Ladies and gentlemen we are 15 days away from the start of the NFL season 15 days away it's that close man you you could feel it you can almost taste it I don't know the NFL season tastes like so I guess not but anyway you get my point and with us being so close and really throughout this entire offseason of course we've went through so many different lists and we've heard a lot of different comparisons some actually have some credibility and others were just like what really what are you talking about man but this comparison and this statement it came from one Jeremy Fowler from ESPN and what he said that he heard he heard it from some NFL executives some NFL personnel what not and he said that a lot of NFL personal personnel believe that Kyla Murray Cardinals quarterback Kyla Murray that he'll be harder to stop in 2020 than Lamar Jackson and before I know a lot of y'all already saw the title like y'all probably got your pitchfork sour you ready to go do some damage but let's let's try to think of why he might feel that way before you get up in arms before you get all angry and upset and whatnot let's think about it he says that he feels that or he's spoken to some people that feel like Kyla Murray will be harder to stop in 2020 than Lamar Jackson well first and foremost let's go based off of ability alone just based off for the quarterbacks both of them can throw it both of them can show a run as well and Kyla Murray he is he's lower to the ground in Lamar Jackson I think he's about 5'10 but he is quick I remember and I y'all know I don't watch much college football but I did watch one um Oklahoma game and where Kyla Murray was playing and he like when I watched this guy run like this guy like he starts running and he just goes he liked he takes off quick man so the running ability is there is he shaking people like Lamar Jackson no not at that level but he's still he can still run and he can still move man and Kyla Murray can certainly still make somebody miss but I don't think that the comparison it's really about their running ability I do not think that's what people were thinking about or taking in mind or taking into account when they were thinking that Kyla Murray could end up being harder to stop than Lamar Jackson I don't think it's about the quarterbacks themselves but I think it's about what surrounds them what's around these quarterbacks what type of weapons do these quarterbacks have and again I don't think this was a diss to Lamar Jackson at all I just think it's them stating like hey they feel like Kyla Murray may be in a better situation offensively than one Lamar Jackson so let's take a look at the pieces around them well first who has the advantage when it comes to running backs and I actually had to look up the Cardinals depth chart at running back because I know they had Drizzy Drake on a roster October's very own I know they had him on a roster but beyond that I wasn't sure so they have King and Drake he's that guy and I believe they franchise tagged him or they gave him a transition tag but anyway they have Drake they have Edmonds Benjamin and Foster okay so no really notable names there but then of course the Ravens they have Mark Ingram they have J.K. Dobbins they have Gus Edwards they have Justice Hill so Ravens have a clear advantage when it comes to running backs because they have three and possibly four but a definitive three starting running backs on their team guys that could go to other teams and start guys that could start for their current team right now on the Ravens they have three definitive starting running backs and possibly a fourth but Justice Hill is a lot that is left to be determined with Justice Hill so moving on this is where the the big discrepancy comes in but first we didn't even go to you we're gonna start at the tight end position so their tight ends Arnold and Max Williams former Baltimore Raven and when you compare that to the Ravens Titan they have Mark Andrews and Nick Boyle and that third tight end is to be determined we'll see what happens there so with tight ends you got to give that edge to the Ravens as well but here here is where the biggest difference is the biggest difference comes at the wide receiver position and this is where I really think that and I really feel like this is why whatever NFL personnel said this that they feel like Kyla Murray is gonna be more dangerous than one Jackson this year I feel like where they got that from was from the receivers that he has on his team and it pains me that especially if it's true it pains me that the Ravens weren't able to get this deal done with the Texans and acquiring one DeAndre Hopkins because I felt like that could have just took us to so many more levels so much oh that's a tough one man oh man I will never ever forget making that video cuz I really feel like my eyes were getting watery I was just sad because I'm like man we could have the best receiver in the game but it's all good he ended up going to the Cardinals but anyway the biggest difference right here between Lamar's weapons and Kyler's weapons are at receiver receiver Kyla Murray has DeAndre Hopkins oh that's the best in the game he also has Larry Fitzgerald Hall of Famer guy who's been doing his thing for years the guy has what they say he has more tackles than drops and he's a receiver for crying out loud he's a receiver how does he have more tackles than drops that doesn't even make any sense but it's Larry Fitz Gerald he does not drop the ball they also have Christian Kurt but then I had to look at the roster and I had to get reminded they also have speedy guy Andy Isabella and then they have six four six five another big receiver Hakeem Butler and I forget that they had him because last year he was hurt so it's like man these guys they got guys coming back they got depth they got is they got a stack set of receivers and their top three receivers they a lot of them well I mean I'm saying a lot of time about three receivers though but they probably could all go to other teams and go be the starting receivers right away when youth obviously DeAndre Hopkins can go to literally any team and he would be the start at receiver we know that but Larry Fitzgerald he can go to most teams and be the starting receiver as well because he doesn't have the speed he wants and he was never really a speedy guy but his hands are still there the route is his hands his hands his hands ain't going nowhere man it ain't going nowhere this dude when you talk about long longevity Larry Fitzgerald is that guy and then Christian Kirk too he can go to a lot of teams and be the starter too so when you look at their group of receivers then you compare that to Raven's receivers how a lot of people view them you look at how Hollywood could go to a lot of teams and start but then beyond that it's like it's a lot of it's a lot more question marks than answers when it comes to Raven's receivers because obviously and again their receivers are veterans on the Cardinals Larry Fitz DeAndre Hopkins yes those guys they've been in the game for a while and they know the game they done exceeded expectations of they get that they're wonderful but with Raven's receivers there's a lot of there's a lot of question marks it's a lot that people just don't know it's a lot of that people just don't know what to expect because you have a Hollywood Brown looking good coming back from injury last year he was Raven's best receiver last year but he was hurt so that's that bodes well for him and the Raven's going into this year then you got Miles Boykin last year was very raw underutilized so how is he gonna fit in in this year's offense we just don't know yet then you got Devin Duvenay somebody who I expect to end up taking a slot position from Willie Snead if not this year then next year but speedy guy big play guy he's like a running back playing receiver got good hands got good speed got the big playability but hey now it's time to make it see if it translates to the NFL level James crochet not all the speed in the world good route runner but great hands makes great contested catches but he's a rookie so we got to see how it translates to the NFL then of course you got Willie Snead the Raven slot receiver somebody pretty reliable a decent blocker a decent speedy did lose seven pounds so he's gonna be playing at a different body weight so that's gonna be different for him but he's um he's never really been a star receiver so to speak he's never been that guy at wide receiver not that he's bad but he's never really been that guy so exactly what type of role he'll have with the Ravens this year that's to be determined it'll be a significant role but it's still to be determined but definitely a great teammate though it's one thing you could definitely say about Willie Snead a great teammate super supportive all that but anyway that's beside the point so my point is that when it comes to the Ravens receivers it's just a lot of unknown there's a lot of unknown it's a lot of unfamiliar territory when it comes to them as opposed to the Cardinals receivers and it's like oh you know what you're getting out of those guys you know what's to come you know what to expect because those guys have us most of them have established their name in the NFL they are household names if you know anything about football then you know those guys off top you could have somebody and that's no if this is no offense to the Ravens receivers at all obviously because they're super young but if you could have somebody that knows football that knows the game that's familiar with the NFL and you ask them who are the Ravens receivers they may look around like I I don't know I'm not sure and not to say that you everybody can name every single person receivers on the on every single team but with the Ravens there will be a lot of extra head scratching from that person because they just they're not familiar with them because they're not household names he's not yet so we'll see how this season continues to go and we'll see how it ends up going for Kyla Murray and Lamar Jackson now one thing that we have to also take into account that we didn't talk about is coaching because you could have the most talented team in the world you could be stacked quarterback running back receiver tight end often everything but if you don't have good coaching then it means nothing see the Browns for example and that's not me taking a shot at the Browns but you you know that over the past couple years their teams have just been built strong they have been strong like if you look at them on papers like wow okay Browns y'all doing something serious but then since it wasn't right at the top then everything below it it ended up crumbling so what I'm trying to say is that with coaching coaching makes a huge difference and what coaching did is that they with Lamar Jackson and the Ravens they took some receivers last year who nobody knew about nobody knew what to expect from them last year and they took those receivers and they took that offense and they just made it a machine it was a machine and it was a powerful machine so they didn't even need to have the best of the best at wide receiver they didn't even need to have the household names at wide receiver but they still got the job done and it did it well so with Kyla Murray in the Cardinals it's all up to coaching because you got the pieces in place you got the pieces in place to be very successful especially on offense but how are you gonna put those pieces together we'll see team keep it clean I appreciate y'all I love y'all so so so much and we out


They basically told her about six months ago that if she didn't have the valve surgery she would have a life expectancy of two years. And that's because the valve was closing so much that she was down to it was only open 17%.  She coded twice while she was in the hospital here during that time period. They were able to revive her each time and we saw a multitude of doctors, it was definitely a multidisciplinary team approach to her because she had so many things going on and they didn't know what was causing it. And they had a woman named Kathy who has been a godsend, she's like the coordinator for all of the people that have what's called a TAVI procedure, which is the valve replacement. She came in and explained the entire procedure, told me what to expect, told me how long it would probably be so that I wouldn't be fearful if it was three or four hours and I hadn't heard anything. When they came out an hour and a half later and said it's done, I thought they were not able to do the procedure, that something had happened and it was just the opposite. I was just ecstatic, they told me that the valve had slid right into place and immediately started working. And Dr. Strickman and Dr. Steinbeck came out, I gave them all hugs and said I can't believe it's done, you actually got to do this because we've been waiting so long for it, Nancy for almost 13 years since she had her bypass in 2000 me for the last couple months because I just learned how serious it was at that point. She is totally a different person than I've ever seen and I've known her over 10 years and she's motivated, she has a will to live, she's excited about going outside and doing everything she hasn't been able to do. She shows dogs and she had to stop doing that because she was going around the ring one day about two years ago and she totally almost passed out. She turned blue and started coughing and couldn't finish. And her love of dogs now is something that she has a goal to get back in the ring with the dog again and I foresee that's going to happen this fall. And I am very excited. I can do things I haven't been able to do in 10 years. This was probably the best thing that ever happened to me.  I couldn't be happier. What Nancy does it know is Nancy's having a surprise trip home as soon as the doctors really sort of fly. I've been very, very fortunate. I got a wonderful family. I have a team of doctors that is second to none. I can't say enough. I don't even know how to thank them.  What do you say? She's been very motivated to get well, to get better, to utilize this valve, this gift that she's been given. I could feel what she can do with it. I couldn't even walk across the room without being out of breath. Now it's a digital world. The world has opened up. And that's amazing that I can walk without being out of breath and passing out. Look out, dog show people. Here she comes. I'm coming back.


