An Giang info: Youtube daily report Jan 27 2019

Hi my name is youhei ozaki. Thanks for watch this video. This time talk about myofascial self care that make smaller your buttocks.

This time is not bone rubbing self care,it is approach about myofacial. Case that stiff muscle or extra moisture there,thickness be increase. I told that at past time.

The behind side of upper arm or buttocks part is also same. If you keep hip stiff muscle,your buttocks thickness be increase. Case that did soften buttocks muscle until limit,your buttocks become small.

This time,aiming muscle is adductor muscle. That muscle is inside part of thigh. Maybe semitendinus muscle is also include. Don't need to remember muscle name.

Almost case,this part is no experience there that did soften. For example,try pinch right thigh part with right arm. Case from outside,maybe can't pinch that part.

Case of from inside part,you can to pinch thigh behind part. I tell explain with self feeling. Pinch the buttocks side more than thigh part.

You will find the painful point. It is stiff muscle. The buttocks be soft by soften this stiff muscle.

At first,check now thickness by pinch the self buttocks. Some people can't to pinch buttocks. Then compare right and left.

So please remember stiff side. Case of me,left side is stiff. Please use step when do this self care.

Or use chair is also OK. Case of stand style,spread your foot spacing and bend a little knee joint.

Please pinch that part from many angle. At especially,become effective by approach into buttocks side. Please pinch the place that near into buttocks side.

To use opposite side hand is very good when do pinch. Decrease pain and,if pinch movement hardly,it is correct. Please pinch buttocks again after this self care.

Your buttocks became soft more than last time,or thickness became thin. It born the sense like that.

If you continued this self care,you can to keep thin buttocks. Thigh inside part don't move at usually. It move place that no move part at usual at this time.

This is so important point. The effect by to move place that movement be bad is can to keep. I recommend to soften this place at bath time.

Please try it. Thanks for watch this video. See you!

For more infomation >> あなたのお尻を小尻にする筋膜セルフケア大宮整体 - Duration: 6:31.

-------------------------------------------

LEGO® Star Wars™ Porg™

For more infomation >> LEGO® Star Wars™ Porg™

-------------------------------------------

Trastorno Antisocial - Elena Lapskyy - Duration: 4:00.

This is my first own song, and I put a bit of my hear here. I hope you like it as much as I did while I was making it :) ❤❤❤

I tried to translate the lyrics, but my english is very bad... Sorry! :(

It's early morning

The perversion has woken up next to me

I'm so lucky (I think)

That wasn't a dream

I see again

Blood dripping down through your feet

Anyone knows that

I'd rather hide my own case

Under the lining burn the hands of the one who wants my good

The cure of my sorrows in you have to live

There is agony in me

I'm not minded to follow the path

Of a paradaise without you

Your coercion, so sweet flavor

UNDER YOUR POWER WE ONLY LIVE ONCE

Hug me, kiss me

Make my naivety grow

Treat me with evil

Feel my dignity yours

Abduct me, kill me

Dead in my own court I will protect you

Closing my eyes

Again and again in you I will believe

He could listen to me

Being under the grown he could listen to me

His hand gave me

And kissed my neck

He promise me

"We both will go even deeper"

They say that

I must escape him

I know it

Belive me, I know it

It is stronger than me

He threw a spell on me

You are opening the door to the inferno

I'm not resisting

To the eternity

I'm willing, I desire to

To accept as a quality

YOUR ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER

Hug me, kiss me

Make my naivety grow

Treat me with evil

Feel my dignity yours

Abduct me, kill me

Dead in my own court I will protect you

Closing my eyes

Again and again in you I will believe

I see the light

The breath is short

My voice is getting quiete

For your mistake

to the underworld I'm going

We only live once

But

The fire

Will meet us together again

Приведет нас вместе

For more infomation >> Trastorno Antisocial - Elena Lapskyy - Duration: 4:00.

-------------------------------------------

HOW TO MAKE PLAY DOH PICNIC SANDWICH MEAT FOOD FOR KIDS(Learn Colors With) - Duration: 13:05.

For more infomation >> HOW TO MAKE PLAY DOH PICNIC SANDWICH MEAT FOOD FOR KIDS(Learn Colors With) - Duration: 13:05.

-------------------------------------------

Hotel à Mérida - Duration: 7:38.

So welcome in my home in Mérida for the next..

three days, it's really basic (I know I used rustic but wrong choice of words)I know some of my little princesses that wouldn't enjoy it

but it's only to sleep, I checked the mattress and no bedbugs. The only thing I found was a ant

So Hakuna Matata, so I took this room, one of the two owner

the owners are brothers, Roberto and Rodrigo

I met Roberto, the beautiful Roberto and he gave me the choice between 2 rooms

I have chosen the private room

with the private bathroom

and the Air conditioning

the other room doesn't have A/C

and the weather is hot

also the other room is in the front part of the building where the street is

the is a lot of street traffic and noises

here I'm like in the backyard

like in a other building, so it's less noisy

so...

I'm in the corner of the room

that is the room

listen, it do the job

it could use more light

but it will do the job

this is the bathroom, with the shower

of course, this wasn't design for short people

because the light switch is up there

it's a little bit like in Japan

or south korea

where the toilet is with the shower

so that is it

I also have acces to a kitchen

on this side

I think I'm the only customer also

I have put my bottle of water and my juice in the fridge

If I wanted to I could cook some food

like I said if I wanted too

but I don't want too

wait a minute

like I have said

I think Roberto is gone

so there is no one in the main building

I think there is no other guest

So there is the terrace upstairs

so it means I have a terrace all for me

so the place is

in need of renovation

Roberto was really honest about it

they are aware of it

but

He was telling me that it is complicated to obtain a renovation permit

from the city

for now

that's it

there is a access from the front of the building to come on the terrace

it's like my private access in the back

so you can come here and chill

omg with a cushion it would be marvelous

like I was saying

it's a very busy street

but one thing positive is

the bus from downtown drops me right on that corner where is the sign

I need to take it a little bit further that way

but it brings downtown

where is the cathedral, where I went earlier

so listen

it's not luxeurious

but for 600 pesos for three nights

that is something like

I think 50-60$ (CAD)

for three nights

it's not the most impressive place

Like you can see it's starting to get dark and it's

6:25 pm

there is a time difference

between

here and

tulum

it was the same thing in Valladolid

Valladolid also have a time difference

so at home (Montreal) it should be around..7:30 pm

so that's it

I can chill on the terrace

there is light

ok I am very accident prone lately

it is getting scary

a little bit

Roberto have shown me where the light were

I can also put some music on

again the light switch is not place for a small person

they are like up there

So I would have to climb on a chair and I don't feel like it

there is Bathroom up here

so that's it

in case of evacuation (I'm reading the sign)

so...

good night

For more infomation >> Hotel à Mérida - Duration: 7:38.

-------------------------------------------

Martin Pelcl: Kaj je za vas največja vrednost prejete investicije? - Duration: 0:59.

For more infomation >> Martin Pelcl: Kaj je za vas največja vrednost prejete investicije? - Duration: 0:59.

-------------------------------------------

El señuelo mas barato y mas fácil de hacer - Duration: 10:45.

For more infomation >> El señuelo mas barato y mas fácil de hacer - Duration: 10:45.

-------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Macron amaigri à cause de la crise des Gilets jaunes, un proche se confie - Duration: 1:43.

For more infomation >> Emmanuel Macron amaigri à cause de la crise des Gilets jaunes, un proche se confie - Duration: 1:43.

-------------------------------------------

A Digital Culture Of Fear (w/ Scott Malcomson) | Interview | Real Vision™ - Duration: 51:00.

Hey, everyone.

Just wanted to let you know about our new video on cybersecurity.

