Cisco, extracting the signal from the noise. It's theCUBE, covering VMworld 2015. Brought to you by VMworld and its ecosystem sponsors. Now your host, Stu Miniman and Brian Gracely. Welcome back to SiliconANGLE TVs, live coverage of VMworld 2015. I'm Stu Miniman and my co-host for this segment is Brian Gracely and we've been digging into the networking discussion. Excited to have somebody that's both a customer and a partner been working with VMworld on the networking side. Actually, been working with the CIRA before that either. So it is Chris Drake who is the CEO of what is now called Armor, until yesterday was known as Firehost. Chris, thank you for joining us. And can you tell us a little bit about kind of your background and about Armor? Absolutely. Well, first off, I'm a military background, third generation paratrooper. You should jump out of the airplanes for any second Airborne Division. And a lot of security people kind of start from the military in their earlier days. And I started building some of the world's first websites for the world's largest organizations. And quickly learned that the security problem was happening on the application layer. And realized that it was growing immensely fast. And so I seeked out to build the world's most secure cloud. And we did that, which was the company name was Firehost. And then over time, a lot of organizations kept asking us, can you secure my cloud or my enterprise IT environment? And so we did, we lost a product called Armor. And we fell in love with the name so much that we actually rebranded our company as Armor. All right, so my understanding now, you're helping to secure other clouds.  Absolutely. So when organizations has a workload that's solving for the most paranoid of data, whether it's payments information, healthcare information, intellectual IP, things like that, then we have the proper environment for them, all sitting on VMware, all leveraging the NSX stack, global 1400 customers in 42 countries. And, but yes, we can extend our security into their enterprise IT environment, vCloud Air and other locations. So the most secure cloud in the world is a pretty bold statement. It puts a big target at bull's eye on you guys. Why do you need network virtualization? Security historically has been very demarcation point separation of resources. What does network virtualization do to drive that security? So there's a thing called a humans that creates some complications in the network stack, right? So when you have a cloud environment, they have DevOps and Sysadmins have real time control over the network interfaces and all sorts of activities. And so you have to be able to secure at scale and be agile to the business. And so that's where software defined networking NSX makes sense for us because we can manage those security policies in a dynamic environment. We have 1400 customers. We managed almost 10,000 virtual machines and every one of them was a snowflake, right? Every one of them has different security policies that have to be around every VM and we need to manage that at scale. And so that's our approach to market is to not have these generic security policies where you have DMZs and that's 2005 networking apologies, right?  Yeah, he made a great point, Chris. I mean, you know, being in the network space, I remember even the best security tools out there, if there's incompetence or malevolence out there, you know, the people can kind of screw it up. Can you give us, you know, what's your take on just security in the cloud? You know, we've often said that, I mean, security is given as, you know, often the number one inhibitor to people thinking about cloud or using cloud. So, well, there's some problems in the security space from a vendor perspective because the security vendors, if you know the space which you do is all been solving security to the enterprise, right? So they have not been friendly with multi-tenancy. And so, yes, they have great rules engines and processing that can take a couple IP addresses and have line rate speed inspection. But when you have 1500 customers, like I said, we're all snowflakes in the back end all independent, those rules break down. The processing can't happen fast enough. And so that's where the breakdown is on cloud is the multi-tenancy aspect. Secondly, people are having, they're not having security conversations right now. We are going to have security conversations soon. They are having compliance conversations. And I absolutely can't stand compliance. This is my little soapbox that, you know, if you look at all the breaches over the last 12, 24 months, over half of them were PCI compliant or HIPAA compliant or just certified for compliance. And so the problem with compliance is that it's an annual audit. That's, you know, just like an accounting organization goes through a financial audit. You're doing security audits annually. And then you have DevOps the next day that does something, opens the environment up. And either you find out in 12 more months when the audit comes back or you find out when a hacker breaches you, right? So the problem with security in the cloud is we're not having that conversation right now of true security. We're having a compliant conversation which is not, does not equal security. Yeah, now you just throughout the word DevOps, DevOps is about agility, about moving fast, about continuous integration. How do you justify that? How do you rationalize that with the security posture which, you know, traditionally tends to be don't make as many changes, don't do, but what does DevOps plus security mean for you guys? So DevOps plus security means you must state what is a known good environment, right? And then you need to manage drift from that environment. The things that DevOps do that modifies the cloud infrastructure are things that they may need to do, right? But the problem is that there's no visibility into the changes that they make, whether those are okay changes and it doesn't create more risk in my enterprise or those are horrible changes. And as a CISO, I won't find out until my honor comes back or till I get breached. And so it's really about managing the configurations, knowing what's good and then managing drift from there. And how does NSX help you with that? It's, well, first off is we can have flexible configurations. We were, before NSX, we were having to lock down configurations where the DevOps had no control, right? And they would have to provide a rationale and they need this port opener, this service exposed or whatnot. And we would have to go through an audit process and a validation process, making it not agile. And until NSX were able to expose controls to DevOps and also expose the configurations to our own virtual CISO, if you will, we have a platform that manages policies. We were not able to provide them agile tools. So it's not until our NSX environment that we're actually able to expose functionality to the DevOps to make security not so inconvenient. So Chris, I'm curious, your solutions, do you have to use a vSphere as that? Because NSX does support more than just vSphere. What's your experience and the hypervisor? How important is that as it ties into the NSX? So we are 100% VMware based on the vSphere side. And the importance for us as a security provider is that we don't have to worry about it, right? Is that it's a very solid foundation. And I could focus on having our organization think about security rather than the plumbing, which is the virtualization layer. Also, when I go into large enterprises and they ask, what's your network stack or topology looks like across your virtualization layer? When I say the word VMware, I can get through that conversation easily. If I say other words, that open source technologies or whatnot, that I'm having to defend why open source is secure and those kind of things. So when you're selling your product into other clouds though, did you find the same thing or what was your experience? So the thing that I've seen when I go into other clouds, well, our security only sits inside the virtual machine and other clouds at the moment. So we're only securing the operating system and the underlying things like anti-malware, FIM, logging, all those kinds of activities. The things that I'm excited to hear about in the near future from VMware is how NSX can go across the other clouds. Because what's bothering organizations is the IP space isn't consistent. Is that when you think about multicloud strategy right now, the clouds are their own IP space. And so they can't truly move assets from one cloud to the other because IPs are a pain to change. I don't know if you don't know how that works, but changing DNS record, BGP, things like that, creates downtime. Bit a lot of high profile credit card driven hacks, retail, some other stuff on the web. A lot of customers want to know when they're using an