Hi, I am Dr. Ela Jalote. I am one of the consultants in the Department of Obzangaini in Manipal Hospital, Gurgaon. And today I want to address an issue which a lot of patients ask. That should we go in for a laparoscopic surgery or should we go in for an open surgery? Now let's understand the difference between the two. When we are talking about a laparoscopic surgery, what we are essentially doing is that we are performing surgery under camera vision without opening the abdomen. Whereas when we are talking about open surgery, we are performing the same surgery after opening the abdomen. So that is the difference between the two. Essentially the surgery that is being done inside remains the same. But since the abdomen is not opened in a laparoscopic surgery, you can understand that it would be hugely beneficial to the patient because there would be less pain, there would be less bleeding. More importantly, there would be less chances of adhesions and that will be helpful. Suppose a couple are trying to conceive and we are removing an ovarian cyst. If we are not opening the abdomen and there are less adhesions, that would help in the future reproductive life. There would also be patient has an earlier return to lifestyle. It makes us so happy when we see that a patient after laparoscopic surgery is moving about the very next day and ready to go home smiling and pain free. So a patient returns earlier to lifestyle, resumes its daily activities much earlier since the tummy is not opened so there is less pain. Also there is no prolonged rest in such a condition and the patient is not told to avoid lifting heavy loads as is commonly told in open surgery. So yes, there are certain conditions in which open surgery might be advised. But if there is an option, you should always opt for a laparoscopic surgery because that leads to a much more comfortable and pain free experience. There is less bleeding with an earlier return to normal lifestyle. Thank you.


I'll catch you in the next video


able to have a different set of regulations to a skeo to a bencom to a community interest company and equally different funders will have different requirements in order to meet to obtain funding from them I don't think that that's something we can try and cover across the board as part of this what we are allowing is one element we are changing in terms of the memorandums is that unless the body is actively involved in an application up to the point at which the application is proven then after that when it's triggered true in part 2 that period in between where essentially the registrations is there and not active the if they change it during that period at the moment they have to inform the minister every time you change it and we have to prove that change we're removing that element of it so there's some movement there to allow them to change the their articles association in that period as long as they're not actively taking forward an application but it would be interesting to know if the time that it takes to actually purchase land has extended significantly because communities through the funding body that they were looking to get that the cash from were having to change their constitutions because I can think of at least three changes of constitutions in what became a 10-year period of an element that happened in the village I live in in Eventon in Rosshire I can certainly find out of the specific examples and if you mentioned three you've got if you could pass them on that would be great and be handy if you knew some as well talk my head I don't personally have to say but I'll ask the the committee right to buy team to come forward with any examples that they might have because they deal with it day in day out over the last 10 years essentially so that there are any they will know okay let's move on then to late applications Dave Thompson thank you convener and good morning to the panel two or three points here I would like to pick up on but before we do that could the panel maybe explain to me what the reasoning was behind the need to register at all was in the first place I just wonder if it wouldn't simplify things a great deal if communities didn't need to do an early registration but that when they do become aware that land is available which is often a you know quite late on in the process anyway that they would just be able to register at that point so why do we actually need a registration process at all I think that the main thrust of it is to do with the in the land market itself and the individual's rights to sell land in that aspect you see it's our considerations on that one I mean Rachel may know the specifics of exactly where the rights and obligations lie in terms of of the ability to if you like pause or freeze the process of selling land and just how much and at what stage that's appropriate and balanced so the application at least allows us to consider whether or not it's a valid plan for one of a better word that the community has and that it's not simply being used as a blocking measure for example if it's a valid application and it will proceed on that basis so it's essentially a way for us to gauge whether or not it's just a needier reaction whether it's a a viable process a viable prospect but surely you know there's lots of land out there all over the place thousands hundreds of thousands of hectares of it and buildings and all that and communities will often think they're a particular piece of land or whatever well it'll never come in the market because it hasn't done for 500 years and what's the likelihood of it coming forward again in the next 500 years so why would they look to register there might be some obvious examples you know of where they would be able to anticipate maybe but there must be numerous situations where the community really would have no real reason to believe that a bit of land or property is going to come on the market and therefore why would they spend a great deal of time putting together a registration and planning what they're going to do with this land if there's really 99% of the case it's no real chance of that land ever coming on the market so I just get back to you mentioned blocking people could block with a preemptive registration just as easily as they could a reactive knee jerk registration I suppose so I don't think that's a very strong argument I just want to tease out you know why we need early registration and why not allow communities once they see that land has come on the market which will maybe spark in their minds oh my goodness we never thought that that bit of land would be available but we could really do something with that now let's get our application in and it's a fair point and I think the main thing is in terms of balance between the aspirations of community and what they can do with land which, as you say, may well only appear when they realise that there is land available and interfere with the rights of the owner in trying to sell that land what we have done has made changes to the late application element to allow communities who have maybe done if you like, propriety work leading up to submitting an application at the moment the late application process means that it's only relevant if that work was to actually put the application was begun before the land went on sale at the moment they can show it's now sorry the change is now that they can show relevant work so for example if they've identified a need for land it may not be identified exactly which land they may have done work in terms of sounding out funders and whether or not they would be you know if there's potential there there is still some element of work required in there but the focus moving away from having started the application process to have started relevant work I think that's the right definition so we're expanding slightly but yes there is a point at which you've got to balance up the the owner rights to sell the land and the community's aspirations to change I mean is that a Rachel are you any place to comment better? I don't see anything to add I think that actually neatly kind of moves us on in a sense so hopefully you know ministers and yourselves will think about whether they couldn't simplify the bubble by taking out the need to register early at all but if it stays in and it's felt that it's needed and there's good reason for it to be there okay we can talk about that maybe later on but the change in terms of what you just mentioned there Dave about the the need to do and show that you've done early work such relevant work as ministers to consider reasonable has been carried out with a late application you've removed the proposal is to remove the good reasons test which was in there before it strikes me that it's maybe an awful lot more onerous to show that you have carried out such relevant work as ministers consider reasonable I just wonder if you could comment on just really how the good reason test has been used in the past and why it's felt that we need to change it and move on to this new what it looks like a more onerous test that might serve to prevent communities being able to buy I mean certainly intention is not to make it more onerous that's exactly the opposite it may be that in guidance and further regulation we can clarify exactly where we're what the intention is but the idea is is not to make it more onerous by any manner it means in terms of the moving away from good reasons the good reasons has been used in quite a few I think I thought it meant something like a third or 50% of applications now are late applications so we certainly recognise that it needs to be more reactive in how it can be applied and that's where we've tried to go by moving away from good reasons in the sense that the community may not have actively started the application process however and we can as you say relevant work to lead up to that stage that's now something that we can take into consideration it doesn't address the issue you're talking about where all of a sudden you think there's a delightful moment where actually we could use that one but again I mean we're still talking to stakeholders on what they feel about that by all means I don't know exactly how the good reason test has been applied now but a good reason could be we just didn't know it was going to come up and we had no reason to expect it would ever come on the market whereas having to show that you've actually done some work in relation to something that you never expected to come on the market is basically going to be impossible I mean we've certainly provided examples from the cases that have come up from now of where late applications were either accepted or rejected which might clarify what the thinking is at the moment in terms of the good reasons and I can probably supply details from that that'd be helpful Yeah it would actually but just again the general principle of what the effect that this might have I think is important and there's another little thing in the same section which talks about being able to identify the owner as well and that again might be possible in certain circumstances there could be all sorts of ways that our owner isn't identifiable and it just strikes me as I say I wonder whether we need early registration at all it strikes me that things are just looking more difficult for communities compared to the provisions that have been in place for some time in relation to crofting communities for instance Yeah well obviously that certainly not intention and the crofting community right to buy element we're actively talking to stakeholders at the moment in fact we're in Venice tomorrow and then in Hannas and Skye on Monday Tuesday next week talking to particular stakeholders on what they feel the changes could or should be in that element of the bill but yeah I mean again in terms of what the good reasons are and relevant work is that will be developed as the bill goes through and as we talk to stakeholders about difficulties issues opportunities that can be taken through part of that and that'll get refined as we go I have to say And just finally on this point convener on late applications do you think that the timescale with which communities would have to comply are sufficient to if they've done very little other than you know that would require relevant work whatever that's going to mean if they've done the absolute minimum of relevant work is the timescale in the bill sufficient for them to actually do what they would need to do to put together a coherent and reasonable bid for the land We think so obviously but again through monitoring as the provisions are used that's something that we can look to change for example during this one we're already extending the valuation period from six to eight weeks for example so even up to this point we're mourning whether certain time periods in there are sufficient and again with the late application that prospect