Live from San Juan, Puerto Rico, it's theCUBE. Covering Blockchain Unbound. Brought to you by Blockchain Industries. Hello everyone, welcome back to theCUBE's exclusive coverage here in Puerto Rico for Blockchain Unbound, global conference where leaders from around the world, Silicon Valley, Miami, New York, all over the United States and Puerto Rico and Moscow and South Africa, all over the world come together to talk about the impact of blockchain, cryptocurrency, and a decentralized internet and the impact on society. Our next guest is David Urban, who's the managing director of Network Society Ventures. Also does some investing on the keynote speech at the closing session here in day one of Blockchain Unbound. Thanks for joining me. Thank you very much for having me. So one of the big things that we're seeing in this revolution of blockchain and cryptocurrency is an awareness of how to reimagine democracy, society, and among other things, money transfer and how that's impacting the world from entrepreneurship to NGOs and society for good, AI for good, technology for good. So I got to ask you, I heard some of your presentation is that there's some good tailwinds and some headwinds in this industry. What's your assessment right now of the state of the globe with respect to how a network society will evolve and what are some of your observations and conclusions? One of our fundamental assumptions is that social change is only possible if sustainable technologies emerge to catalyze it. You know, if a slave rebellion won under the Roman Empire, the night of the victory, the slaves would be around the fire to decide who would be the slave the next morning because they needed slaves to do everything. Today, not only we have achieved a level in our human civilization to outlaw slavery, we have incredible new inventions like blockchain to imagine a new social contract that is going to unstoppably come. The social contract is interesting because now you have, I mean, democratization and digital transformation has been kicked around for a long time. Where are some real good examples that you can point to where you're seeing really bright lights of innovation around democratization and digital transformation where it's working and also where it's not working and what we need to do better? Certainly it is fashionable to pretend that technology hasn't helped. And one of the reasons why many people take that stance is because they are confused. Too many simultaneous changes make the future even harder to predict today than it used to be the case 10, 20 or 100 years ago. This is especially hard for those who are in charge of making those predictions. Politicians, regulators, policymakers, we appointed or elected them in order to make decision for everybody else. It is an impossible job, but they cannot afford to say that is the case. And certainly we're in the media business and our model is open media and even the media, you still have these gatekeepers. So we see interesting trends, right? So we're seeing disruption horizontally across all industries. If you look at blockchain and some of the things that are coming out, it's spurring real creativity from entrepreneurs as well as leaders, progressives if you will, that are being focused on efficiencies which is spawning these little spots of innovation. I saw your use case around the solar panels. It was working, they killed it. So this is examples of where you see people get to value really fast. So where are the efficiencies? Where's the value creation coming from? What is blockchain? What is crypto? What is decentralized apps enabling? Is it, are we running too fast? Is it an enabling technology? What's your reaction to thoughts? Some of us have been around in the first internet boom 20 years ago. At the peak, $3 trillion of value have been achieved by the dot-coms as measured by their market capitalization. And you would say, well, that bubble burst and it all disappeared, but it didn't. We are still using the transatlantic fiber optic cables that were laid down then and that created the premise for the next 20 years of technology-based economic growth. So with blockchain, we are seeing the same except that contrary to that, which was a quite provincial Silicon Valley phenomenon, blockchain innovation is today global. So it is going to incredible places incredibly fast and it is extremely competitive. There are projects that are doing the same thing, addressing the same challenge all over the world and it is fantastic. We even have a name for it. It's called Forking. Hooray Forking. Yeah, Forking creates competition but also faster time of value. Let's talk about the bubble. The dot-com bubble, which I lived through and you have as well, was, again, a Silicon Valley phenomenon, some New York, mostly America basically, but everything happened. So everything that was talked about actually happened. But at that time, we didn't have a very wired community. Today we have organic communities in place, whether it's from open source communities online to actually a connected global network, aka mobile internet. The role of communities now seems to be that counterbalancing, self-governing opportunity. So I want to get your thoughts. Is the bubble going to be predicated or letting some air out of that bubble? Can it come from the communities? Because you could argue that efficiency in the communities with sourcing the truth, if exposing the data, can create very fast efficiencies around the transparency. So the thesis is, with the bubble behavior, also comes a connected community. So what's your view on the role of the community as a mechanism to continue to clean up or sanitize or whatever word we want to use to manage and help the self-governing? Because if it's organic groundswell, the communities theoretically should be monitoring and self-governing the growth. Your thoughts. Those that are afraid of what is happening are incredibly capable of accusing the blockchain world of a thing and its opposite. Because they are seeing, oh my God, the value, the network value, which some mistakenly call the market capitalization of tokens, is increasing too fast. This is a bubble. And then maybe a month later, they will say, oh, look at everything is going to zero. I told you so. Well, either one is the problem or the other is the problem, but not both. The answer to your question is that yes, the community is expressing what is going on at a fine granularity that was not possible before, because you would measure that by the subsequent venture funding stages of a startup. And maybe there would be a year or two years or more between one or the other of the stages. Today with tokens, every minute we are measuring the heartbeat of the project and the sentiment of the community around it. And everybody can vote with their tokens. Do I want to be part of this or I don't feel aligned anymore? And it is beautiful. But an even more important fact is that yes, today the community is global. When in 1976 Richard Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene and the last chapter defined memes, which were the unit of the evolution of culture. He didn't mean silly images on the internet with captions. What he meant is we should really be able to build a new science here. Memetic engineering is what is fake news and it is up to people like you and me who believe in the positive role of technology to show that we can actually have memetic engineering that benefits society and the markets. I mean, if you look at fake news, there's two things, the payload of fake news and actually the infrastructure gamification of what it did. I postulate that for on one end of the spectrum is fake news. You can almost move to the other side of the spectrum and say this is good news. So click bait equals fake news equals bad behavior. Real bait content equals real news, real community. So there's a spectrum that you can almost say we can actually weaponize content for good. Evolving our tool set in order to make sure that the wisdom of the crowds creates incredible investment and wealth creation opportunities for billions, not only for the gatekeepers is what should be the regulator's best job and they should be excited to have it rather than panicking. I want to ask you a question, philosophically, you mentioned tokens and governance, what we can vote for, what people can vote with their coins and or some sort of consensus gesture or actually real token transfer as a way of voting. This actually could solve the truth problem because if you think about it, this is a new mechanism to understand sentiment within whether it's a project or society, this new mechanism could be a source of truth, hence the no centralized control. So you got the decentralization thing happening, but that's all predicated on going around a central authority, but the token dynamic actually, if you think about it, could be a token of truth because statistically it should work that way. Is that how you see it happening and is that a directional correct statement? For too many years, we believe that that Churchill's quip, democracy is the worst kind of governance except every other kind of government was just a joke. He was giving us a challenge and we were too weak to step up to that challenge and to design better governance mechanisms, better political instruments and that is what is happening today. More and more people realize that they are freed up by technology where their relationship with the nation state that pretends to own them through citizenship and taxation can and will be renegotiated. I got to ask you a question, I love your logo, you got a network graph up there that shows kind of the network society implying that we're all connected, almost can argue borderless nations if you will, but I got to ask you, as that vision of a network society implies we're all connected, so we're all in one big tribe, although maybe with different characteristics, but how do you see the future as we look at the current internet as an almost a 30 year old stack? I mean, we're talking ancient relic by today's standards. So how do you see the stack evolving to match this criteria of a network society where the expectations of users and communities in society, whether it's government or groups are expecting new kinds of experiences, new kinds of outcomes, what in the stack is evolving? I mean, blockchain is one piece of it, but we deal with an old stack in this old guard stuff, keep companies in legacy, but the stack needs to be modernized. How does a stack modernize to intersect with your vision of a network society? Biological evolution has never been able to go meta.   