external cloud provider, how do I manage that relationship in terms of things like repudiation, in terms of who should be responsible for that? Like how do you guys think about this sort of shared responsibility of security and what's evolving in the cloud space for who should maybe pay liabilities and stuff like that? Yeah, that's a question we get all the time is identification, right? What is the SLA and the responsibility that if I get breached? Well, first off, it is a shared responsibility. Armor takes on more responsibility than anybody in the space. So if you were to look at all the security requirements for PCI or whatnot, we have 85% coverage for those controls and the 15% the customer has to worry about because we can't simply do it for them. And then a second one is, it's all around the metrics in which you provide the customers. We actually tell the customers what our security KPIs are. And a lot of people don't think about a security KPI. So we think about security KPIs as we guarantee our customers that one of our KPIs is for every two million through positive attacks that come to our network, we get one infection. For every one infection into our network, we average dwell time of one day, right? So that's, and by the way, the industry average on dwell time, which is dwell time is the time of that hacker once they infect the machine until when that infection is taken off and that machine is considered clean. The industry average is 205 days. Wow. Right? And so we are averaging around one day. So we actually deliver KPIs to a customer and we'll wrap an SLA around it as well as we also provide cyber insurance. So we are the only secure cloud that's backed by AIG. So every customer that comes into our environment immediately get $100,000 with the cyber insurance because we know we're a safe driver, right? If you think about the car insurance model, you know, we're a very safe driver. And so AIG can underwrite us on a cyber insurance policy. At the end of the day, this world is going to become an insurance game. You know, you have big organizations spending half a billion dollars a year in cybersecurity and they're still getting breached. They spend half a billion dollars a year in compliance. They still get breached. What do they do? They eventually have to kind of say, we got to buy insurance for it. It's going to happen no matter how much I spend, right? And so, and you can't be, you can't have great insurance rates until you're determined to be a safe environment. And that's what we are. So Chris, you've been speaking at VMworld. I'm curious what kind of questions you're getting from your peers out there. What maybe misperceptions you're clearing up about NSX or some of the key things that you're helping to deliver? So a couple of things that we've been, one of the topics that I had discussed this week at VMworld was the idea that give up protecting the endpoints, right? That is an unwinnable battle.  And the reason why is that you have to assume your endpoints are compromised. Also, you have to assume that your network's contested. You have to assume that all your partners and all the integration points that connect into your environment, whatever they told you about their security is not true, right? So first off, have that base assumption and then we can have a good security conversation. And then what we've been talking about is have a data-focused model. And the reason why I say that is what is the data? Don't care about the app, right? I can give you a story about an app that was hacked that no one would think it'd be high security and it wound up being high security requirement is focus on the most sensitive data in your enterprise, whether it's the payments, whether it's healthcare, what's intellectual IP and things like that, and secure that. And when you get the KPIs around the things that I described about dwell time and attack to infection ratio where you feel comfortable as a business, then you can move across the enterprise. The thing that I really preach is that if you're focused on the entire landscape, you'll be ineffective and nauseated. This is where people that are spending half a billion dollars and still losing the battle because they're focused on the endpoints, they're focused on BYOD, they're focused on the network, the corp IT, screw that. Focus on the endpoints on the data where the valuable data lives and you'll have successful security operation. And NSX, this is what's great about the NSX environment is that you can create snowflake-like postures. So you can say, instead of having a non-secure zone and a secure zone within a traditional networking architecture, is that you can focus security postures around every single virtual machine because you may have three web servers in a web farm, but one web server has to run a process at night that has to open up SFDP, for example, and send out something. And you put those web servers in the same posture and now your entire web farm is the same posture of your lowest common security factor, which is SFDP. So we're trying to have data-centric models and a snowflake policy management, which NSX kind of enables. You've been obviously working with NSX for a while. You talked about having worked with NYSERA prior to the acquisition. As you talk to your peers, what can they expect in terms of a transition? I mean, Stu and I both have a lot of networking background. We've been through some of those things. The technology is one piece, the people and processing. What kind of changes did you guys have to go through to make virtualized networking, virtualized security part of what you do? So the biggest change we had to do, well, it was a positive change, was pre-NSX were very manual. Like we said, at any time a certain firewall or a certain sort of network topology adjustment had to happen in real time, we had to go to engineers and have that be executed. And the change that we have was exposing NSX's platform and the capabilities to the customer. And so we worked really hard to integrate with their API set and make it very intuitive for them to add IP groups, service groups, firewall rules and things like that. And another thing that we are enabled to do now is expose those policies into the customer in real time and then map it across a compliance framework or a security framework to say, these are the things that are exposed when the auditor last came in to validate your security requirements or your compliance requirements, how has drift changed? And we can do that in real time now rather than doing it every year. Yeah, so Chris, my friends in the security industry say one of the biggest challenges that we have is that when I deploy something, I need to keep it up to date and networking traditionally has been something, let's put it in there, let's get it all done and then let don't breathe on it. I mean, especially Cisco specifically, it's firmware upgrades, no, I don't want to do that. So can you kind of round that for us and how do we think about upgrades and moving things forward to keep them secure? That's another KPI that we manage and the industry calls it points of risk per device, right? So from a security perspective, there are a international financial institution that spends half a billion dollars a year, drives for what is called a point of risk per device of less than 10, they said around nine. And what a point of risk per device is is for every device connected to the network, how many vulnerabilities is in that device? Could be firmware, could be patch level, all those kind of, it could be firewall rules, all those kinds of things. And but the problem with points of risk per device is you have to have a great patch and vulnerability management process because if you don't, you get downtime. It is the, you know, because if Super Patch Tuesday comes out or whatever, right? And you hit apply to everything, things break. So to get to a very low points of risk per device and have great uptime is a constant struggle and armor we have points of risk per device, our average of the last six months has been two. You know, and the best in class has been about nine or 10. So realistically, when can we expect to see the armor set of services deployed as a functionality in vCloud air and into this sort of one cloud message that Pat's talking about? Well, I have a breakfast with Bill Fathers tomorrow morning, so we'll work on that. But, you know, but it's deployable now, to be honest, the difference between what's available now because we built this product called Armor Anywhere. So you take armor and bring us anywhere, right? Real creative name. And so, but that's deployable at any environment across the world. The difference between the vCloud air relationship that we want to have and that we're working to execute on is the marketplace integration, right? Is that let's embed ourselves in the marketplace. So when you go into vCloud air's marketplace, you simply add a VM that already has us in there or VMs that already exist, you add us in there and you get billed through your same billing model that you would. And so the technology platform tying into our security team is all there. It's just how efficient is it in the marketplace. Excellent. So Chris, you work pretty closely with the NSX team. Where's the white space? What are you asking for going forward?  