for changing to that we think we've allowed enough time on that again based on the previous ten years experience what communities can do and do but we'll be monitoring that as we go anyway but at the moment we think it's sufficient First of all a supplementary on that point I think from Cara Hill then Claudia Beamish Just a supplementary to Dave Thompson's questions just now I wonder if you could explain what would happen to an application to register or to buy a land despite the best efforts that a local community couldn't identify the land owner but would this kill off the application or might there be a way to allow it to proceed provided they could show that they've taken every reasonable steps to identify the owner I think you would need to be able to identify the owner so that the owner's views could be taken into account and also to ensure that the land could be transferred I think there are other ways of trying to find owners in practice that has been a problem that the team have come across I don't recall any specific examples where the issue has been not finding the owner at all but again I can double check on that one but off the top of my head I can't think of any That would be interesting if you could check that, I know locally in my area there are areas of land where the ownership is in dispute so it would be helpful to have feedback on that That's helpful Indeed clearly there are large areas of land that we don't of who owns it even among the largest land holdings in Scotland so the question of ownership is pretty important Claudia Beamish had a supplementary a brief supplementary just going back to the definitions of what community bodies can apply and wondering whether you've looked at all in relation to groups which come under Equalities Act as to whether there might be some sort of consideration of for instance I think minority groups who have a wider geographical spread whether there's been any discussion of that sort of issue I mean in general terms what I'm calling interest groups or communities of interest I've certainly come up in discussions but at the moment we're still requiring the geographic element of the definition of the community I'm just aware that that's been an issue for other things like the climate challenge fund We'll move on to the issue of abandoned or neglected land Nigel Dawn and good morning colleagues and I'd like to start quite literally with those words of abandoned or neglected and to ask as I understand it those aren't defined within the bill presumably they have some kind of legal usage possibly definition Could you clarify that please and confirm why you think that's appropriate not to define it within the bill Yeah Although that's still to be finalised I mean at this point in time we think there are two things we need to consider whether it's either going to be abandoned or neglected and essentially it's whether the land has been cared for and whether the effect of what the effect of this care or lack thereof has on the condition of the land itself that's in its broadest terms What we want to do with this element is we want to make sure that we get it right and that we're not excluding or including areas of land which are completely inappropriate I mean it may be better to give you some examples of what we think might be for example an owner has land which on it has a slip way and that's deteriorated to the point that it's almost useless or it is useless it can't be used If they are not willing or able to address that issue and yet the community can either through a means of having the resources to do so, the volunteers to do so or access to a different funding stream they should be allowed to do that in that particular circumstance If that means buying that area it includes a slip way and then developing it then so be it another one might be an open area of land which is overgrown for the broken glass I mean these are maybe serious examples but just to try and give you an idea of where we're going with it and again it's proof that there's a blight on that community that surrounds that area of land or is adjacent to it then if all it needs is the grass cut the glass cleared up some improvements put in and again they aren't willing or able to do so and again the community have put a case forward that they can do so and turn it into something that is much more sustainable for that particular piece of land again we think that they should be able to do it there are circumstances where we are aware that it shouldn't be considered to be neglected by diversity for example just because something is not actively being done to a piece of land that doesn't necessarily mean to say it's abandoned or neglected there are reasons for not cutting grass not seeding particular areas conservation of heritage buildings we're not asking them to all of a sudden rebuild the ruined castle because it's abandoned or neglected that's a heritage building and it should be kept in a position that is felt appropriate for that again we need to look carefully at things like land being held or assembled for future development it is again because of the various nuances in this definition we're taking time to make sure that we get all the representations and make sure we get it right as much as possible thank you that confirms to me that we do have an issue here secondly it suggests to me that there will be a definition to come and it's not there yet is that a fair interpretation because otherwise I think the lawyers are going to have some fun with this he's a lawyer the words have a meaning it's more as they said we're considering if any refinement would be appropriate or whether that is sufficient right because thinking there's a lawyer at my right who's going to come in just half a moment if convener permitting but I guess I'm coming from the position of thinking that if I and I'm not a member of a community group I do need to have a working definition now what Mr Thompson has just told me is a set of very understandable policy considerations but I don't need to tell you other than to put it on the record we don't do law by making up policy we actually do law by writing it down and knowing what it means and I guess that's really my concern that the courts ultimately are going to interpret the words down on this page not the words that you as officials or ministers or I as a parliamentarian might actually want and I guess I'm looking for some feeling as to how we're going to deal with this because I'm not immediately convinced that what's down here is necessarily what you want and I think you're playing back that you may not feel it is either well I mean I think that the definition I agree that it should be in the face of the bill in terms of definition things like that the minister would have to take regard to in deciding whether that definition applies will be followed up with I think regulation I think more than on the face of it but I think the definition you're right should be on the face of the bill itself exactly what that is that's what we're considering at the moment just to make sure that that definition is right right okay Rodd, Carmel one obviously I take it from that that it's a work in progress just one small point of clarification just your view on whether the words holy or mainly simply applied to abandoned or also applied to neglected they applied to both so it is land which is holy or mainly neglected or land which is holy or mainly abandoned I can see that some lawyers might argue that the country that's my clarity on the point okay leave that one there thank you fabulous and of course why not make sure that it's plain and obvious on the face of the bill okay if I could push on with a few more please why this is 97 C3E and an exception is land which is occupied or owned by the crown why please it's an obvious exception we normally do it but why no it's not all crown land it's only the land which is born of a canter or or which is I'm trying to pronounce it I'll get it wrong so that's a very specific type of land it is not all crown land this is excluded it's land which because isn't known or has fallen to the crown that way it is not all crown land but again if I got that anything like right and I don't want to go into the Latin either that's either land which is just of an unknown provenance and therefore falls to the land or else it's failure of succession and we just no idea who actually's got it and so it falls to the crown but I still come back to the question why can't the community there are other ways on which that is dealt with and so that is not included there are alternative ways in which the land which falls to the crown is dealt with and so it just needs to be included in which case can I push on then one of the areas of interest in this might be for a community to do exactly what Mr Thompson alluded to earlier which is to take over an area of land and apart from cleaning it up to do nothing with it in other words development as far as the community might be simply conservation like we actually want this space to be in a natural kind of state is that sustainable development because it doesn't sound like development to me I suppose it would depend on the state it was in beforehand I have to say there is a balance to be struck what we're not trying to do is compare uses my use is better than your use it is on the sustainable development of the lands now sustainable development I think at some point was defined as the development that meets the needs of the present and the ability of future generations to meet their own needs that was the world commission on environment and development came up with that one and that seems to summarise now land that is sitting there overgrown concreted over broken glass isn't meeting the needs of the future by for one of the very simply cutting the grass a lick of paint benches in a nice path to walk through that is meeting if you like that you get your health and wellbeing aspect and being able to have that nice space within a community and it's not a blight anymore can I stop you there because the moment you put in a path or a bench I can credit that with being development might be minute but it would be development if the community actually took the view that what they wanted was effectively wild land and I don't want to define that in other words that space cleared up but nothing more and the paths go where we walk is that sustainable development because a suspected ought to be in the context of what we're trying to do but I'm not sure the words on the page would mean that I think probably the best answer is that it could be it would have to be a case by case basis I mean I don't know about it in terms of definition of sustainable development in a legal terms or a dictionary term but to my mind it's an improvement it may not be sustainable then but it's certainly an improvement that you're right in particular in case that may not cover it Can I suggest the challenges because the bill only has validity if the law sorry I'm coming back to the point, policy is one thing but does the law mean that? I mean the sustainable development of land was considered in the pay act case in relation to the crofting community to buy in the court was confident that it had a clear meaning but also going back to your example of if the community are just going to build a bench or make a path the community want the right to buy being compatible with further achieving sustainable development in relation to the land is only one test it also has to be in the public interest as well so that there are a number of tests which have to be satisfied so it's not just a case of can you show that this will further sustainable development and that's enough to get you over the threshold and the land has to be transferred there are also additional tests that have to be satisfied I'm sure you can see where so are you just going to finish that particular point I need to can we come back to that in a minute this is supplementary thank you very much convener the park decisions are a very interesting one because the community were told that they weren't complying with sustainable development requirements in the crofting rate to buy initially and then eventually the minister said they were and there was a whole list of reasons as to why when they came back to the minister that he agreed that there was a credible sustainable plan there were new activities to diversify power to negotiate et cetera et cetera et cetera so there's a model there as to what constitutes sustainable development following the park case which is a very good guide I think for us as we move forward could I just convener pick up on the reasons why we need the changes here while having mentioned the crofting right to buy there are only two things that apply there sustainable development achievement and that it's in the public interest whereas the legislation the bill here is actually