We got to check out a cybersecurity control center, so that's where they screen for massive

worldwide cyber attacks.

We also got to speak to a bunch of hackers, and actually see a hack happen live.

But before we get into that, we wanted to share some of our previous videos on cybersecurity

from some experts in the field.

So this episode originally aired on August 18, 2016.

Hope you enjoy, and remember to also check at RealVision.com to watch the new season

of Discoveries, where we dive into the implications of the internet of things.

That's everything from smart thermostats to internet connected cars and Wi-Fi coffee makers.

It's definitely something you don't want to miss.

So make sure to sign up for your 14 day free trial.

I was a foreign editor in the New York Times Magazine and then I've been an oped editor

there as well.

But I really started in college and really came up through alternative journalism, which,

whatever else might say about The New York Times, it's not really alternative journalism.

But I was at the Village Voice for like 12 years and it was all deeply anti-authoritarian

and mostly cultural, sort of, rather than political.

So needless to say, we didn't draw much of a distinction between those two in alternative

journalism.

But that's really what where I came from.

And my interests were divided between more cultural things like novels and film and that

kind of thing.

And then foreign cultures, but foreign politics and foreign affairs.

And so I just kind of stuck with those two.

And those were really my guide posts.

Once I had children I needed to make an actual living.

So I resisted full time work up until my first child was born.

When I was well into my 30s.

And that was when I went to the Times, actually.

But prior to that, I pretty much never had a full time job, except maybe for a couple

of months.

And I'd save my money and then I would go overseas once I saved up enough and I had

some story in mind.

So the first big overseas story I did was in 1984.

I was fascinated by the coal miner strike in the UK.

And so I spent several months running around to coal mines and talking with miners and

then with Mrs. Thatcher and Peter Healthfield and different people who were in the union.

Ian McGregor, who was sort of the point person for the government.

He was the head of National Coal Board, is that right?

So that was really my introduction to being a foreign correspondent.

And for years and years I just kind of arranged my life so I could go back to New York and

edit.

And I was in essentially a kind of a left wing counter cultural world.

And then when I had enough money I'd go off.

So I worked in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Eventually in the Middle East, Central Asia, across most of Europe.

North America, Canada.

Eventually I got to China as well.

Eventually, I went into college.

I was always interested in writing and at that time in the late '70s and '80s, the only

way that you could hope to make a living at writing was to be a journalist.

And so I went into journalism with that in mind.

I went to the University of California at Berkeley because of its counter cultural heritage.

Its new daily newspaper-- student so-called newspaper-- was an independent corporation.

It was an off campus corporation because there had been a rebellion by it.

I think the paper was at that point almost 100 years old, which is pretty incredible

in itself.

But a few years before I got there, the staff had rebelled against the administration.

And so there was a battle over it.

And so they took all the typewriters and desks and then walked a few blocks down Dwight Way

and put them in a rented office, which is where I came into the picture.

So that's really where I learned to be a journalist.

And it hadn't been what I intended to do, but I really, really loved doing it.

And at that point, we still had-- partly because we didn't have very much money-- but we use

manual typewriters.

I think there might have been one or two electric ones.

We did each story-- when you wrote it, it was done on what's called a half sheet, which

is a piece of paper about that big.

Usually taken off of the roll from the AP machine.

And we would slice out these pages and then you put one paragraph on each page.

So then the editor would then look at it and say, no, this paragraph is more important.

And then there was like a physical re-stacking of the order the paragraphs.

So I learned to journalism in a very low tech or early tech way.

Slightly anachronistic, but not by much.

And I've basically seen both the profession change technologically and in many ways, go

downhill ever since.

And in fact, most industries that I get in seem to fall apart within a couple of years

of my getting involved with them.

And that was the case with journalism too.

It's been a long sad decline.

Which isn't to sound anti-technology at all.

In fact, I did some work with the Chairman of Google, for example.

And I recently wrote a book about technology.

And I've worked on helping journalism to adjust to changes in technology.

Nonetheless, I think there were a couple things that have really been lost in the course of

that trajectory.

The main thing really was it in the United States, and to a lesser degree in other countries--

very much also in Latin America-- journalism came up as an industry that was based with

a lot of different newspapers in different towns.

And each newspaper was quite distinct.

And in a kind of pre-globalized information situation, each of those became powerful.

They were essentially monopolies.

Even if there was a morning or an evening paper, they were just sharing a monopoly.

And so first of all, if it had that kind of political power and significance, which brought

with it a sense of responsibility.

Local responsibility.

And local responsibility is, obviously, very different from the kind of diffused responsibility

you get in the internet period.

You're immediately answerable to people whom you know and who know you.

It's a different kind of responsibility.

. And then secondly, because literacy was not

a secret, it was hardly even a skill actually-- there was no professional journalism.

And there's barely a professional journalism now.

It sort of became professionalized, I think, largely at the instigation of universities,

who saw a kind of additional source of revenue that would be possible.

But basically, the brilliance to me of journalism, in that kind of political economic sense was

that someone like me, who came from a very modest background, who only had a bachelor's

degree and had to really struggle to get that, could succeed in it through work.

And yet it was a relatively esteemed profession.

Not like a doctor or a lawyer, but nonetheless, not like a landscape laborer, which I have

also been.

Or a construction site worker, which I've also been.

So journalism had this intense appeal in terms of social mobility among other things.

But it was generally in the US and elsewhere organized as an industry.

And so there's a great deal of on the job training.

I mean, it was never really seen as a profession, but it was seen as a kind of pretty intensely

trained vocation.

And that appealed to me a lot.

The social fluidity of it.

And that pretty intense sense of responsibility.

But also a certain rashness as well, which is very appealing, up to a point

Part of the way you get trained in it was through its own culture and through the responsibility

to other people within the profession.

I never thought of it as a profession, quite.

But anyway, in practice, you are answerable to the other practitioners.

And you built a reputation.

A good reputation or a bad reputation.

And then you sort of lived on that.

And that appealed to me.

That's what made it open to social mobility-- is that you had a chance to live on a reputation.

And I think that structure has really broken down.

There's a lot of good journalism that goes on now.

I find that in the sort of the more traditional media setups, the pressures are so great to

generate so much content in a short period of time.

That, with some exceptions, kind of overwhelms the practice.

And I know it's a huge frustration for people who are in it.

Somebody who used to spend a couple of days working on a story now has to deliver something

every few hours.

And it's not that they couldn't do it, so to speak, in the old way.

But they don't get the opportunity to do it in the old way.

What sort of fills in, to some extent, for that is you do still have real talent kind

of coming up.

And it shapes itself more than the industry shapes it now.

So there's a different kind of personality that thrives in a situation like that.

But some of them are really great.

They tend to be-- not so much today-- not so much in any kind of general media.

They tend to be on sites that are devoted more to a particular topic.

Like things that I'm very interested in are cyber security, foreign affairs generally,

but in a particular, parts of the world and everything.

American foreign policy.

But some of the best stuff that I read on American foreign policy is on websites like

this one called War on the Rocks that most people wouldn't have heard of.

And that don't get marketed particularly.

And US Policy Defense One is another site.

There are these sites for pretty much whatever you're interested in.

But it's a very, very different journalistic world.

And in some ways, it's barely journalism.

But the quality level tends to vary quite a bit, even within a quality site.

I think it's been difficult for journalism and investigative journalism to deal with

the Great Recession-- the period after it-- for several reasons.

One is that traditionally, there's been such a distinction drawn between the business press

or the financial press and the rest of the press.

And the business world tends to listen to the financial press or the business press

and not to the rest of it.

And so the non-business press, so to speak, approaches those sorts of issues, particularly

on that scale, a global scale-- tends to approach them in a way that very rarely gets at the

essential dynamics.

Because the people in the non-business press world aren't really accustomed to thinking

about those things.

