Podcast appearances and mentions of mike horowitz

AJ Wasserstein, Peter Mistretta & Mike Horowitz distill the selection of a franchise brand into 10 essential criteria. Topics in today's interview with A.J., Michael, and Peter: Why you should (and should not) buy into a franchise system Likelihood of becoming a billionaire, centi-millionaire, or deca-millionaire by acquiring franchise businesses The importance of defining what success looks like to you “Blind” evaluation of a franchise system How to evaluate a brand & system How to evaluate a franchisor Assessing demographics of existing franchisee base The importance of store-level economics Can you even break into the franchise system? “X factor” and unmasking a brand after your analysis References and how to contact A.J., Michael, and Peter: A.J.: adam.wasserstein@yale.edu and all his case notes at Yale Michael Horowitz Peter Mistretta Case note this episode is based on: Ten Essential Questions to Consider When Selecting a Franchise Brand for a Search Fund Journey Related case note: Exploring Franchisees as a Post-MBA Entrepreneurial Path Roark Capital Wisconsin FDD Search Gregg Flynn of Flynn Restaurant Group Barry Dubin of KPB Brands, operator of 1,000+ KFC, Taco Bell, and Arby's restaurants. Acquiring Minds episodes referred to: How to Build a Portfolio of 20 Franchise Locations (Michael Horowitz) How a $40k Acquisition Led to a Franchise Empire (James Temple) How to Roll Up Legacy Franchises (to $36m/yr) (Brian Beers) Opening Up to Franchises to Buy a Great Business (Doug Johns) Connect with A-players who can run your business remotely:More StaffingGet complimentary due diligence on your acquisition's insurance & benefits program:Oberle Risk Strategies - Search Fund TeamConnect with Acquiring Minds:  See past + future interviews on the YouTube channel Connect with host Will Smith on LinkedIn Follow Will on Twitter

Mike Horowitz has been the Colorado College men's lacrosse coach since 2021. Horowitz joined the Tigers after a six-year run as an assistant coach at Division I Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia, where he helped guide the Hawks to four Northeast Conference regular-season championships.