saying there's another test the land must be holier, mainly abandoned or neglected and then there's another test added on as well it's got to be shown that if the owner of the land were to remain its owner that ownership would be inconsistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land so you've not only got to show and we've had all the discussion about the definition of what holier mainly abandoned is you've then got to show that the current owner wouldn't do anything or improve the land and it strikes me that these additional tests which aren't required in relation to crofting right to buy are very, very onerous indeed and might make it almost impossible for communities to buy and my worry is that if this goes through like this that it could affect the crofting right to buy and my reason for saying that is I would have a worry that if these tests are being put in here to try to deal with ECHR then it would be reasonable and I'm not a lawyer for folk to say well you know if to comply with ECHR you need to add two additional tests to those which are in the crofting right to buy maybe the crofting right to buy legislation is not sound in ECHR terms and we would need to add those additional tests to the crofting legislation that would be my worry on this road it just seems to me to be way over the top and as Rachel Reiner mentioned a minute ago the park case the government won the case there it was challenged in court with the two simple tests that it must be furthering the achievement of sustainable development and in the public interest so I failed to see at the moment why we need to make the hurdles so high extra tests for the general community right to buy and I do worry that if we do that it's an acceptance that we didn't really win the park case and that we maybe need to revisit the crofting law so I've got a number of concerns round that I mean we are content that the crofting community right to buy works and that the test that is currently there is appropriate and as you pointed out the court has upheld that I think in part 3a neglects and abandoned land it's about deciding what is the appropriate test for the problem which you are seeking to address and in part 3a the concern is that neglected and abandoned land in certain cases be a blight can be a problem and so it's deciding what is the appropriate mechanism for saying when should a community when is it appropriate for ministers to decide that that land should be sold without the consent of the owner so it's about making each of the rights to buy fit for purpose for the particular issues that they are dealing with and I don't think that the test in part 3a will have any crossover to the crofting community right to buy that that is considered to be sufficiently robust for that particular for that particular issue well I'm glad we could that reassurance however maybe I wonder if the panel can comment on the ownership aspect which seems to me one that would be very very difficult to apply in practice you have to prove that if the owner of the land were to remain as its owner that that ownership would be inconsistent you'd have to I mean how would you do that you know it did to me it just seems bizarre almost unprovable I mean one example of what that element is trying to address is if the owner currently has a plan in place for that piece of land maybe only recently in place to be fair and either they're waiting for funding they're waiting for planning application or whatever but there are plans in place or in track at that point in time which the application comes in that element is to allow the owner themselves to say this is what I'm trying to do with it here is the proof that I'm trying to do with it and it's not to point might say just because there's a delay in planning or delay in funding that that can then be taken out of your hands of course it's all relevant if those plans were in place five minutes before the application came in that would be considered as part of that application if it was in place five years ago and it's been shown that continually trying to see planning permission which is continually being blocked that the owner is trying to sustainably develop that land in the future so it's about giving that element of allowing the owner to essentially put the case in that I have been trying to do something with this or I am planning to do something with this and not just pay a lip service to that but to actually give us sufficient proof that that has actually been taking place Nigel Don and then Claudia Beamish if I can just come back on that forgive me Mr Thompson but I think I actually understood that the opposite direction from the way that I think you were implying it does seem to me that a landowner putting in an application to do something that he's never going to get planning permission for would be a wonderful way of actually securing the land and making sure it was never brought out by the community and actually it could be the very process of actually not allowing sustainable development by putting up something else that won't get planning permission I am just wondering what on earth see in there is doing there because forgive me I still don't think I've heard a reason why that's there I've got the logic of why it might be there but I have not seen a single physical reason a practical reason as to why you would want it there as I say I think the one he just given me actually works against you on reflection it's not intended to be hard to say but yeah I mean I suppose it's about I mean it's about looking at the plan and its viability I mean as you say putting planning application for something that is never ever ever going to work should I would hope be obvious in terms of the case and then it's down to whether or not that was putting say five minutes before the application came in it's about seeing whether it's as you say the it's likely to be excuse me to find the exact phrase of how the ownership by the current owner is inconsistent with yeah sorry thank you inconsistent with the sustainable development the fact that a planning application is going for something will never happen as you say does not necessarily sustainably point to sustainable development in that land it's always the time to consider that I can suggest that I do quite seriously convener suggest that you might like to go and reflect on what this is really trying to achieve because I could take you straight to the middle of my constituency give you a planning application which is the longest standing planning application in Aberdeenshire council of a large area of land which the owners reasonably want to develop which I think would actually probably stop local communities from doing anything it's not an unreasonable application but I think it would actually I think this is going to give us problems right no yeah we'll come back oh they've scored that quite a bit Claudia Beamish question on that just to take you back Dave to the you said about the land held for future development by an owner and sometimes as we all know land can be held for investment to be sold rather than for future development and I wonder if there's going to be any time scale set on or consideration of a time scale set on how long land can be kept which isn't being developed which might fall into other categories which would enable communities to buy it how long can this go on I know of cases that have gone on for decades yeah I mean I think on that when I say that we certainly have to carefully consider whether that type of land being held for development would or wouldn't be excluded in terms of the definition but I mean the case you put in point is a good one at the moment we're not thinking of specific time scales because it does on a case by case basis allocation basis very quite widely as to what would be reasonable but it's certainly one of the considerations that you would take into account when deciding whether or not an application should be allowed on that area of land like you see if it's been for 10 years and isn't moving, isn't actively being marketed is a completely different scenario from one that's been in for 5 years and has been on and off and the price is reduced over the course of those 5 years to try and sell it it's a case by case basis and we want to be able to give us the opportunity to consider these things on a case by case basis on the other hand it would give the community time to register an interest to buy right moving on to the meaning of community need to some clarification where the amendment to include community benefit companies will be extended to legal entities that can use the community right to buy provisions under part 4 of the bill well or not certainly it's one of the types that have been put forward to us and we're certainly looking at whether or not that should go in but it's one of the the most frequent ones that have been put forward in addition to skills yes so that would be development groups for example I don't know if it's on my head whether that's included in that one and it's magnanimous of what Bencom is or isn't I have to say but also it's in the same way that companies limited by guarantee their articles have to meet certain requirements and the constitution of a skio has to meet certain requirements to be a community body if Bencom's were to be added then consideration would need to be given as to what would be the appropriate requirements of a Bencom and so that would also need to be considered okay we'll see where that goes to turn me to crofting then why given the importance that the land reform review group placed on amending part 3 of the 2003 act that a full consultation was not issued to the bill team are you satisfied that the dialogue with stakeholders has been sufficient and proportionate would it not have been more helpful to bring forward these amendments in the forthcoming land reform bill I mean in terms of the changes to the part 3 of the land reform act on the crossing community right to buy the reason they weren't put as the initial phase of this bill was largely because all of the resources were focused on improving the community right to buy the part 2 element of it and developing provisions for the neglected or abandoned lands I mean obviously as the pace of the land reform in Scotland's increase in the likes of the land reform review group it became increasingly clear that in conversations with stakeholders that it was something that should come forward now as part of this bill rather than in the future for any land reform bill that may be coming along in the future so we thought it was best to deal with now in terms of consultation that's one of the reasons why now we've written out to stakeholders in terms of what we are looking at in terms of changes to the part 3 we're actively speaking to them as I said we're meeting last week in Edinburgh we're meeting tomorrow in Inverness next week a Harrison Sky to get the face to face the land reform review group as well obviously had evidence that we've looked at on that one in particular from the Simon Fraser who had some very good points we're actually speaking to Simon next week as well to get his thoughts on what our proposals are so whilst it wasn't part stage 1 of this bill that's why we're actively pushing that and getting the stakeholder opinions on that now any comments on that for other people then amendments to part 2 and 3 Dave Thompson the letter from the minister for local government planning stated that he would also be seeking to make further amendments to parts 2 and 3 of the 2003 act I would just wonder, given that the land reform review group and others have identified flaws in part 3 of the 2003 act why the new part 3a was based on it based on on the part 3 of the crofting right to back part 3 of the 2003 act part 3a is based on part 3 of the 2003 act that there have been criticisms of that and the minister is saying amendments are going to come forward have these been taken into account already or if that's the case why was the minister in his letter to on the 6th of November saying further amendments are coming along I'm a bit confused by that I think the simple issue is one of timing as much as anything else why it was based on part 3 in the first place is because of the compulsory element of the purchase that felt that the process through the crofting community right to back was a much better template than through the part 2 which is a preemption that really wouldn't met so we used the template to go on the changes are essentially because the changes to part 3 are coming in after the stage 1 and yet the changes to part 3 in stage 1 there's then going to be a a need to tie up the two elements where the changes have been made already in part 3 that's going forward and we'll need to balance part 3 up to mirror that change where relevant as well so it's really a timing one where you're making it's almost a catch 