So they'll tend to put them, for example, as Michael Lewis did, into a more, what is

sort of fundamentally a magazine journalism frame.

His work is really great but there was a lot else going on in 2008.

Or there's a kind of moral frame that comes naturally to non-business people when they're

thinking about business.

To me, judgment is probably more inappropriate than appropriate.

Which isn't to say that there isn't a good, sort of morally driven in some way or ethically

driven journalism done about business issues and economic issues.

But it does tend to close off the avenues that you would go down to investigate those

issues.

Because you have a moral point in mind already, probably.

So that stuff is really surprisingly difficult to write about.

And because the Great Recession had such an international quality to it-- the press is

still local in the sense that the French press is demonstrably different from the German

press.

And they're both demonstrably different from the American press.

And so early on in the Great Recession, there were several institution, states, people who

were seen as the possible likely people to blame.

Or institutions to blame.

And the press treatment of the Great Recession quickly started to break down along those

lines.

Did it originate in the United States.

Did it have to do with savings.

Did it have to do with Chinese surpluses.

And these issues.

So I think that kind of derailed a lot of that discussion.

Because it's very hard to be at both an investigative person and 30,000 feet.

It's very difficult to combine those.

Particularly at the time, there was sort of, in a way, more blame to go around than possibly

that could have been assigned.

And I think that made writing about and investigating that quite a bit more difficult than you might

think at first blush.

One of the processes that I've witnessed in looking at journalism over the last 30 years

is the rise of a kind of highly politically opinionated journalism to a point where it

could really shift things.

Now that was not so much of a novelty as we sometimes think.

I mean, the golden age of establishment journalism when you listen respectfully to whomever,

I think, is a bit of a myth constructed in retrospect.

And it's interesting to think about why it would have been constructed in these different

times.

At least with American journalism, if you're familiar with it, it tended to be very highly

partisan.

Pretty much up until the Second World War.

And a lot of the sort of model for very high minded civic journalism is really a post World

War Ii thing.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that it corresponds with a level of American felt

global responsibility, which had not pre-existed World War II, or even like 1943.

So it was a bit of a myth, which reached its apotheosis in the early '70s with the Watergate

case.

That said, there are bad myths and good myths.

And there are myths that make you work harder to do better things and there are myths that

make you not.

So it's an attractive myth and I think, probably, a useful one.

To me, the point when that started-- if I had to pick one-- to decline, it was really

with the rise of talk radio and in particular, the rise of Rush Limbaugh in the United States.

And tapping into a feeling that there was a sort of center liberal not ideology, maybe

conspiracy.

But a kind of chloroform that the mainstream media were applying to all debate.

And in the media world, Rush Limbaugh is sort of tip of the spear with that.

Newt Gingrich in the House was the political equivalent of that.

And this was a sort of fairly coherent movement.

It all predates the internet.

And it possibly doesn't have anything to do with it.

The way in which the internet kind of undermined that sort of really strong central authority

of the journalistic business, I think, was exacerbating existing trends.

And also, with the rise of cable TV, just the fact that you used to have three channels

when I was a kid.

And then you had 50.

And people could access it.

And it was all kind of crap at first and then it got better and better.

So the advent of somebody like John Oliver as a really important political elucidator

is the point where we're at now in a pretty long development where there's a style of

a highly opinionated and even quite sarcastic delivery of information.

And it tends to be built off of, from left to right, an idea that there's a kind of center

that is pretending to be wiser than it is.

Now having worked in that center myself, and if not in its heyday, then pretty close to

it.

I can say that yes, indeed, there was a kind of endemic smugness to that culture.

There was a lot about it that was great.

But you could hardly maintain that that kind of smugness wasn't there as well.

What I like about some of the more non-right wing people in that world is that they are--

and I think John Oliver is, I think, a good example-- coming out of Jon Stewart.

But Jon Stewart really didn't do this particularly.

He was just like a particularly well read and smart guy.

But the John Oliver show and some others actually really devote a fair amount of time to research.

And I think there's a kind of sense of social responsibility that sort of creeping in the

back door after essentially two decades of that really being in decline.

And so you know, we'll see you will see what the next stage is.

But I don't think it's just a downward slope at all.

It changes form.

Well, I mean I've gotten into this private intelligence work in kind of interesting way

with respect to the history of journalism.

Because there's now-- and generationally, this will disappear, but for this window of

time-- around the world, a network of people who went into journalism, were trained in

it to the degree that you get trained, and devoted to-- not to sound sentimental-- to

actually discovering the truth and the facts of a situation, who have a really hard time

making a living.

And what I do now when I work for investors who are trying to-- basically, I try to find

out if something that they're interested in putting money into-- a company, people-- if

those are what they represent themselves to be.

And if they're a bit more subtly, even if they are honest about who they are, are their

ambitions for themselves actually corresponding enough to reality.

And those are fundamentally things that journalists do all the time.

And often, when I need information from a place, I found that there's this kind of--

I call it the League of Ex-Journalists-- who all basically know each other and are sympathetic

to the fundamental plight of not being able to do quite what it was you wanted to do when

you were 20.

And so it's like an international network of people.

I mean, I can find somebody anywhere within-- well, so far it hasn't taken more than a few

phone calls to find somebody.

Because it's sort of a shared culture.

But as I say, it's a shared culture that I doubt will last very long.

But it's lasting right now.

It answers a need because the world of investors-- let's say in a pre-globalized era.

So let's say before 1990.

In the majority, you lived within a relatively circumscribed world.

You may deals on the basis of people who were known to you or known to your family.

There's a kind of degrees of separation thing.

But the number of people who were going into fresh markets that they didn't know and gaining

command of them and then making investments in them and having them do well and so on--

that was just really a negligible percentage of the people who were in the kind of investor

world, right?

So with globalization, you both had an opportunity to enter markets.

It was much easier to enter them than it would have been earlier.

You'd have more information about them.

Roots were created for the flow of money.

Money could be transferred so much more easily across borders.

Profits could be repatriated all that kind of stuff.

So capital became much more global.

And on the whole, that worked out pretty well.

I mean, you'd have these immense private capital flows to places that had not gotten them before

because it wouldn't have entered the minds of the people who were in control of the capital

to move them to the given place.

Anyway, that's making a very complicated story in a very brief.

But the point I'm trying to make is that investors and capital became globalized and they enjoyed

10, 15 years or so of it being relatively hard to make a mistake.

Relatively hard.

Not that people didn't lose lots of money.

But relatively hard to make a mistake.

And confidence was built because the sense was that there was a kind of gradual but steady

convergence of political structures and a kind of understood global culture, which can

be easily mocked.

But for people who wanted to move their money to new places in the hopes of greater returns,

it was kind of necessary.

It all kind of formed a confidence building thing.

And really, from 2007, 2008 on, that has gradually fallen apart.

And not all of it.

But some really significant elements.

At this point to maintain that the political structures, at least of the major states,

and the relationship between those structures and economic practices, legal practices, and

so on-- the sanctity of contract, blah, blah, blah, never be another nationalization again--

that would be foolish to think that now.

And maybe someday, every country will be a democracy.

But nobody actually believes that anymore.

Or that there will never be another nationalization.

All this kind of stuff.

So even the idea that there's a kind of, OK, not on democracy grounds, not on cultural

grounds, possibly not on moral grounds or international human rights grounds, but there's

still a kind of shared capitalist rules of the road pattern that we can all rely on.

Even that isn't really true anymore.

And so you have a generation now or maybe two of globally minded investors who came

up in a period when they thought things are in a certain direction.

Now, the returns that you can get here in the developed world are relatively low.

Just this week, if you wanted to fly to safety with your capital, you could go into German

bonds, and after 10 years of them basically storing your money, you get a little bit less

than that back.

So you have two things going on.