So the white space is actually, they're working towards solving that, but it's actually based off of real time reporting and on the fly decision making. Because what we are seeing is the world's not turning the world's moving away from signatures. So all the security that's been written in the past is all signature based and we're now going towards algorithms. We're looking for behavior, right? And so we've got to look for behavior in real time. Because if the hacker is able to access information for even a microsecond, it's too late, right? I don't know if you know how memory scraping works and things like that. So they are not even relying on data actually getting to spindles or getting to SSD. They're catching things in flight, in memory, right? And so the white space is to provide people like us that have the security professionals and the algorithms to actually see what's happening in real time and make decisions and block things in real time. So the first request, we see what's going on. The second request, we deny. And that's where we see the space because it's moving that fast. And what's amazing is that's where our focus is is trying to get things in the second packet. And the industry is trying to get things in 205 days. So the industry is pretty behind. All right, so I guess the last question I have for you is, unfortunately, I feel like security has always been the top of mind, but often the bottom of budget when it comes through. Seeing a lot of startups in this space. Some of the other solutions that are helping to simplify the environments take hyper-converted, for example. I hear the people saying, I'm finally getting to do the security initiatives. And when people look at cloud environments and security, as you said, they tackle the governance first, but security comes up. Why is this an important time for the whole security conversation? It's an important time because people are getting tired of their CEOs getting fired and their shareholders getting sued, right? I mean, and the boards are now creating a 30 minute block in every board meeting to talk about risk, right? Because this is now starting to impact people besides the security professionals. And the problem and the opportunity that exists in the space and the problem that exists in the space all at the same time is that you have great security technologies that are being released out there. And the reason why that people are resident from going to the cloud and security is number one issue is they don't know what to do with it. Because the security technologies, I use this analogy, but I think about them as blacksmiths, right? All the security companies are nothing but blacksmiths. They provide swords and shields to organizations. And the organizations don't know how to fight with them. No one's the knights and that's our role, right? We actually wield the weapons to go fight the battles. And so these security organizations, like I want to leverage the cloud and I look at the marketplace and I look at all these swords and shields that are available in the marketplace. I don't know how to operationalize them. I don't have the threat intel team to add the intelligence within the framework to do IP or URL blacklisting. And I don't have the operations team to manage the events that come out of it and to jump on bad threats that fall from those events that I see. This is why you have people like Target that get breached. They spent tons of money. They had FireEye and all these kinds of incredible security technologies. But there was so much noise because they didn't have the intel to siphon down the noise into a needle point to inspect, then they didn't have a security team to jump on the few events that they were able to see. And so until we solve the blackness versus the Knights equation, people are still going to be scared to go into the cloud because they don't know what to do with the tools that are available to them. All right, well, Chris Drake, really appreciate you coming on this talk to this critical issue as we look at cloud and what's going on in networking. Thanks so much for joining us and thank you for watching. We'll be right back with some of our wrap up here on day two here from theCUBE at VMworld 2015.


Oh, I really want up in the time I guys my ringtone. Yeah, you don't like when people call me Reactions you need some Corbin up in the time I got he calls an Instagram and Twitter My juicy shame is a lot like gelato shame Falls on a personal YouTube channel things right down there today. We have a little treat a little treat Cuz we finished all we have a mission we finished all the songs from the movie I and so this is the making of The songs of the movie I I didn't even think of that and that is awesome. That is that's a neat little mischief So I don't know what else I was subbed by our subbers is this a compilation of all of them put together Or is this like here's the making of it just says making of songs of eyes Okay, so I was hoping we're gonna make it each one. Yeah, that would have been nice We'd have five separate making of us Maybe if there is let us know because I would love to see a full one about that the monster one That'd be great. Yes, cost me maybe this will go into it. Hopefully but here we go I wanted to make it Desi That's gonna solve it The word that was the concept The director had a very specific phone of mine in Nokia So it's just a matter of taking the phone and making the elements work for, you know, for any shape And she just looks absolutely Imagine anyone being Especially cell phone It's even though the regular street Other part of the temperature of the balloon away gives that I A lot of ideas put into my song and still make it cause it was Very difficult task Product In the other part of the concert I'm a little of a couple part of the To have an idea like that and To kind of Interpreate that in one song. I think it's the best creative team But Oh We were in a stadium and you must have been easily Five hundred people in that each person is dressed in a ball So it was visually absolutely fantastic. It's been a tough schedule though because we had to shoot for mostly about more than 14 Suggesting again, let's get a title phrase and then let's keep it in Haduka white flowers are in flowers. They'll park a lot of Mayan or Arumiyan And that I don't like But China on the pinnacle smirky malayalam to cool for a couple of months. You know, I need to put a little bit more I think I'll let them go right up on top of one of the mountainous there and shot with a Helicopter camera. So that was a good experience It was a big challenge for us because we are here in the middle of high clips with down drop and up drop and We circle around the very high precision Respecting the rhythm of the music One of the pathina weeds, I mean All the red flowers match with a kind of color party mariana That's what I wanted to say about the model And they see me one day and it's saying Lady is my intro song, and it's actually the first song in the movie. So it was a big deal She from India? I hear Brit I hear Brit Shalcoji liked a lot of ideas in that All the songs in this song are complicated First of all, the ice cream, chocolate, bubble gum, I can't say But when I see it in the visual, I can understand what it means So there were five sets in it There was a watch set, which was absolutely sweet I remember getting on that beauty and the beauty He knows exactly what he wants Around the world, I've worked on a few large sets This is comparable to anything Yeah, that's Lord of the Rings And it looks beautiful I just love filmmaking When I see everything, it's not like a beast It's a beautiful picture This song really hurts my soul Absolutely If it's not good enough, I'll give it to you If it's not good enough, I'll give it to you If you and I are gone, I'll search for love He visualizes things, he had a great concept I'm locked in a cage as a princess And this beast has captured me And the chase around the castle And the garden portions They were shot absolutely fantastically If there's a longer video That went so fast Especially if they go into depth Especially of the Beauty and the Beast song I would love to see the costuming talk about their thing I could spend 8 minutes on the set creation The makeup, the hair, the costuming, the lighting Give us 5 hours of back behind the scenes stuff Yeah, I really enjoyed those songs It was great behind the scenes It went by really fast They talked about 5 songs in the span of 8 minutes Obviously they could have gone more in depth If there are more in depth videos But that's juicy right there For our phrase juicy content That's the kind of behind the scenes we want Where you're really seeing and hearing the visuals And the visualization of the artists And the collaborative nature of the filmmaking And you're covering everything from the set design To the costuming, to the music, to the locations Really well done Really nice Not a surprise that the behind the scenes of it Was showing how brilliant that creative team was So what's the word on the street about the film itself? It's mixed, man It's mixed, some people say just watch it That's okay, maybe it'll be like the BFG Because the BFG word on the street was really mixed It didn't do well I think part of the reason was the release date was wrong I loved the BFG Did you see it? Yeah, no, I liked the BFG It should have been a holiday film Not a summer release I still don't know what the film is actually about The BFG? No, this Oh, okay, yeah, no No idea what the film is So I don't know what I go in expecting But once again, let us know Down below, that was great