We are able to understand when our designs are bad and we are able to go deep and actually reap out what has been the best way of going about certain things. This has happened in energy where we are still in the process of electrifying a lot of things. Many stoves are still gas stoves rather than electric as they should be, or in transportation where we went from horses to cars and now we are going to rapidly go to electric transportation. The internet is very young. It's just 30 years old in the consumer space, just 50, 60 years old as a technology, but it must be fundamentally rebuilt and rethought. It needs an engine change, it needs a tune-up. What is dangerous is that there are very powerfully faulty memes being planted into the brains of too many people bringing desirable vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and too few understand that those vulnerabilities have caught everyone, whether they are friends or real or pretend enemies. We have to build a sustainable human civilization on a solid foundation. Nobody is served by maintaining those vulnerabilities that are still poking holes in vital infrastructure around us. Yeah, I mean vital infrastructure and also the soft infrastructure, aka the human psyche, aka memes have been one tactic to control the belief system and the narrative, but that's an attention-driven mindset, so we're seeing that fake news, weaponizing content, really preyed on the attention aspect of people where the reputation piece wasn't there and a lot of people are now realizing that. How important is reputation in this new era of society because that is something that's been challenging. We're seeing every project, I mean every project that I see that I like has an element of reputation in it. So there's a, because you have identity, identity is super important, attention we know what does there, get my attention, but the new discovery, the new navigation, the new progression to proficiency or value needs to be trusted. Reputation is an important part, your reaction. And blockchain is making a lot of things measurable that were not before and measuring them, it is able to assign value to them and wherever there is value, new markets are being born. That is how incredible resources are now being poured in problems that were ignored for many, many years and what is beautiful is that blockchain is doing it open source. That is why new sustainable business models are evolving so fast. Back in the days we would say an internet year is three months, I am now saying a blockchain year is three weeks. So that's fundamental, this value piece, that seems to be the equation, that seems to be consistent. That's what you're saying, this value measurement seems to be a key metric and store, that's where the value is going to circulate around, is that? So for the moment our lives are bounded, limited, we have a given number of years to live. And more and more people realize that what they need to maximize is their benefit together with everybody else's benefit because that is what makes human society valuable to its components and as a whole. So that kind of new outlook is being driven in the blockchain industry by people who don't necessarily need the second billion or the second million but there are too many people who need to make ends meet and it is just plain unacceptable that we let them live a life that does not fulfill their potential. This is a new opportunity to reimagine that equation. So I got to ask you, I love your work on social economic impact with blockchain. One of the things that we're observing in our reporting and analysis is societal entrepreneurship is now emerging. What used to be a waterfall philanthropy exercise of NGOs and whatnot, fund something, stand up some servers, build a data center, up the funding's over, project's over, start all over again, you're kind of chasing this tail. We're seeing real action with people who understand the businesses of nonprofits, we're turning that domain expertise into real viable ventures. This is now an emerging trend we're seeing certainly in Washington DC where they have networks of people that they know and now folding on a tech staff is easier than it ever was. So you're not starting to see these real business opportunities getting funded and growing that never would have got funding before. Whether it's an app for missing and exploited children, human trafficking, battered women to water, saving water, purification, all these things are now happening. What's your view on this? Because this is kind of an unreported area around this entrepreneurship trend that things are getting to value faster. Do you see the same thing? If you ask the founder of the Ford Motor Company if he believed that damaging a community was a good business practice, he would have probably punched you or at least laughed. Because today, those who feel that maximizing profit is a sacred duty of any capitalistic enterprise, even if it does include extracting and harming communities, employees, stakeholders is extremely misguided. Positive impact is not counter to profit. They go hand in hand. So mission-driven enterprises can exist. It's not just for the philanthropy. There is nothing else but a sustainable business. In the long-term, an unsustainable business cannot be sustained. So if you want to build a business that lasts, you must build it sustainably, ecologically, socially, but of course, also in terms of it being profitable. And what is beautiful about the blockchain is that it completely decoupled the long-term sustainability of a project from this silly decision. Should it be a for-profit? Should it be a non-profit? Who cares? What it should be is an inspiration for millions of people to align their creativity and passion with that project and profits and sustainability will follow. And the funding's there and an opportunity time to value is shorter than ever before. Thank you so much for spending the time coming on theCUBE and sharing your ideas and your mission and vision and thanks for coming on. theCUBE appreciate it. Hey, we are here with David Orban, Managing Director Network Society Ventures, Changing the World, Society on Economic Impact. I'm John Furrier, you're watching theCUBE. More live coverage day two tomorrow. We're here both days, Thursday and Friday here in Puerto Rico for Blockchain Unbound. I'm John Furrier, thanks for watching.


Hey, this is Brett and this 2018 Ford EcoSport Titanium is stock number 13350Z. I am here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, your new and used car headquarters. This 2018 Ford EcoSport Titanium has the 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine, puts out 166 horsepower. This vehicle has been fully-safetyed and inspected by our service shop. This is a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off and it is 100% ready to go. I'm going to go all the way around in this video inside, start it up, take a look under the hood and trunk and give you the most accurate representation of the vehicle as possible.  So if you have HD capabilities on your computer, tablet, smartphone, or television, I highly recommend turning them on right now because it is your best way to check out the quality, condition, options, and of course, cleanliness of the vehicle before seeing it in person. And as you go down this side of the vehicle, you can see just how nice that body is. The doors all look really good. Front fender is in fantastic condition as well. And if you like the video, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel, which is youtube.com. And see all the videos that I post there every day of our new and used inventory. This one comes with these 17-inch painted and polished aluminum rims. And it comes with Bridgestone Acopia 20550R17 tires. And these tires have right around half the tread left on them. Front fender is in excellent condition. You get the projector lamp headlamps, the LED running lights, and the front bumper is in fantastic condition. I didn't see any dents, stings, scuffs, or cracks on there. It does come with the factory fog lights as well. And that hood is absolutely perfect. Very nice and clean. Passengers side front fender looks really good too. And the passengers side rim, no major scuffs or scrapes on there. As you go down this side of the vehicle, take note of how clean that body is, how reflective and mirror-like that paint is. And I take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by and just could not make the trip down but you're still interested in purchasing the vehicle, you can see the car, hear the car, and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at. Before you even get here, so when you do get here, there's absolutely no surprises and you can make a smart and informed buying decision from wherever you're at. If this video helps you make that buying decision, let your salesman know that you saw the video that it was helpful and that bread sent you. Back rims in excellent shape. Four-wheel disc brakes on this vehicle and the back tires have just as much tread as those front tires. Coming around to the back, rear bumpers in great shape. This is a four-wheel drive. You get the backup parking sensors and that rear gate is in fantastic condition. To get this gate open, you gotta press that button right there. Back storage area is very nice and clean. You do get a sunshade which goes like that. Those seats do fall down for extra storage. You get a floor here that you can raise up like so. You get a little storage area under here and it does come with a tire inflator kit. You can put this back down like so but very nice and clean back there. Inside of the door looks really good. Coming around to the driver's side once again, rear quarter looks really good. For full disclosure, this back rim is in pretty nice shape as well. Down the rest of this side looks good. It does have blind spot monitoring built-in directional signals inside. The titanium package gives you the black leather interior. You get the bucket seats in the front here. No major rips or tears on those seats. They look really good. Comes with a manual adjust lumbar, factory floor mats, auto headlamps, power windows, power locks, power mirrors. Tilt telescopic steering wheel. Take a quick look at the back seats. Back seats are just as clean as the front seats. No rips or tears back here. You do get the latch child safety system for any child car seats you may have. These seats fold up and then these fold down for extra storage. You do have to have that front seat up a little bit farther for that to work though. But you do get a little bit of extra storage back here. Those go down like so. You get factory floor mats back here and side curtain airbags. Child safety locks on the back doors and the bottoms of the doors all look really, really good. We'll hop inside and check out the miles, the radio, and everything that this Echo Sport has to offer. You can see you get the digital speedometer there with the outside temperature display. It does take just a second for the miles to show up. There they are, 39,060 miles on this vehicle. Comes with the leather wrap steering wheel, cruise controls and information center controls on the left. And Bluetooth and audio controls on the right. This one comes with the sync eight inch radio. It does have the factory navigation system on it. And you can see there's highway 41. That is working nicely. You have your different audio controls, which includes your AM, FM and Sirius and Bluetooth capabilities. You have all your different apps on here, including Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, where you can project your cell phone to the screen. So that's pretty sweet. And there is your backup camera that shows up nicely. And yeah, a lot of nice stuff you can do with that radio down here.  This one does have the ambient lighting where your cup holders can change color and everything, as well as the floor lighting, passenger side format and seat are in excellent condition. I don't think this car has ever been smoked in. Smells very clean and you do get the power sunroof. Up here you get map lights, sunroof controls, and we'll start it up and take a look under the hood. Starts right up. No check engine lights or anything like that. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today. And hopefully from this HD video, you've been able to verify the quality condition options and cleanliness of this car all the way around inside and out. See those headlights and running lights are working very nicely. And just getting one second here to find it. Under the hood we have the two liter four cylinder engine. 166 horsepower engine base, very clean runs, very smooth. Once again, this vehicle has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop, has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off. And this one is 100% ready to go. There's your emissions sticker. And I would highly recommend this 2018 Ford Echo Sport Titanium from a quality and condition standpoint. I don't think you'll be disappointed in this one. Whether it's the options or the condition, really nicely loaded up and really nice condition. And to see more pictures of this car, one of our other 550 new and used cars, trucks, SCVs, minivans, Wranglers. You name it, we gotta go to that website right there, summitauto.com. Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summitauto.com. And if you'd like to check out more HD videos, you can go to youtube.com. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on this video and all the videos that you see there. Click the bell notifications to get updates on the videos I do each and every day here at Summit Automotive. In fact, in a second, you will see a link to subscribe to my YouTube channel in the upper left. I'll link to more Echo Sport videos that I've done in the upper right. I'll link to this vehicle on our website in the lower left. And a link to one of our latest YouTube videos in the lower right. Click those, check us out. We're super excited to help you with this Ultra Clean 2018 Ford Echo Sport Titanium in Diamond White Clear Coat. Thanks again for checking out the video. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on the YouTube channel. I really appreciate it. Thanks again.