You have a class of global investors who are used to a certain rate of return.

I think it's achievable and feel that as they move around the globe, they should be able

to kind of find it.

But at the same time, you have all these systems falling apart actually made that possible.

So what I do in that context is find information in order to sort of recreate some of that

level of confidence which can't be taken for granted for the reasons that it had been taking

for granted for quite a while.

So what it usually amounts to is, on a given investment target, just really looking very

closely at the people.

The companies, but also very much the people.

What seems to me at least to really keep it stability in a period of instability is personal

relationships.

And so if you want to understand a group of companies-- why they might work-- you really

need to look at how the people in them work with each other.

It's very often family ties of one sort or another.

But it takes awhile, especially if you're looking at Saint Vincent and Grenadines, BVI,

all these different shell companies, it takes a lot of figure that out.

And then to put that in the context of a political, sometimes definitely an economic and commercial

situation.

Very frequently, also, a political situation.

You need to know how those people especially, but also the companies, fit into the larger

social context.

And it's not that hard to do, but it takes a fair amount of work.

And you need to know what you're doing.

And investors can't really do that themselves.

What they tend to do is they find a sector or companies or very often, individuals whom

they'll meet.

And they'll say, OK, this person I discussed it, this looks like a reasonable business,

they've done well in the past.

And then that's kind of it.

I don't want to actually move to Singapore or Ghana or Columbia or wherever and really

find out.

I just want to feel like I've got a shot at 10% rather than 1%.

So where I come in is trying to not just prevent mistakes, but create a kind of level of knowledge,

which is only aimed at creating a level of sound judgment, really, on the part of the

investor.

So it's all kind of the aspect of globalization and the relative deglobalization that we're

undergoing now, and [INAUDIBLE] the expectations of investors that were created in a somewhat

earlier period.

I think that investors have naturally focused on balance sheets and annual reports of financial

information and these sorts of disclosures and everything For good reason you can't you

can't ignore any of that.

But you also can't let it be a kind of token of stability.

You can't invest it with the power that it doesn't really have.

And any the company can do other things with balance sheets and you know and it's very

hard to know whether resources actually exist.

One of the things that we do it is fairly frequently misrepresented.

It's just like what are your actual assets.

And it's sort of like the equivalent of resume padding.

We've secured this magnificent property or whatever.

And there'll be a property, but it won't be that magnificent.

And one of the things that we do is send somebody to go look at a property.

It sounds simple but people don't expect you to actually do that.

It's just classic investigative-- it's sort of the binoculars counting the ship's kind

of thing.

But you learn you learn a lot that way.

The proliferation of information that's available relatively easily online has some interesting

benefits in terms of what we do.

And it can also be really misleading.

Some of the benefits are that you can get to know personalities.

Right now, and this will probably change, some people put a lot of information about

themselves still on the web and social media and sort of vaguely field that only their

friends will look at it.

And so you can find out a fair amount about people that they might prefer that you wouldn't

know that's of business relevance.

But it varies enormously.

And in some ways, I actually don't feel like there's that much of an information glut.

Partly because I just don't think there.

I think it's a bit overrated-- that there's you can find out all this information.

Secondly, if there's anything that somebody doesn't want you to know, the chances are

fairly high they'll go to some trouble to not make it available.

And so, in this sort of let's say relative information glut, the key thing if you're

trying to understand situation is not to be fooled into thinking that the information

that's in front of you is the information.

It's only the information in front you.

And so you go back to classic intelligence analytical work of trying to find patterns

of that, assuming that you know what they are and looking for correspondences without

imposing a pattern.

And letting the information kind of speak a little bit.

Because otherwise, you'll just be misled.

Maybe not deliberately, but it'll be as if it were deliberate.

I tend to break cyber security down and do a couple of different boxes.

Because at this point, there's so many different social actors-- I don't want to say exploiting--

for whom cyber security is a way to get some other goal, whether it's fear of one thing.

It's usually fear.

There's an enormous amount of fear marketing in the cyber security world.

And so from the perspective of some of that world, the more fear the better.

And their incentive is not to kind of break it down.

But I do you can really differentiate between several aspects of it.

There's the personal aspect, the social media aspect.

The pictures of you when you were 15, smoking a joint and throwing up that seemed so amusing

at the time and now you can't get a job.

That kind of thing.

And I think that sort of is taking care of itself over time in some interesting ways.

I think that, certainly for younger people-- and by younger I mean under 25, maybe-- at

this point there's a realization that who you are online is not your true self.

It's a constructed self.

Which, for someone of my age, is a little sad, because I can remember the point when

your online self was actually much truer than your real life self.

And that was, in many ways, the kind of deep exhilaration of the early web.

All the things that people assumed about you because they knew from the street and you

went to the same elementary school.

You have the idea in your mind that yes, that's all true, but the reason I'm like that is

because I resent something you did earlier-- two years before.

Whereas online, I'm going to be my kind of ideal, truest self.

And then people will flock to that self.

They'll make friends with that self.

Because inevitably, I'll be attractive, right?

Which is another wonderful delusion of the early internet days.

I think it's really, somewhat painfully, been reversed to where most people now think of

their online self as something that has to be somewhat circumscribed and kind of protected

or done temporarily.

One of the fascinating things is watching the last couple of generations come to the

realization online of what's perfectly obviously and traditional offline, which is that their

self when they are 10 is not their self when they are 13.

And when you're 10, you're very attached to your 10-year-old self.

You take it quite seriously and rightly so.

But no 10-year-old wants to think, I hope when I'm 14 I'll still be like me when I'm

10.

You have a sense of your development over time that you're going to change and that

you're going to change profoundly.

And that if you're not, something is actually quite wrong.

And so the process of growing up, you're used to shedding selves.

So we've had a couple of generations now who have kind of done that online.

And I think that the current generation of, let's say 14 to 15 year olds are aware that

these selves are temporary.

What the adult self is probably like the next shoe to fall in terms of how we define ourselves

online.

The next show to drop, rather.

But we'll see what shoe is like when it's dropped.

So people have become used to security practices.

They become used to keeping information off.

They become used to sort of curating their own public personalities, OK?

So that's one thing.

And that relates to other mundane but important cyber security stuff, like don't take a picture

of your credit card and put it on Facebook or things like that.

People used to do that.

So that's one category.

There's another category, which is cyber crime of the $100 million out of the bank in Bangladesh

via swift sort.

That might or might not become eased over in the coming years because the number of

criminal practices online-- while there is real innovation among hackers, a genuine innovation

among criminal hackers and noncriminal hackers in coming up with methods-- there are a couple

things to bear in mind.

The distributed denial of service attack, the famous DDoS, attack is pretty much like

an evergreen.

It's been going on.

It's like mace or the halberd or whatever-- the pike of cybercrime.

And it hasn't really changed much.

You just continue to do it.

And there have predictions of a cyber Pearl Harbor now for, I think, close to 25 years.

And yet the cyber Pearl Harbor never quite happens.

I mean, you don't want to give hostages to fortune.

But at the same time, it's not quite to the mysterious world of constant criminal innovation

that it's sometimes made out to be.

The other element in it, and we'll see if this happens or not, is the major states that

have online operations that are in a position to both identify and attribute responsibility

for this kind of thing when it's really sophisticated-- we kind of know what the states are.

And they're beginning really in the last year to talk seriously to each other about, despite

their differences, essentially gradually suppress truly criminal, stealing money kind of, selling

drugs kind of online activity.

Whether that cooperation really goes anywhere not is not really a money question.

It's really a political question.

And that brings me to the third box, which is the one that I'm a bit more specialized

in, which is the state power related cyber security box.

Like in the case of China for example.

But it everybody blames China and it's not entirely fair, but everyone picks on China,

really.

But any of the major states have had very sophisticated infiltration operations.

