you're, you're talking about the, the optimal size of government and there's a, an argument you can make that America is just too big. There are other arguments that it is doing just fine the way it is. It's too big in the sense that when power is centralized here, power is really centralized as opposed to a smaller country. And it's also the case when you have a large country, this was an argument made by Russo, when you have a really large country then you have to have a whole bunch of representatives, right? But you have only one president and the more the representatives, the more they are a, a, well, just a, a mixture of, of, of voices nobody hears. I mean, we know what the president is, but the Speaker of the House is from someplace in Wisconsin you never heard of, you know. So maybe we should avoid, I just, There's another thing to be said for large government, by the way, large countries. There was a really, really good book called The Race Between Information Technology by Lawrence Katz and Claudette Golden. And they said the reason why America cleaned up in the 20th century was because it made all these investments in human capital and education. And, and, and Europe wasn't doing that. But the thing is, other countries were doing that as well. Australia, Canada, New Zealand made equal investments in education. But what they lacked was size.  So by virtue of its size, America began to dominate and still dominates in a way that smaller countries can't. You can call it mercantilism or you can call it imperialism. And much of it was nasty, but nevertheless, yeah, it, it, it does have its positive aspects. There's one of the really astute observations you make in the book about one of the virtues of parliamentary systems over presidential systems is that you separate the head of state from the head of government. And it, and it reminds me of my colleague Gene Healy's call to the presidency book in the sense of what we do to presidents and how much we lionize them. Could you talk about that a little bit? Absolutely. And, and in as much as I'm here to plug the once in future king, let me also plug Gene Healy's book. It's absolutely splendid. You know, this, this is something like, you know, the question is do, do fish notice that they're swimming in water? No, they're, they just live in it. Do Americans notice that there, it matters that the president is the head of state? No, it's just sort of the way things are. But if you're in a parliamentary system, you're accustomed to the idea that the head of state, the queen is someone to be revered. She's a symbol of the country. I mean, you can unabashedly love her without being political in any way. But as for prime ministers, their figures are fun.  Nobody takes them seriously. Whereas here, if you make fun of the president, it's your, your, you know, it's like you're being disloyal. And that brings a, a different person to the top. I think it also explains not only how one loves, but also how one might hate the president. If he defines who you are in some respects as an American, if you're supposed to love the guy, if, you know, a national tragedy brings a presidential healing speech and tears to the eyes of various commentators, that doesn't happen in a parliamentary system and it's dangerous for liberty to clothe real live power with the aura of mystique of a monarchy. So it's best to take the head of, the head of state and make them somewhat impotent. And then the head of government should just be a politician who we treat accordingly, which is true. You know, a figure of fun. Another thing you listed for presidential harms, and we kind of talked a little bit, but the president's holding office for a fixed period of time can be harmful for freedom you talk about. Well, you know, if a prime minister mucks up, he's toast very, very quickly and that happens fairly often as a matter of fact. With the president you're locked in. I mean, there are positive things to be said about it. It is easier to make credible commitments if you're a president and you're there for a fixed period of time. I mean, Nixon employed that power when dealing with the Soviets in the 70s. He just said, you know, just remember I'm around for a while. And I speculate that Bobby Lee's incursion into Pennsylvania was dictated by the fact that he'd have to face this really adamant president for another full year and he had to do something desperate to change the odds. But overall, you think it harms the freedom? Well, you're stuck with a guy and during that period he's essentially all powerful and he's not removable by impeachment. It just can't happen. And then the other one which might resonate with our listeners today that you discuss is the presidential system's unique propensity to deadlock and how deadlock is not good for freedom. Well, of course, you know, gridlock is a function of a separation of powers and what gridlock means is legislation doesn't get passed and when legislation doesn't get passed you get the phenomenon of a president saying, well, if they can't do it, I'm here with my pen, therefore I will do it. You know, to that extent I think presidents actually like gridlock. Gridlock empowers presidents. It means you don't have to pay attention to what they're doing down on Capitol Hill. You are the tribune of the people. You will defend the people. You are in charge. You know, I recall many Republicans at various points in the last 30 years saying pray for gridlock, right? Nothing's going to happen.   86. 86, that's right, that's right.  