The inspiration behind the space is really what sits at the core of Reddit. It's find your people. This is our first can, or the first time we're showing up like this. And so we've got this incredible space right in front of the Palais. We've got an incredible billboard. It's become almost like a beacon for people. We're really proud of the fact that the Reddit Explorers Club is unique among the experiences it can. It's not a pop-up. It's not just a beach. It builds a series of pathways into what is such an extraordinary platform. We wanted a space whereby we could show off the magic of Reddit and then also having a space where we could host clients, do panels, have drinks and chill out. Tonally, I think we're also doing something very, very unique. Reddit is so connected to humor. Obviously, a huge part of Reddit is the memes. Ultimately, we decided that the Explorers Club was our way forward. It was a standout because it was rooted in a sense of navigation. And it also brought forth the sense of fun and play that's integral to the platform. So we really wanted to drip that into the space. So you can see we've got the why though meme. We've got the this is fine meme. We have awards that have been physically brought to life. And awards on Reddit really sit as an extension of the upvote, downvote system. A collection of snooze representing different communities. What's really cool here is that the mods have taken the snooze and adapted it for their community, for their passion point. What we've got here is a sweet arcade game. The reason for this game, essentially, is to demystify some of the language on Reddit. The more the brands understand and lean into that, the more it resonates with people, the more they kind of can illustrate that they know, you know, where they're advertising and how to talk. The next campaign that we've got here is Adidas. It's an AMA campaign, but what's really special about this campaign is that we took the traditional AMA, which is Ask Me Anything. It's essentially a text format, opening up yourself to questions, Ask Me Anything. And people ask questions in the comments and they get upvoted. So you can really see which questions people want answered. But what was really cool about this Adidas campaign is that we broke that out into video and there was this insight around sneaker heads. And then we took the questions from the AMA and used that as the fuel for the interview and shot a bunch of videos and then used that in the campaign. And then we're able then to kind of use that content as evergreen content and then kind of extend it beyond just a Reddit campaign. Once you're hitting the mark in terms of strategy and you're checking the box in terms of your tonal notes, you know that you're onto something and you're doing something special. And I think it was a mutual realization that we came to as a team that this was the thing. And I think it's brought a lot of joy and play to the can experience for people.


Hi, and welcome to the session. Let us discuss the following question. The question says, show that the lines x minus 1 divided by 2 equals to y minus 2 divided by 3 equals to z minus 3 divided by 4, and x minus 4 divided by 5 equals to y minus 1 divided by 2 equals to z in the set. Also find the point of intersection. Let's now begin with the solution. Equation of first line is divided by 2 equals to y minus 2 divided by 3 equals to z minus 3 divided by 4. Let it be equal to say lambda. Now, x minus 1 divided by 2 equals to lambda implies x is equal to 2 lambda plus 1. Similarly, we can say that y is equal to 3 lambda plus 2, and z is equal to 4 lambda plus 3. So coordinates of a general point, this line now, plus 1, 3 lambda plus 2, and 4 lambda plus 3. Now, equation of second line is equals to y minus 1 by 2 equals to z. We can write z as z minus 0 by 1. Let it be equal to say mu. This implies x is equal to 5 mu plus 4. y is equal to 2 mu plus 1. And z is equal to mu. So we can say that coordinates of a general point on second line are mu plus 4 plus 1 and mu.   Plus 3 equals to mu implies 4 lambda minus mu is equal to minus 3. Let us name this as equation number 1. This has 2, and this has 3. We call equation 1 and 2. Equation minus 2 lambda minus 5 mu equals to 3. And equation 2 is 3 lambda minus 2 mu equals to minus 1. Multiply this equation by 3 and this by 2. So we get 6 lambda equals to 9. Then we have 6 lambda minus 4 mu equals to minus 2. Now, subtract this equation from this equation. So we have minus 11 mu equals to 11. And this implies mu is equal to minus 1. Now, 2 lambda minus 5 mu is equal to 3. Substitute the value of mu here. And thus we get 2 lambda minus 5 into minus 1 equals to 3. This implies 2 lambda is equal to 3 minus 5. And this implies lambda is equal to minus 1. Now, since 2 equals to minus 1 and mu equals to minus 1, satisfy third equation. Therefore, the given lines intersect. They're equals to minus 1 in 2 lambda plus 1, 3 lambda plus 2, and 4 lambda plus 3. By substituting value of lambda, we get coordinates of required point as minus 1, minus 1, minus 1. This is how required answer. So this completes the session. Bye and take care.