network. Headline news update. Good afternoon folks. This is Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of sunny Delray Beach, Florida. This year, 2 p.m. update, including we have all of the U.S. Indices trading to the downside. The Dow is off 535 points. The S&P 67, NASDAQ 120, 224. Russell's off 48. Semai's are down 51. Trendy's off 300 points out there. Let's go spend a little time and take a look at our cash in the sea charts out here. Give me a moment. We'll change screens and as we change screens, the first one that gets populated in the upper left hand corner is the Dow Jones Industrial. So here we see that the Dow is trading into its swing point from December 1st. That was a nice TD9 count bottom and a rejection would require the Dow to close above 35004.64. If it does not do that, even if it trades into that swing point with lighter volume, you could see a test of those lows. If we take a look at the S&P 500, price is traded right back to its level of support, its breakout support, which is 4551 or traded at 4553. So support so far holding in an area where we'd expect, excuse me, to see support hold. The NASDAQ 100, just below its level of support, its breakout level, TD9 breakout, 15578. We're trading at 15581 out there. So watch that, but support appears to be holding. The Russell 2000, if it can close today above 213090, here 2127, then its rose momentum indicator bottom will still be retained and you also have wave number seven. That's a letter G. That's a red letter G that's on my screen. So that's a potential bottom, but that can't be confirmed until we have a higher low. The semis, the semis are just trading in a sideways consolidation. Trying to pull this over here, see if we can do it. There you can see the consolidation. So right now, price is trading to the bottom of consolidation, which was really established by the hammer candle from the trading day of December 6th and that low out there is 3687. You trade at 3711. So as I look at these charts, the semis are at support, the NASDAQ 100 is at support, the S&P 500 is at support, the Russell 2000, it's testing a key support level out there, kind of getting the support, support, support thing. The Dow Jones transport is very likely headed to 5146.62. That's its CD9 breakout level. The spot, these XAU, look at that. You've got gold down 11 bucks, 6.10 some percent, silver down 22 cents. That's 1%. And the XAU is holding that oscillator and change line. That's bullish action inside the miners. Folks, stay tuned. David whites up next. Take care.


you can think about how many regulations are and how uneasy for small companies to deal with these regulations, but then these are not only the costs. The costs are also the other side that there are regulators, there are inspectors, there are many guys who need to tell you, teach you how to do these things and etc. And then we went to the COVID period and I will finish very soon. During the COVID period, there was one thing definite that many people understood. There was such a high emotion that in these kind of big events, we need somebody strong who can take the responsibility, who can buy the masks, who can bring us the vaccines. And one of our greatest politicians said that when you are Ronald Reagan, he was saying that when you are increasing the power of the government, then you are decreasing the freedoms, of course. So step by step we are losing our freedoms with these kind of things. And we never try to understand how to stop this in future. We need to have some kind of mechanism how to stop, how to make red line visible for the politicians. And I finish with the Georgian experience. In 2011, Georgia implemented an amendment in the constitution which is prohibiting government to increase tax rates without referendum or implement new tax without referendum. And what I call this, this is a kind of rebel of individual against the majority because you can imagine what happens with the individual. I am against of high taxation, what can I do? The majority wants to have high taxes and I am an individual and I'm thinking that half of that is enough because I'm not really getting enough from the government maybe or other reasons, but I'm an individual. How can I fight this majority in the country, in my country or your country or US or Germany or elsewhere that one individual wants to rebel and say that I don't want to pay so much taxes? What can individual do that in that situation? They will tell you that no, nothing, just pay. That's the reality. So Liberty Act, what we call this amendment in the constitution makes a barrier for the majority because you know that Jim Gortney explained this very well and Buchanan in reality invented this. When you have a government, when you have elections, there are a bunch of ideas. In the bunch there can be increase of taxes but you support the political party for other reasons not for the high taxes. So if you put the issue of the tax rates and the new taxes on the side, not in the politics in the elections then people need to vote for the higher taxes individually on this topic. So this is kind of barrier for the majority because when they come to the decision that they need to increase tax or not, then not all of them are happy with the increase of taxes. Another example and a good experience is from Slovakia. In Slovakia they have a law which is saying that if government implements one new regulation it needs to destroy two old regulations. So you bring new regulation okay but you need to show us that you are eliminating two old regulations. Otherwise this law cannot pass the parliament. So this is what I wanted to say about this. Thank you very much. Maybe I was talking. All about to me there, there are five or six flights every day. So anyway, maybe you have questions to Barbara and Hans? No, I was talking about Georgia reaction. So I need to say that with our Soviet past we were ready for the market. Because half of Georgia's Soviet Socialist Republic was the illegal economy. Half of the economy was illegal. So only bad thing was that there was a wrong practice of course. Some people were thinking only that business can be done only through bribes and that was. But by the way one of the interesting things is that until 2004 many Georgians would tell you that Georgians cannot live without corruption. But we were 130 seconds in the Transparency International Index and after some market reforms we are now 40 seconds, upper than many European countries. And we proven that there is no such a thing like illness with the corruption. We don't believe in this. There are mistakes of policies. There are mistakes of the politicians who are always eager to implement new taxes and regulations. And there was one particular guy who was the leader of the reforms. He read all the laws. Can you imagine this? We had a very great speaker about environmentalism two days ago. And he read the report about the climate change. And he discovered many things that this report was not really that bad. But Kache Bendukidze was a great man. He died unfortunately some years ago. He read all the legislation and was, oh, we don't need this. We don't need this. We don't need this. He eliminated 800 permits and permissions and licenses. 