Abstract: Most ethics and compliance professionals have heard of the “seven hallmarks” of an effective E&C program that is enshrined in the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Implementing written standards of conduct, policies, and procedures. Designating a compliance officer and compliance committee. Conducting effective training and education. Developing effective lines of communication. Conducting internal monitoring and auditing. Enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines. Responded promptly to problems and undertaking corrective action. But where did these guidelines come from, and who is involved in the process of deciding these standards? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Eric Morehead of LRN's Advisory group talks about the evolving role of the U.S. Sentencing Commission with Kathleen Grilli, the commission's General Counsel. Listen in as the two discuss the history of compliance—going back more than 30 years—and unpack what sentencing data can tell us about E&C today. Read the full Federal Sentencing Guidelines for an effective E&C program.   What You'll Learn on This Episode: [1:19] - The history of the sentencing commission and the different roles of the organization. [2:36] - How did the sentencing commission become such an integral part of corporate compliance? [6:40] - With whom does the sentencing commission consult with to find collaboration when considering revisions to guidelines? [12:35] - The 2004 amendments and incorporating ethics into the criteria for an effective program and examples of how changes to the organizational guidelines can come about. [15:36] - Does public comment have to come from advocacy organizations? [17:01] - Trends seen in organizational data over the years. [21:26] - Potential future changes to the organizational sentencing guidelines.    Featured guest: Kathleen Cooper Grilli is the General Counsel for the United States Sentencing Commission, having been appointed to the position on October 7, 2013. Ms. Grilli has been on the staff of the Commission since 2003, serving as an assistant general counsel from 2003-2007 and deputy general counsel from 2007-2013. As the General Counsel, Ms. Grill provides legal advice to the Commissioners on sentencing issues and other matters relating to the operation of the Commission. Ms. Grilli is the agency's Ethics Officer and has conducted training on white collar crime and the organizational guidelines at numerous training events. Prior to working for the Sentencing Commission, Ms. Grilli was with the Office of Staff Counsel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before relocating to Virginia, Ms. Grilli was a partner in a small firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, handling civil and criminal litigation. Her previous work experience includes serving as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Southern District of Florida and as an associate at Akerman, Senterfitt and Edison, handling commercial litigation. Ms. Grilli is a member of the Bars of Florida and Virginia. She received a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, with honors, from Florida International University. She graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law.   Featured Host:  Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks. He drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. He was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.   Transcription:  Intro:                                     Welcome to The Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business, and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change-makers. Eric Morehead:                 Why is the US Sentencing Commission involved in compliance and ethics? It's a question that both new compliance officers, as well as seasoned professionals, often ask. We've all heard of the seven hallmarks of an effective compliance program that are enshrined in the sentencing guidelines, but where did they come from and who is involved in the process of deciding these standards? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Eric Morehead with LRN's advisory services team. And today, I'm joined by Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel for US Sentencing Commission. We're going to be talking about the Sentencing Commission, discussing a little compliance history going back more than 30 years, covering what the Commission's role is and was, and talking about what sentencing data might tell us about compliance today. Kathleen, thanks for coming on The Principled Podcast. Kathleen Grilli:                   Eric, thanks for inviting me. Eric Morehead:                 Can you tell us a little bit about the history of the Sentencing Commission itself and the different roles of the organization? Kathleen Grilli:                   Certainly. The Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the federal government. It was established in 1984 by a bipartisan act of Congress called the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Congress tasked the Commission with the responsibility of developing federal sentencing policy. So the Commission's principle purposes are to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including issuing guidelines regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes, to advise and assist Congress, the federal judiciary, and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy, and to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues. The Commission effectuates this mission in various ways through the guideline amendment process, our data collection research on the issuance of publications, and by providing training to judges, lawyers, and probation officers on federal sentencing issues. Eric Morehead:                 And historically, why and how is it that this Sentencing Commission became such an integral part of corporate compliance? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, in 1984, when the Sentencing Reform Act was enacted white-collar crime scandals abounded, and the prevailing view was that corporate crime was a cost of doing business, Congress was concerned about inequities and sentencing and created the Commission to ensure that similarly situated defendants convicted of similar crimes received similar punishments. One of the perceived inequities was that affluent defendants were treated more leniently than indigent defendants. Although the primary focus of the Sentencing Reform Act was individual defendants and not organizational defendants or companies, the Act did make changes to the law that impacted companies. It authorized courts to impose a sentence of probation, or fine, or both on companies, and further permitted companies to be subject to orders of forfeiture notice to victims and restitution orders. The Commission understood these changes to mandate that it developed guidelines for sentencing organizations in addition to developing guidelines for sentencing individual defendants. This was quite controversial at the time and many in the business community openly opposed the Commission as it engaged in the process of developing the organizational guidelines. Back then, as I understand the historical record, there were no professional ethics and compliance officers, no professional organizations focused on ethics and compliance, no professional field of study, no business certifications in the topic. There was at least one voluntary association of defense contractors seeking to promote business ethics, and compliance programs in some form were recognized in the antitrust field but were not a prevalent part of corporate America. So the Commission wanted to find a way to deter corporate crime. Because it arises when an employee or an agent commits a crime while acting within the scope of his employment, the Commission thought that self-policing by corporations was the most effective tool to accomplish the goal of deterring corporate crime. Corporate criminal sanctions are a monetary payment to the court and/or restitution to the victims. Since corporations are in the business of making money, the Commission came to the realization that financial incentives would probably be the best way to incentivize corporations to self-police. The implementation of ethics and compliance programs was an outgrowth of the notion of self-policing. Under the chapter 8 guideline fine provisions, an organization has the ability to significantly reduce its fines by having an effective compliance and ethics program, reporting its crime to authorities, and cooperating with those authorities. The Commission thought that this punishment scheme would promote crime deterrence in this area of the law. Chapter 8 was the product of years of work with input from a wide variety of sources. The Commission started work on it in 1986 and held several public hearings featuring witnesses from federal and state agencies, probation officers, academics, the corporate sector, and special interest groups. After publishing several drafts of the organizational guidelines and about five years' worth of study, the Sentencing Commission received and considered a broad array of public comment, including proposals for incorporating affirmative governance factors into the guidelines. These efforts were informed by staff and outside working groups, and the seven elements for an effective ethics and compliance program grew out of this collaborative process. In addition, the Commission purposely drafted the elements in broad terms so that they could be individually tailored by a vastly different types of organizations to which they would apply. Eric Morehead:                 One of the things that I think comes up when you start talking about the role and the process of the Commission is this collaborative effort you mentioned. And the organizational sentencing guidelines have evolved since that first promulgation back in 1991, now, over 30 years. Can you talk a little more specifically about where the Sentencing Commission looks for that collaboration? Whom does it consult with when considering revisions to, not broadly speaking the guidelines, but maybe more specifically, the organizational sentencing guidelines? Kathleen Grilli:                   Sure, Eric. So I've already briefly described the multi-year pro that led to the creation of chapter 8. I would note that while the Commission has made over 800 amendments to the guideline manual, only two of those in the last 30 years have made substantive changes to chapter 8, where you find the organizational guidelines. The 2004 amendment and the 2010 amendment, both of which changes to the criteria for an effective ethics and compliance program. Each of those changes became part of the Commission's amendment cycle in a different way. So let me just briefly describe how that cycle works. The amendment cycle is annual, it's scheduled around certain deadlines set by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act, our organic statute. For example, the earliest that the Commission can deliver amendments to Congress is at the start of a congressional session in January. And the latest date for delivery is May the 1st. The Act requires the Commission to comply with a notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, which means the Commission has to publicize proposals for Commission action and receive and consider public input about those proposals. So there are various opportunities for solicitation for public comment throughout the amendment cycle. The cycles typically starts in May or June when the Commission holds a planning session. At that session, they consider written materials that detail the work completed on priorities from the prior year and identifying any work that remained to be completed, and includes possible ideas for Commission action from a variety of outside sources. Correspondence, possibly received from judges and/or other members of the public. If we receive those suggestions outside of common period, what we do is we save them and we deliver them to the Commission during an open common period. We look at case law, particularly focusing on opinions from circuit court of appeals that arrive at conflicting decisions on issues surrounding the guidelines. We look at other scholarly materials that suggest changes to the guidelines. Crime legislation is considered. Our helpline database is looked at to find frequently occurring questions that we receive on guideline issues. And our training staff provides input on questions that they receive while training on the guidelines around the country. Sometimes, individual commissioners receive notes from judges or their other acquaintances containing similar suggestions. And the commissioners themselves often have ideas on policy issues that they want to address an amendment cycle. So they discuss these materials and they decide on a tentative list of priorities for the upcoming amendment cycle. We publish that in The Federal Register and on the Commission's website with a deadline for submission of public comment. And the Commission considers that public comment prior to deciding on its final priorities. Certain organizations send a letter to the Commission every year, like the Department of Justice who provides the executive branch a suggestion, for Commission action, the federal public defenders who represent indigent defendants. They also offer suggestions. The Commission has standing advisory groups that represent specific interest groups. Privately retained criminal defense lawyers, probation officers, victims, and Native American tribes who also submit public comments. And then we have certain advocacy groups that are regular submitters to the Commission. But in any given year, the Commission receives a variety of public comment letters from any number of organized groups and individual members of the public. The Commission reads that, decides on final priorities, votes on that at a public meeting, and then we begin our work. Work on these priorities is assigned to the staff of the Commission, which includes lawyers, social scientists, and training staff. And we assist the Commission in developing a robust administrative record on the issues under consideration. So we review case law, legislation, legislative history, Commission historical documents, and other scholarly or scientific literature. We also conduct data analysis using the sentencing data regularly compiled by the Commission. We meet with interested stakeholders to obtain additional information designed to inform the Commission's policy discussion. The staff working groups or the teams report their findings to the Commission in written materials and in oral presentations at the Commission's regular monthly business meetings. Ultimately, these teams develop proposed guideline amendments for the Commissioner's consideration. Draft amendments are published in The Federal Register for a 60-day comment period after the Commission votes to publish those amendments at a public meeting. Those are usually held in December, January. And during the public common period, the Commission holds at least one public hearing, which invited witnesses testify on the policy changes under consideration. After the hearing and review of all public comments, the Commission votes to promulgate amendments at a public meeting in April. The Commission delivers those amendments to Congress no later than May the 1st, at which point Congress has 180 days to review the amendments. Unless Congress enacts legislation, affirmatively disapproving the amendments, the guidelines automatically take effect at the end of the 180-day review period. So the 2004 amendment initially grew out of comments made to a group of seven new commissioners who were appointed in 1999. And they began hearing from these commenters that the organizational sentencing guidelines had been successful in inducing many organizations, both and indirectly, to focus on compliance and to create programs to prevent and detect violations of the law. But these commenters also suggested that changes could and should be made to chapter 8, to give organizations greater guidance regarding the factors that are likely to result in effective programs. Among other things, the Commission was urged to expressly incorporate ethics into the criteria for an effective program. In light of this feedback, the Commission decided to create an ad hoc advisory group to examine the issue and develop proposals for its consideration. Among the members of that group were the current Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Mike Horowitz, the former Attorney General, Eric Holder, and many ethics and compliance professionals from both small and large organizations. Not long after the formation of that group, Congress enacted the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which directed the Commission to examine penalties for organizations. So the ad hoc groups work tied in very nicely to help the Commission respond to that directive. The ad hoc group did its due diligence, reviewing literature, public comment, soliciting feedback, conducting a hearing. And its work resulted in a draft proposal for changes to chapter 8 for the Commission to consider. The Commission then went through the regular amendment cycle that I just described to you, which resulted in the 2004 changes. As you well know, Eric, since you were at the Commission in 2010 and worked on this policy issue, that amendment grew out of the Commission's catch-all priority for the miscellaneous guideline amendment issues. Then Commissioner, now Chief Judge for the United States District Court in DC, Beryl Howell, believed that chapter eight could be approved upon. And she was able to convince her colleagues to consider this issue. Because the Commission believed that the issue would be very important to the ethics and compliance community, the Commission, through its staff, Eric, made concerted efforts to bring the matter under consideration to the attention of the actors in that community, soliciting comment, and inviting witnesses from the ethics and compliance community to testify at a public hearing. I must say, I have been on the staff of the Commission for 18 plus years, and that was the only hearing at which a miscellaneous amendment garnered two panels of witnesses at a hearing and more public comment than any other amendment under consideration during the amendment cycle. So that's a different example of how changes to the organizational guidelines can come about. Eric Morehead:                 And just to clarify one thing, you talked about advocacy groups, and earlier on mentioned that with the original promulgation in 1991, the Defense Initiative was involved. But does public comment have to come from advocacy organizations? Can it come from anyone? Kathleen Grilli:                   Public comment can come from anyone, and it can come in any form. Folks can email it to our Public Affairs Office. They can send a letter to a Commissioner saying, "Commissioner, I think you need to make this change to the guidelines." They can send it to a member of staff and we compile it, and keep it, and present it to the Commission, no matter who it comes from. In the past, in some of our other guideline amendments, the Commission has received and considered a huge amount of public comment that came from individuals out in the community who were not necessarily active at all in the criminal justice arena. Eric Morehead:                 Yeah. And I think that's an important point as that this process is very well documented and transparent. We see guidance on compliance coming from other regulators out there, but the process that goes on at the Sentencing Commission is something that really is public-focused. And I think that's an important distinction. One of the other key components of the Commission that you mentioned when you were talking about the role is data gathering, and that's gathering data on all the individuals and organizations who have either pled guilty, or been found guilty, and are now being sentenced in front of a federal court. What are some of the trends that we see when we look at organizational sentencing data over the years? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, I'm glad you asked me about trends, Eric, because one of the things that we're working on right now is a publication to sort of commemorate the 30th anniversary of the organizational guidelines. And we're actually going to be taking a deeper dive into looking at trends. Because normally, when we report out data on the organizational guidelines, it's on an annual basis using our fiscal year data. Well, let me give you some information about a couple of things that I do know about. And I have seen in the years that I've been working on this. First of all, in the 30 years since the adoption of the organizational guidelines, only 11 organizations have received a culpability score reduction for having an effective ethics and compliance program. I view this as a very positive statistic because the Department of Justice tells the business world that it considers ethics and compliance program when evaluating whether to prosecute an organization criminally. Now, I know that there are other ways that organizations get sanctioned by regulatory authorities. Civil fines, non-prosecution agreements, and deferred prosecution agreements. But the bottom line is that Commission data reflects that very few organizations with an effective ethics and compliance program have been prosecuted and criminally sentenced. And I think that's a very big deal. I can tell you that the majority of organizations sentenced in recent years have fewer than 50 employees. And as I mentioned, the publication will be able to report whether that trend holds true over the almost three decades that we've been collecting data on organizational offenders.                                                In the last 20 years, we've seen a steady increase in the percentage of cases in which courts have ordered the development of an ethics and compliance program as a condition of probation. In FY 2000, only 14% of cases involve such a condition compared to nearly that 27% in FY 2020, our fiscal year. Likewise, we have observed an increase in the percentage of cases involving co-defendant individual offenders who were not high-level officials of the organization. In the fiscal year 2000, we observed only 31% of the cases involving a co-defendant who is not a high-level official compared to almost 60% in FY 20. Eric Morehead:                 I think that's a real key data point that can be helpful to organizations when they're talking to their employees about the potential risks involved in misconduct and compliance failures, that doubling basically, of the percentage of individual actual humans that might find themselves facing a federal criminal sanction. Kathleen Grilli:                   Yes. But it's also important to note that they are not high level officials, which might contribute to the fact that you haven't seen so many organizations sentenced in our dataset. That and the culpability score reduction. Eric Morehead:                 Yeah. There's a lot of conventional wisdom. I think that can get debunked by looking at the Sentencing Commission's data. There's that point that it's not all the high level officials, but also that it's smaller organizations because we the headlines that involve the Enrons and other major corporations all the time. That's what gets the ink publications about corporate misconduct. But when we look at the data, it tells a different story. Kathleen Grilli:                   Yes, it does. Eric Morehead:                 And then one other thing that I think is helpful when we're looking at this data is it gives a proper context to the organizations that are facing the most significant punishment, if you will. Because you mentioned before, non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements and other regulatory settlements, but there are other consequences out there for organizations that take a federal conviction, including debarment from doing future federal work. And I think the most famous case also is Arthur Anderson, that ceased to exist because they could no longer audit public corporations after they took a federal conviction. So there's other consequences out there when organizations face this ultimate consequence. Last area I wanted to spend just a couple minutes talking about, Kathleen, is what we might see down the road. What are some potential future changes to the organizational sentencing guidelines? What might be over the horizon for people that are paying attention to this? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, Eric, let me get out my crystal ball and see what I can tell you. First of all, let me just say that I need Commissioners. Eric Morehead:                 Yes. That's true. Kathleen Grilli:                  This lack of voting quorum of Commissioners for three years now, and I'm quite hopeful that sometime in the very near future, the president will be nominating a slate of seven to replace the terms of the Commissioners that have expired. And the one last man standing are acting here, judge Brier. So I don't know what the potential future is. What I can say is that the guidelines were purposely drafted. The organizational guidelines that is were purposely drafted to broadly apply to all types of organizations.                                                And the Commission has been loathed to make changes to those guidelines in the absence of a real hue and cry from either enforcement officials like the Department of Justice, or from the ethics and compliance community identifying a real need for changes. We are well aware of the fact that the two times that the Commission has made substantive changes to the chapter 8 guidelines, that it caused quite a ripple in the stream. And we're hearing a lot about the impact whether intended or not of the chapter eight guideline changes. So I think a new Commission would be loathed to take on consideration of policy changes in this area, absent that hue and cry. But I am not a presidential appointee. I'm simply the general Counsel of the agency. And I will go where my bosses tell me to go. So if they want to work on it, I say, Let's do it.: Eric Morehead:                 Wow. I hope that our audiences got a sense that there's a little bit more to the Sentencing Commission than just the seven hallmarks of the sentencing guidelines that they learned about when they first came into this area. But I'm afraid we're out of time for today. But Kathleen, thank you so much for joining me on this episode. Kathleen Grilli:                   Eric, thank you so much for inviting me. I really had a good time. Eric Morehead:                 Well, my name is Eric Moorhead, and I want to thank all of you for listening to The Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro:                                   We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.

