Hey girl, welcome back to another video. This is gonna be my body skin care routine This is what I've been doing for the last couple weeks now, and I am in love This is just right on time for the summer so your body can be nice healthy and glowy So stay tuned and let's get into it Taking care of our bodies doesn't only mean externally, but most importantly internally We have one body we need to nourish it We may not consume everything our body needs on a daily That's why I've incorporated my care of vitamins into my everyday routine Care of is a subscription service that ships high quality personalized vitamins to your door every single month I've been taking care of vitamins for over a month now on a daily basis to show up as my best self And I love the little packs they come in if I'm traveling or if I'm in a rush It's so convenient to just grab and go how care of works is by taking a quiz on takecareof.com Well, they'll ask you questions about your health goals So they can curate your vitamins to eliminate being overwhelmed on where to start So you'll be able to get your own personalized vitamins as well All you need to do is go on takecareof.com and use code Kyra 50 to say 50% off your order So girl, make sure you check out care of vitamins. You only have one body. So make sure you take care of it So now that we talked about our bodies Internally, let's get into the externally.  Oh my god I love this scrub and it has like a acid which is an exfoliant So I've just put this on all over my body right before I get in the shower So this is the necessary at the body detox bar You don't have to use this all the time when you're in the shower But it's good to use at least one or two times a week and this does have vitamin A C and E Very good for your skin And then it has niacinamide to strengthen your skin's barrier And I love necessary products just because they have the same products as if you were to do like you're facing here But for your body this next product is something that I've been loving y'all This is literally like my third container. This is the way scalp and body scrub when I tell you This scrub smells so good y'all So freaking good and it is a sugar scrub and but it's not rough on your skin So when you're rubbing it in it literally just lathers up and just softens anybody that has dry skin Or just gonna just you know exfoliate every now and then I recommend this scrub. It smells so freaking good. I Really don't use a specific body wash, but at the moment I'm using the dove body hair radiance renew with vitamin C Pick this up by target. I really like it and vitamin C helps it even out skin tone. So yeah So for my legs, I like to exfoliate right before shaving and as far as using a Shaving cream I don't I just use body wash or whatever it's in my shower and take care of y'all's feet Okay, this is just a feet scrubber I don't use a feet grinder cuz cuz it's bad for your feet So next time you're getting a pedicure tell them do not use that trees greater thing. Okay, you're welcome So this is the Olay body conditioner I really like this stuff because right when I get out the shower I still like to feel, you know, moisturize and not dried out. So the Olay body conditioner helps that and Yeah, I really like using it. So Yes, all right. So now that we are fresh and clean and Exfoliated out the shower now. I'm gonna go in with necessary the body serum.  So yes, this is like the key. Oh I cannot brag about this enough. If you don't take nothing from this video This is what you gain. This is the method the body nourish y'all. This is so good has my Body always feeling like butter. It has glycolic acid So it's gonna help firm saggy skin reduce fine lines and wrinkles and just help smooth rough skin texture And it's an exotic scent to it but it's real faint and I'm not gonna lie to y'all this does sting a little bit just because of the glycol acid But if you mix it with a oil or non-sensitive oil, you should be good But do a patch test just so you can see what I'm talking about But it will go away.  So and it smells really good. So I really like it and yes I do have a booty deodorant love this stuff smells like peaches and Going in with SPF I use the black girl's sunscreen for my body because it doesn't be my white cast and Just because you're not tanning or anything like that does not mean do not protect your skin barrier So then I go on with some cuticle oil and put that on my nails just so I can have my nails looking nice and healthy And that is it for this video. I hope you guys enjoyed. Let me know down in comments What are you gonna be adding to your body care routine? And like I said, I recommend the Lancer I know it's a very pricey, but it's definitely worth the penny. So Yes, and I'll see you on this video. I love y'all so much


So in principle we could use dot plots to characterize protein structure too. This is a real one of hemoglobin alpha versus hemoglobin beta chains. So here you see some very long lines along the diagonal and then lots of smaller lines that are more or less random matches. The problem is that it's hard to quantify this because it's binary. It's all or nothing. Either we have a match and then it's a dot or it's closed but no match and then it's nothing. So nobody uses this for proteins anymore. Only DNA structure. Let's look at some real structures. I think this is myoglobin. Hue is for human and then we have some sperm whale, DG is dog whale, W whale that's sperm whale, PN is pony I think etc. Do you see the patterns here? There are lots of positions here where we have exactly the same residue in all these species and then there are a handful of positions where there's slightly difference. You might even have so many assertions here. I'm not sure where there is one. We could try to calculate some source of average or at least consensus because if I demand that I can only, if I should say that I only assign an average if it's exactly the same residue, well as the number of species grows, remember there could be hundreds of thousands. At some point I will never ever have any position where every single species have the same residue. So I'm going to need to make do with say that you know if 90% of them are alanine I'm going to say that it is an alanine and allow a little bit of change and that's particular why the dot plots are not very good. Second, not all changes here are equal right? If I change something that's small and hydrophobic for something else that's small and hydrophobic you probably agree that that's not likely to change the protein structure a lot. But if we change small and hydrophobic to something large and charged that's going to be a very large change. So one way or another we're going to need to find a way to characterize and calculate these