800 out of 950. And guess what happened? Next day there was no corruption. Because this corruption is how to avoid the rules. Not how to act according to the rules. But how to avoid the rules. This is because this was the same in Soviet Union that why there were so many corruption deals there. Because people were trying to avoid the Soviet rules. And if you wanted to have the pharmacies, I mean pharmaceutical goods, which were not available in the Apotheca, then you were going to somewhere named Chaika. By the way, he was Jewish. But everybody were going to him to buy prohibited pharmaceutical goods. And everybody knew him. And why did not help? We were talking about so many institutions who were to punish you and imprison you, etc. For instance, there were private tutors completely prohibited. They were fighting them. They were imprisoning their private teachers. But then even KGB guys understood that their children needed the private teachers also. And it ended with this. This is the reality. Yes, short break. Barbara, enhance if you'd like to add anything before the break. Sorry, we didn't hear you. Was? Hi Barbara, can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, so. Very well. If you'd like to add anything before we wrap up this session, you and Hans, welcome to add anything. Hans, do you want to go ahead or shall I? Just a glimpse to Gia's explanations. I agree because in the statistic system, bureaucracy is a kind of self-sufficient system. So the more bureaucracy there is there, the more complicated the regulations are. The more easy it is to make money on the side. So it is also a question of the system, which in the end prevents competition and quality for people. Thank you. I would simply sum it up by saying, thank you, Hans. Thank you, Hans. I would simply sum it up by saying it's always the old battle, individualism versus collectivism. And we simply need to defend our individual freedoms and always ask the question, what is the task of the state? And always kind of say, we have the rule of law that provides the framework within we move, but that's it. And the rule of law needs to be always defended. And I think this is the basics with property rights together. Everything else I think is discussable. And after all, we live in democracies, at least in the western part of the world. And we can only defend them if we keep our individual freedom and liberties up. So individualism versus collectivism is a big question and the goal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Barbara. Thank you, Hans. And thank you, Gia. And we'll wrap this up and take five minutes break till the last session about the roots of war in five minutes. So refresh yourself. Thank you. Thank you. In our next session, Yaron Bruk, Gia and myself. Hello, Mishmach. I'm here, Matille. Okay. Now it's going to be short because we know everybody. So, Ellie, can I start? Okay. So welcome back to our last session. And this is the root of war. The name of the panel is also working very well with one of Ayn Rand articles that I urge you to read. I'm just going to mention to you that if you want to read one of Barbara Esse's article, Ed Hop's article, that was published in Israel two days ago, go to Glob's website and see her article that is very relevant to the subject of the panel. So, our next subject is the root of war, Yaron Bruk, Gia, Gia, Genieri, and myself will participate. And I let Yaron start and introduce the subject. So I already kind of introduced it earlier if you were here in my talk. But I think at the end of the day, and I encourage everybody to read the roots of war by Ayn Rand. It's in capitalism, not an ideal. It's in that collection of essays. But war is a product of collectivism. Individuals don't go to war. Individualist trades. Individualists who are interested in promoting their own happiness, promoting their own life, promoting their own ability to enjoy their life and to have lead productive good lives, they choose to engage with other people as traders. Now what is a trade? A trade is when you give up something and you get what in return? Something of greater value to you. If I spend a thousand dollars on my iPhone, it's because the iPhone is worth to me more than a thousand dollars. Maybe to you it's not, so you don't buy it. But to me it's worth more than a thousand dollars. And of course, to Apple it's worth less than a thousand dollars. So I profit and Apple profits and everybody's better off. So individuals engage with other people, they respect the minds of other people, they respect the productive ability of other people, and therefore they let them produce and live and they engage with them in trade. It is the idea that individuals don't matter. It's the idea that it's the group that matters, the state, the collective, any group you want to, any name you want to give, the particular group, the parliamentarian as I said. It's only when you disregard the individual and you place the group at the top, does war become relevant? Collectiveism by its nature promotes zero-sum thinking. The Soviet Union, everybody in a sense was zero-sum, right? Because it's one big pie that the state controls, and then the question is who gets what piece of the pie? Now we're enemies of one another, because if I get a bigger piece, you get a smaller piece. With individualism, the only way I can get a pie is by creating one, by building one. And by doing so, I make you richer, I make your pies bigger. But in collectivism, the pie is fixed, it is the totality of what exists.  Another feature, of course, of collectivism is that it fails. I think Gia described and has written a lot about the Soviet Union, its economic system, and how it failed. Now what happens if your economic system fails? Well, there's a strong taintation to go and steal stuff from other people.   And again, you can see that over and over and over again, this view of trade as zero sum, and therefore that legitimizes the idea of violence and war. And at the end of the day, who is sacrificed? It's always the individual, there was an example before I think, Barbara mentioned, of the Russian soldiers don't know what they're fighting for, they don't know why they're there, they don't know what they're doing, they have no desire to die, they don't understand the cause for which they're fighting. But the people at the top are dictating that they do so in the name of what? And unfortunately, I think much of the Russian people are buying into this, in the name of Russia, in the name of some mystical ideal of what Russia is, which collectivism always requires a mystical ideal. So you see the pattern over and over and over again, when zero sum thinking and collectivism come to the forefront, war is almost always the solution that happened before World War I, happened before World War II. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is growing in the world today, and I fear that Russia, Ukraine, is just the beginning, not the end. Yeah, I would start with such a thing, like why Russians are supporting now the war in Ukraine? Because they are watching their government TVs and they know only what the government is telling them. This is the big problem. I was in South Africa, Johannesburg in 2004, and I met the guy from, he lived there 15 years already, but he was from Moscow, he was by the way Jewish, but making some business there. And after a few minutes, I arrived, he started talking some kind of harsh language to me, why you Georgians are against Russia.  And then I was in New York and taxi driver was also Russian, or I don't know, Russian speaking, to deliver me to JFK airport. And he was attacking me, just saying that why you are Georgians fighting against Russia, such things. And then people can really believe that Georgians and Ukrainians or Baltic or any others are against Russia or against Russians or such things. No, there is no such a thing that Georgians are very tolerant people. And what we want to do is just to make business, nothing else. And what comes from Russia, this is explained by a very famous Georgian leader of Georgians in 19th century, Ilya George, he was saying that there is no such a thing in Russia like private property. Georgia was the part of Russian empire. And in Georgia, there was, Georgia was flourishing, just flourishing. You go to old streets of Georgia, Tbilisi or Batumi or other places, and you find that it was the flourishing place. But most of the Russians were hungry. They were hungry in Soviet Union as well. And they are hungry now, even now. They are hungry. In many places in Russia, they are hungry. During the times when Russia is making wars in Ukraine, occupies two regions in Georgia, kills many, many people in Syria and many other places, they killed, as Chechens are saying, they killed 40,000 school children during the Chechen, two Chechen wars, Chechnya wars. And then you can have a question why they are doing this. There was a Russian thinker. I think he is alive, but he can be very old. He was an advisor of Gorbachev, the last leader of Soviet Union. And he wrote a book in 1980s and trying to explain why the Communist revolution was successful in Russia. And he said that because, and I will quote what he said, you know, because it's, I don't want to somebody to think that I'm inventing this myself. He said, let my cow die if only the neighbor did not have two. Can you imagine this? This is the ideology. Let's punish everybody. Let's punish bourgeoisie. Let's punish every rich man aristocracy. That's how they won the, and Ayn Rand was great to explain this situation in reality. And I'll tell you one more example. I was saying two days ago about this. There was a painter, artist in Georgia. He was from Poland originally. He was born in Georgia in Kutaisi, but he studied arts in Europe, but returned back to Georgia, lived in Georgia until 1937 and he was killed by Bolsheviks then. And if you read what kind of good things he was doing, you can be amazed. How could they kill him? But how it happens, this is the reality. It started from 1917. Lenin was very harsh. They were killing the elites. Who were the elites? These were the bourgeoisie. These were the people who were bringing to the society, who were keeping the ethical norms. And everybody were looking at them, the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. These are the guys we need to follow. Then you kill them, you eliminate them, and who will bring this message of ethical message? Nobody. That's what happened in 1937. There was nobody to protect, to protest against the repressions. There was nobody.  