Mike Horowitz (Prison Break, Burn Notice, Turner & Hooch) joins the 'boys to discuss eating on set and breakfast burritos before a review of Winchell's Donut House. Plus, A Taco Bell edition of Jingle All The Whey. Sources for the week's intro: https://www.nytimes.com/1961/10/15/archives/foul-claim-fails-donut-king-91-wins-aqueducts-206800-champagne-by.html https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/features/tapits-world-224760 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-nov-28-me-winchell28-story.html https://lasvegassun.com/news/2002/nov/29/doughnut-chain-founder-winchell-dies-at-lv-home/ https://startupsapience.medium.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-winchells-donut-3c3236b7370f https://winchells.com/about Commercials featured in the Jingle All The Whey segment: The Works Taco Bell Rancho Burrito The Fresh Food Place Run For The Border $.49 Tacos!  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Follow Us! Twitter: @StreamerSZN Kyle: @KBizzl311 Dylan: @dylanmazzola Instagram: @StreamerSZN Website: undergroundsportsphiladelphia.com Twitch: twitch.tv/undergroundsportsPHI Merch & Apparel are on the way! tomahawkshades.com | Promo Code: "USP" for 25% off at checkout! Manscaped.com | Promo Code: "USP" for 20% off and free shipping! Statesidevodka.com | Promo Code "USP" for 10% off the 1L vodka bottle Intro Music: "Turner And Hooch" (Official Movie Soundtrack) Outro Music: "Turner And Hooch" (Official Movie Soundtrack)

Luke sits down with Mike Horowitz, assistant coach and defensive coordinator at St Joseph's University. Mike thinks there are a lot of positives out there in the current recruiting climate for both players and coaches and he explains why. Enjoy the podcast!