22, you make change to one you need to make sure that the equal relevant change is made in the other so there will be changes and it will depend on what changes are approved for the part 3 changes if you know what I mean particularly explaining it well part 3a isn't identical to part 3 so to some extent there is a case of looking to see do we need to make part 3 do we need to change that to make it consistent with part 3a or other good reasons for the differences or where through the consultation additional changes are suggested to part 3 if we make those then obviously we need to reflect back and say do we need to make those changes to 3a is that relevant to part 2 and so that we can be confident that where there are differences and when will we be likely to see these amendments you know obviously they would need to be dealt with at stage 2 so when are we as a committee likely to see those that are going to affect us I remember about a ton of the years at the end of the summer drafting and things we've got the consultation period in terms of the part 3 change we're going to do now the last visit and that's next week so we'll take those views back on board and take that on as part of consideration and decide what changes we need to make as a result of that so that that process will have to be done and end as the draft next so it would be, I would guess, term of the year maybe Ian's got their idea on time scales I would think that the year will probably be the year last for some of them in the same way that local government minister Darren McKein did an early indication of what the changes to the bill what amendments we might be bringing forward for the other parts of the bill I think we would seek to do that wherever we can in respect to this part of the bill as well and let the committee know as soon as possible where we are minded to make a change so that's what we will do and that will be for the minister to write to the committee at those points in time Other points on the questions just now, which haven't been made so far in this introduction to what seems like a complicated set of arrangements to us I've no doubt we'll find out more as we go along I'd like to thank the bill team and the officials for your evidence just now and we will be taking this forward with further evidence sessions which many of these points will be teased out with the stakeholders who you seem confident are fully supportive so thank you for that I just want to point out to people that we will be moving into private in a minute or two at our next meeting in the Wednesday 26 November the committee will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary on the Affirmative SSI Scotland Act 1998 functions exercise exerciseable in or as regards Scotland Order 2015 and then on the draft budget the committee will also take evidence from stakeholders of the community empowerment Scotland bill and then consider its letter to the Scottish Government on the wildlife crime 2013 annual report and now close the meeting and ask the public gallery to be cleared and move the session into private thank you


In this episode of Ranked, I will be looking at all 8 of Kennywood's current roller coasters, all of which I've ridden, and ranking them from worst to best in my opinion. Kennywood is located in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, just outside of Pittsburgh and opened all the way back in 1899. So this park is very historic and is home to many rare rides that you are hard pressed to find or are impossible to find at any other parks in the world. This extends to their unique collection of roller coasters as well, many of which use the hilly terrain in some way to their advantage. From a historic standpoint, the most notable coasters here would be their 3 classic wooden roller coasters, one of which is 100 years old as of this year. There is also a pretty historic steel coaster here as well, and Phantom's Revenge. This Morgan hyper coaster which drops 228 feet into a ravine under the Thunderbolt, originally opened in 1991 as a looping aerodynamics hyper coaster known as Steel Phantom and even featured the largest drop and fastest speed on a coaster for the time. You all know the drill with these lists. Everyone's opinion is different, but this is how I feel about the coasters of Kennywood. After watching this, be sure to let me know how you would rank these rides from worst to best. Without further ado, here is Kennywood Ranked. Of course coming in all the way at the bottom at the number 8 spot is Little Phantom. This is just a simple kiddie coaster, nothing really special here. This one opened in 1996 and was built by Molina and Sons. At number 7 is Racer, one of the park's classic wooden roller coasters. Now Racer actually opened in 1927, meaning it's well over 90 years old at this point. This is a pretty fun ride, it's okay. I mean starting with the rides after this, they get a lot better. It's a Mobius loop coaster, which means that you return to the opposite side of the station that you started on. You actually have to ride this starting from both sides of the station to actually go around the whole track since it's technically just one long track. Like I said, Racer is just an okay ride, it's not too thrilling. This would kind of be a good starter coaster for somebody that is looking to advance maybe into a little bit more thrilling rides. But basically this is just a simple double out and back layout. At number 6 is Exterminator. Exterminator is a Rivershawn spinning wild mouse coaster that opened at the park in 1999. This is actually a really fun wild mouse. Exterminator is actually themed really well. Some really cool theming here is just a really fun ride with the spinning aspect. And of course being indoors it's fun because you can't really see much of anything. So it just adds a thrill factor. This is actually probably the best wild mouse I've been on. I would say this is by far the best wild mouse I've been on probably. Come to think of it. Number 5 is Jackrabbit. Now Jackrabbit is actually celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, 2020. So that is pretty awesome. And even though this ride is very simple. I mean just a very simple small double out and back layout. There's one thing about this ride that makes it special. This is the main reason you ride Jackrabbit. And that is that double down going into the ravine after the lift hill. This double down provides this insane pop of ejector air. I mean it is crazy. This is one of the best moments of airtime that I've experienced. This is just a really cool moment of the ride. It's only made that much better because there are basically no restraints on this ride. There is a lat bar that doesn't move at all. You just have a seatbelt that comes over you and that's it with this ride. So you feel very open and that double down just makes this ride worth it. Otherwise it's pretty basic, kind of fun going down the dips. But that double down is truly what makes Jackrabbit a really fun ride. At the number four spot is Thunderbolt. Now Thunderbolt is really interesting. This is actually one of two coasters at Kennywood that has been converted from its original form over the years. Thunderbolt actually opened in 1924 as Pippin. And Pippin was just a really simple double out and back layout. Not really much to it. But after 1967 Kennywood converted Pippin into the Thunderbolt. And they added the twister section to the ride. Which features amazing laterals. Some of the best laterals I've experienced on any coaster.  And you're just flying through them. So you'll crush the person that's sitting on the left. They actually require the bigger person to be sitting on the left when you ride this. And you actually have to have two people in the seats as well. You can't ride alone. So this is a really fun ride. That Helix section after the lift hill with those bank turns really makes this ride. And this is just a true classic. This is a ride that was at least at one time world famous. It's a really good ride for what it is. And definitely my favorite wooden coaster at Kennywood by far. And of course the ride starts out with a huge drop right out of the station. And also one more really unique thing about Thunderbolt. The biggest drop on this ride is actually the very last drop. The last drop is actually 90 feet. The drop out of the station is 70 feet. Having a 90 foot drop right at the end of the ride. Then go up and into the break run. That's kind of cool having the biggest drop at the very end. It's just really unique. Getting into the really good stuff now at number three. I have the Premier rides launch coaster known as skyrocket. This is the one and only skyrocket model actually produced by Premier. It's a prototype for the later skyrocket two models which we've come to know very well. As well as the skyrocket three model which was built at Six Flags Magic Mountain. But skyrocket is just a really fun ride. This opened in 2010 and it has a really fun launch. Some wicked ejector airtime over that top hat. And then you go into this twisted layout. Just twisting and turning and going upside down. There's lots of cool stuff about this ride. It's smooth fun fast paced. It dies out a little bit towards the end. But I can overlook that because in my opinion this is just such a fun underrated ride. At number two is the new for 2019 steel curtain. This is the newest coaster at Kennywood. It was built by SNS. And of course it is themed to the local NFL team known as the Pittsburgh Steelers. Where the name actually comes from. I'm not going to get into the meaning of the name. You can look that up and read about it. And I actually mentioned steel curtain in my worst coaster names video. And I got to admit I feel like I gave this ride a little bit too much flack in that video. Even though I don't particularly care for the name steel curtain. When I think about it now. I don't know if it's necessarily one of the worst names out there. I don't think it really deserved that. But in any case steel curtain. It's a fun ride. To be honest I was left a little disappointed when I wrote it. To be fair I've only gotten one ride on this because the operations when I went last year were terrible. I was only able to get one ride on it. But for what it is it's a very fun ride. Has a couple decent moments of airtime. Of course it has the highest inversion in the world which is really cool. Very fast ride. It's not super intense. But you know it features tons of fast-paced inversions. And actually the most intense part of the ride is at the very end. Going through that cut back and then there's a couple turns after that. Overall steel curtain I think is an awesome attraction for Kennywood. And it's awesome to see that they got something like this. It's just a really unique ride. Pretty fun. But in my opinion there's one coaster that still reigns supreme. After nearly 20 years. And that is of course Phantom's Revenge. Now as I mentioned in the beginning of this video. Phantom's Revenge is actually the second coaster. Which is a conversion at Kennywood. Phantom's Revenge originally opened as a coaster called Steel Phantom. Which was built by Aerodynamics. And opened in the year 1991. It had foreign versions. Had the longest drop in the world. The fastest speed on a coaster at the time when it opened. After about nine years. Kennywood decided to have Morgan come in. And redo Steel Phantom. Turned the layout into more of a traditional hyper coaster style layout. They put a huge overbank turn in the ravine after that huge drop. And then added a few bunny hills at the end. Which provide some of the most. Probably the most insane ejector airtime I felt on any coaster. It's definitely up there. These are really really fun airtime moments.  And not to mention there are some good positive Gs on this ride as well. When you get to the bottom of that 228 foot drop. I mean you're hauling and as you hit that turn at the bottom. You're just slammed with positive Gs. And it's just an amazing experience. Really really unique. You can't really find a coaster like this anywhere else. And of course the restraints are amazing. I talked about these restraints in my worst and best restraints video that I made. So go check that out if you haven't. But Phantom's Revenge in my opinion is a bit underrated. And I think it's just a really phenomenal coaster. It's in my top 10 overall. And this is definitely one that you cannot miss if you go to Kennywood. Make sure you get a few rides on this when you go. Thank you all so much for watching my Ranked List for Kennywood. And let me know how you'd place these rides. If you enjoyed this video be sure to subscribe. As well as watch my coaster rankings for other parks I've visited. The Ranked playlist is linked in the card above. Be sure to like my page CoasterDaddy on Facebook. And follow me at CoasterDaddyOfficial on Instagram. As usual this is CoasterDaddy. Bye.