Whereas in a parliamentary system, you know, if things aren't working, you elect in your party and they can change things very, very quickly. The gridlock aspect seems directly related to the immigration issue that you discussed previously with President Obama. Was that a product of gridlock, would you say, his actions? It is a product of gridlock to the extent that you know, you're stuck with a law which is absolutely stupid in many respects, which has turned out quite differently from the way people at the time said they thought it was going to turn out, which advantages one party politically but which imposes a real cost upon the country and produces a poisonous atmosphere I think in general, which we see in the current politics of 2016, I mean, one would like to have, one would like to see America as a more generous country but one can also understand how it's not generous and nobody has to blame that each side is doing what it has to do in a country of low trust like America where you can't trust the other guy. Well, that's the term that I've used, I stole it from my colleague, Mark Calabria, but he says, we live in the steal everything that's not tied down era of government, which is whenever you actually have some amount of power, you do as much as you possibly can to take it and it's going to be a bipartisan agreement and if you have the presidency because we go back to this quote from George Mason and I want to- And then never too much to be praised, George Mason. Exactly. I want to ask you about that the quote is, this is interesting going back to the convention, we are not indeed constituting a British government but a more dangerous monarchy, an elective one. Yeah, in 1787, Georgia Third's powers were beginning to wane and people in Philadelphia had realized how things had changed, that the commons was becoming more powerful than it had before, that Georgia Third, whose powers had been increasing, had now been checked to some extent but what they didn't want was a steward kind of monarchy and Mason was one of the leaders in that respect and Jefferson said an elective monarchy is not the government for which we fought our revolution. So if you have a constitution where Congress doesn't get things done and where only the president can get things done then what you have is an elected monarchy, you have an all powerful monarch who's got a four year lifespan and probably eight and what you've got is the only check then is those elections every four years, you may say well, well, that's all we need but of course that's all they had in Argentina as well and indeed in Argentina they had the specter of wives succeeding husbands but then that could never happen here, could it? Now I asked you this before we started recording but would anyone who signed the constitution, now Madison didn't get what he wanted, Hamilton wanted more of a monarchy but he might like it more but would anyone if they came here today look at what we have and say this is what I wanted from the constitution or I expected or at least I'm okay with what we have here? Well, it's hard to say. I mean I rather like Gouverneur Morris so I think more than anyone is the father of the constitution and Morris was so cynical about human motivations. If America, if he saw America as corrupt he would have said well yes of course I expected this. Welcome to politics. Yeah, welcome to life as it really is. James Wilson an unremembered person deserves the honor of being the person who more than anyone else supported democracy and to the extent that we are democratic he would have liked that and to the extent that we are corrupt he would not have liked that. They all hated corruption indeed when the arguments were brought to bear it's remarkable how often the fear of corruption swayed the delegates. What corruption meant was Britain and that's what they didn't want. They were people who I mean it's tried to say that they believed in republican virtue but they really did. They really thought that we would produce a country which would be more virtuous and if we could keep it as such that would be fine. You know everybody mistakes, there was a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin he's leaving the convention in September 17 some lady approaches him and says well what have you given us Dr. Franklin? He says a republic if you can keep it and everyone seems to think well what he meant was will you be virtuous? That's just right wing can't I think however I think what he really meant is would it be a monarchy because Franklin thought there is a natural inclination in every one of us towards monarchy and perhaps as you look at the adulation given to Obama in 2008 why yes Franklin would have said yes this is exactly what I feared. So if we're living in the days of king president and it seems that the parties will coalesce around presidents although Trump is still a I guess an open question but what can we do? Oh well that's a tough one. I don't think that's fair. Are you just here to do that's not a fair question. Are you just here to doomsay or are you going to tell us what to do for it? Well you know nobody wants one to write a book saying things are peachy keen you know. True but you do have some suggestions in the book. I do have some suggestions I don't know how much how well they would work. You know that I suggested for example referenda congressional referenda I mean if right now it's the president dealing with you know 535 people on Capitol Hill that's an unequal contest because it's one voice against a cacophony of other voices but but if you had a national referendum on something like the public debt then Congress could say ah but we have the backing of the people on this one Mr. President you know you better back down. That would require a constitutional amendment I am asking. I don't know I don't know why it couldn't be done by way of legislation. I mean the referendum wouldn't be binding but it would have a moral