Some states are more likely to use that for purposes of what amounts to commercial espionage

than other states.

And this breaks down according to, more or less, traditional lines.

The French have always been famous for being willing to do commercial espionage on behalf

of French companies.

It predates the internet.

It's a cultural thing, I guess.

And certainly the Chinese have been very willing to do that.

That's not sustainable.

I mean it can't quite go on in that vein and states know this.

But it's hard for obvious reasons to separate a states' capacity to engage in political

espionage or aspects of cyber warfare, so to speak, which is another kind of abused

term.

And to be able to do what amounts to more commercial kind of crime.

And for the stability of the planet, it would be a good thing if ongoing efforts to separate

these boxes out so that the major states with the capacities to suppress crime can figure

out how to do it.

And they can bracket off those areas that are really more purely devoted to their competition

with each other.

Now that area of cyber security where states compete with each other and try to undermine

each other systems and try to create weapons that will enable them, in the event of conflict,

to prevail over enemy.

To make sure that their missiles don't hit their target.

To disrupt their command and control systems, which is what a lot of cyber warfare is really

devoted to.

That area is very concerning because it's not only not regulated, it's probably not

regulateable.

And my view is that different states recognize that situation but they are used to competing

with each other, essentially militarily.

And they don't know how to not do that.

And because the cyber sphere-- in terms of this kind of security-- involves weapons that

have had very few results, they, in a way, in and really imperfect and mostly misleading

metaphor, kind of resemble nuclear weapons in the sense of well, we all know we'll never

use them.

Except they're also the opposite.

Because they don't actually seem to do much of anything, the temptation is to use them

in a kind of experimental sort of way.

Which is basically what the major states do that with a lot of their cyber weaponry.

They just use it thinking that they won't need it.

But at some point they might need it if there's an actual conflict.

And it's a kind of form of arms race that's really need to cyber.

And nobody really knows where it works out.

My biggest worry is nobody really knows how to stop it.

The people in a position to make decisions about these things-- you can't know what your

enemies capabilities are.

And to be responsible, you should probably kind of assume the worst.

They do the same thing.

And there's no exit from that.

My additional great concern is that the stability of nuclear systems, strategic systems, is

coming.

Or at this point is coming and will depend much more on cyber systems, which kind of

control the weaponry and control defenses against attacks on the weaponry.

And so at that point, the logic of mutual assured destruction, which is so survivable,

second strike, and so on and therefore nothing will ever happen-- that will fall apart.

Both because the decision making windows will get so short.

And because by the time you can figure out what the other side's capabilities are, it's

kind of too late.

And therefore, you're going to be constantly trying to anticipate it.

So I really wish that the post-Cold War settlement had gone a little further along the road of

disarmament.

I mean it when a significant distance there, but the main countries still have stockpiles

that exceed the sort of destroyable part and therefore preserve this kind of second strike

capability.

All of which is theoretical.

But I really wish that all those weapons, before everything kind of went to hell, we

could have really reduced those stockpiles a lot more.

Because that's a true danger now.

Because the relationship between cyber and nuclear is very worrying.

it's not very well thought out.

My immediate reaction to the Snowden revelations was kind two fold.

Like a lot of people in my business, there was a sort of, well, you knew this kind of

thing was going on anyway.

And so don't get too wound up about it.

But it was the other reaction that really mattered more.

Which was it was now established as a kind of mutually recognized fact that this kind

of thing and had been going on and was likely to continue going on.

In other words, in the immediate aftermath of Snowden, there were denials and that sort

of thing.

But there was very little in the way of, yes, you're right, we need to rethink this on almost

anyone's part.

On Silicon Valley's part, there was an increasing anger, really.

I think there was a kind of feeling of betrayal, which maybe is partly a testament to the possibly

necessary level of naivety that you need in order to put in the hours and the effort and

the money to build companies the way that people do in Silicon Valley.

But they're basically been a kind of quiet agreement without any of the parties being

fully informed between the Valley and DC in terms of this kind of surveillance.

And with the GCHQ and some of the other players and the Five Eyes, the Commonwealth.

The kind of Anglo-Saxon world of intelligence sharing.

None of that relationship had been negotiated and it wasn't particularly transparent.

And the players didn't really know what they were doing.

So once Snowden exposed that from a Valley point of view, they though, oh my god, we

were actually kind of being used as tools here.

And we didn't realize that.

And that's certainly not how we envisioned ourselves and our role in the world.

Those to the degree that companies in the Valley want to be or are multinational or

international companies-- it raised it, and still does-- that kind of horrifying prospect

that their control over the security of their own systems would be, if not always compromised,

always potentially compromised, even by the US.

And that's attention that still is unresolved.

I mean the idea of building in back doors or redoing the code in iOS so that you can

get information off of the driver of a phone.

From a technical and from a Valley point of view, all this amounts to is making their

existing systems weaker and more vulnerable.

And at one level, that's inarguable.

It does make them more vulnerable.

And so all this was set in motion by Snowden.

And then the other thing that was set in motion by Snowden, in my view, is that the rest of

the world was like, oh, actually, these sort of sunny reassurances from either the big

US companies or the United States government or the British government-- that they would

kind of somehow just not do bad things really aren't worth very much.

And I mean it doesn't take a lot in most parts of the world to inspire a feeling of distrust

vis-a-vis American power, or vis-a-vis American-based multinationals.

And so that this was increased.

And this had, among other things, the effect of making other governments, at least larger

governments, feel like we need some protections here.

We need some protections for our possibly nascent IT sectors.

We need protections for our own command and control system so that our weapons continue

to work.

Maybe we don't want to only be using a system like GPS, which is still you administered

by the US Air Force and was a government project.

Maybe we don't want to have all of our commercial airliners dependent on that for their successful

functioning.

And so you have these other centers that are growing up, whether it's China and Russia

building their own GPS systems and trying to get their neighbors pulled into them.

It's laying your own cables.

All this kind of stuff, which on one view, if you look at the early days of the internet

and digital computing, you could say, well, the beauty of the internet is it's an open

system and anyone can come on to anyone could build onto it.

So why are we now having to build replicas of it.

And it's really almost entirely for political reasons.

And also for commercial reasons.

But I think mostly for political reasons.

And again, not to lay all this at Snowden, he was exposing some that existed.

But I really think it was a watershed moment in its different ways.

For the Valley.

For DC.

For China.

For Moscow.

For Delhi.

For all these different places.

Started in Brazil.

Started to reconfigure their view of what the internet and what this interconnected

world actually meant.

And to me, if, I were to pick one kind of line of development that I see now, it is

towards this kind of a Splinternet.

Where you're having sort of overlapping similar systems being constructed in order to preserve

certain kinds of political power.

To me, a very interesting development with this are these efforts by Facebook, Microsoft,

and Google to lay their own cable as companies.

Not as American companies, but simply as companies.

To build balloons and satellites that will be able to, essentially, if you put it all

together, it kind of amounts to an attempt to build a smaller, private, global internet.

Kind of like the internet of 15 years ago, that will not be subject to this kind of growing

sovereign restriction by nation states.

But I'm not sure that that's the solution either.

I mean, do you really want three or four companies to be the ones who control the non-subjective

state power internet.

I'm not sure that is necessarily the solution either.

For more infomation >> A Digital Culture Of Fear (w/ Scott Malcomson) | Interview | Real Vision™ - Duration: 51:00.