Hello, and welcome to this presentation of the STM32WB Cortex-M0 Plus security features. The Cortex-M0 Plus security manages the firmware and peripheral security, and is used to authenticate the ST radio firmware, and allows the secure handling of cryptographic keys. The Cortex-M0 Plus security uses secure options to control flash memory, SRAM 2, and debug security. The AES encryption machine, private key accelerator, and true random number generator are peripherals whose security is managed dynamically by the secure Cortex-M0 Plus core through secure register bits in the system configuration block. The Cortex-M0 Plus security is based on giving exclusive access to a secure area in flash memory and in SRAM 2A and SRAM 2B. Additionally, peripherals such as AES1, AES2, private key accelerator, and true random number generator can be made secure to allow secure cryptography and key generation. The secure memory areas and peripherals are not accessible by the Cortex-M4 and neither through the debugger. The Cortex-M0 Plus security is completely handled by the Cortex-M0 Plus itself. At STM32WB production, the Cortex-M0 Plus security is enabled after the root security service or RSS firmware has been programmed into the user flash memory. Any subsequent Cortex-M0 Plus firmware update, connectivity stack or RSS is handled by the RSS and modifies the Cortex-M0 Plus security parameters as needed. The AES2, PKA, and RNG security is fully handled by the Cortex-M0 Plus whenever needed by the Cortex-M0 Plus firmware. The AES1 key security is also managed by the Cortex-M0 Plus when requested by the Cortex-M4 application firmware. The Cortex-M0 Plus security is controlled through secure user options loaded at device startup in the secure flash register and secure RAM and reset vector register. The secure user options can only be modified by the secure Cortex-M0 Plus. In other words, to change parameters when a secure Cortex-M0 software is updated. The non-secure Cortex-M4 has read access to the secure user options to be able to determine the start of the secure areas. Memory security is enabled and configured by secure user options. The flash security disable bit enables the global Cortex-M0 Plus security. The secure flash start address defines the start address from which the flash memory is secure. The backup RAM security disable bit controls the security on the backup RAM and the secure backup RAM start address defines the start address from which the backup RAM is secure. The non-backup RAM security disable bit is used to enable security on the non-backup RAM and the secure non-backup RAM start address defines the start address from which the non-backup RAM is secure. The debug access to the secure areas is controlled by the debug disable security bit. The enable security environment bit is a read only bit as the security is always enabled on the Cortex-M0 Plus core. The top of the memories can be secured for exclusive Cortex-M0 Plus access. The top of the flash memory starting from the secure flash start address is secure when the flash security disable bit or FSD is set to zero. The top of the backup SRAM 2A starting from the secure backup RAM start address or SBRSA is secure when both the flash security disable and backup RAM security disable or BBRSD bits are set to zero. The top of the non-backup SRAM 2B starting from the secure non-backup RAM start address or SNBRSA is secure when both the flash security disable and non-backup RAM security disable or NBRSD bits are set to zero. It is possible to only secure the flash memory without any RAM security however it is recommended to secure both the flash memory and RAM used by the Cortex-M0 Plus software. The Cortex-M0 Plus boot reset factor is to be programmed in the secure boot reset vector option and secure CPU 2 option. At production the Cortex-M0 Plus boot reset vector points to the root secure service start address in flash memory. In secure mode the Cortex-M0 Plus boot reset factor can only be changed by the secure Cortex-M0 Plus side. Cortex-M0 Plus debug access is controlled by the debug disable option bit. It is independent from security and can be enabled and disabled in both secure and non-secure modes. In secure mode debug access control can only be changed by the secure Cortex-M0 Plus side. The STM32WB has a single flash memory for both the Cortex-M4 and Cortex-M0 Plus software. The Cortex-M0 Plus security prevents secure flash memory pages from being erased by the non-secure Cortex-M4.  When regressing the read protection from level 1 to level 0 only the non-secure part of the flash memory will be erased. The secure Cortex-M0 Plus software will be retained. The complete flash memory is mass erased and the security is removed only when regressing the read protection from level 1 to level 0. In this case the ST radio stack authentication and security is lost and can no longer be programmed. The AES accelerator 1, AES accelerator 2, public key accelerator and true random number generator peripherals can dynamically be made secure by Cortex-M0 Plus firmware through secure register bits in the system configuration block. The AES-2 public key accelerator and true random number generator peripherals provide full peripheral security. The AES-1 provides only key security which allows the application running on the Cortex-M4 to use cryptography with a secure key. Secure key storage is provided by the Cortex-M0 Plus firmware. The Cortex-M4 may read the peripheral security bit to determine its security status. The radio stack running on the Cortex-M0 Plus provides cryptographic key management to the application. The cryptographic keys are generated and stored on the secure Cortex-M0 Plus side using the cryptographic key storage or CKS. The ST-M32WB includes a pre-programmed RSS which allows the secure Cortex-M0 Plus software to be updated. Both the radio stack software and the RSS itself can be updated. Secure software can be downloaded via in-circuit programming by the system bootloader or via in-application programming by an application bootloader including over-the-air or OTA. Secure Cortex-M0 Plus software update is possible in all read protection levels, 0, 1 and 2. This slide lists the events generated by the Cortex-M0 Plus security feature. Events are only generated to the non-secure Cortex-M4. Reading on the Cortex-M4 access type, a bus error is generated to the non-secure Cortex-M4. Reading secure areas returns zeros. Only the secure user options and system configuration peripheral security enable bits can be read by the non-secure Cortex-M4. In addition to this training, you may find the flash memory interface and system configuration modules useful.


Welcome, everyone. My name is Antonio. I'm a senior software engineer at Red Hat, where I work for the containers team where I also maintain the Cryo project. Probably you've heard about it. And I'm also maintaining other container-related tools within Red Hat. Today we're going to talk about Cryo, which is a container runtime for Kubernetes. We'll go through why Kubernetes introduced a new API called the CRI. What were the issue it was facing? How it solved it with the CRI and how we've built Cryo from little tools and libraries. We've been building over the past few years, I guess. So I'll briefly talk about some of the container tools we've built as part of the whole Cryo project, especially the project atomic project. But this will be at the end. So roughly four years ago, the only supported runtime in Q was just Docker. And that means that at the time the interaction between the Kubelet and the container runtime was built into the Kubelet itself, like in the codebase of the Kubelet. There was a sort of maintenance burden in doing that because every new feature being added to Q required the maintainers to actually change also the interaction between the Kubelet and Docker itself. Then Rocket came and again the interaction was wired into the Kubelet itself. So the Kubernetes maintainer thought that if another runtime would come, then that requires another built-in interaction in the Kubelet. There wasn't really scalable. And on top of that, Docker, the runtime, was actually breaking Q, but every release. And there was also another issue which was extensibility. So Qube was extensible, and it's meant to be extensible, but there was no way to actually plug a new runtime at will. And so it was pretty much restricted to Docker and Rocket. So the community gathered together and they came up with this idea of removing the interaction between the Kubelet and a given runtime outside of Qube itself. And that was the time when the CRI or the container runtime interface has been created. The CRI interface is a plug-and-play API, and it means that as long as your container runtime implements the server side of the CRI, everything is going to work just fine. Kubelet is going to be able to create pods, containers, and do all the work you need to do. It's a GRPC API. And it's available from Qube 1.5 as an alpha feature. Nowadays, it's the default and even the Docker runtime is running through the CRI itself. It's a client-server architecture, and again, the container runtime implements the server side of this API and the Kubelet implement the client side. The CRI itself consists of two main pieces. One is the runtime service, which is the one in charge of the pods and the container life cycles, which includes actions like running a pod, stopping it, creating a container in a given pod, getting the least of all running containers in Kubernetes, as well as being in charge of the interaction between the containers for things like rubbing the logs for a container, exacting into a running container, attaching and attaching. For the runtime service, it's the first piece, and it's in charge of all of this. And then there is the image service, which, as you can imagine, is in charge of the image life cycle. And again, it includes actions like pulling an image, getting the status of an image to gather information like the image file size, and it's also responsible for reporting file system information to the Kubelet for stuff like the image garbage collection, like the Kubelet can request the runtime, how much space there is left, so that you can actually evict some pods if there is disk pressure. This is an eye-overview of the CRI in action. You can see on the left side, we have the Kubelet, which is implementing the GRPC client, and it talks to, in this case, there is a CRI shim. This is the default when running with the Docker runtime. The CRI shim is a demon implementing the GRPC server, and then on the right side, we do have the container runtime and all the containers. So, at that point, we've been working with the Kubernetes community and maintainers, and we thought that the status of the container runtime within Kube wasn't that stable at the time, so we came up with this idea of implementing a new container runtime, which was meant just for Kube, and which was specifically an open governance project, and nowadays, CRI is under the Kubernetes 6 organization, so we adhere to the Kube rules, and again, that's open governance for us. CRI is also, of course, an open source project. We're on GitHub. It's really tiny as far as the code base goes, so it's really lean and it's really stable because it's small. It's also secure because since it's small, we can also audit the full source code and fix bugs instantly, and probably the most important thing is that CRI is boring because we don't do anything else that just what Kubernetes needs. In CRI, we don't have any such features that Kubernetes don't need, for instance. We don't build images. Kubernetes doesn't need to build images. We don't build images. And that's really important because when you have a huge project like a container runtime, if you implement features that can actually mine stability on other parts of the runtime, that's bad, so we didn't want to do anything like that. So CRI just implements what it needs for Kube, and that's it. And again, that's boring. That's also boring because we choose to use the open container initiative specification. Specifically, we are using the runtime specification and the image specification. This makes sure that from release to release, there won't be any breakage in the way we talk to the runtimes, and that's pretty much what Kube wants as well. Kube just wants for every release to run the containers as it was doing in the previous release. So by adhering to such standards, we make sure that hopefully we don't break from time to time. And again, CRI is made for Kube and just for Kube. There is no other intended user other than Kubernetes. So there is no CRIO PS or CRIO logs or whatever. It's just meant for Kube. So to actually narrow down the scope, the scope of CRIO itself is tied to the CRI. So from release to release, if the CRI needs a new action to be implemented, we'll do that, and only that. We won't do anything other than that. CRIO itself is shaped around Kube, and that means that we know what Kube needs as far as the container runtime is. So we know that there are certain actions like getting the image status or the container status, which are recurring actions. And so we are able to speed up the code path in CRI itself to make it faster because Kube needs that. Again, the only supported user is Kube. And we will never add any features that combine stability and performance. I'll talk about that in a moment as well. But we make sure that we never break Kube in any way. And we make sure for every release to not regress in performance. Versioning is also tied to upstream Kube. So right now, 1.12 is going out of there. And guess what? CRIO is also going with the CRIO 1.12 so that it's a no-brainer to understand which version goes with the version of Kubernetes supported. Support is also tied to Kube, and that means CRIO is backporting patches as long as Kube needs it. So right now, the old supported release is probably 1.7, and we do still support 1.7 for security fixes. This is, again, an eye-lever view of the architecture of CRIO within