Colonel John A. Warden III is a combat pilot with a distinguished military career. Born in McKinney, Texas in 1943, Warden received his Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Air Force Academy and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1965. After pilot training, Warden began his first operational assignment as an F-4 pilot at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. From there, in January of 1968, he deployed to South Korea in support of operations following the USS Pueblo incident. Again answering his nation's call, Warden volunteered to serve as an OV-10 forward air control pilot in Vietnam. He deployed for over a year in the Vietnam War where he flew 266 combat missions. As a student at the National War College, Warden wrote the air campaign which was the first book since World War II to address air war at the operational level. The air campaign is still in use around the world and has been translated into seven languages. As Deputy Director for Strategy, Doctrine and Warfighting at Headquarters Air Force, he and his five Air Staff Divisions created new operational concepts for air power employment, including the Air Option, introduced new force planning methodology, and conceived and wrote the Air Force's initial Global Reach Global Power Doctrine. Most notably, Warden developed the Instant Thunder Air Campaign Plan, the foundation for coalition and air operations planning and execution in Desert Storm, and established the Checkmate Washington Area Reachback Operation that supported the air campaign. Prior to retiring from the Air Force, Warden served as the commandant of the Air Command and Staff College. As commandant, he revolutionized the curriculum and teaching methodology, introduced the concept of top-down learning and developed an integrated one-year curriculum creating the most intensive and modern curriculum of any military school in the world, a leader in American graduate-level education. Colonel Warden retired from the United States Air Force in 1995 after 30 years of service. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the Gathering Eagles stage Colonel John Warden. Colonel Warden, it's a pleasure to be out here with you, sir, and we talked about a number of things through the course of working on the book and the interview, but today I'd like to highlight for the crowd here today some of your early deployments and the impact those experiences shaped your views on air power and planning from a strategic and operational level. Okay, yeah, great. We'd expand that just a little bit in terms of, as you sort of start out, there are three things that are going on that you're doing, I believe. One is that you are improving your ability to execute the tactical and mechanical part of the thing, learning to fly, fly better, et cetera. Second part is learning how to improve your command skills, and a big chunk of that is simply observing the things that people above you are doing well and are doing poorly, the things you're going to emulate, the things you're never going to do that kind of a thing. And then the third thing, I think, which becomes exactly relevant to your question, is the observing and learning things that allow you to do things beyond just the flying, the squadron, the wing kinds of things. So if I'm thinking about the things that I found to be particularly useful and interesting from that standpoint, one of the first ones really was in the fourth wing from Seymour Johnson, when with a week's notice we had airplanes, a whole wing that was augmented to about 100 F4s had flown from Seymour Johnson to Kunzan Air Base in Korea after the seizure of the Pueblo. That made a huge impression from two directions, and most important one was the demonstrated ability of the United States Air Force to move an extraordinary amount of combat power in an extraordinarily short period of time. It was done flawlessly. It was beautifully done sitting in an airplane and really quite impressed with it. The other side of it, though, was when we got to Kunzan, there were no plans to do anything with, at that time, the 100 top newest F4s in the United States inventory. So the airplanes were literally parked wingtip to wingtip at Kunzan, made probably a pretty decent target if anybody had been interested, and nor was there any plan for how the airplanes were going to be employed in any kind of combat thing. So a little bit surprised, because my impression had always been, well, the higher headquarters, whether that was wing or numbered Air Force or whatever it was, they knew how to do these things and said, well, you know, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. So that was pretty interesting. The deployment, not so much from a movement standpoint, but the next thing that I think was pretty useful was, as for many of us, was the experience in Vietnam.  We were winning battles, we were beating the devil out of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese regular forces. So we're doing everything exactly right and we lost the war. So something was amiss with that. Next thing that was pretty interesting was really was at Torahon flying F4s again. So exposure now to a longstanding peacetime command, USAFI, but more importantly from my standpoint was I had the opportunity to participate in the development of the first deployment of U.S. Air Force airplanes to Persia, to Iran, to Tehran that had been done since roughly since World War II. So that gave me an opportunity to see a piece of the country, a piece of the world that I hadn't seen before and also gave me pretty good insight into the different ways of thinking that you could see between the Americans, the British, the Turks, the Persians, the Iranians. And it helped an awful lot as it further started thinking about this whole business of what can be done in the Middle East. Again, not quite from a deployment standpoint, but would like to mention I think in this context a little bit about experience in the air staff after it came back from Spain and completed a year doing a master's degree at Texas Tech. And that experience was I was a desk officer for all of the Middle East Africa countries, every one of them as I recall. So I got a chance to really sort of understand how each one of them worked at a little bit deeper level. And then also got involved for the first time in really looking at high level plans, the operations plans, the con plans that were the Sincure plans and so on. And one of the things that began to be clear in my mind at any rate was that we were focusing an enormous amount of our resources, virtually all of them, to protect against a Soviet onslaught across the folder gap. Well, I was fine unless the Soviets decided to go someplace else and it struck me that they could easily decide that they were going to go around the other side basically to come down through Iran, conceivably Iraq, warm water ports, seizure of the oil in a variety of other things like that. That seemed to make a good deal of sense. And as we started thinking about that, then you realize that the command arrangements that existed at the time with Sincure having responsibility for that area simply could not work or were highly unlikely to work because Sincure was so focused on that folder gap area, that central European area that for them to think in terms of dedicating resources and other things to something that was 2,000, 2,500 miles away was simply unlikely. So then that led to the thought that well, maybe the solution is a change in command ideas and with the proposal to make readiness command, give that responsibility for that area to readiness command, which happened, that was called US Red Com at the time, if I recall, and then that morphed within the next couple of 30 years into central command and therefore the structure was there that the General Schwartzkopf and General Horner could exploit so beautifully when the actual war opportunity came up a few years later. So that worked out quite interestingly than other things with doing deployments of F-15s and F-4s, learning about the mobility, how to move things, and then thinking about large formations for air-to-air particularly and then also for air-to-ground squadron and larger size and having an opportunity to practice that at Incirlik where you could actually see the impact of having a lot of airplanes coming at any sort of area of the enemy lines, if you will. So those things then were pretty useful in thinking about kind of the next iteration, so that's an answer in any way. So talking about those problems with planning that you recognized early on, we'd like to fast forward to your time as the Deputy Director for Strategy, Doctrine and Warfighting. Could you tell us, so you talked about the state of planning earlier, could you tell us about the state of planning when you arrived there and that job and how you and your team decided to approach this? So there were a couple of issues and this is now, we're in 1988 and the planning that existed at the time was superb at a squadron level, at a wing level, with the red flags and all the rest, that was absolutely great. But then if you moved to the very highest level, that what you found was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Guidance and the other things of this sort, that air power was not being thought of in the way that it ought to be thought of for modern war, that it was seen as something that was strictly a support to the Army so that the two options for Europe really were a major deployment of 10 divisions, 10 days kind of a thing, which was probably a bit on the optimistic side, I'm guessing. And I know by the way some airplanes are going along and there are already some there, or if that doesn't work then there's a naval option. So the question then becomes, okay, so there's sort of a ground option, there's a naval option, why isn't there an air option? If you want to get power to Europe fast, you get it there with airplanes. So why don't we think about how we could deal with the Soviets significantly through air, not completely, not to win the war at that particular point, but for that to be the thing that you would put the emphasis on for your deployments and so on and so forth. So spent a lot of time trying to convince the Office of the Secretary of Defense that we ought to be changing the planning guidance and had some reasonable success with that up until the time that we got closer to the time of the Iraqi invasion of Khoi. I think that should roughly cover that I guess. We're kind of expanding upon that a little bit. As you're moving into those events, it's clear that we do a lot of planning in a hurry to get ready for that kind of unexpected event. Can you give us a little sense of what your team there did and how you became involved in the process and how you got things done in such a short amount of time? Well, there were a couple factors that were involved in it. One, that at the time I had five Air Staff divisions including Checkmate and out of that with those five divisions, almost 100 officers, all really smart people that were pretty good thinking, and we spent a good deal of time thinking about what can you do with air power at a very high level. And one of the things that flowed out of that particular set of thinking was the concept of the five rings, which was really developed initially to show what you could really do with air power and how to think about air power in terms of the impact that it could have on an opponent, on an enemy. Well, we found fairly quickly that, yes, it did that fairly well, but it also could make a pretty powerful way to actually do targeting. It would give you a methodical way to think through the problems, what are you trying to accomplish, et cetera. And one of the things that we did in the roughly the year prior to the advent of the Iraqi invasion was to do an exercise using the five rings and applying it to Soviet ground forces making an attack into Europe. We presented that, the conclusions, that study in a briefing to the then U.S. Army in Europe, Commander General St. John, yes, St. John. And he said, wow, this is a great way to think about this, this is a great way to use air power. How about going and putting this against the big stockpiles of weapons that the Soviets had buried in a variety of places? I said fine, we'd be happy to do that. But then it wasn't too long after that that the Iraqi invasion came along so the Soviets were no longer of any interest in it. And when the war was over, nobody had the slightest interest in planning anything for the Soviets because they were all gone. So that was the, we had a lot of an opportunity to think about what you can do. So along comes the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So