-------------------------------------------

Betfair betting exchange - Betfair premium charge - Part two - Duration: 17:35.

so a little while ago I did the first part of what I felt would be at least

two or three parts to do with the Betfair premium charge and so as

promised I'm doing the follow-up to that to discuss how it affected me and how it

could or could not affect you so that's what I'd like to discuss in this video

if you're interested in learning to trade on Betfair then visit the BET

Angel Academy where you have detailed structured Betfair trading courses or

why not visit our website where you can download a free trial of BET angel

professional but also visit the forum where you can get detailed images

examples and downloadable files and don't forget to subscribe to our You

Tube channel and click on the bell icon if you want notification of new videos

as they're released so when betting exchanges were born it

was revolutionary you could basically place a bet on an exchange and then

somebody would come along and take that bet if you won you would pay a bit of

commission and if you lost you would pay no Commission at all and basically to

summarize very neatly without any extrapolation as any if further detail

is the word I'm looking for you would basically pay a five percent

charge on a winning bet so if you won 100 pounds you'd pay five pound of that

to the exchange now I have explained to the exchange model before but I shall

paraphrase it now imagine a big pot big circle on one side you have the winners

on one side you have the losers and then the exchange makes its money by

basically taking a commission from the winners and that's how the exchange

model operated for eight years and then in 2008

Betfair introduced a thing called the premium charge and the idea was if you

were a consistent winner and you met a certain range of criteria then they

would charge you a certain amount per week on the amount of profit that you

made if you hadn't reached that amount in Commission they would just top it up

to that level and that charge would be taken once a week there was a huge

outrage when this charge was implemented and I obviously had to pay that charge

the day that it was implemented was nothing that I could to do about it

but there was a general after that initial burst of outrage there was

initial sort of settling down and people felt that in fact probably maybe they

should be paying a little bit more and therefore things began to settle however

in 2011 Betfair then introduced a higher rate

and premium charge which was very specifically targeted to a narrower

subset of customers but that's caused a significant amount of outrage but the

big question really is is it something that you should be worried about

and you know how does it affect me that's why I wanted to do this video to

try and describe why I think the charge was put in place and how it affected me

and others because one of the interesting things is since I recorded

that first video markets and matchbook have introduced a similar charge so I

think one of the initial take outs that you should have is that it's obviously a

structural issue with the way that exchanges were set up if you go to a

financial market you know the New York Stock Exchange doesn't go to a Warren

Buffett and say hey Warren you made some great pics there can I have some of your

money but fundamentally that is effectively what the premium charge does

people who are profitable it takes some of that potential profit and then it

that disappears into the system somewhere the positioning of the charge

was that some people were winning very consistently others were losing fairly

quickly and they needed the money to be able to keep that flow of people through

the ecosystem they needed to increase their marketing spend to be able to

maintain the ecosystem of the exchange the fact that other exchanges have

followed suit sort of implies that that may actually be a valid thing to say but

I give you my thoughts on that in a second and why I think if the charge

exists but for me obviously in 2011 it was a bit of a shock to go on as soon as

the charge came into place I went on the absolute top right and that was a bit of

a shock so I did go through this spell in 2011 when the high rate charges came

in debating about what I should do and you know one of the things that I'd

was start using more aggressively a lot of other exchanges I started doing that

in 2008 but really ramped it up in 2011 my activity on other exchanges now is

substantial that never would have happened if there was no premium charge

in place so there is you know a direct result of that chart being implemented

allowed me to grow stuff elsewhere and that's business that I wouldn't give up

now and there's and it's not coming back I think the unusual thing about that is

I remember going to the other exchanges when the higher rate came in that was my

first reaction was I've got to start doing business elsewhere and I went to

the other exchanges said look I'm gonna do what I do and if you want to come

back and review it in three months six months whenever then we can sit down and

discuss what you think of my activity and whether you think I'm adding or

subtracting from the liquidity in the exchange or you know if I'm doing

anything weird and the fact is my trading style is predominantly to offer

stuff to the market I'm waiting for people to take my positions that's

typically what I tend to do within the market so I've always felt that I'm a

net liquidity generator and when I went to do these other exchanges and said you

know have a look and see what I'm up to do you have any problem with that they

sort of said well we can't see why anybody would have any issue with it and

I think that's one of the flaws of the premium charge is that it knocked out a

lot of people in the market that were doing just fine they were contributors

to the Ocasek ecosystem and it just knocked them clean out now for me if you

look at the scale of what I do there was a case for sort of saying well you know

I could stop but I used to do fee no would you rather have to a little bit

less of something than absolutely nothing at all and I think that's part

of the gamble that Betfair and others have played is that some of these people

are dependent upon the system that is in place and therefore they have to pay

their way however that's not applicable to a very very large number of people

and when the high rate premium charge came in there are some people that were

much much smaller than I that were customers of my business and it just

knocked because there was no question or any

doubt that was worth investing any more time doing what they were doing but the

main reason for that is not the charge itself it's just that the fact of the

charge was retrospective and the issue that I had when the high rape charge

came in in 2011 was it was based upon my entire account history to that date 11

years worth of history there is no way I can change my behavior or unwind that

criteria it was just impossible and other people fell into that trap that

were much smaller than me and therefore you know there wasn't a great deal more

that they could really do in that whole mix so I think that was the big issue

with the charge was that it was retrospective and that knocked out quite

a few people but the other issue that it created as well as the people that were

underneath the radar that were perhaps heading up to they had the opportunity

to change their activity and therefore avoid it one way or another but people

who've been in the market for a long period of time were simply unable to do

that so if you look and read between the lines that's why the premium charge was

probably implemented because if you look at the distribution of customers it

doesn't follow a normal distribution maybe the numbers do but not the amounts

and when you look at the amounts of money that's won and lost in the market

what you'll find is that there's a big peak in the middle and then on either

side of that you get winners and losers and then it tails away when you get to

large numbers but at the very end of each tale it starts to curve up again so

you know you have people that probably have information advantage technical

advantage knowledge advantage to an extent there are lots of people that sit

on that right far end so for example a large center code that employs a hundred

people doing something very unusual probably sits right on that far end and

that's predominantly what the premium charge was targeted at simply because

they generated in excess of profit consistently it meant that necessarily

they were taking a lot of money out of the system or this is how it's

positioned they're taking a lot of money out of the system that wasn't being

reinvested and put back into the system they weren't really contributing to the

exchange so you know I I've made it my task

many years not to just understand the market but also the participants and the

business models that sit behind the markets because that allows you to out

anticipate stuff that could happen in the future or allow you to progress in

certain directions so by stunning coincidence I actually met one of the

guys that was involved in the creation of the charge in the first place it was

totally outside of the day-to-day betting exchange business it was just an

amazing coincidence but that happened so I began to get a better understanding of