suasion and this is all about moral suasion. I mean the president employs a moral suasion of being the only person elected by the country as a whole and being the head of government that's that's a big time moral suasion as against a John Boehner or Paul Ryan. So yeah so it's it's a matter of democratic legitimacy which is which is what the president does. Now what about congressional reform because they have people on the hill like Senator Mike Lee who is running the Article 1 project to try and take some of this back that the president has taken from Congress. Was that something that could work? I don't know if it would. I see the modern presidency as almost the inevitable consequence of what's going on. Let me explain. Sometimes it's suggested that you know there is a way back and let me lay it out. You know we've been ruled it's true by a power hungry president who wants to rule as a monarch but what we'll do is we'll elect our guy and then he'll rule modestly with Congress and that's sort of Act 1. Already I'm you know I'm making some assumptions here right.  And do you see a flaw on that argument? I see a few yes. Yeah okay well this is called being a patsy. Right? Yes.  So that's the tendency in which both parties will tend I think to elect very very powerful presidents. And ultimately that's a threat to liberty it's also a problem with corruption as well but you know there are there only I said there were 90 presidential countries. Okay only three of them got top marks from Freedom House on liberty. Do you know what three they are? America's one. America's one. Do you mean top marks in the top 20 or? Well no sort of you know it's it's a top category of one. President America well Germany has a de facto president don't they? Yeah Germany no Germany's parliamentary. But isn't there someone called the president yeah but the thing about parliamentary systems is if you sadly are not monarchies then you'll have a figurehead president which is what they do in a lot of countries. I don't think I can get the other two. Well the other one you know one is France but the thing about France is France has a semi-presidential system where Congress roughly the legislature picks cabinet and the other one is Uruguay which is so nice a country you'd almost think they were Anglophone. Well they did just legalize drugs or marijuana at least I guess so. Yeah I'm not on top of that Uruguayan. Well there is I remember their current president as a former prisoner of the past government so he's got an interesting job. So are we this might be the same answer but optimistic in terms of because we have we I hate to have to bring up the T word the Trump word. I mentioned him earlier and you alluded to him earlier but since he has sucked all the air out of Washington D.C. but we're here talking about presidential power and presidential figures and who gets elected president in versus kind of people who get elected in parliament as part of politicians versus reality show stars are we seeing sort of the apotheosis of the American presidential mistake that happened at least in terms of what their expectations were in the form of Donald Trump. Well it's certainly an extension of every trend I've described. I don't know what would happen. I will say this for Trump he has tapped on to issues that everybody in Washington had pretty much ignored. Yes. And full marks for that. I you know I I don't know the fellow but I know other people who know him rather well and who say he is you know on balance not a crazy in any way. It's it's a funny time. You see it's it's a time when official Washington and all the people who think they matter in the the intellectual conservative intellectual world when they're ignored and that must be a psychic wound but there's one more thing I fancy and it's this it's that like Muhammad Ali like the John Wayne like the Beach Boys Trump is someone who could only be an American and I think many Americans recognize that he could not be a Canadian I mean he could not be British Muhammad Ali could not be from Africa he could only be American and and for the conservative intellectuals who absolutely detest Trump I think there's a certain element of a psychic wound of a of the rage of Caliban that sees his face in the mirror this is an American you see many I think many conservative intellectuals live in an imaginary country south of Iceland and east of the New Yorker and that's not America and I you know it's not my American my America is has hip hop and monster truck rallies and things like that to the extent that conservative elites are unhappy yeah I like that so that makes you this is on the on the way to the question things going to get worse before they get better regardless of Trump you know the the guy who had the best comment about all of this is Jim Webb who's absolutely as nuts as anybody out there but Webb said you know with Trump it could either be really good or really bad and with Hillary it would be more of the same and I'm not going to vote for Hillary but looking past this election it doesn't seem there's anything that's going to turn the basic tide that you've described in the once and future king there's and we mentioned some things but no right now there's not a serious discussion of reform or national referenda so we will continue to give more power to the president it seems to me into the future we'll ask yourself this question I mean think back to 2008 and and and Obama and not you know maybe that was a one-off but before things change you need a realization by the American people that there's something rather dangerous about this accumulation of power in one person alternatively you can foresee in America in which people like rock star presidents and the question for you is which America do you foresee for eight 16 years down the road