Mike Horowitz sacó un reporte sobre cómo el FBI investigó a Trump buscando si había alguna tendencia política o si se siguieron las reglas como debería serME GUSTA y SUSCRIBANSE para estar al tanto de nuevos videosYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC91ybO47x8LbALlZjqGoj9ATwitter: https://twitter.com/YoSoyJJGalvezInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/yosoyjjgalvez/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@yosoyjjgalvezGancho Derecho es producido por Galvez Media.Todos los derechos reservados ©2019#FBI #Trump #Comey #Reporte

On this episode of The Global Cable, we are joined by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Suzanne DiMaggio to discuss, with Perry World House Inaugural Director Prof. William Burke-White, the future of U.S. Diplomacy, Global Security, and the current state of American Foreign Policy. Ambassador Pickering has had a career spanning five decades as a U.S. diplomat, serving as undersecretary of state for political affairs, ambassador to the United Nations, ambassador to Russia, India, Israel, Nigeria, Jordan, and El Salvador. He also served on assignments in Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He holds the personal rank of Career Ambassador, the highest in the U.S. Foreign Service. He has held numerous other positions at the State Department, including executive secretary and special assistant to Secretaries Rogers and Kissinger and assistant secretary for the Bureau of oceans, environmental and scientific affairs.  Suzanne DiMaggio is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where she focuses on U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East and Asia. She is one of the foremost experts and practitioners of diplomatic dialogues with countries that have limited or no official relations with the United States, especially Iran and North Korea. DiMaggio is an associate senior fellow in the Disarmament, Arms Control, and Nonproliferation Program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). She holds a BA from New York University and an MA from City College of New York (CUNY). 0:10 - Introduction with Associate Director Prof. Mike Horowitz and Director of Research & Communications Dr. John Gans 05:30 - The State of the World Today 13:20 - The U.S. & North Korea 16:00 - The Importance of the Iran Deal 20:20 - The State of American Foreign Policy 23:25 - The Biggest Threats to the U.S. & the World 28:00 - Outro Music and Produced by Tre Hester  

On this episode of The Global Cable, we are joined by Perry World House Global Order Distinguished Visiting Fellow and Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, to discuss the future of the U.S. military, artificial intelligence and the importance of American defense leadership.  Robert O. Work served as Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2014-2017. He is currently Senior Counselor for Defense and Distinguished Senior Fellow for Defense and National Security at the Center for a New American Security, where he was previously the Chief Executive Officer. From 2009 to 2013,  Secretary Work served as the Undersecretary of the Navy. In 2008, he was on President-elect Barack Obama's Department of Defense Transition Team as leader of the Department of the Navy issues team. Prior to the Obama administration, after spending 27 years on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps and retiring as a colonel, Work spent time first as a Senior Fellow and later as Vice President for Strategic Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the Marine Corps Association. Secretary Work received his B.S. from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, an M.S. in Systems Management from the University of Southern California, an M.S. in Systems Technology (Space Systems Operations) from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a Masters in International Public Policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 00:43 - Introduction with Associate Director Prof. Mike Horowitz and Inaugural Director Prof. William Burke-White 06:25 - Deputy Secretary Work's Post-Government Career 07:50 - The Future of the U.S. Military & Necessary Adaptations 11:40 - The Importance of American Defense Leadership and Artifical Intelligence 16:14 - The Relationship between DoD & U.S. Companies: "Project Maven"  26:20 - Global Challenges between China & U.S. 31:25 - Interesting Global Facts & Career Advice 34:22 - Outro  

On this episode of The Global Cable, Perry World House Inaugural Director, and University of Pennsylvania Law Professor William Burke-White is joined by Dr. Yoram Hazony, President of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, and Director of the John Templeton Foundation‘s project in Jewish Philosophical Theology, to discuss the global rise of nationalism and populism across the world and  a new Perry World House report explaining this New Age of Nationalism. Read the report HERE! Yoram Hazony is President of the Herzl Institute. He is the founder and past President of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, now Shalem College. His books include The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul, and God and Politics in Esther. Hazony is director of the John Templeton Foundation's project in Jewish Philosophical Theology, and a member of the Israel Council for Higher Education committee on Liberal Studies in Israel's universities. He holds a B.A. in East Asian Studies from Princeton University and a Ph.D. in Political Theory from Rutgers University. 00:28 - Introduction with Associate Director Prof. Mike Horowitz 10:22 - "The Virtue of Nationalism" by Yoram Hazony 13:08 - Nationalism as a glue to support the Global Order 17:40 - Brexit as a Reassertion of Nationalism  22:25 - Nationalism's role at the domestic level 25:15 - The Politicization of Nationalism 29:10 - Nationalism Looking Forward 33:50 - Outro Producer & Music by Tre Hester              

  On this episode of The Global Cable, Inaugural Director and Penn Law Professor Bill Burke-White discusses the results of the Perry World House report on the status of the global order with Inaugural Lightening Scholar and Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Cosette Creamer, and Visiting Fellow and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, Peter Harrell.  Read the full Perry World House report on the Status of the Global Order HERE! 00:11 - Introduction with Associate Director Prof. Mike Horowitz 08:10 - Findings of the Perry World House Report 11:30 - The Changing Economic Order of the World 14:15 - The Health of the International Trading System 16:10 - The Lack of Domestic Political Leadership 19:30 - The Impact of Renewed Great Power Competition 23:25 - Takeaways from the G20 Meeting 26:00 - Favorite Moments from the G20 Summit  27:45 - Outro   Produced & Music by Tre Hester

On this month’s podcast, Ariel spoke with Paul Scharre and Mike Horowitz from the Center for a New American Security about the role of automation in the nuclear sphere, and how the proliferation of AI technologies could change nuclear posturing and the effectiveness of deterrence. Paul is a former Pentagon policy official, and the author of Army of None: Autonomous Weapons in the Future of War. Mike Horowitz is professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the author of The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics. Topics discussed in this episode include: The sophisticated military robots developed by Soviets during the Cold War How technology shapes human decision-making in war “Automation bias” and why having a “human in the loop” is much trickier than it sounds The United States’ stance on automation with nuclear weapons Why weaker countries might have more incentive to build AI into warfare How the US and Russia perceive first-strike capabilities “Deep fakes” and other ways AI could sow instability and provoke crisis The multipolar nuclear world of US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea The perceived obstacles to reducing nuclear arsenals