the structure of it the number of people affected and why it was implemented but

you know I've constantly as you know dig around all of the time anyway just to

find out what information I can and to see where people sit on that scale but

the fact is at the higher rate end of the premium charge very few people

actually get captured by that for a number of reasons the problem that I had

is by implementing an arbitrary charge it actually captured probably a lot of

people that really shouldn't have been courted to that charge and also as I've

mentioned just before it was a retrospective so it gave you no

opportunity to correct your behavior now the the higher rate charge affects such

a small number of people that I always felt it would have been sensible for

exchanges that go on to implement something like that to talk to them

individually because the high rate charge was a bit of a PR disaster and

continues to be a PR disaster to this day for everybody that implements it but

nobody really has explained it in enough depth to be able to specify why it's in

place but also if you think about it the the base of the charge is on on three

key determinants the amount of money that you've won the number of markets

that you've traded and also the amount of commission that you've paid now if

you've watched the other video you'll know that depending upon your strike

rate and the type of activity that you do you may not actually qualify for that

third criteria the amount of commission paid as a percentage of net profit that

may not actually be something that you ever fall into that trap because your

style of what you do whether it's betting or trading may not lead you into

into that path so if you overcome that hurdle then you need to overcome the

number of markets traded and then the lifetime profit as well and there are

other stuff it's thrown into the mix I'm not going to go into that into great

debt so say you've got a one in a thousand chance

of entering one of those criterion one in a hundred and one in a thousand and

the other you can see that you know a thousand to the power of three is a very

large number so if you multiply that into a user base of four million users

you're always going to get a very tiny number that that get affected so I think

that the way that the charge was implemented was to target that narrow

strip of customers but they enough to be knew they were going to throw the baby

out with the bathwater and capture a few others that they didn't intend but the

problem that they were trying to solve was more or less solved by having those

key hurdles those key barriers to being falling into that particular trap of

having to play as much higher rate charges now the lower rate charge is

obviously still in place and that captures more people because those

hurdles are much lower so I would imagine that there are quite a few

players of the lower rate charged and the fact that the entry criteria has not

changed for a long period of time means that more and more people will get

dragged into that every year the passes because of physical drag if you don't

know what fiscal drag is google it and find out so yeah it was targeted a very

narrow subset and lots of people complain about the premium charge but in

fact not as many people as you think actually pet and in fact the higher rate

premium charged a very very tiny number of people pay that but nonetheless it

sounds good if you say that you are a higher rate premium charge pair now I am

a higher rate premium charge payer but that was because I fell into that trap

that's a gap between you know not being a syndicate but being a very successful

individual trader and meeting all of those criteria and because I've been

around for so long it was inevitable that I'd end up getting caught up in

that mix but if you're at the stage where you're at a beginning your trading

crew and you're worried about it the big advantage that you have that I

don't have is that it's not going to be retrospective for you so if you modify

your behavior you know that the lifetime profit calculation that is part of the

premium charge is going to still be in place so you know if you are successful

enough you would definitely hit that hurdle number of markets traded

depending upon what you're doing you may or may not hit that hurdle but the

biggie is the amount of commission that you're likely to pay so if you're below

that level or you think that you're heading towards that level where a

higher rate charge will kick in then you can modify your behavior to mitigate the

effects of that but that's is going to take a bit of effort as well but my

advice to you is if you are successful and you think that you're heading in

that direction then there are loads of people on the forum and myself as well

that in the higher rate premium charge area and therefore it's easy for you to

few threads on the forum that discuss that process and how you can modify your

behavior to make sure that you don't get caught in that trap but for people like

me who will hire at premium premium charge players on day one there was

nothing I could do to avoid to that trap so that was particularly disappointing

for me but part of my response to that was to go and trade elsewhere and shift

my business around and modify the mix of what I do and you know I think that's a

shame ready because it would have been better when a charge was implemented to

just wipe the slate clean and say from this point onwards this is what we're

going to do because then at least it gives you a chance to modify your

behavior to meet the exchanges commercial objectives as well as your

own and I think that would have been a much more sensible way of implementing

it should you be particularly worried about paying it well you'll probably end

up paying the lower rates version of it if you're moderately successful but the

high rate charge is sort of something that's out of reach for most people

simply because of all of the hurdles that are required to do it and it's been

specifically targeted a very narrow subset of customers however you know

there are loads of stories of people who have been caught buyer who probably

shouldn't have been caught by but also you imagine you you create something

that's absolutely amazing it works really well for two years you make a lot

of money and then suddenly it stops making money and you start going into

reverse you don't get a rebate I think that's a bit of a flaw with the overall

process of the system as well I know people have been caught into that trap

but my message to you really is that it's a nice problem to have if you're at

that level with what you're doing then you can start to worry about that

particular situation at that particular time and like I said visit the forum and

chat to other people have been affected and

you'll get some pretty good quality advice in terms of what you should or

shouldn't be doing and whether you will or won't qualify for it but there's a

lot of chatter about premium charge a lot of people do not pay the higher rate

premium charge it's seen as a badge of honor

despite the fact that you know it's it's it's a badge that's worn by a very few

number of people lots of people pay the lower rate charge but nonetheless I

think that it's something that you probably shouldn't be worried about

unless if you start to become really really profitable and if you fall into

that mix then you can seek some more advice from there but the big advantage

that you've got is if you're below the level and you're working towards it at

least you have some of the chance to mitigate it so yeah do I enjoy paying it

no I've paid paid it every week for the last 52 weeks probably much more I'm

just looking at it from a yearly perspective as we're heading towards the

end of the year I've contributed significantly to barefaced coffers but I

don't really see anything in response to that I'm not treated as a better

customer for doing so so it's not something that I enjoy doing I've

changed a lot of the things that I do since it was implemented but obviously I

still do it but that's part of the fact that because of my size and what I do

there's still an opportunity for me there even if the cost of doing it is

that much higher but yeah hopefully that sort of rounded off this discussion for

you giving you a bit more insight into why the charges in place but also

hopefully reassured you they probably you won't reach that level

and if you do then you're doing really well so you would have my full support

and congratulations for having that problem but anyhow that is a full

discussion on the premium charge

you

For more infomation >> Betfair betting exchange - Betfair premium charge - Part two - Duration: 17:35.

-------------------------------------------

Chelsea transfer news: Chelsea FC bring £72m transfer target Marco Asensio to the Premier League - Duration: 2:12.

For more infomation >> Chelsea transfer news: Chelsea FC bring £72m transfer target Marco Asensio to the Premier League - Duration: 2:12.

-------------------------------------------

Christine Angot perd son sang-froid face à Charles Consigny - Duration: 1:26.

For more infomation >> Christine Angot perd son sang-froid face à Charles Consigny - Duration: 1:26.

-------------------------------------------

BLACKPINK - DDU-DU DDU-DU (J-EDM Remix/Mashup by TeijiWTF) - Duration: 4:36.

BLΛƆKPIИK

(Ah yeah! Ah yeah!)

BLΛƆKPIИK

(Ah yeah! Ah yeah!)

BLΛƆKPIИK

Ah yeah! Ah yeah!

BLΛƆKPIИK

Ah yeah! Ah yeah!

BLΛƆKPIИK

I meditate calmly, but I'm not obedient

Hidden within me is two times the volume

(Go up!)

Ignoring the surroundings, we push forward

From black to the pink, we're pretty savages

BLΛƆKPIИK

(Hit you with that)

BLΛƆKPIИK

Think about it

Cuz I don't pretend to be nice

Don't misunderstand

I smile because it does me good

You've yet to understand me

If you can't, then test me

You're too predictable

Don't take me lightly

Oh wait til' I do what I do

Hit you with that ddu-du ddu-du du

Ah yeah! Ah yeah!

Hit you with that ddu-du ddu-du du

Ah yeah! Ah yeah!

Hit you with that ddu-du ddu-du du

Ah yeah! Ah yeah!

Hit you with that ddu-du ddu-du du

Ah yeah! Ah yeah!

BLΛƆKPIИK

I'm getting honey by the hunnids

On my GQ spread like hummus

Bullshit for the birds like hummin'

I'mma say this shit again

I'm the man like runnin'

Drop that like you got a hot track

So you wanna knock that

Got another banger

Real talk, I'mma let the Os talk

You can see the billions

Better call a banker

I keep it lit like a matchstick

Bitch I'm a star but not Patrick

I'm getting cake that's a fat check

All on a roll like a graduate

This smart mouth spit dumb heat

Like Ice T I'm OG

I'm the man like I T

Got more juice than hi-c

What you gonna do when I come come through with that that

Uh huh

What you gonna do when I come come through with that that

Uh huh

Burning up, burning up, burning up, like fire

BLΛƆKPIИK

Hey!

Ah yeah, ah yeah! Ah yeah, ah yeah!

Burning up, burning up, burning up, like fire

Hey!

Burning up, burning up, burning up, like fire

(Fire)

Hit you with that ddu-du ddu-du du

(Ah yeah! Ah yeah!)

BLΛƆKPIИK

(Ah yeah! Ah yeah!)