Kube. You can see the Kube button on the left side calling through the GRPC API into CRIO. And you can see it's made of the image service and the runtime service I've talked before. For the image service, we're using a library called Container's Image, which is the one in charge of pulling images, listing images only when you give a node and stuff like that. And the runtime service is the one which is actually running the containers through the OCI Container runtime. We make use of library slice, the OCI Generate, which is a library to create configurations for OCI-compatible runtime. So we make sure that we can generate one configuration for every OCI-compatible runtime. So you can come up with your own container runtime, and it should just work. For networking, we're using the CNI. Probably you're already familiar with this if you use Kube. And at the lowest level, we use a library called Container Storage, which is the one in charge of, for instance, exploding the image into layers on a copy and write file system like OverlayFS and then run your container. Above you can see, those are two examples of two pods running with cryo. So there is an infra container because neither cryo nor Docker, for that matter, is a pod concept. So we did the same as Docker did, and we implemented the pod concept as an infra container, holding namespaces and cgroup, and then we spawned the actual application containers inside the namespaces and cgroups for the infra container so that we achieved the pod concept in that way. And for every container running, we also have a little tool called common, which stands for container monitoring. I will dive into that in a moment. So the heart of cryo and Kube itself, it's running containers. So we do make sure that we can run almost every container out there if it's OCI compatible. Right now, our default is Renzi, which is a project and a runtime inside the open container initiative repository. But we also support new runtimes like other containers, which was previously known as clear containers. And for every runtime, we also make sure that you won't break Kube in any way. And, for instance, the Cata containers, maintainers reports to us for every request if something goes wrong so that we won't merge any features that can actually break the other container runtime. Container storage is the library I've talked to you before, and it's the one in charge of managing layers on Kube on right field systems. Cryo, by default, uses overlay FS, which is pretty stable, and it's our default. Container storage is also, you can view it as the storage drivers for Docker, like device mapper overlay. Then we do, again, the containers image library, which is a library, again, for pulling images. This library is probably where everything started because we extracted it from a tool I'm going to talk about later, and we embedded it into our downstream Docker as well, so it's really battle tested. You can pull images without any privilege as well, like today, if you want to, with other tools, if you want to pull an image, it actually needs to be root. That wasn't what we wanted, so as part of developing containers image, we make sure that we can pull images as a privileged user, as it should be. And containers image is also, for us, has been the playground for adding and experimenting with new features. Cryo itself, today, can run with what we call simple signing, which is signature verification for containers image, so you can enable that in Cryo if you want it, and that has been possible because we actually implemented all of this in container image, and we're using it in Cryo. The other library that we use, it's a library extracted from a tool, which is the OCI runtime tool, and as I've told you before, it's just a library that generates OCI-compatible configuration so that every runtime can read it and create containers in pretty much the same way as other OCI-compatible runtime. The CNI is the container network interface, and you can come up with your own network stuff if you want, as long as it implements this interface. Cryo is able to run with most of the plugins out there, supported in Kube, like Flannel, Wave, you name them, and also the OpenShift SDN. And then we do have this little binary, which is called common, which is the container monitor for every container. And as the word suggests, it's in charge of monitoring the whole lifecycle of a container. It's basically in charge of starting the container itself. So when a request from the Kubelet comes, we do spawn a common process that in turn spawn a run C for our default runtime, a run C process, and take care of it for the whole lifecycle of the container itself. It's responsible for logging, for handling the TTY for the container, serving a touch client, detecting and reporting out of memory condition, and probably most importantly, it's also common is the parent process for the container itself. That means that Cryo can go down entirely, but your containers will still keep running and serving requests. That hasn't been the case before with other runtime as well, whether if you updated the runtime in question or Cryo, it will go, it will bring down all your containers. So since we do have this little binary in between Cryo and the container itself, we are able to upgrade Cryo without any downtime for the containers running. This is a zoom on the pod architecture. We're running with run C. You can see this whole box is the pod itself, which shares the IPC net and PNA spaces and C group. And these are the application containers that joins the namespaces of the infrastructure containers, all the namespaces. And for each container, we do have a common process. This is the architecture, which is a bit different with container and Cata containers. Since this is a virtual machine, the Cata containers developer implemented a shim in between the common process and the application containers and the pod itself. So this is pretty different than this one. This is how it is in Cata containers. And now I hope everything is going to go well. I'll show you how transparent was to actually implement, well, use Cryo with Qube, since you'll have the same experience as with other container runtime you're already used to. So I do have a one node Qube cluster running on my laptop and draining all my battery power. You can see here we have the node. It's a 1.11 node, so it's the lightest. I do have the Qube NNS, which is in charge of the networking for the whole cluster, and the dashboard running. And we're going to run an HTTP container with the image HTTP alpine. And we should be seeing it running. You can see it's running. I'll show you in a moment that we're actually running with Cryo and nothing else. I don't know. I'm using this terminal for the first time because I thought it was better. Can you read it? Not at all? Are you able to see it now?  So we're going to run this again with the nodes, all the pods running. We can see that the HTTP pod is running. And I'm starting a new one here. I do have two now. So the last one, you can see it has been started successfully. We can test it by curling the IP address for that pod. We can see it's working. We can curl a not found page for the sake of grabbing the logs and see that it's working over there. You can see the slash as gconf 2018. We can also Qube CTL exec as you would normally do with other container runtime. And you can see HTTP is running. You can also run interactively. And it's working. And now just check that we're running with Cryo itself. You can see that the output of Qube CTL describe is showing that we're running with the cryo slash slash, which means that we're running indeed with Cryo. And there is no Docker running at all. Rather, all our containers for every pod that you've seen in the output of Qube CTL get pods is actually running through RunC. And this is our container, the HTTP container running. We can check that is the one by looking at the PSOX output. You can see it's still HTTPD. And for each container we're running, we're also running a system, the scope for it. So for the sake of blogging and monitoring it, so if you prepare Cryo dash to the container with the scope, you can actually, you can see that it's integrated with system D itself. So we can see all the processes running for it, the logs streaming to the system, this scope as well. And we do also run a scope for common as well. You can see it here. As you would normally do with other container run time, of course, everything is going to work normally. So here's the dashboard, which is working just fine. You can see we do have the two pods running. And since we do care about performance, in Cryo itself with implemented Prometheus, I know this is really small with implemented Prometheus metrics so that if something goes wrong, or if something isn't looking that good, someone can go here and just try to understand what's going on. So back here. So the status as of today is that the CRI interface is implemented at any time. And that means for every release, we make sure all the CRIs implemented. So if any new actions are is required by the CRI itself, we implement it before releasing it. We do have maintainers from and contributors, more than 90 maintainers, more than 90 contributors from many companies like Red Hat, Intel, ABM, you name it. You can run Cryo with CUBE with CUBE ADM or Minicube. There's support for mixed workloads. Nowadays, these are called runtime classes in 1, in Kubernetes 1.12. That means that you can have certain pods running with RunC, which is runtime just not virtualized, whether you can have other pods that can run with run times like other containers so that you have a virtual machine for a pod. Cryo itself is deployed to our open shift online cluster, so we do have a pretty good user base that it's testing on it. And the package for Cryo is available in Fedora, Ubuntu, and it's really easy to get started. We do make sure that we don't, as I told you before, we make sure that we don't actually break CUBE at any time. We do run more than 1,000 end-to-end tests for every request that allow us not to break Kubernetes in any way. We do also run the open shift tests, not as part of every request, but we do run them, which is a superset of the CUBE end-to-end test. We do run a conformance testing, which is the CRI test. We do have our own integration test, and before every release, we also run a performance run to make sure that we don't regress. If you want to get started with Cryo and CUBE, you can use MiniCube with this command line. I'll upload this slide so that everyone can actually take this.  To debug what's going on with Cryo, and especially with the whole CRI interface, the community, the upstream community in CUBE came up with a new tool called CRI CTL, which is a small binary that just talks to the CRI end point of any container runtime, so that in case something goes wrong on a node, you usually SSH into it and Docker PS, Docker images, Docker exec, you can pretty much do the same with CRI CTL. So this is a debug tool. And we're going to move this project into the Kubernetes organization itself, since it's crucial for the CUBE project. So everything in Cryo has been made possible by some libraries, like containers, storage, and over time, even before starting Cryo itself, we created some tools that are working with containers in general, so that we created tools like Scopio, which is a tool to run, to play with containers image, like you can pull images, as I told you before, by using containers image, which is the one scope you're using, so you can actually pull an image without being root, as it's desirable. There is no demo running with pulling an image, so it's just straight command, and you'll have the images on your roast, or you can sync up images between registers. Another tool that we've built by leveraging those little libraries that we're using in Cryo itself is Builda, which is a tool to build container images. And again, we don't have any demo running Builda uses a shell-like syntax to build images, so there is still support for Docker files, but of course, we know that people are still using Docker files, so it's still supported. And then we created a tool called Podman, which is just running containers as Docker does, like today you can Podman run something. And all of these three tools, maybe a Scopio, are going to be demoed by Dan Walsh later today, so make sure to come to the session. So overall, the Kubernetes community came up with this idea of the CRR interface, and we leveraged that by creating a, probably, I'd say the best runtime since it's the only runtime made for CUBE, specifically for CUBE. Any other runtime as other supported user, whether Cryo is just for CUBE. And so by also leveraging all the libraries, we use it into Cryo. We also built many tools for the whole container's ecosystem, building up from libraries, like containers, storage, all the open containers, initiative libraries. So the roadmap, very briefly, is to, well, not the first one, but we aim to be the default in CUBE upstream, since we think that we are specifically for CUBE. We will keep pace with upstream CUBE, and that means tracking and supporting all the Kubernetes version out there. We moved out the Kubernetes incubator organization to something called the Kubernetes 6, which is a repository for six specific tools. So Cryo is in there now. It's not the default container runtime for OpenShift, but that's on our roadmap. But it's already the default container runtime in OpenSUSE and microS. So if you install and use microS, right now you get the kubelet and the Cryo runtime as default. And of course, we are at having more adoption overall. If you want to get involved, make sure to go to these links, and we do have a free node channel, Cryo. And we usually hang around in the signaled channel and Cryo channel in the Kubernetes Slack, with a website if you want to see it as well. With that, thank you. If you want stickers, Vincent has stickers right there. I ran out of time, so I guess I'll take questions outside.