Signal integrity expert, Dr. Eric Bogatin, shares why best measurement practices have become his go-to topic when speaking with PCB designers around the world. As Signal Integrity Evangelist at Teledyne LeCroy, a leading provider of oscilloscopes, protocol analyzers and related test and measurement solutions, Eric lectures around the world and he will be one of the keynote presenters at AltiumLive 2018: PCB Design Summit. Listen to Eric and Judy talk about the importance of best measurement practices and where to learn more — from webinars to conferences to the Signal Integrity Journal and Rule Number 9. Eric also has some real insights, so tune in and learn more in this episode of the OnTrack Podcast.   Show Highlights: The OnTrack Podcast is in 84 countries! Congrats to Daud Zoss who was the closest guess at 37 countries. He gets a free pass to AltiumLive as Judy’s guest. Dr Eric Bogatin will be a keynote speaker at AltiumLive in October 2018 Best measurement practices - how do you get the answer to the performance, root cause, characterization, etc. as quickly as possible? How do you know what the performance of your instrument is, so that you know its capabilities and what the device is doing compared to your measurement instrument? It’s important to know what the properties of your scope in the probe is, to know the properties of the device you’re testing. Measurement data: Such as the rise time, frequency or figure of merit must be excavated to give you useful information. How do you get the information so it’s high quality and can be trusted, how do you turn it into information that you can turn into action? Eric is also the Editor of Signal Integrity Journal, working with Janine Love and Patrick Hindle. Expert content - if anyone is interested in writing a technical article for Signal Integrity Magazine, please write: Eric or Judy. Janine Love manages the EDI CON coming up in Santa Clara in October (a couple weeks after AltiumLive). Part of this is EDI CON University offering tutorials by industry experts. Industry Experts on the Editorial Advisory Board: Bert Simonovich, Yuriy Shlepnev, Larry Smith and Steve Sandler, Rula Bakleh, Jay Diepenbrock, Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov, Alfred Neves, Istvan Novak, Doug Smith, and Lisa Ward. Rule #9 - Before you do a measurement or simulation, think about what you expect to see ahead of time, and if it’s not what you expect, there’s always a reason for it. You need to identify the reason why it’s not what you expect. Hands on learning is a necessity for students. Eric and Mike Horowitz put together a five-week, standalone crash course on how to design a board. Designing for connectivity is just about driving the board to enable finding the parts and laying them out for assembly. Really simple. The lack of experience with Oscilloscopes is surprising because nobody has ever taught these students the correct method. Hands on experience is giving students an edge in the marketplace. There isn’t enough of the ‘real world’ activity in most Universities. Links and Resources: LeCroy webinars Upcoming events at LeCroy SI Journal webinars Upcoming SI Webinars   Hyperloop competition AltiumLive 2018: Annual PCB Design Summit     If anyone is interested in writing a technical article, please write: Eric Bogatin or Judy Warner To see ALL show notes and watch the video recording please visit:  https://resources.altium.com/altium-podcast/signal-integrity-expert-eric-bogatin-on-best-measurement-practices     Hi everyone, this is Judy Warner with Altium's OnTrack Podcast. Thanks for joining again, if you would please connect with me on LinkedIn I like to share lots of information relative to PCB designers and engineers who are laying out boards and on Twitter I'm @AltiumJudy and Altium is on all the usual places; Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. So please let us know what you'd like to hear about on the podcast and we will do our best to get it done. So today I have a rock star with us and he needs no introduction . But before we get going with Dr. Eric Bogatin; I wanted to say that a few weeks back I had put a challenge out there to see if you guys could guess how many countries the On Track podcast has reached; and we have a winner! So congratulations to Daud Zoss. He's a Senior Staff Engineer at Dexcom; he guessed 37 countries and he was the closest one, unfortunately it was only about half, because we've actually reached 84 countries, I kid you not! So anyways, thank you for listening and engaging with us and all across the world. We really appreciate it. So today, as I mentioned, we have Dr. Eric Bogatin with us who needs no introduction; who is a signal integrity guru. You might know him from many conferences in North America and I suppose around the world Eric has has presented, and I'm lucky enough to be here in California, where I've seen him present many times on Be The Signal and now the Be The Signal and Eric Bogatin brand is flying under the Teledyne LeCroy flag. So he has lots of lectures and demos and things and I'll let him tell you more about that. So Eric, welcome, we are glad to have you. Hey thanks Judy, I'm happy to be here with you today and tell you about all the things I've got going on. Well, we're super excited to have you as a keynote at AltiumLive, so we really appreciate you coming out for that and we've done some neat things together with students, so we'll talk about more about that. So why don't you start off by telling us a little bit about your day job at Teledyne LeCroy? Sure yes, so many of you may know, and I know you - - I knew you back when I had my own company it was Bogatin Enterprises, and I literally went around the world and did training classes. And about seven years ago, my training company was acquired by LeCroy and we continued the training classes and then began to make a slight transition to, most of what I've done over the years has been best design practices. How to get the design right the first time and LeCroy is in the measurement business; we are the third largest manufacturer of oscilloscopes and some of the highest end oscilloscopes; and our CTO Dave Graef, he likes to say that that in designing, the goal is to get it right the first time, but if you don't get it right the first time then the goal is to get it right the second time; and the way you get it right the second time is, you have to find the root cause of the problem and invariably that involves some measurements. So that's kind of the connection with LeCroy, is we're number three in the  scope world and have the highest end performance scopes out there. We really specialize in the business of helping customers get it right the second time; kind of a faster time to insight. And so we started out when I joined them seven years ago, doing the same Best Design Practices presentations and classes I used to do, and then over the years since then, I've been working on this new area of Best Measurement Practices and so, with my day job at Teledyne LeCroy, I am still Signal Integrity Evangelist, but I spend more time now going around talking to folks about, and doing presentations on what are some of the best measurement practices. How do you kind of get the answer to either the performance, or the root cause, or the characterization, or get the Figure of Merit? How do you get that as quickly as possible? And recently, in fact, I've got a couple of live events in the Bay Area coming up - actually next week - in last week in August, and then in Boston in September. And you can check the Teledyne LeCroy website for the events page to see where I'm coming next, but those presentations are really focused on, how do you - I call it kind of two aspects of in best measurement practice - one is situational awareness. How do you pay attention to - how do you know what the performance of your instrument is, so that you understand what its capabilities are, so what your device is doing, compared to your instruments. So you make sure that you are not seeing an artifact in the measurement. Wow that's interesting. Situational, because I find in talking a lot of folks about measurements; gosh there's a lot of confusion about what's the scope doing. And unfortunately there's no such thing as the ideal instrument; they're always - - or ideal probe, for that matter. There are always interactions of the probe and the scope with the device we're looking at, and it's important to understand what the properties of your scope in the probe are, to know how far away you are from the properties of the device you're testing so that you're getting good quality information about the device you care about and not an artifact of how you're doing the measurement. So that's the first piece of what we try to present and teach - those principles. And the second piece is - and I see this with my students all the time - that they sometimes feel that just getting the data, just getting the measurement is enough. So they, push the right buttons and they get a screenshot and say: okay , here's my data. And I see a lot of engineers doing that as well, and the data is just the starting place. That's not - you're not done with the data - you need to take that data, the measurement and turn it into information. So you need to extract out, what's the few pieces of valuable information. Like what's the rise time, or what's the frequency, or what's the jitter? It's a figure of merit that takes a lot of data and gives you one or two numbers that you can do something with. I was giving a talk at one of my events a couple weeks ago, and as I mentioned, that we have this huge amount of data in a scope. I mean, one acquisition can be we can take up to five Giga samples worth of data - but you know stupidly maybe - 10 - 20 mega samples but that's 10 or 20 million data points in one acquisition. It's a huge amount of data but you only want one or two numbers out of it. And so I used to call it data mining, and someone said: hey with all that data there it's not mining, it's excavating. So it's kind of excavating the data for useful information, and then the third piece - once we have the information - is this: so what? It's how do you turn that information into action? How do you use the information you've got, to tell you is this good or bad? Should I, raise the line width or decrease the line width? What do I want to do with that information now? How am I going to use that to influence a decision? So it's those three steps that we talk about in our workshops; of how do you get the information, do you have high quality of confidence for the data, do you have high confidence in it? How do you turn that data into information, extract a couple of figures of merit, the nuggets of valuable information and how do you take that information and turn it into action? So that's what I'm focusing on these days, the idea of best measurement practices. In addition to the stuff I've done forever, of best design practices. So that's kind of what I'm involved in now, spending a lot of time going around, doing live demonstrations, incorporating them in my workshops. Now we've got some really cool scopes and bring a lot of test vehicles and structures, so we can do live measurements of various signals. And so it's always a lot of fun when you can have... A physical scope there, right. -yeah a working device and the scope, and then people that come to these; you know I love working the crowd, and we talk about: well, if that's really what's going on, if you made the the rise time shorter, what what will you see? Or if I expanded the time base, what's the signal going to look like? And so we can do that as a live experiment in the group. So they're a lot of fun, very interactive activities. So that's that's what I do is my day job now. Well, that's a lot, and it sounds - you make it sound really fun and engaging. So also, Teledyne LeCroy will have a table at AltiumLive, I hope we can talk you guys into bringing an oscilloscope so we'll let you work our crowd and I'm sure. You know, another thing - oh by the way - I would encourage people that are listening to connect with Eric on LinkedIn, or connect with me I've been sharing those classes that Eric is teaching, so you'll be able to pick those up and see the different locations that he's teaching those courses. And we will also add those links below here in the show notes. So if you're in those areas you can hop into one of Eric's classes, and he's super fun too it's a very plain spoken - and like I, can learn things from Eric Bogatin, and I am not, my technical prowess is limited, so I really appreciate that about Eric. The other thing you do, we have some friends in common which are Horizon House, the publishers of Microwave Journal, have published a new magazine called the SI Journal, which I am very excited about and you are also the editor of