BLΛƆKPIИK

(Ah yeah! Ah yeah!)

BLΛƆKPIИK

(Ah yeah! Ah yeah!)

Hit you with that ddu-du ddu-du du

For more infomation >> BLACKPINK - DDU-DU DDU-DU (J-EDM Remix/Mashup by TeijiWTF) - Duration: 4:36.

-------------------------------------------

Céline Dion et Pepe Munoz : leur folle semaine à Paris - Duration: 1:43.

For more infomation >> Céline Dion et Pepe Munoz : leur folle semaine à Paris - Duration: 1:43.

-------------------------------------------

Can my baby taste in the womb? | Nourish with Melanie #59 - Duration: 4:25.

Research tells us that 8 out of 10 parents are worried about their children's eating

habits.... but did you know that you actually program your baby's taste buds during pregnancy?!

Today, I'm going to explain to you what you need to do during pregnancy to help reduce

the risk of dinner time arguments for years to come.... well about food anyway!

Stay tuned!

If you've been asking yourself "can my baby taste the meal I've just eaten?".... the answer

is yes!

I want to tell you about a fascinating research study which proves it.

A group of mothers-to-be were asked to drink 300ml of carrot juice every day throughout

the second and third trimesters of their pregnancy, and another group of mummas-to-be just ate

and drank normally.

Then when their babies were born and started solids, all the babies were offered regular

or carrot-flavoured porridge.

And guess what?

The babies of mums who drank the carrot juice were more likely to choose the carrot-flavoured

porridge!

What does this tell us?

It tells us that our babies taste buds are programmed during pregnancy.

And, it seems that it's not just a short term affect.

Studies show that how you program your baby's taste buds during pregnancy can impact them

well into childhood, and even into adolescence.

For example, a study was done where they looked at a group of ten year old's diets.

They compared the children's diets to their mum's diets, their dad's diets and their mother's

pregnancy diets.

And, you guessed it!

There diets were most similar to their mother's diet during pregnancy.

The reason that it's important for your children to eat a wide range of nutritious foods is

obvious.

If they have a limited palate, it's going to be more difficult for them to meet all

their nutritional requirements which can impact on their brain development and energy levels..... and

also being a fussy eater can make it difficult for them socially.

How will they be able to go to a friend's house for dinner if they'll only eat hot chips,

ice cream and pickles because that's what you craved during your pregnancy?

Furthermore, the research tells us that if you want your baby to be less picky, enjoying

a wide range of different tastes during pregnancy will help your baby develop a broader palate

right from the start.

Now, the best way to ensure that your little one is exposed to a variety of different tastes

is to follow a meal plan.

Especially during pregnancy, when you're exhausted, if you're trying to come up with something

new to eat every night, you're going to struggle.

So, make sure you put a plan together.

So, if you want your baby to eat Brussel Sprouts, but you hate them, the question is, if you

force them down once, is that enough to program your baby's taste buds?

Unfortunately not.

Like anything in life, familiarity breeds fondness, so the more exposure you little

one has to those foods, the more he is going to grow to love it.

Although really, who doesn't like Brussel Sprouts?!

My mother obviously ate plenty when she was pregnant with me, because I love them!

Now, I'd love you to let me know in the chat box, what's one food that you're going to

eat regularly during pregnancy to ensure that your baby develops a taste for it?

And, for more pregnancy diet tips, make sure you subscribe!

See you next week on Nourish.

For more infomation >> Can my baby taste in the womb? | Nourish with Melanie #59 - Duration: 4:25.

-------------------------------------------

6 Sınıf Türkçe Dersi 2 Dönem 1 Yazılı Soruları ve Cevap Anahtarı - Duration: 18:10.

For more infomation >> 6 Sınıf Türkçe Dersi 2 Dönem 1 Yazılı Soruları ve Cevap Anahtarı - Duration: 18:10.

-------------------------------------------

Need for Speed Undercover | Wii | #8 - Duration: 23:48.

For more infomation >> Need for Speed Undercover | Wii | #8 - Duration: 23:48.

-------------------------------------------

FOX TV - TOWIE's Bobby Norris branded 'human ken doll' by trolls - Duration: 5:12.

TOWIE's Bobby Norris has hit back at online trolls who sent him vile, homophobic abuse over his physical appearance

The reality star, 32, took to Instagram to share a video where he detailed some of the negative messages he received following his red carpet appearance at the recent National Television Awards

Bobby told how he usually ignores comments from trolls but wanted to speak out about especially nasty abuse he received

In the video, he said: 'Hello guys. I just wanted to do a quick message because I've seen a lot of stuff online and on social media written about me

Share this article Share 'For example, [that] I've had a face lift done and had a chin reduction which is all news to me

'Now, those of you who don't know, I do suffer with quite bad anxiety and my confidence is often quite low

When you read what people say about you sometimes, there's no wonder why people feel like that

Bobby admitted people had called him the 'human ken doll', a term often given to reality star and cosmetic surgery enthusiast Rodrigo Alves

He said: 'Apparently I'm fat, I'm the Human Ken Doll. Nine times out of ten, I just bite my tongue and I'll let trolls be trolls

'Bobby revealed he woke up to an anti-gay message from an online troll and told the person they should 'question their life' for writing the insult

He said: 'Today I've had to do this video because to wake up and see that I've been called a 'vile f****t' is completely disgusting

'It's homophobic and I really think the person who wrote that should question their own life

' Bobby unveiled new his facial hair at the NTAs on Tuesday night after revealing he has undergone a beard transplant

The TV star admitted he had the procedure done a week ago in order to give himself more confidence

When asked what other work he has had done, the reality star told The Sun that aside from a well-documented nose job, the list ends there

Talking to the publication on the red carpet, Bobby said: 'I've had a little cheeky beard transplant done about a week ago

'I am really excited and feeling more confident already and looking forward to getting into the new series of TOWIE

' When pressed about how his appears seems different since he first appeared on TOWIE around six years ago, Bobby said he was just swollen

He said: 'I can assure you categorically all I've had is one septorhinoplasty on my nose

I've had no other surgeries, I'm just a little bit swollen.' Bobby unveiled his new nose to his best pal, Chloe Sims back in 2017, while filming TOWIE scenes in Essex

Bobby underwent the surgery during a trip to Turkey with cosmetic surgery enthusiasts Jemma Lucy and Big Brother's Charlie Doherty

Before the surgery, the TOWIE star spoke about his lack of body confidence as he attempted to find love on Celebs Go Dating

He said of his appearance: 'We're down there with the fours, maybe five at a push if I've had a spray tan

'I don't think anyone has ever walked into a bar and thought, "I'd love to take him for dinner" and I don't know why, because I'm not a bad person

For more infomation >> FOX TV - TOWIE's Bobby Norris branded 'human ken doll' by trolls - Duration: 5:12.

-------------------------------------------

Demande individuelle 4 mots lsf - Duration: 0:17.

For more infomation >> Demande individuelle 4 mots lsf - Duration: 0:17.

-------------------------------------------

O Ses Türkiye Şampiyonu Açıklanma Anı 2019 - Duration: 0:46.

For more infomation >> O Ses Türkiye Şampiyonu Açıklanma Anı 2019 - Duration: 0:46.

-------------------------------------------

El señuelo mas barato y mas fácil de hacer | cucharilla casera de pesca - Duration: 10:45.

For more infomation >> El señuelo mas barato y mas fácil de hacer | cucharilla casera de pesca - Duration: 10:45.

-------------------------------------------

FREE | XXXTentacion x 21 Savage Type Beat - "EXECUTIONER" Free Trap/Rap Beat - Duration: 2:07.

hope yall like this beat

For more infomation >> FREE | XXXTentacion x 21 Savage Type Beat - "EXECUTIONER" Free Trap/Rap Beat - Duration: 2:07.