we've thought about this and thought, well, so you know, we don't know what, we don't know specifically what plans might be going on at SENTCOM, SENTAF, wherever, but we've got some pretty good ideas. So pulled together just a handful of people and said let's put something together and just to do the best to put together the best sort of a plan that we can to use air power and really to use it to win. And it said to the groups that you know I have no idea how we're going to sell this or even whether we can, but let's build it and then we'll see what happens from there, which we did. And then we had a bit of an unusual break, if you will, certainly from our standpoint, and that was a couple of days after we started that process, that General Schwarzkopf had called up their staff, talked to General Lowe, General Lowe said hey, got some guys that are doing this sort of a thing, and they'll be happy to show you what they're doing. So we did a couple of days later and we're doing this all out of Checkmate, which has now expanded into people coming from all over the air staff and from TAC headquarters and some from TAC headquarters, not a lot, and then from a variety of other places in the government, the intelligence services and so on. So we put this together with these 300 people in a couple of days, took it down to General Schwarzkopf, General Schwarzkopf said this is good, developed a little bit more week later by giving it to General Schwarzkopf, said this is great, this is what we're going to do, talk to General Powell, etc. and then he asked me to take it over to give it to General Horner, which we then did a couple of days later and left some guys there, Dave Deptula and then Harvey and Stanfield, and they then I think served as the core for things that were going on in Riyadh. In the meantime, we're back in Washington and finding that this open planning that we have done with Checkmate, in which that we've had people coming in from all the intelligence agencies and getting lots and lots of flows of information coming in, provided us the opportunity to send an enormous amount of information and do an enormous amount of analysis that we then sent over to General Glossin, Colonel Deptula, Lieutenant Colonel at the time, for them to look at, use in any way that they might choose to do it, there was no identification stuff on it, and having that connection turned out to be, I think, of more than a little bit of value. The other thing that was really fascinating about it was, and it's difficult for the majority of you probably to envision this, but in fact that you think that all of the decisions that are made in Washington are made on the basis of cold rationality and objectivity and so on and so forth. Not the case, simply not the case. And I would have to say that there was huge, huge opposition to the whole concept of an air campaign of the things that were done and were being created to what would eventually become a desert storm, huge opposition significantly from the Army, some from the very most senior Army officer who was in Washington at the time in as high a place as you could find, some people in the White House itself and scattered all over the rest of the place. And you can't imagine the kinds of attacks that are always going on. This is never going to work, this is wrong, we can't do this, this is not fair, all kinds of stuff. So just having that ability to have people in Washington that had pretty good understanding of what the concepts were to go out and deal with it, I think was, I believe, was essential. It's one of those things that I think was very difficult to have done, maybe impossible, to do it from Riyadh, because you get very far away from a power center and all of a sudden the power center is doing what it wants to do and sort of nuts to what it is that you want to do. So that was all really, I think, enabled by this whole concept of open planning. And the open planning very simply was, let's not decide who is authorized to see it, but let's get people in that are going to have ideas. And boy, the ideas that came in from outside that WEN thought about, and that in several cases turned out to be of significance, we never would have gotten them within the absence of the open planning, nor would we either have had all of that automatic info of intelligence, current information. We literally had people, by the time the war started, we had people who were in the KH-11 download stations and they would pick up the phone if they say, hey, we see something like a railroad train that's unloading just to take up a trivial example. They would call instantly and say, okay, interesting, important stuff, and we'd pick up the phone and call over and talk to Dave or to Gawson or whomever. And then again, they can confirm that information and do whatever they wanted with it. But it provided a way to move information and intelligence, which was significantly developed or processed or only available in Washington, to move it to the place where it was going to be used. And this is the open planning and I not only became a huge believer in it during that experience, but then subsequently in my business life have introduced it into the business world, we've found it's equally valuable and important. Sir, in the time leading up to the Gulf War, your team recognized that we as the Air Force were stuck in the Cold War mindset and your team was able to in part help move us out of that mindset to the credit of the enormous success of the Gulf War air campaign. What we'd like to hear about are what are your thoughts about the Air Force now and our mindset now. Do you think we're stuck in a mindset and need to evolve from where we are? Yes. Next question. Thank you. I can expand a little bit if you'd like. I'd appreciate that. So you all may remember that the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates gave the talk in the Colorado Springs about ten years ago, ballpark, it may have been plus or minus a year or two. And I'm paraphrasing, but I think reasonably accurately, what he said was I want to do away with this whole business of futurism. I don't want anybody thinking about future wars. I want you to concentrate on today's war. Well, so the Secretary of Defense says that he remains in power for what, another four or five years, and that becomes a big part of service life, defense department, the country and all the rest of it. Well, the focus on the war, one can sort of understand that, but we think about the war that he was having his focus on. You'd really have to say that the wars, at least since the invasion of Baghdad in 2003 for the Second Gulf War, have really been very tactical operations where there's some little group over here and you do something with them and then something with this one and one or two airplanes or three or four or whatever, and it's a primitive thing. There's no air defense. There's nothing else. So if you specialize for that kind of war, what you are doing is that you are virtually putting yourself out of business to fight a serious war against a serious enemy that presents a genuine strategic threat. So I think in some ways that maybe we are in a worse situation today from that standpoint than we were at the end of the 1980s because at the end of the 1980s we had people, some of the planning, the thinking may not have been as smart as it could be, but boy the development of the technology and so on. It wasn't based on fighting the original Korean war again. It was based on fighting something really important and thus the 117s and all the rest of this grand stuff. We know what the results have been of some people that have really pushed the high tech things like the F-22s and so on and so forth. We have that element of it. Second element was the I think sort of the underlying contest. When we were coming towards the, well when we were still deep in the Cold War, that you had Soviet Union with a military capability. It was kind of slowly moving and it was kind of cumbersome, but nevertheless it was pretty significant. And the underlying philosophy was communism. Well we knew that communism was bad and sort of everybody in the West said we don't like communism. We like some form of capitalism or freedom, et cetera, et cetera. And it's interesting that although people will die for communism it's not quite as deep of faith as there might be from something else. So you could deal with that and it was reasonably easy. Now we're into a situation where that we are facing an opponent who deeply, deeply, deeply believes in everything they do. I mean there's no if, ands, or buts. They genuinely believe. And I guess you almost throw this out as a question. So ask yourself what do you all believe in? What does the West believe in now? What is the West and what is its raison d'etre? Why is it that it should be willing to fight for in all of these far off places and so on and so forth? That's a question that must be addressed and it must be answered. So I think even given that in the shorter term and in rate that we can afford to make a lot of mistakes in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq or whatever. It's not going to be strategically destructive on any short term basis. But that's not going to last forever. At some point, five years, six years downstream, whatever it is, there's going to be a genuine strategic threat by somebody that's extraordinarily competent and maybe actually has better stuff than what we have. And if we haven't prepared ourselves adequately to deal with that kind of threat, then we are facing civilization, destruction, we are facing destruction of the country and we don't need to do that. So we simply have got to be thinking about what is it that we really want to do and my simple idea on the thing is that from a military technological standpoint, we really ought to be at least a revolution ahead of everybody else in the world, whoever is number two, that they are one-tenth of wherever we are from a technology standpoint. It doesn't mean we need to have ten times as many airplanes. We need to have ten times as much technological capability and that I think is actually doable if there is a decision to do it and that there is a commitment by the senior Air Force, senior DOD and the White House. The White House has got to make that commitment also. So that was a great answer and it kind of makes me think of the other side of that equation. One of your discussions we had was about an experience you had over in Russia and the chance that you got after the fall of the Soviet Union to go over there and see kind of their planning. I'm curious to maybe share that experience with the folks here and hear what your thoughts are on today's version of that. What your thought of a peep behind a curtain today would reveal as we move across there? So actually when I was here as the commandant of Command Staff College, John Quash, one of your predecessors, John Kelly, was invited to go to, then by now Russia on a tour of their professional military education. Part of that tour was to go down into the General Staff headquarters in Moscow, which was absolutely fascinating. It was a building that was maybe six or seven stories tall, but that wasn't what was really there. What was really there was six or seven stories that went down. So we went down and down and down. I have no idea how many levels we went down. And finally we came out into this large briefing room. It was probably almost like the middle, the last third of this auditorium in size. And they had some bleacher kinds of chairs around in a place for somebody to do briefing. And then probably a hundred foot long was a topographical map that stretched from the Europe to the Channel. And it had all of the major terrain, the militarily important terrain features that existed and all that. And then this bright Russian General Staff Colonel got up and briefed what their plan of operation would have been for a war in Europe when the Soviet Union still existed. And boy, you listened to that and said, wow, these guys were planning to duplicate exactly what they had done in World War II. Exactly. And they hadn't changed much in ways of organization. The equipment was a little bit better, but not dramatically so on a comparative basis. And they were making the same assumptions about air power that they had made in World War II and only survived in World War II because of an extraordinary amount of luck on their part. And because Germany was under strategic attack, which had forced the Germans to pull all of their air power back. So the Russians were fighting without a significant air threat through the majority of the time from December of 1942 on. So we could have beat these guys. It wouldn't have been fun. It would have been pretty expensive, but we could have beat those guys. They did not. They have learned almost nothing since World War II. Well, maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But that was my impression. And my impression is that there are probably a lot of people in the United States that are mentally kind of, let's put it this way, are refighting the march on Baghdad. They are refighting the Taliban campaigns and so on and saying, well, we're just going to put some more airplanes or more bayonets against this sort of thing. And that's how we're going to deal with Chinese or Russians or Turks or whomever else that we might happen to do it.  