Suspense. This is the man in black. Here again to introduce Columbia's program. Suspense. Our star this evening is Miss Maureen O'Hara, whom you've seen rise to stardom in Hollywood within the short space of a year. Her performances in the 20th Century Fox production How Green Was My Valley, then more recently in The Immortal Sergeant, and now currently in the RKO production This Land Is Mine, have given her an enviable place in the ranks of America's new film favorites. Miss O'Hara makes her first appearance on our suspense stage tonight as the heroine of a study in homicidal mania. The White Rose Murders by Cornel Woolrich, which is tonight's tale of suspense. If you have been with us before, you will know that suspense is compounded of mystery and suspicion and dangerous adventure. In this series are tales calculated to entreat you, to stir your nerves, to offer you a precarious situation, and then withhold the solution until the last possible moment. And so it is with the White Rose Murders and the performance of Maureen O'Hara. We again hope to keep you in. Suspense. He stood there waiting. He knew that presently they would come out of the second-rate dance hall, out into the dimly lit street. He listened a while, and smiled as the orchestra played that tune inside. And then they came out the two girls, and still he waited close enough to hear what they were saying. Well, I'll see you at the office tomorrow, Sally. Oh, I don't know how I'll get up after one o'clock. Six hours sleep. Oh, I'll be dead tomorrow. Me too. Oh, gosh, I gotta have at least eight hours or I'm no good at all. I wish I had someone to walk me to the bus. It's four long blocks. I'll walk you down, Sally. Oh, don't bother. We go in different directions. What's no trouble? Really, I don't mind. In the narrow alley that divides at the dance hall from an ugly office building, he stood smiling. Just a little inside the alley, he stood stiffly against the wall.  Well, all right then, Sally. Good night. Good night, Joan. See you in the morning. I hope I don't have to wait long for the bus. Keep away. Keep away from me. Let me go. Let me go. The girl is dead. Tenderly, the figure straightens her hair and gently places the limp body on the ground. Then he opens her clenched fist and carefully so that the thorns will not bruise her flesh. He places in her hand the white rose bud. Pardon me, my good man. Is it true that you are the famous detective Terence Riley? Huh? Oh, Ginny. I didn't see you come in. Well, now that I'm here, how about offering to buy a cup of coffee for the girl you're going to marry? You can ever get up enough with nerve to ask her. It's no use, Ginny. I guess we better call it quits.  And I'm a rich debutante. We don't belong together. Oh, you've been reading too many of those romantic stories, Terry. What is it this time? What's wrong? They call him the white rose killer. He's got to be caught. It's a general demotion coming on if he isn't, and that's all I need to get back into uniform. Oh, don't worry, darling. You always look good in blue. Yeah. Just a match the way I feel. Tell me more about the white rose killer. What's he like? That's the stumble. He could be anybody. No one's ever seen him except the dead, and they don't talk about it afterwards. He just slips out of the shadows and kills and then slips back again. How many has he murdered? Four. He's not through yet. It's going to be one of those chain things if he's allowed to keep on. Are you sure it's always the same one? Yeah. That part of it we're sure of. It's the same touch. The same way of operating every time. How do you know that? Well, it's a rose. A white rosebud. Death rose. Puts it into each victim's hand after he kills it. Yeah. It's always a woman. A young woman between 19 and 23. What's behind it? Do you have any idea? Well, I'm not sure. But here's what I figured out. You know what a rose stands for. Symbolically, I mean. Why, yes, it's the flower of love. The white rose, the bud has another meaning. Purity, loyalty, devotion, and especially it stands for a young girl. That's right. And that's about the way I see it. So maybe it's a double cross committed against our murderer by some young girl whom he worshipped and who betrayed his faith in her. You ought to be a detective, not me. Thanks, darling. I've got a very fine teacher. Sweet. There's another thing. The murders were all committed near places where there was music, dance halls, cabarets and the like. There's a song that brings back the original shock that, you know, gives him the final push over into the darkness. As far as we can figure out, it's the beer barrel poker. Well, how does he commit the murder? Is it always the same way? Always. Strangulation between the hands, with the thumb into the windpipe to keep his victims from crying out. But isn't there anything else you know about him? No, that's why it's so hopeless. He's insane, of course. There's only this one phase to his insanity, probably perfectly normal in appearance and behavior. You can pass him on the street and even know it. Well, it's only when he sees someone vaguely like the girl he loved, and here's that song. The one defective wire in him is jangled and short-circuit. But Terry, the flowers, don't the flowers tell you? He must get them somewhere you could trace. We don't know where he gets them. Maybe he steals them or... Terry, what if you were the one to get him? Well, it would mean a citation and a promotion. And then all the things that stand between us would disappear? We could get married. Well, the chances would be a lot better, anyway. But what chance have I? Everyone in the department has been working their heads off for weeks and they've all failed. Uh-huh. Terry, what were the girls like? The ones he killed? Well, as I told you, they were all between 19 and 23. Their heights were pretty much the same, too. They're all tall girls, around five feet six or seven, little taller than you, and all dark-haired. How did they wear their hair? Why they? Say, what is this? Oh, nothing, darling. Just just interested. How did they wear their hair? Well, from what I remember, they were sort of loose and curly down the back. I suppose each one had a resemblance to that long dead love of his. That's probably it. Well, anyway, that's how the record stands, and we're all waiting for it to happen again. I see. Uh, Terry, um, I'd like to go home now. I shouldn't have told you all that stuff. I've given you the creeps. Oh, come on, Terry. Take me home. Later, Sieny stands by the window in her room, looking out, thinking she doesn't move for a long time. Then suddenly, quickly, she goes to her closet and begins to rummage through her many pairs of shoes. Carefully, she picks one pair with three inch heels. Five foot six or seven. Then she walks quickly to the dresser, opens a drawer, takes out a comb, and starts redoing her hair. One loose and curly down the back. Well, here we go. Edwin. Yes, Miss? Is the car ready? Yes, Miss Virginia. I've been waiting for you. Let's go before Mother sees me. Your mother's been looking for you, Miss. I hope you didn't tell her. No, Miss Virginia. I didn't. Good. Come on, Edward. Where do you wish to go, Miss Virginia? The Starlight Dance Hall on Grove and Second Street. The Starlight, Miss? Yes, Edward. That's the place. I wouldn't go there and escort it if I were you, Miss. It's one of the worst places in the city. It has a very bad reputation. The Starlight Dance Hall, Edwards. Very good, Miss. Very good. Ginny walks slowly around the low-lighted dance hall, trying to make herself conspicuous. The tall figure leaning against a pillar watches her intently as he idly smokes a cigarette. He doesn't seem to belong there. His clothes don't have the nativeness of a dance lover. Ginny pauses not far from him. Deliberately, he throws his cigarette on the floor, steps on it, and slowly walks over to her. Hello. Oh, hello. You're not with anyone, are you? Oh, no. I'm alone. I thought so. I've been watching you all the time. Have you? I haven't seen you dance yet. I don't know anyone here. How about dancing with me then? All right. Come on. Let's go out on the floor. Do you come here often? No. I never go to the same place twice. You don't? Why? I'm always looking for new faces. I'm restless. Do you find the faces you're looking for? Listen. Listen to that song. I like that. I like it very much. Yes, it is a nice song. You know, you remind me of someone I used to know. I'm trying to think who. I do? Yeah.  No. Let's go. Oh, look. They sell flowers here. Yes, I see. I'll get you some. What kind would you like? Oh, any kind. You pick it out. All right. Let's see. There's something kind of innocent and young about you. Different from most of the girls that come here.  It's intermission now. They won't play again for 10 minutes. Come on. But I like it here. Let's stay a little while longer. Well, then let's get down for some air. We can come back in a few minutes. Come on. But we'll be back before the music starts. Oh, you're hurting my arm. Am I? I'm sorry. Fresh air smells good, doesn't it? It's so dark here. Let's go back. You're not scared, are you? Oh, no, it's just that. Let's walk down this alley and back. Please. Please. No, you tell us. Let me go. Thanks. That's a lovely necklace, beautiful. Why, you're just a cheap thing.  All you wanted was my neck. So long, beautiful. Look out. What's the matter? Behind you. Look. Holy. She's dead. A girl. Murdered.  