Biggest harm was coming from the property owners and the aristocracy. They already killed them, but they thought that we don't need this intelligentsia as well. We need to have our intelligentsia who will be supporting communist regime and communist art and communist science and such kind of things. And those guys could be doing some harm to their ideology. That's why they killed them, because this was the end of repression. Some people think that repressions were in 1937, 1938. But no, repression started immediately in 1917. This is the reality. Everybody should understand this. Repression started there. And then if we come to the question of Ukraine, they killed all the elite in Ukraine. They killed approximately 50 million people in Ukraine, started Russifying them, the Ukrainians, send millions of Russians to live there. And what happens now? Look, even Russians who live in Ukraine, they are fighting against Russia. They are staying in their homes, in Harkov or other places, Mariupol and other places. They are mostly Russians, these guys, but they don't want to live in Russia. This is the reality what they could not understand in Russia. That if you lived in Ukraine, you are Ukrainian, not by the language, but you are Ukrainian by your behavior, by your mentality, that you are a free man. This is the reality. I'll give a short remark. A wise man once says about the saying that there is a clash of civilization between the Eastern world and the Western world. And he's saying, no, there is a civilization of clashes and civilization. And this is basically the difference between civilization who is built on the honoring of the individual and the individual spirit and flourishing. And the civilization that established on some, I would say, idealistic concept of collectivist. And then it could be any collectivist concept of race, or color, or whatever, or class. So this is basically the struggle in our world. This is the struggle that I'm running up in fascinating books. And this is also what each of us reveal when it relates to the news today. And we see it in Israel very clearly. We can see a response for Zelensky addressing the Israeli parliament and the Israeli people.  How dare he talk inaccurately about the Holocaust, twisting things, doing stuff that actually damaging the memory of the Holocaust. And other people say, who cares what he's saying? He's now drowning. And he's trying to say anything to get some help. And there is innocent people who are butchered and massacred. And what we're looking upon is the individuals, the people who didn't harm anybody and realizing that there is bad and there is good. There is aggressor and there is victim. And this is important in order to remember. And when you see the response on the social media, keep in mind who is actually tilted toward collectivism and who is actually looking on human beings as individuals. And this is the basic difference. I thought that it's very symbolic coincidence that the Russian decided to inscribe the letters Z on their vehicles. And it's remind World War Z, which is stand for zombies. And basically, this is what it takes. This is what it takes from the individual to become a zombie in order to serve a regime that doesn't consider individual as worth is living. So the only way to survive, it's either to become a zombie or to flee. And this is basically what Ainran did. She knew that what she is about to write will not allow her either to live or to survive as human being in the Soviet Union.  And here I'm going to take question to the speakers. I just wanted to add something that Stalin famously said that death of one person is a tragedy, and the death of million is the statistics. This is how they look at the individuals in Russia. And I had many years of discussing what is the problem with Russia with my Western friends in Europe or the US. And unfortunately, now they are waking up, not everybody, by the way, but they are waking. But then I said that we don't need many arguments, because I could say that Georgia is much older than Russia, and we have much longer traditions, etc. Okay, leave it alone. There are many historical arguments, but okay. So there are two major arguments. That Russians are not trustful, as Otto von Hasburg once said, any document signed by Russians does not worth the paper, which is the sign. And the second thing is that they don't respect individuals.   But he thinks that this is the Russian rule, and this should be done this way. This is what I wanted to add, thank you very much. Okay, if somebody wants to ask a question, please yeah, Eldad, I'll repeat it for the recording, if you can explain the idea of Putinism and the affiliation of some people in the West with this. Yeah, but I don't think there really is anything unique about Putin. I don't think there's anything, there's no, there's no such thing as Putinism, right? It's nationalism. It's pure unadulterated nationalism. It's the primacy of Russia. It's the primacy of the Russian Empire. It's a longing for some greatness of Russia. It's the idea that Russia is the West equal, it is the West, it is America's equal, that they are rulers born to rule somehow, and that they should have their, they're an important people, so they have to have a sphere of influence. They have to have an empire. It's not enough to have the largest country in the world by landmass. They should have what they had in the past. So if you look at nationalism, it Hawkins back to that. It's got the same spiritual content, there's kind of a particular soul of Russia. It's special, it's better, it's unique. He sounds, you know, in that sense he's very similar to World War II Japan, which was all about the superiority of the Japanese over any other people and that they should rule Asia because there's something special about them and unique about them. So I think it's nationalism combined with a zero-sum view of the world. And look, you can see the zero-sum view of the world even internally in Russia. Russia has not embraced markets internally, encouraged trade among Russians, encouraged industry, encouraged entrepreneurship. It's created oligarchs, it created government-sanctioned monopolies, non-markets, government-sanctioned monopolies protected by the government. And it's focused on what? On the one thing that kind of has a sense of zero-sum, natural resources, which is not something, I mean there is creativity there, but it's less the least of the kind of creative ideas, sciences, right? It's not technology, it's not entrepreneurial, it's big and it's a matter of pumping it out of the ground, you don't even refine it in Russia, you send it overseas and they refine it overseas, right? Russian oil is refined elsewhere. So he's very much got that zero-sum mentality. If the West is thriving and Russia's not, then let's take a chunk of the West. And look, the struggle between Ukraine and Russia right now is a struggle between a collectivist, the collectivism that has been inherent in Europe over the last 100 years and the remnants of liberty and freedom. And I mean we've been to Kiev, I think we've been to Kiev together. I mean Kiev was striving to be a Western city. It was quite there, corruption is still big in Ukraine, it's not completely free, the political system is so-so, but they're moving in that direction. If you speak to Ukrainians, what they want is to be like the West and it's a real challenge. Now why do people in the West like him? Because right now we are moving in a direction in the West towards nationalism, towards collectivism. There's a real rebook, particularly