SI Journal, and we have friend in common Janine Love and Pat Hindle and the whole group. I used to write a blog for Microwave Journal that is put out by the same publishers on their website, talking about making RF boards and all the fun that goes along with that. And so now, Eric is editor of SI Journal, so you can also subscribe to that online. We will also share that link. So how's that been so far? Tell us about your job - how long has it been now? It hasn't been too terribly long? You know what, I think it was about - - it's almost 2 years now, so I'm just going to... Wow! I was gonna say a year and it's like two years. Wow. So I think it was it'd be - - between Pat and Janine they kind of came up - they've been focusing on the Microwave Journal which has been around for 30-some years and this is one of the - I think it's the top... I think it's like 60 years or something. Is it 60 years? I don't know I might be... It's a long time - it's been around forever. And it's been a real icon in the industry for good quality articles about microwave technology and with Janine's experience with the Design Con and in the signal integrity world; I think between she and Pat they realized: hey, the industry could really use another kind of curated source of high value information and so many of the magazines that we're used to getting have - - the print magazines have disappeared and they're all online, and so Pat and Janine decided to create this as an online journal initially. And they asked me to come on board as the editor; really the technical editor right at the beginning - about two years ago - and so since then we've been kind of planning it out, putting together the editorial review board - of really some industry heavyweights and kind of creating a lot of new content, soliciting content from other experts in the industry, in fact, while I have a captive audience here, if anybody out there listening, is interested in writing technical articles for us, that'd be great. Drop me an email or send it through Judy, and I'd be happy to take a look at what you like to do. We created this and our focus is to provide high value content that's curated. That there's so much information out there online right now. If you do a google search on Signal Integrity or Power Integrity it's not that you don't find anything, you find like 10 gazillion different sources. You get flooded. Yeah it's hard to know what's the good stuff and what the stuff is that I should waste my time with and so I think that's really the value of having an online publication or portal that is curated, and that's what we try to do is between myself and Janine and Pat and the editorial advisory board; we try to curate the content so that it's in our opinion what we would consider to be high-value content. And so we don't want to waste people's time or our own time and so there's, we think, a lot of really good valuable content. We've done the traditional stuff of short columns, of feature-length articles. Janine manages the annual conference EDI CON, which is now coming to the Santa Clara area in October. I think it's a couple weeks after AltiumLive. Yah, it is, it's really close. And part of that is now I think Janine's calling it the EDI CON University which is going to be tutorials by industry experts that are available for all the attendees. And then she also manages webinars, and if I can just plug a previous webinar. So we had Rick Hartley do a webinar... Which we love and you know as I mentioned you and Rick are just so well respected and the SI field so I'm glad you snatched him up. Yes we got him to do one a couple months ago and then that's recorded and posted on the... Oh great! -and then I did one a couple weeks ago that's also up there. So we have maybe it's 20 or 30 different webinars and they're all free and all available for anybody if you go to the SI Journal.com website, and you can look under videos and webinars, anybody can access all the content on the SI Journal is free as well. So, there's some other people that are dear friends Bert Simonovich I know is on your team on the magazine who - - I think is Yuriy on that team as well? Yeah Yuriy's been involved Istvan Novak has been on the Editorial Advisory Board. We just brought on Steve Sandler - - let's see; Larry Smith who is, he's my buddy, we worked on a book together that came out last year on Power Integrity and he now is at Micron; used to be at Qualcomm, he's maybe the one or two world expert on power integrity. So I learned a lot working with Larry. Let's see - - so yeah those are them. They're all heavy hitters I mean, all really, they are the industry experts you really have, kudos to Horizon House for putting together such a crack team with you at the helm, which is just incredible, and like you said curating that content. Because there's so much noise out there. How do we bring the noise down and just cherry-pick, the best pieces? And I was kind of around before and as they were launching EDI CON and I was really glad to see them, as the high-speed digital and the RF world kind of moved together and some of the challenges were kind of overlapping to launch a show like EDI CON I think is really exciting and this magazine so, yay! Very excited about that so I can't... and again we'll put all these links below. I'll even I'll see if I'll go pluck out some of those webinars and put those links in too if you didn't send those to me already. So while I'm plugging webinars can I plug one other webinar too- Yeah, -that I should have mentioned. So I've been spending a lot of time, too much time, traveling doing these live events but also doing webinars; I mentioned the one with SI Journal. I've also been doing some through LeCroy, and we have a whole landing page on what LeCroy has done. Yeah there's a lot there. There's a lot of high value content that's all free. Anybody can view them and I'm hoping you'll put up a link to the webinar page from from LeCroy as well. Okay. I've put a series together on, a little bit about fundamentals of measurements, part of this best measurement practices series that I mentioned earlier they're one-hour webinars on various scope measurement principles and I'm doing them on a regular basis. I think we have two or three more scheduled for the rest of this year and then we'll have another series starting up in January. Exciting, I like the idea of this best measurement practices, it's like really practical. Yeah and it's the same thing with design practice. There are accepted practices that you want to follow unless you have a strong, compelling reason. Otherwise these are the right ways of doing things. Right. And same thing with measurement; there are just as many ways of screwing up a measurement as there is a design and so you've got to pay attention to both of them. And there's a human in the loop too besides your probe and all that, so. Oh absolutely. So if the human isn't 'tuned up' - Yeah - now so one of the principles that I teach my graduate students and at University and also engineers I talk to, is I call it rule number nine and... have I talked to you about rule nine? Okay I'm definitely gonna be mentioning it at the at my keynote because I think it's one of the most important rules for any engineer and basically it says: before you do a measurement or simulation, you want to first anticipate. Think about what you expect to see and I have found that to be the most valuable kind of habit to get into, because just like you said, when there's a human involved it's easy to make a mistake. And how do you know that you don't have the connector connected where it should be, or how do you know: I think I'm looking on channel two, but I'm really going on channel three? Or I typed in 17 but I meant 71? How do you know? You can check yourself but there's a limit to, how well you can check yourself and so, if you think about what you expect to see ahead of time, whether measurement or simulation and you look at the result and it's not what you expect, there's always a reason for it and you shouldn't proceed with that information until you've identified how come it's not what I expect. And when I do these live demos in front of groups, I'm constantly making mistakes because you know, it's under pressure. I get a screw in that connector and I'm not sure which demo am I on right now, and so I'm always looking at the screen to see, is it what I expect to see, and I can tell instantly when I've done something wrong because I use rule number nine. And I sometimes play a game with the audience, the engineers there, and say: okay, we expect to see this waveform go up and then down and it's flat - how come? And it's good experience, good practice, that thinking of what could go wrong in the debugging process because that's what we all end up doing and the more experienced we can become at finding the root cause and why it's not what we expect I think, the quicker we can get to a good answer and move on to the next problem. So it's an incredibly powerful habit that I use all the time and I try to teach all my students. This is what I love about your classes and things you teach Eric. I've sat in a few of them over the years is, that they're insanely practical and intuitive and memorable. Like rule number nine, I can remember that right, so I really have to say that about you. Of course, don't forget I also reinforce good behavior with chocolate so that... Oh yeah he does! He throws chocolate out at his classes so yeah it's like Pavlov's dog, yeah it's so true. Well I wanted to jump into the way that you and I started working together, is I think a month or two ago Iconnect007 came out with a magazine with an empty pair of shoes walking down the street, and it said, who's gonna fill your shoes? And everybody seems to get on this bandwagon about all the people that really, fundamentally understand PCB design in regards to, not just designing but manufacturing, assembly, the whole, all the stakeholders that are kind of implied in that process are greying and gonna retire, and so you know, there's been studies out by UP Media saying - by a pretty large sample - saying that in under 10 years half of PCB designers are going to be gone and so everyone has sort of gotten to this hysteria about it seems like the unanswerable question. What I appreciate that you've done is I'm going to call you professor now - he wears lots of hats - professor Bogatin called me up and said, Judy, you know, I'm gonna do this program, he's used different tools right now that this - I think the students were sort of driving, or somebody was driving one at Altium Designer, so you kicked off this amazing semester-long course at the University of Colorado Boulder and you - I think co-teach that right Eric? Yeah so I can give you the quick history. Okay let's hear it. So I've been teaching a graduate signal integrity class at CU Boulder for a number of years, based on my textbook and in talking to folks there, we realized that our students - so CU Boulder tends to be very project oriented very hands-on we believe in that, you know you learn from textbooks, you learn from studying, but you understand by doing. And it's the hands-on part that you really - everything comes together. And there were a number of classes that required building circuit boards and I would get called in as a consultant to help them in designing the circuit boards and there's relatively simple boards, two layer boards. But these kids had absolutely no idea. They could push the buttons on the tool, but they had absolutely no idea how the performance was influenced by it by what they do in the layout. And so it became really clear that, boy it sure would help if they had a little bit of guidance in how to design boards correctly. And so a number of us got together and realized: hey, we need this more formal training and a buddy of mine Mike Horowitz, who is an expert at design of circuit boards, we got together and put this course together which was - and it's kind of a funny organization too - we're also trying another experiment. At CU you are semester based, and some courses are typically like 15 weeks or so. But we are experimenting with creating short five-week modules so it'll be the full regular course, that is a normal schedule of of 3 hours per week but it only lasts for five weeks. And so, Mike and I were tasked with putting a course on Printed Circuit Board Design and Manufacture together, that would have a five week beginning piece that could be a standalone so that most students, undergraduates, would take that and that'd be enough to get them going on their projects and then everybody else would continue for the rest of the ten weeks. And that would go into more detail so it gets them more experienced at circuit board design. And so that's how it got started, and Mike and I worked on it - it's every