So if they could get locked into that lack of examination, that lack of critical thinking, then for sure anybody can be. And any time you think about that, you got to say, all right, let's stand back and really take a really hard look at ourselves. And how is it that we're thinking about fighting a serious war and what are we really going to do about it? Sir, speaking of evolution, we're curious to hear your takes on the Air Force as a service. Currently we have space and cyber operations nested within the Air Force. Do you believe it's appropriate for the service to evolve so space and cyber become independent services? This is a popular question that we like to talk about this year. And if so, what do you think the catalyst needs to be for that evolution to occur? So if you think about it, can anybody think of a single instance in all of world history where that there was an autonomous horse cavalry force? And the answer to the best of my knowledge is no. I mean, horse cavalry has been important, was important for several thousand years. But it was always important as an adjunct to really, when you get right down to it, to heavy infantry and then later artillery. Nor was artillery as important as it is ever conceived to be a separate service. So those were ground things that moved on the ground in part of the army or whatever it was called. On the other hand, you've had in every civilization that was close to the sea, you have had a naval surface, operates in a completely different kind of a medium, the medium of the sea, utterly capable of independent operations in many, many cases, independently winning wars in many cases. Makes perfectly good sense to have an independent sea service and not to tie it to a land service. Then along comes right here with the Wright brothers with their first school and you are suddenly in this new dimension. The new dimension were things that were dramatically different in all kinds of ways from the ground, from the sea, made perfectly good sense to have a separate air service. Now you start thinking about cyber stuff. So right now you can conceive of interesting operations with cyber just the same way that Jeb Stuart could make an interesting swing along March around with his cavalry before the Battle of Gettysburg, but it was a contributory operation or at least that was how it was designed. So right now it seems like for the most part that the cyber is contributory and significantly in my view to the exercise of air power but certainly to other forms of power at the same time. Seems to me that you have about the same situation with space. Yeah, space is different, orbital mechanics are different than flying an F-15, but it's still that it is done right now in order to support, to enhance air operations of one sort or another, or other ground operations. So the focus of anything that happens in space is basically against the ground. Now does that ever change? And I think that the answer is yes. There will be a time in the future without any question at all, I believe, that we will break the gravity string, if you will, and we'll be out conducting operations flying in pure space. Will we encounter aliens of some sort? I don't know, we might. Will we encounter asteroids? Yes, with absolute certainty and so on. So it's when that you get out there and you can actually conceive of independent operations in space that are done in a completely different medium, at that time I would be the first one to stand up and say, it's time for a space command. But I don't think that we're, I think we're probably, many of you would know better from a technology standpoint, but I'm guessing we're probably a quarter of a century, maybe a little bit more away from that particular time. Thank you, sir. One of the concepts that's come up a lot this year is, we as majors are kind of that mid-level tier, we're kind of breaking our way into leadership and we're learning how to do that. One of the concepts we discussed a little bit in our interview was the concept of leading up and how to influence above yourself in the organization. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to do that and what's some good ideas for us majors as we're moving along and could engender in the way we move forward. Well, I mean that's a, that's, it's a challenging question. It's a great question. I would mention a couple things. That one, at any level as a major in a squadron or any kind of another operation, contracting, whatever, you've got people working with you, working for you, etc. This getting these people to function as a team becomes really, really valuable. It becomes valuable for you because it makes you smarter and it gives you a heck of a lot more ability to do things that you think are important. I'll come back again to the idea of the open planning. Get the people together periodically and talk about what it is that you are trying to accomplish, get their ideas, have some sort of a structure for going through the thinking process. Have as good a plan, a set of ideas as you possibly can before that you move up to whoever your superior is and say, hey, I've got a really good idea. And if you, if you thought the thing through clearly, then that you have at least some possibility that you might get a, you might get approval. Sometimes you might not, but that's a different, that becomes a different kind of a question and different sort of a situation. I think it's sort of over, overarching all of that to some extent though, is this idea that, you know, that the Air Force, countries, Air Force, Army, Navy, other countries spend a lot of money putting you all through here for the last year. Some of you will stay on for SAS and so on and so forth. It's a pretty significant investment. You're pretty smart.  So when, if you're pretty good, then that means you probably have some pretty good ideas. So when things come up, really think about how can I take the initiative? I've thought about this. I'm an expert or a semi-expert in it. How can I take the initiative? And sort of with the, with a, with a minor degree of concern. But nevertheless, I would say that that sort of that old adage of sort of act first and then ask for forgiveness later is a reasonably good way to do things. How long you can survive that depends significantly on how successful your actions are.  Why did you goof it up? Well, I did this, this, this. Okay. Don't do that again. Other bosses will say, who are you to do that? You're gone.  So those would be some thoughts. Sir, as a former ACSC commandant, do you have any advice for the ACSC students here in the audience who are about to graduate in five days? Who's counting? Who's counting? As we're about to head out to staff and leadership positions. Do you have any advice for us? At least I would reiterate somewhat of what I've covered in addressing the previous question. But it really, I think it comes down to think about what you've learned. And you've learned some positive things. You've learned some negative things. You certainly have gotten a lot of ideas there. That's not a very good way to do that. So try to avoid not doing the thing in that particular way. And you've got some pretty good ideas about how to do things and try to orient yourself in that particular direction. But I think it's a matter of confidence. You should have a lot of confidence. And I know all of you do right now. So capitalize on that confidence and that desire to go out there and make something change in your world and the larger world. Sir, we have a few minutes to take Q&A from the audience. So we'd like to open it up for questions. If there's any from the audience out there. Afternoon, Sir, Major McDaniel from Flight 21. So over the past two days, we've been cautioned not to draw too many lessons from Desert Storm. At the same time, you know, graduating this year, we've read your work and have thought about sort of how it applies or doesn't apply to the current conflict and future wars we might fight. So I guess I've got sort of a two-part question. Looking back, what would you have changed given your framework for how Desert Storm was conducted? And then looking forward, how would you adapt your framework or your way of approaching an air campaign to cover the full spectrum of adversaries that we might have to face? So the execution of Desert Storm was, I mean, it was superb. I really can't think of much of anything that could have been done any different. There were a few minor surprises like the success of the mobile scuds and so on and so forth. But it ended up being a tactical kind of an issue which was survivable and by and by that it was solved adequately, I mean solved from a strategic standpoint. So all the execution worked fine. I think that we've probably made two errors at a very, very high level and I'm talking about Chairman of the Joint Chief's White House kind of a level with the First Gulf War. The first one was that we did not think through what our endgame was going to be. So when General Schwartzkopf went to Safflant, he basically went to Safflant, told to set up an armistice to stop the shooting, et cetera, as opposed to saying, this is what we intend Iraq to do for the next 10 years, et cetera. These are the terms that you're going to give to the Iraqis and tell them if they don't accept it, et cetera, et cetera. There was almost a palpable refusal until very, very late in the game for either the Joint Staff or the White House or the State Department to think about how you are really going to end the war. And, you know, ending wars, it's kind of easy to start them in one form or another, but ending them is a real significant challenge. And if you haven't thought through it and all of a sudden it's there, then you are presented with some really tough things and you tend to fly by the seat of your pants and that may not be the best answer and in fact in probably 99% of the cases it really isn't. So we need to incorporate into our strategy thinking construction the idea of you've got to know what your objective is, you've got to know what you're going to push your resources against, you've got to know how much time and you've got to know how you're going to get out, whether you are successful or whether you're not successful. So that's one thing that I think is really important. The other thing that one of the huge lessons it seems to me from the Gulf War is this value of time and the more that you can compress time, the greater the impact that you are going to have on your opponent. If we take Iraq, if we had done the same thing to Iraq that we actually did, same targets, et cetera, and had done it over a two or a three or a four year period, all in North Vietnam, some half century previously, I think that the Iraqis could have survived it because people can deal with serial operations. They can fix things. They can figure out how to react and so on. I think we got pretty darn close to that necessary amount of time compression against the Iraqis that really simply put them into a position where it was virtually impossible for them to react at any kind of a significant operational or strategic level. There one minor attempt, the battle of Khofji, was picked up very quickly and interestingly because the communications were in such a lousy shape that Saddam Hussein actually had to drive down there to talk to the Iraqi three corps commander in order to give him the instructions as to what to do because they couldn't send the darn things down over what previously had been a very, very good command and control communications kind of a system. So that 40 days was adequate in that war. I don't think that it will be adequate in the next war. And I think that we've got to figure out how to compress that time more and more and more. And as we move into places where people like North Koreans have potentially nuclear weapons and maybe people have satellite killers and a bunch of this other stuff, we really probably get driven down into the point of thinking how do we compress time sufficiently to create a paralytic impact on an opponent in a matter of maybe hours eventually, certainly