in America, of nationalism and collectivism and you can see that the people who like him tend to be the national conservatives, the people who have adopted American nationalism. Also they have a zero-sum mentality, the anti-trade, the anti-immigration, the anti-anything that will dilute what they view as this precious thing that is America. But they view it in material ways, not in an added value way. And they love strength, zero, some people love muscles. So you see even the emoji that they use on Twitter to describe Putin is always muscles. It's always like a so it's the revival and the spreading of nationalism on the right and to some extent on the left that is encouraging, that is what is supporting Putin. That's the mentality. I would add something more. There is practical thing with Russia also that Putin or some other leaders maybe also. We are looking forward and we don't know what will be after Putin because it's not that much sure that there will be better leaders there. So the problem with Russia is such a big territory, they don't want to, they don't know how to manage this territory if not with the collectivist ways, if not punishment ways, if not propaganda ways. They don't believe in the individual liberties, but they don't believe in decentralization of the country. They think that if they decentralize, the Russia can be dissolved very quickly. Because some regions have oil, some regions have brilliance, some regions have different things and they think that they will go by themselves. And of course China is there hiding to grab something from Russia. That's what makes them afraid of everything, being afraid of everything. Instead of thinking that liberalized and in liberal world in the more democratic system, people will be happy to live in Russia, not to go away, but to stay there. Then this makes politicians think that if we need such politics, that telling them that everybody are our enemies, we are the best in the world. And then they think that this is the long run chance to keep in the power. What Putin thinks is that Russians anyway think collectively they don't care about individuals and if I tell them that we will be fighting everybody, we will throwing the nuclear bombs, they will be happy that we will punish everybody because they are against us. And he thinks that Russians are happy with this kind of thing, that we can destroy everybody if they don't obey. But we are not happy if Russia is dissolving. This is what they have in their mind. And who is afraid of dissolving their country because you give the individuals and more powers and local governments more powers, et cetera. Nobody dissolved for this reason. I don't know any country, even Switzerland, which is maybe most decentralized country, has no idea. Nobody in Switzerland talks about why not to dissolve Switzerland or other countries or US for instance. There is nobody talking about this. But in Russia they are simply afraid that their country will be dissolved. And Putin is using this. Let's see if there is any other question. Yes, please. The reason for the rise of the nostalgia for the USSR, what is the roots of it? I think the roots of it are disillusionment with the mixed economy. So we live in a world which is not individualistic and not collectivistic. It's a world that is trying to straddle both. There's trying somehow to engage with both. You know, you've got to mix a little bit of freedom and a lot of control. Regulations, taxes, all kinds of controls. And what you get as a consequence is I think a population that kind of likes freedom but is not convinced of it. There's no philosophical foundation for it. There's no moral foundation for it. They don't quite understand it. They experience these big recessions. I think 2008 will turn out to be historically a very, very significant event because I think it convinced a lot of people, I think falsely, but it convinced a lot of people that capitalism is unstable and bad things happen and maybe we need to look back for stability. And if capitalism is unstable, what is stable? And maybe the Soviet Union was, you know, particularly I think in Eastern Europe, they're older people. And I don't think young people are really longing for the Soviet Union to the extent that they're socialist or communist. They want something, they imagine something better. They don't long for that. But they really do, they want to combine the philosophical foundations of collectivism, which almost everybody believes in. Like there's nobody who has a slight small percentage of the population philosophically believes in individualism. Almost everybody's a collectivist. But they like their freedoms, right? They like the mixed economy and they like to do stuff. But they don't like the ups and downs. They don't like the volatility.  Now I don't know how much this USS on nostalgia is real or how big it is. I think it's a fad for many people. But there is definitely a rise in various forms of collectivism and a backlash against capitalism. The anti-capitalist movement in the United States has grown dramatically over the last 10 years. I've never seen America be so anti-capitalist as it is right now. And there was also something like this that I can talk about why Soviet Union was bad for one week. But okay, leave this alone. The problem is that nobody destroyed Soviet arguments. This is the reality. People can think only about Stalin, Lenin and such kind of bad guys were ruling. That's why it was so bad. And not that system was wrong and system needed millions to be killed and etc. This is, we need to destroy these arguments first. And then young people to read those things. And nobody was doing by the way this. There were lots of talks about how bad was Stalin and nothing else. But how bad was the ideology? This is still a secret for many people. They think that it was not so bad. Just Stalin was bad. And you know Stalin was from Georgia. If there is another question, Mr. Hasid there, go ahead. We will finish soon. John, will you repeat the question for the recording? So I think the question was, I think I understood it as why is the anti-capitalism growing in the United States so much? And to what extent has the COVID contributed to that? So the why, I think goes to what Gia just said. The why is that we haven't presented a strong enough defense of capitalism and individualism. We've let the, almost everybody believes that communism is a good idea in theory. It's just difficulty in practice and you had bad people doing it. But in theory it's wonderful. No, in theory it's evil. Evil. It doesn't work. And it's wrong. It doesn't work because it's wrong. And we haven't made that argument. So when you see, when people get uncomfortable with the existing system, they look for some ideals. People want to be idealistic. They want to try for something. What are they going to be idealistic? Capitalism? For greed? For individuals pursuing their own well-being? We all know Christianity, everybody's taught us that's bad. So they look for an alternative. And I think the collectivism, and in America the collectivism comes in two forms. It comes in a left-wing form, which is socialism. And it comes in a right-wing form, which is nationalism and religionism. The centrality of religion. And you're seeing both of those rise. And the one thing shrink is individualism and capitalism defense of that. But we haven't done, we, the bigger we, haven't done a good enough job in defending it and protecting it. And in particularly convincing young people and convincing kids, we've let primarily the left take over our educational institutions. So they dominate those. And then what the right does is it looks at what the left's doing. And they say, well, we know that's evil. So we're going to look for another form of collectivism that attacks what the left does. So they come up with their own. And now you've got two evils that you're trying to fight. And it becomes more difficult. And here, if I can give a plug to something I've been saying for the last six years, but everybody hates me for it. Here Donald Trump played a crucial role, a crucial role in destroying the right in America and in making the right more collectivist. And for anybody who didn't believe me in 1915, in 2015 and 2016, hopefully now you do because you can see the results right in front of us. That is, he completely separated the idea of the Republican Party and the conservatism from the idea of free markets. And he latched on to the idea of Republicanism as associated with collectivism and nationalism and statism and central planning and all those. But the thing that unified him, the thing that we should all get excited about is we hate the left. So there's no opposition to statism in America today. None. There's Republicans and Democrats, each with their own form of statism. And there's a few of us trying to argue with them. But in