James Bond, suave and sophisticated, dangerous, gadget laden, charming and incredibly British. So as a Dutch Bond fan, this passion doesn't represent my country. And thankfully so, I mean, who would want to see a Bond that wants to split the bill with the Bond girl and is so down to earth he just tells the villains to act normal because Daniel be crazy enough is constantly direct and light-hearted and instead of martinis he would be drinking Heineken and oh wait, Bond already does that. Prost. No, to me Bond represents the protection of western culture, the political incorrectness and honestly the male fantasy of the type of guy all men want to be, even if they don't admit it. Because of this, Bond is universal and goes far beyond just being a British treasure. But despite that, Holland did have small influences in the franchise here and there and for all the Americans who are now watching going like... What is Holland? What do you mean what is it? It's a country right next to Belgium. No, that's the Netherlands. Holland is the Netherlands. Then who are the Dutch? Wow, you're like from a whole other country. I'm Dutch. Hi, I'm Joey. I'm Magha. I'm sorry Dutch, I didn't get that last little bit. Oh, hold on a second Joe. Where did Dutch people come from? Well, the Pennsylvania Dutch come from Pennsylvania. And the other Dutch people, they come from somewhere near the Netherlands, right? Nice try. See, the Netherlands is this make-believe place where Peter Pan and Tinkerbell come from. So without any further ado, this is everything Dutch in the James Bond franchise. Going to the start of the franchise, we all know the very first Bond girl, Honey Rider, was dubbed along with most of the early Bond girls in the Sean Connery era. These were all dubbed by Niki van der Ziel, which is a Dutch last name. But Niki van der Ziel is actually German. But judging by her last name, and seeing as it's not named von Ziel, but van der Ziel, she must have Dutch ancestry. The same holds for van der Bols Felix Leider, played by Rick van Neutter, another Dutch last name, which isn't really Dutch. But apparently, just an ancestry. Wow, we're really off to a great start here, huh? Let's quickly move on to actual Dutch representing. You're going to Holland.  Yes, of course, Bond does visit the Netherlands in Diamonds of Forever, which sadly happens to be my least favorite Bond film. Because of all the tackiness, I totally had to homage that tackiness when I visited the same location in Amsterdam, though. It's pretty cool to see Amsterdam in the 70s, which admittedly hasn't changed at all from seeing it in the movie. I still don't like Connery speaking German in the movie, though. But Sean Connery's visit to our country was a pretty big deal at the time. But that was really it for Dutch movie locations in Bond films. In the next one, of course, he did went to New York. And we all know that was actually Dutch founded. And in reality, it's New Amsterdam. And Harlem, that Bond visits, comes from the Dutch town of Haarlem. But this isn't the history channel. We're looking at Dutch things in Bond films. So, if there are no more locations to talk about, what about Dutch actors? Actual Dutch actors, not just in Ancestry. Well, the first major one, of course, was Jeroen Krabé, playing Russian General Koskov in The Living Daylights. And again, despite him sharing the same first name and being a main villain that is actually Dutch, I find him incredibly underwhelming and not really believable. Maybe it's because Jeroen Krabé is so well known in my country, and I just don't see him as a Russian General. But, speaking of Dutch actors playing Russians, for whatever reason, the biggest Dutch pride, of course, is Vamke Janssen, playing Xenia Onnetop in GoldenEye. To me, the best henchwoman in the series. Super over the top, totally believable, sexy, dangerous, everything. Definitely the biggest pride as a Dutchman in Bond. One movie later, of course, another Dutch actress appeared. Can you guess who it is? Of course, you must have all guessed it. Carver's B.R. Girl is played by Dutch Daphne Deckers. Everybody knows that. Well, everybody here in Holland does. Where still to this day, she is a very well-known presenter. She's quite proud of her little role in Tomorrow Never Dies, actually. Every time a new Bond film is released, she's often invited to talk on Dutch talk shows to talk about her time in Bond film. Some Dutch people probably assume she was a really big Bond girl or something, but it's still funny to see. At least, she's still very passionate about doing it all. A little while later, Dutch cinematographer Hoijte van Hoytema was responsible for the cinematography Inspector. And say what you want about that film, but I think he did an excellent job in it. It's beautifully shot. And of course, since Daniel Craig movies, Dutch beer Heineken has been a pretty major sponsor of the 007 franchise. Because in general, I always felt Heineken makes the best commercials over here. There is life. The Dutch will find it. So, seeing something I'm passionate about, being linked to something I'm passionate to drink, is always great. This video is pretty short though. That goes to show there really wasn't that much Dutch stuff in the Bond franchise. But I was happy to mention it. Maybe we need more Dutch influence in the franchise. Maybe we need a Dutch Bond. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Anyway, Merry Christmas Bond fans. I hope you all enjoyed this quick little video. Like if you did, subscribe. And if you are a major fan of the channel, take a look at my Patreon page for awesome channel perks. Happy holidays and see you guys in the next video.