days within the relatively short future like the next five, six years, et cetera. So that to me is something that simply has got to be done. We've got to figure out how to compress the time. And that interestingly has an application whether you are talking about dealing with a large state or whether you are dealing with small groups of people in Taliban in Afghanistan or Iraq or particularly the Islamic State. You think about the Islamic State and over the last two and a half, three years now, that we have done the last that I was aware that it's been something like five or six, seven, eight sorties per day average that have been spread over, you know, something roughly the size of Alabama. I mean, this is bad if you are standing underneath one of those bombs, but from an organizational standpoint this is tolerable. So we can apply this time compression against the Taliban or against the Islamic State and likewise even with relatively small groups of people that we typically have thought about from a counterinsurgency standpoint, which is probably a bit dangerous to think about anything from that standpoint, is that if you give people little time to move from point A to point B to rethink their plans to recover, et cetera, you present them with problems that pretty soon become simply intolerable that you can't overcome. So I think there was another one over here if we still have time. Yes, thank you. Sir, Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Cheshul from Ukraine and Flight 17 and my question to you will be not relevant to Iraqi war or everything. My question is relevant to Russia. You touched it and I was listening carefully and didn't get the answer to my question. So if you like, could you share with us your strategic perspective according to the situation in Ukraine in exactly the role of air power in that conflict? Is Russia able to do the next step to escalate this conflict to full scale? What is the probability of using air power? Just your strategic perspective. Thank you. So I must apologize. I don't have a good current understanding of exactly what the force ratios are, et cetera. My general impression is that if the Russians made a decision to destroy or to defeat Ukraine, they could do it within a very short period of time. And it would be very difficult for you to do anything other than to pull back into some kind of defensible positions and try to prolong the operation long enough that the Russians would say, not some going home or whatever, which is a pretty chancey thing because you have no idea whether they will or not. So then you start thinking about it from a use of your own air power and I don't know what you have in any detail, what its range is, what its capabilities is, but I've come back, I really have found this whole five ring concept to be really, really an important kind of an idea. And it's important not simply from the application of kinetic force, air power, et cetera, but if you think about your opponent has a central ring that has leadership in it. Well, the chances that you could actually attack that leadership with airplanes is probably pretty small, probably zero for practical purposes, I'm guessing. So you start thinking, all right, if I can't use air power, what else can I use to begin to get these guys to move in a different direction? What would have to happen for them to say, I don't really want to do Ukraine, I'd rather do something else, or what can I do to make it more difficult for them to do it? I don't know whether they have financial interests in Ukraine or not, but you know, people do take their financial interests into concern. We certainly saw that in the war against Serbia. So you just start thinking about, okay, I can't do this, but I need to get the leadership to move in a little bit different direction, or what about the resources that they have, their communications is their way to interfere with that, and that probably begins to get into the cyber kind of a thing. And what I would suspect is that in your case that what you don't want to do is to get into an all-out kind of shooting war, because I think that would be very, very unfortunate for you. So you think about strategically, here are the things that need to be accomplished, how can I accomplish those things without getting into a shooting war? So I mean, this is a very complex question, it's a good one, so there's some thoughts on it. Sir, I think we have time for one more question, and I see someone standing over there. Good afternoon, sir. Lieutenant Colonel Hoyer from Flight 23. Early in the year we certainly spoke and contrasted our ideas about Germany and Klauswitz. I was wondering if you were able to identify any of the merits of the counter-argument to the Five Rings theory? No. I'll expand just a touch on that. And I want to say, and probably with the risk of offending 50% of the people in here, maybe more, that one of the... Let me ask you to name a single country that really believed in Klauswitz that ever wanted war. I'm not seeing any nominations putting a bit in a spot here. So that might suggest that maybe these ideas aren't very good. And just as an example, so Klauswitz wrote about the Napoleonic Wars, how many Navy guys are there in here? You know, a handful in the thing. So you all have read Klauswitz. How many mentions are there in Klauswitz about the Royal Navy operations and the creation of a blockade against France? Zero. Yeah, absolutely zero. So I would say this guy didn't know what he was talking about. He wrote some pretty neat words, maybe. And there's a couple of high-level things. Wars of continuation of politics. Okay, fine, got it. And so, read any more? Eh, read something else. So it's not so much a Germany-Klauswitz kind of a thing. There's probably value in Germany, but it's a little difficult to get out simply because that the things that he's talking about, siege warfare, fortresses, lines of communication, all the rest of that stuff, still really apply. But it's a little bit tough to do that mental translation to move into a current situation. So the idea of spending much time with Klauswitz, just to me, no longer makes very much sense. Is there a good substitute for it? I think the five rings certainly contributes a lot to the creation of strategy. But there's, you know, talk about things to do, and some of you are going on for advanced degrees and so on. Figure out a way to replace this guy. And when talking about books, let me just mention one book real quickly. About two years ago, roughly, a book came out which was called How the War Was Won. It's about World War II. And it's written by a guy named Philip O'Brien. The basic thesis of this book is that the land battles that took place in World War II were basically insignificant insofar as the success or failure of either side. The thing that defeated Japan and Germany simultaneously for practical purposes was really was the operations that reduced the mobility from strategic operational and tactical levels down to pretty close to zero. You couldn't move stuff, you couldn't move troops, you couldn't move ships, you couldn't feed people. That mobility was just squeezed down to nothing. And that attack on strategic mobility was primarily accomplished through air power and sea power. Probably air power a little bit more important, but nevertheless it was both of them that contributed. But if you start thinking about, well maybe that's a pretty good answer to what the real war is, is how can we reduce the mobility capability of the opponent down to pretty close to zero. That probably provides you success regardless of the operation that you're talking about. If Taliban guys can't move from one place to another, they're not very effective. If Islamic State can't move from one part of their caliphate to another, they are pretty darn ineffective, et cetera, et cetera. So think about that sort of stuff. Read that book if you haven't read it because it's extraordinarily well documented. The statistics are really eye-opening. So figure out a better and let's get ourselves out of it. It's time to end the fascination on Napoleon. And if you ever think about it, the Clausewitz was writing a book about the brilliance of Napoleon. The last time I looked, he lost. And he died at St. Helena, a broken man. So probably not the best guy to try to copy when you're trying to put together some kind of a serious war with somebody or other. Sir, it's time we have for questions today. Colonel Warden, good ones. Thank you. On behalf of the Gathering of Eagles in ACSE, we want to thank you for your time here this week and sharing your experiences and insights with us today. So thank you. And thank you both for all of your work. Thank you all. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


What's going on guys, it's your boy DPJ here today with another Destiny video and in today's video I want to talk about Destiny's future and a new content which in my opinion Destiny really needs to save itself. At the moment for me Destiny is at an all-time low. Now this has nothing to do with others that still play the game or even the amount that still grind every day. I just mean for me and for me is a game that ain't offering much at the moment. Challenge mode I did kind of hope would restore a little bit of faith but it ain't and to be honest guys it was kind of a letdown to what I thought it was going to be but that's just me and really that's just me being an idiot and overhyping shit but to be honest I can't really blame myself as I'm just in a state of mind with Destiny that anything new I hear about gets me all excited and shit so I do in general overhype things but in all honesty Destiny for me at the moment is dry and playing it just don't feel right as of what I'm doing I've done and don't really need to do. You know what people? I haven't even run the raid in over a month that's how crazy shit's gone even with challenge mode I ran up to all priests and stopped on all three characters and what makes playing Destiny at the moment even worse is that other great games that have just come out. Maybe this as a time where Destiny is dry is actually a good thing as so many new games have just come out I think Bungie knew about this and I think they chose not to try and compete as it would have been kind of dangerous. Look at it from Bungie's point of view Bungie knew at this time of year that many new releases were coming out and a major part of their player base would be playing new games and I feel they were being really smart about it for sure the hardcore player such as myself who basically has only played Destiny for the past year will feel a little disappointed at how dry it is at the moment and will find it even harder to move on to new games but in all honesty it isn't a bad move to move on and try other games. Bungie knows this too at the end of the day there was this new influx of games coming they could have chose to try and compete by like maybe releasing a new DLC and trying to keep their players playing Destiny even with all these new games rolling out or they could have done the smart thing which is what they've done. I mean them not trying to compete in my opinion was a right move as look at it this way people will be moving on to play new games and I ain't saying they would never come back it's just games like Black Ops 3 Star Wars and Fallout are all hard to resist and some games people were playing before Destiny and no matter what Bungie did people would still take time out of Destiny to play these other titles. Bungie staying in the shadows here is a smart move on their behalf taking a backseat and waiting for the right time before announcing and dropping new DLC was a great call. Letting us have fun with other games before hitting us with new content is really really smart. Dropping DLC while other games are being released left right and centre will only result in people less interested in what they have to offer in terms of DLC and new content then waiting is the right call and yeah for sure for the hardcore player it's not what we want we want DLC every down week but it ain't gonna be the case so stop dreaming so when will we get in this new content I believe something will be announced at PSX this weekend I just have a feeling Bungie have something amazing in the bag which will get us all excited to play a game where all the people that ain't excited already but is this just me over hyping shit as this is what we all need and want but we'll find out pretty soon but guys that is the end of the video hope you guys enjoyed it do drop a like if you appreciate the support tell me your thoughts undecided in its current state down below in the comment section and I'll catch you guys on the next one peace out till next time Peace!