semester; so we did it twice last year and now. So that was kind of our joint development. And now Mike has gotten more involved in his CEO activities and so I'm gonna solo it this semester. Oh okay. So the format is basically a five-week crash course on how to design a board so you have a good chance of success when you build a two layer board. And then the other five weeks are more the same, more the technical detail about measurement technique - this idea the best measurement practices. How do you bring up a board? How do you design a board for simple tests and bring up? And then we'll do four layer boards, and then a little bit on the more high-performance systems. So it's a little bit more advanced and really you know, the way we've positioned it as: there are two levels of design. The first is if you can build a prototype and build it with a solderless breadboard and have wires going all over the place; if that works then designing the circuit board and having it work is really straightforward. We call it designing just for connectivity you don't have to worry about performance, it's about, you want to be able to manufacture it, but performance isn't on; the interconnects don't matter, and and some of the student designs are just designed for connectivity. It's just about driving the board so you can find the parts of the library and build it in the schematic and then place them on the board and lay them out, so you can assemble it by hand - pretty straightforward. But many of our student designs these days, are getting more sophisticated. They use a Wi-Fi connection, so you have RF on the board, they have sensitive analog to digital converters on the boards, they have components that sometimes -even BGA components - where the microcontrollers are using a really fine pitch; hard to design by hand, and some of these have a couple nanosecond edges where ground bounce is a tremendous problem. And so we're focusing our class on how to design a board. Not just for connectivity - that's the easy part - but for performance, so that you can designed so it's manufacturable, it's lower-cost reduce the - so much of it is risk management - and then kind of the basic performance issues to worry about. And in my keynote, I'm thinking that I will probably present on what we have found to be the two most impactful design issues in designing a board, not for connectivity but for performance. If all you think about is connectivity you're gonna run into two significant problems. And so one of the topics is this idea of rethinking how signals propagate on interconnects and I've done this at PCB West and I did it at some of my other courses - and I had a couple people come up to me afterwards and tell me that it was a life-changing moment for them. Because I completely changed the way they've been working on boards for 20 years, and I completely changed how they thought about signals on boards. So I hope it will have a similar impact at AltiumLive, but it's going to be about how to rethink and how to train your intuition to think about how signals really propagate on interconnects. I loved your Be the Signal.... so... and I'm sure this is a little bit more complex than what you're gonna present, but I remember the first time I ever sat in a course by Eric Bogatin, and he was talking about 'be the signal' and he's like: if this signal's moving from A to B what do you think is gonna happen to la-la-la... and I'm sitting there as a non-designer and he's like: no, be the signal. What would you do? And kind of helped us to frame, kind of this visual - and I'm a visual person - so I like to kind of visualize, what the things that were going on, in that signal path to create whatever it was. So I really loved that. And that's basically what I'm going to be talking about, that Zen approach to thinking about signals propagating and and how to apply you know -  I'll probably mention it once, in my talk, about how to apply master's equations but in an intuitive way, to understand what's really going on in the interconnect. So Eric's talk is called 'Living in the White Space' and that will be relative to signal propagation and I'm sure all of us, our brain will explode a little. I have these moments with Rick Hartley from time to time too where he says something and I'm like: nah! You know it could be that simple or whatever and I'm sure, you know Rick Hartley is a student of Eric Bogatin so, I'm sure it's more of the same. So, well I really appreciate you Eric, taking on these students at university level. Here at Altium absolutely, I think I would do this part of my job for free; is to help students get equipped with not only tools - like I can give them free tools - but that's a really incomplete model, for them to learn. They're learning about electrical theory in school but really how to design a board, and how does - - I just finished a podcast today with Julie Ellis who's a Field Applications Engineer from TTM - what about stack-up? What about all these variables and how they come into play, that are not taught at university? But I love that you've brought them in at a university level because I think these are the kids - I think these are exactly who's going to fill some of those shoes, and they may be EEs laying out boards, they may end up like Rick Hartley did saying, I like just designing boards better than circuit design. Who knows? We don't know. What has been some of your surprises by the way? What feedback from students? So I think two things absolutely surprise me; one is, their lack of experience with oscilloscopes. That their way of using oscilloscope is first to push the autoscale button. And I slap their wrist if I catch them doing that, or pushing every button without knowing what it is until they see something, on the screen... Until the light goes on, they're looking for the LED. -and and so they, just the basic understanding of what an oscilloscope does and how to control the vertical/ horizontal and the trigger. You know the very basic things. A lot of these kids; nobody's ever sat them down and talked to them about it, so we focus on good - again - best measurement practices in the class as well as the design. The second thing is, there is a disconnect between what you learn in the textbook and what you see in the real world and it's the same thing, but you have to know how to apply what you learn in the textbook. And I don't think any university does enough of that hands-on, real-world activity. We try to do it a lot at CU, we have a lot of projects that students get involved in. Most of them are really about designing a little robot or designing some gadget that does something with the code that you write in there. So a lot of it is - some software, as well as the hardware. But in our class we try to close the loop of the; here I do an estimate or calculation, and here I do a measurement. Like one of the first labs we do is blowing up traces. That's fun! It is. Everybody likes blowing up something. Everybody likes to blow shit up [laughter]. And so the question, the first question I ask them is: okay, you're gonna lay out a board and you're gonna put some tracer - what line width should you use? You can select it to be anything you want.What line width should you use? And so one of the things that surprised me is, when I asked the students is, they thought that a six mm wide line, just the narrowest that most fab shops will do. A six mm wide line, was too narrow because it's way too much resistance, or I can't put more than a couple milliamps of current through it. So I gotta use a twenty mm wide line, or fifty mm wide line. And it's the kind of thing that, the very first day in class, we calculate or we look at how do you calculate the resistance of a trace? How do you calculate what the maximum current handling it, using the IPC guidelines that Doug Brooks has been so heavily involved in. And when you put in the numbers you realize: oh my gosh, it looks really narrow on this board it's only six mm wide but but gosh; it's resistance is going to be still in the tens hundreds of milli ohms for typical lengths. So it really isn't that high a resistance even though it looks really narrow because copper is an incredibly good conductor. Exactly. People don't have good calibration of that. And then, so I'll give you the number, and I hope none of my students are listening to this because they're gonna figure it out in class. But if you look in the IPC specs for maximum current handling for a six mm wide surface trace; it's like two amps or three amps and when we put two amps through, we have a test board with the different line widths on them. When you put six amp - - two amps through it, you find we can monitor the voltage across it with constant current and see the voltage increasing because it gets hotter, as you see the beginning of the runway, and RNDF around three amps, IPC's around two amps, around three amps, darned if it doesn't go to thermal runaway and we zap the trace and so, you can really get a good estimate by putting in the numbers ahead of time, of how some of these interconnects are going to behave. But it's that habit of putting in the numbers doing simple estimates, applying what we learn in class to the real world, that the students don't have that good experience with and that's what we try to do in our class at CU. Well to your point of hands-on, I feel like that's something that for whatever reason has left our education system too much right there's no shop at school anymore, there's no metal, there's no like just - and it's not just, what they would consider low labor skills or whatever. It's just hands-on learning the kinesthetics of it because I bet you dollars to doughnuts that kid, is gonna remember blowing up a three amp trace, more than if he read something about it in a book right? Right, and sees the smoke and it pops and, there's this feedback well, what I was telling you about is, again one of my favorite parts of my job is, we just came back about three weeks ago from filming these kids that are doing the Hyperloop Competition - Oh I'm gonna send you this video Eric - you're gonna die because what they do is so awesome and it's just because they get to do hands-on and they make a good - - there's no way they're not making, more mistakes per minute than everybody else in their field, but because of that and because the lack of constraints they have on them as far as businesses and law and whatever, you know this one team we sponsor is from Munich Germany, they just broke the world speed record inside the tube that Elon built at 290 miles per hour. Crushing! There's commercial  companies with venture capitalists that haven't hit that number. Because they're young and they're hungry and they're hands-on, and they're excited. But these are the kids who I think, there needs to be much more of what you're doing. I wish every University would, hopefully you'll set an example that others will follow. And by the way, I've cited your course to a group of six universities I was invited to speak at UCSD, UC Davis was there, five other universities and I put a screenshot of your course - Oh that's great -and so I, so if you start getting weird phone calls... (laughter] -because I'm like see what he's doing - you all need to do this you know, so hopefully the word will spread but until that happens things like the Hyperloop competition, the FSEA competition, where kids get to get their hands on it and blow stuff up and do it wrong, until they do it right, and learn how to use an oscilloscope in this really hands-on manner well these kids are coming out of college and the internships of these kids, one of these kids from University Wisconsin in the Hyperloop team he's a Qualcomm right now, the team lead is going to SpaceX on internship - companies are plucking them out because of the hands-on. So I think the more we sort of beat this drum and spread this message, I again, something I'm very passionate about - I know you are too - and thank you so much for doing that course and we cannot wait to hear from you and about Living in the White Space at AltiumLive. Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule. Well I look forward to seeing you at AltiumLive and all the other viewers that you have and I hope folks come up in and say hi while I'm over there. Okay will do, and make sure - well not make sure - see if we can get LeCroy and company to bring out an oscilloscope so you can - - We will definitely have one at our table. Okay good, good I think that would be something notable and something that people, the attendees would enjoy so thank you again Eric this has been... Thank you Judy. Thank you again, this has been Judy Warner with Altium's OnTrack podcast and Dr. Eric Bogatin of Teledyne LeCroy. We look forward to being with you next time. Until then, remember to always stay on track.