Well, Ginny, happened again last night, as like the other times. The girl strangled in an alley with a white rose in her hand. Any news of the killer? No. He might just as well float through the air for all the trace he leaves. He must have bought the flower upstairs in the dance hall. He must have been there earlier, bought it, and saved it under... No, it was only one rose sold up there all night. And to a man who had a different girl with him. We had the flower girl. How did you know that they sold flowers there? I didn't tell you. Well, I... I must have read it somewhere. You couldn't have. Wasn't in any of the papers. No details were given, just the statement that an unidentified body was found. Well, I... Well, I just imagined that they'd sell flowers in a place like that. Well, I'm glad you don't go near those dance halls. Why were there's nut running around, moves? Oh, don't bother about that. We'd better catch this killer. And fast. How did you get this wee stuff? To hear you talk, you'd think that you were on the case too. Wouldn't you think so? To hear me talk? Again, Ginny tours the low dives, hunting for the white rose killer. Her search carries her to the waterfront. And as she walks past each dingy bar, she listens to the jukebox music.  The thin music catches her ear. She pauses and listens. Her eyes are live for some sign. Some indication of the person she's looking for. Then suddenly her body becomes rigid, as her eyes fall upon a figure, huddled in the shadows. Someone's watching me. Slowly, she starts to walk up the street. Behind her, the heavy tread of a man's footsteps keep pace with hers. It's a quiet tread, unhurried but deliberate. For several blocks, it keeps the exact distance. Ginny starts to walk faster. I've got to know if he's really following me. The man quickens his pace. Ginny starts across the street. The man follows. She's sure now, sure that the man is following her. She fumbles for something in her purse. Her hand closes around a gun. If he tried anything, I'll shoot. Get any trouble, lady? Oh, no, officer. It's all right. You scared him away. Scared who away? Hold just a man who wanted to bring me flowers. That's all. Well, he brought you one anyhow, lady. What do you mean? Right there on the ground, right where your feet. A white rose. Coffee, Mabel. Sure. Here you are. Terry. Terry. Hello, Ginny. Sit down. Thank you. Say, what's the matter with you? Look, darling, read the gossip column in this paper. What daughter of a socially prominent family, step away about a detective and waits for him outside the station house in her limousine every night. Private chauffeur and all, but mama says no. That's not so funny. Oh, they held a big family war council over me just now. Indian powwow, feathered headdress and everything. They did, huh? Well, what do they decide? Oh, I was asked to give my word that I wouldn't see you anymore. I refused, of course, so I had to be exiled. Where to? Our summer home. It's just a few hours out of town, but I'll be there all by myself, just with Mrs. Crosby, the housekeeper. Oh, maybe they're right. Why don't you listen to them? Are you on their side too? No. When you're leaving? Right away. Edward is driving me out. I just slipped out to let you know. Here's the address and phone number of the place in case you want to reach me. Don't lose it. I won't. Well, what's new and exciting about the white rose killer? Our famous lover of flowers? We're still trying to track them down. I suppose I'll go looking for them at the flower show that's just opened. Oh, a flower show just opened? Yeah. Well, goodbye now. I'll be seeing you. What floor is the flower show, please? Third floor, miss. Free, please. Third floor. Where's the rose display, please? To your left over there. See where the man in the gray coat is? In the gray coat? Oh, yes, thank you. They are lovely, aren't they? Oh, you startled me. I'm sorry. I was just admiring the roses. Oh, yes, the nicest flowers here. I just can't keep my eyes off them. Yes, you can feel that way about some flowers. And that's the way I feel about white roses. Have you been here long? I really don't know. I suppose so. You see, I've come here every day since the show opened. I like to be near the roses, the white roses. Those big ones are nice. No, I like the little ones best. The little tightly-cold rosebud there. So little and innocent. Oh, well, I really better be going. Are you going down? Yes. Down, please. Here, Miss, I took a rose for you. Thank you. It's lovely. And would you... Would you care to have a drink with me? Why, yes, thank you. I know of a little place a block or two down there. They have nice music. We'll go there. All right, whatever you say. This is it. Where's the music? A nickel in the jukebox, does it? Any special song you'd like? No. Go ahead and pick one. Okay. That's my favorite song. Reminds me of a girl I used to know. Excuse me, I want to part of my nose. I'll be right back. Do you mind? No, of course not. Thomas speaking. Hello, is Terry Riley there? Just a moment, I'll see. Please, hurry. It's important. Sorry, Miss. Terry Riley's not here just now. Will you tell him that I can't keep that date with him? Goodbye. Do you always get to the phone booth when you want a part of your nose? I had to make a call. I'm afraid I'll have to leave you. Oh, wait. Let me come with you. Sorry, Miss, but I've got other things to do. Oh. What's the matter? That car, someone that knows me. Let's get away from here. That's just what I'm going to do. So long, lady. Wait, wait. Please don't go. Miss Virginia. Miss Virginia. I'm sorry, Miss Virginia, that I must speak to you for a minute. Oh, Edwards, what do you want? I'm sorry, Miss. You'd better come with me at once. I've been looking for you everywhere.  Mother? Where is she? She's out at the country, please, Miss. I drove her there shortly before dinner. She wanted to pay you a surprise visit. Oh. I believe the shock of not finding you there upset her, Miss. Is she very bad? She had the doctor with her, and they left. Mrs. Cosby has gone away for the day.  Well, let's go. Hurry, Edwards, please. Right, Miss. Where is Mother Edwards? In her room, Miss. You'd better hurry. Mother? Mother? It's Ginny. Is the doctor in there with you? Mother? Why, there's no one here. The room's empty. The bed hasn't been touched. Edwards, what are you doing? Barely playing a song, Miss. A favorite of mine. A favorite? Yes, Miss Virginia. Where's Mother? She's in the city, Miss. You lied to me. I'm afraid I did, Miss Virginia. Why are you locking the door? You know why, Miss Virginia. It... it can't be. You are not the... The White Rose Killer. But you see, I am, Miss Virginia. Driving you and your family around day after day.  It was amusing to watch you hunting for me. Hunting for someone you saw several times a day. It can't be. You're not insane. Of course not. Who said I was? Edwards, you know I'm not the girl who betrayed you? Yes, I know that. Well, lock the door and let me out. Please, Edwards. I've killed five times. I've never regretted it.  Why, Edwards? Why? Because you've been so clever. Too clever. You made yourself look like her, the girl who deceived me.  But I had to be careful. I almost caught you that night at the waterfront. The night I dropped the white rose when that police car came. Edwards, I... I've never done you any harm. Your sweetheart, Terry. He loves you, doesn't he? Yes. That's good. Because now you won't be able to deceive him like my girl deceived me. Keep away, Edwards. Keep away, or I'll... You thought you'd use your gun, eh? Well, don't think I was full enough to overlook that. I took your gun out of your purse.  I didn't have anything to do with... No. And you're not going to have a chance to break another man's heart, like she broke mine. Jenny, Jenny, where are you going? Terry, Terry! It won't do you any good to call to him. He can't get in here without breaking down the door. Keep away from me. Terry!  Jenny, where are you? Terry! Let me get my hands on that pretty white throat. Oh, keep away! Keep away from me! You're scaring me! Stop! Are you all right? Yes, Terry. I... I'm all right. Take it easy. Here. Sit down. Oh, Terry, I was so scared. There was nobody here but Edwards and I. How... how did you know where I was? For simple. You were supposed to meet me at the coffee shop. You never broke an appointment, and when you didn't show up, I called the number you gave me. You told me the housekeeper was here all the time. And when there was no answer, I got suspicious and came down. Besides, when I got a message down at headquarters that you had to break a date with me, I knew something was wrong. Are you sure you're all right? Yes, I... I'm, uh, Terry. Look. On the floor beside Edwards. A white rose. Must have fallen out of his pocket. That was meant for me. Oh, Terry, it's... it's all crushed. Yeah, crushed and dead. Just like the white rose killer. And so closes the white rose murders, starring Maureen O'Hara. Tonight's tale of... Suspense. This is your narrator, the man in black, who's speaking for Columbia. Hope you have enjoyed Miss O'Hara's performance and our play. Next week, because of a special broadcast of the All Star baseball game, suspense will not be heard. But again, the following week, we will be back with another play on this series. And more of your Hollywood favorites. The producer of these broadcasts is William Spear, who with Ted Bliss, the director. Bernard Herman and Lucy and Marowick, conductor and composer. And Cornel Woolrich, the author, collaborated on tonight's suspense. This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.