politics, there's maybe a handful of senators and congressmen who actually stand for kind of ideas of capitalism. Thank you. Thank you, Yaron. And the last question for Yair. Yeah. I mean, I think the most misunderstood of her ideas and the ones that our enemies use most effectively against her is the idea of self-interest. It's the idea of what self-interest actually means. And they associate selfishness, which he put on the title of a book to kind of jab at them. But they associate selfishness with not caring about other people, exploiting other people, being mean and nasty and horrible and being booty-made off, being a lying, cheating, stealing SOB. If you don't know what SOB is, ask me afterwards. And it's a real cognitive barrier to people when they hear egoism or when they hear self-interest or when they hear selfishness. To consider what she actually said, which was this rational approach to your own well-being, to your own ability to thrive and flourish as a human being and pursue your happiness, that does not involve exploiting other people, quite the contrary, involves treating other people as a traitor, treats other people as values and it is fundamentally benevolent. And I think we need to model that and I think we need to, you know, behavior and I think we need to do an ever-better job at explaining that and walking with people. And it's very hard because look, 2,000 years primarily of Christianity having grained in our brain, literally fused 2 concepts together, right? Morality and altruism. Altruism means placing the well-being of other people above yourself, not being nice to people, placing the well-being above yourself. Those 2 ideas, so altruism is morality. So when you say morality is somebody, they think altruism. It's why it's so hard to communicate with people. And we need to find a way to make them rethink the concept and therefore introduce this new idea. Okay, thank you very much. We'll close the session here. And first of all, I want to thank everybody that came over and you should clap yourself, gentlemen, 2 and a half hours in the evening in Tel Aviv when there is so many other things to do. It's very special and appreciated. And I'd like to thank a member of the Knessetcher and a Skel that came over to greet the event. Dr. Yaron Brooke from the Einwand Institute, Gia from the Georgian School of Economics, Barbara Kulem and Hans Unterdrofer. And I hope I got it close. And everybody else that support this production, Ellie and the crew behind with the cameras, and all this great civilization that we need to keep, protect, promote, and keep the light on. And this is basically what we fight for. So keep the light on. Thank you.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we discussed the following question which says, a machine is composed of three parts. The probability that each of these parts function properly is 0.92, 0.76 and 0.85. The machine functions only if all the parts function together. Find the probability that the machine will fail. Let's proceed with the solution now. We consider let E1 be the event that the part 1 of the machine functions and we take E2 to be the event that the part 2 of the machine functions also E3 be the event that the part 3 of the machine functions. We take probability of event that is the part 1 of the machine functions be equal to 0.92 then probability of E2 that is the probability that the part 2 of the machine functions be equal to 0.76 and probability of E3 which is the probability of the part 3 of the machine functions be equal to 0.85. In the question it's given that the machine functions only if all the parts function together. So the probability that the machine functions is equal to the probability of even and E2 and E3. That is all the three parts of the machine function together and this is equal to probability of even intersection E2 and this would be equal to probability of even multiplied by probability of E2 multiplied by probability of E3 which is further equal to 0.92 multiplied by 0.76 multiplied by 0.85. And so this is equal to 0.594 that is the probability that the machine functions is equal to 0.594. We have to find the probability that the machine will fail. So the probability that the machine fails would be equal to 1 minus the probability that the machine functions. So this is equal to 1 minus 0.594 which is equal to 0.406 which is the probability that the machine fails. So this is our final answer. This completes the session. Hope you have understood the solution of this question.


For this fixture. Well, it was all one-way track traffic from the wood go for Fatima College The guns there with a bit of improvisation not enough power to trouble Lucas Williams with the shot couldn't get it on target Ball come across and that man there La Rosa With a man and match performance for Trinity College made it difficult. They didn't eventually get the ball into the back of the net But Shaves was a judge to be offside. He got a similar type of opportunity moments later This time flashing his chance wide of Lucas and the post and second half action As you will Fatima College on the front foot substitute Tristrayl with the opportunity just putting it wide And a glorious chance there For the substitute blasting it over the bar Fatima College Again applying the pressure on Trinity College mocha. It's time Lucas parry and while long searching ball For the captain Jaden Williams just couldn't get direction on it and the ball eventually goes wide Chains with another opportunity La Rosa with a good challenge And when they get by the Trinity rear guard the bar providing an obstacle But goal number one by Tristan Bailey Collects the ball on the right side and slots it home with the right foot with a good finish and the floodgates Started to open for Trinity College this time Lucas stopping the progress of Coraya captain Jaden Williams If you're not sure that did score With the goal for the second for Fatima College to know for the boys are more crap or Bailey The ball put across and the substitute Caden Tristrayl at the back post with the head of three-nil Fatima College And just when they was starting to prepare themselves for semi-final encounter Coraya made sure that the assurance was there with Fatima College fourth Good bit of football by the boys from Mokorapo Jordan Darius Finds Tristrayl for the first time finished goalkeeper Lucas with no chance five goals to nail Fatima College progress in this fixture against Trinity College mocha Onto the semi-finals for their next fixture Well, I'm joined by Trinity College head coach coach Dave criminal coach a good first half a plucky display Tactically well disciplined well oil on Ravel at the end your assessment of the 90 minutes plus. I think I'm so It's so why why Fatima champions? We tried to stay as organizers as we couldn't majority the game We were excellently for self-defensive Lee Second half the the all players ran out of steam or gas They gave it up that their best and the best wasn't really Wasn't up to Bobby wanted from the game Otherwise, I think the boys did well. Yes, we didn't win the game, but majority the game will go good Well, as you look forward to of course next season and the fixtures to come a good plucky display as you mention As we mentioned, of course injuries fatigue may be playing apart. What can you take going in to moving forward? I think it's just it's just having our earlier preseason Most of our squad is on the other 16 team I think we might have about three players over over the age of 16. Who wouldn't be with us next year? And as you could see we have a skeleton so it's just it's just that I have a early Preseason as early as January and and we love our okay season next year. Thank you very much coach and all the best Yeah, man. Thanks. I'm now joined by coach Hudson Charles of Fatima College coach a Little bit more difficult than probably expected on paper from Trinity College as I mentioned a plucky display by them Your assessment on a 90 minutes plus. All right, I'm Laughter get them like kudos. I guess they did the homework, but we expected most of the teams to come and sit back and Play on the counter and I think you know Trinity had a game kudos, you know, they did it for a long time But I know I all like telling the guys to let me patients Let's get it first goal and I think when we score the first goal, you know, the floodgates will open one That's exactly what happened. Well in this format of the competition, it's more about winning and progressing down performances Are you satisfied moving forward that Fatima College is on the right trajectory to go ahead and defend their national integral champion? Of course, as you say, you know It's just a way to look for all right and we got even today. So we look forward for next season Thank you very much coach and all the best for the next fixture. Thank you coach Hudson Charles