What are political tribes, and how do they influence domestic and international politics? How has blindness to group instinct led to follies in U.S. foreign policy? How can nations deal with groups as basic political units? Find out in this episode, featuring Professors Amy Chua and Bill Burke-White! Amy Chua is the John M. Duff Professor of Law at Yale Law School. She is an expert in ethnic conflict, and globalization and the law. Her most recent book, "Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations," studies how tribalism causes problems at home and abroad. She is also the author of the 2011 memoir, "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother." 0:20 – Intro conversation between Mike Horowitz and Bill Burke-White   8:25 – Chua's biographical background. 12:00 – What are political tribes? 14:54 – What are the defining characteristics of a tribe? 17:10 – How can the U.S. better understand tribalism abroad. 22:05 – What can be done about tribalism, both domestically and internationally? 28:40 – How should international law, which traditionally focuses on the state, integrate the realities of tribal politics? 30:30 – What is the most important challenge that the world must face over the next two years? 31:40 – What is the most important challenge that the world must face over the next twenty years? 32:35 – Interesting Global Fact.                   33:45 – Career advice for students.           35:10 – Cause for optimism.   Music and Produced by Tre Hester  

February 24 - March 2, 1990 Today Ken welcomes Actor/Writer Brice Beckham to the show. Ken and Brice discuss Ken annoying Brice, The Challenger disaster, TV Movies, "Too soon", Rob Stone, hosting Saturday Morning Preview Specials, The Gummy Bears, Disney TV, Pound Puppies, starting as a radio ad man, Daws Butler, Dave Coulier as Richard Pryor, guesting starring on Alice, how small a TV studio seems when you first see it in person, Mr. Belvedere, growing up in Long Beach, staying out of the "teen actor" cliche game, mid-season replacements, S.O.S. (Save Our Shows), The "Manny" subgenre, Barney Miller, Bob Ueker, tone shifts, "Very Special Episodes", AIDS, The Hogan Family, the cruel Valerie producers, "Wesley's Friend", gallows humor, Network Upfronts, learning the ins and outs of the odd Network Affiliate system, ABC-TV, the Camp Counselor episode, Family Matters, Just the Ten of Us, having a crush on the Lubbock Babes, Growing Pains, 20th Century Fox, Sunset Gower Studios, It's Gary Shandling Show, Sister Kate, I Married Dora, 4th Wall Breaking mind blowers, The Charmings, Family Ties, Michael J. Fox, American Dreamer, Robert Urich, Boston's lies, Spencer for Hire, Dolly, the Dolly Parton Variety show from 1987, stage work, Charles in Charge, Monty Python, Kids in the Hall, Mr. Show, I Hate My 30s, Animal Crack-Ups, Teen Win, Lose or Draw!, Hollywood Squares, Ken's favorite episode of Burn Notice, Mike Horowitz, Edinburgh Festival's Carnal Desire, Soft-Core TV, writing for Richard Roundtree, being a movie buff, being a loner, switchblade combs, endorsement deals from Nike, Two Teens and a Baby, gangs dance fighting, Maureen Flannigan, Kirk, Jodie Sweetin, Casey Ellison the hardest working kid in showbiz, Twin Peaks, The Outsiders, loving B-Horror, Up All Night, TCM, AMC, Paranormal Activity, Terrorvision, Nick at Nite, and an education from cable tv.

Edie speaks with Mike Horowitz of Kitfox Games about the company's title Moon Hunters , the ups and downs of being a 200%-funded Kickstarter, and advice he'd give his younger self about working with a crowdfunded project.

Edie speaks with Mike Horowitz of Kitfox Games about the company's title Moon Hunters , the ups and downs of being a 200%-funded Kickstarter, and advice he'd give his younger self about working with a crowdfunded project.