changes and see how important they are and ideally be able to go from these structures and predict what the sequence, from these sequences and predict what the structure is because remember all of these sequences have the same structure. How do we do that? Well if I plot just a small fake sequence here do you see the similarities here? There are some things that are similar but it's not entirely easy. So if we go there and if I insert a little bit of gap in one of them here now I get C, K, F lining up. So first I have the C there that's a match there are more messages but I won't show all of them. Then I have this gap or insertion so it's a gap in one sequence is an insertion in the other sequence that can happen. And then I have things that are mismatches in theory I could instead of a mismatch I could first introduce a gap in one sequence and then a gap in the other sequence but it's unlikely that evolution worked that way that it kept inserting gaps. It was probably rather that I changed an alanine for a glycine both of them are fairly small and similar residues. So I would like to find a way to somehow rather than saying that this looks good and I did this manually find a way to let the computer do this and assign a score to it. So we're going to need a way to calculate sequence similarity and in particular score it. How do we do that? Well if I just had that example alignment of myoglobin with different sequences we can calculate that. It's not particularly difficult and it's the way to do this goes beyond the class again but just to show you that this is not something magic we're lining up. I can calculate what is the probability of matching say an alanine to a glycine. Let's say that's 0.1 and then I can say what is the probability of matching an alanine to an alanine that's probably much larger rather this should be 0.01 this should probably be 0.9 and then what is the probability of matching an alanine with a tryptophan that should probably be pretty low say etc. If I do that the probability of matching everything that should be the probability of matching impulse 1 multiplied by the probability of matching impulse 2 multiplied by the probability of the match impulse 3 multiplied by the probability of matching impulse etc all the way up. The problem is that first we need to multiply things a lot. Multiplications can be a bit expensive on computers not that bad anymore but in particular when these numbers are small we can actually end up with underflow if once we get to 10 to the minus 30 or so computers can no longer calculate. So in practice what we typically do is that I introduce a score where I say that s is a logarithm of the probability and by probability here I can literally these probabilities literally just come from counting how common is it that an alanine is replaced for a glycine versus not. In that case I get that s tot equals s1 plus s2 plus s3 plus s4 etc. So I literally get score numbers that I can add up and this is the entire basis of bioinformatics but just know that we could actually derive this from probabilities it's nothing magic. So the idea with those scores is that I can look at small fragments of pre-existing residues that I know match and then use those to derive scores. How common is it that I replace alanine for tryptophan. That leads to so-called substitution scoring matrices. Substitution matrices or scoring matrices which is literally matrices with all the amino acids on row and columns and then scores. There are some extra letters here and this is just to tell you what they are but in some cases it can be difficult to tell asparagene for as per aspartic acid. What this gives us is a way to introduce more biological information right. Remember rather than just looking at residues and guessing whether alanine is more stable and leucine here this is to derive from how frequently does nature in practice replace alanine with leucine. So in a way I'm relying more on evolution. Or am I? Yes I am but evolution also encodes the physics right. The reason why alanine is reasonably easy to replace say with glycine is the physics we talked about in the first few lectures of this class and the reason why it's less likely to be replaced say with tryptophan is of course also the physics. But here instead of looking at the physics I cheat and let nature do the physics for me and I just look at the outcome. Apparently in practice nature tends not to replace tryptophan with other residues so much. Who am I to question nature's judgment? If nature does that I will just trust nature and I will use those rules when I try to identify similar proteins. So the ultimate information is the same I just choose different ways to approach it. That's going to be a theme we come back to. Virtually every single significant advance in predicting structures and understanding things in bioinformatics has come from introducing more biology not necessarily fancier algorithms.


John, like most people in the STEM fields, has an unhealthy addiction to caffeine that he could totally quit whenever he wants to. It's just that he doesn't want to. Anyway, let's say he gets up in the morning and brews a fresh pot of coffee and pours 16 ounces into a well-insulated thermos to bring along to his 8am class. When it is poured, the coffee is about 94 degrees Celsius which is way too hot for John to drink, meaning he often goes into class uncaffeinated, much to the detriment of his students. He decides to add ice to the coffee, which quickly drops the temperature to a much more reasonable level. John's freezer keeps his ice cubes at about negative 5 degrees Celsius, and they come out of the tray in 1 inch by 1 inch by 2 inch chunks called cubes, despite not being cube-shaped. The latent heat diffusion of ice in one atmosphere is 334 kilojoules per kilogram, and the density and specific heat capacity of ice at negative 5 degrees Celsius are 917.5 kilograms per cubic meter, and 2.06 kilojoules per kilogram Kelvin, respectively. How many whole ice cubes should John add to ensure that his coffee reaches an equilibrium temperature as close to 60 degrees Celsius as possible? I will begin with a system diagram. I'm drawing my system as the inside surface of the thermos, and I'm including both the ice and the coffee in my system analysis. Note that you could analyze the ice as a separate system and the coffee as a separate system, which would involve two energy balances, but it's just as easy to group everything together. I can begin my list of assumptions by neglecting the air at the top of the thermos. So my system is only ice and coffee, not air. Two. I'm going to assume that no mass escapes around our system boundaries. Under normal circumstances, that would mean that I'm treating this as a closed system, but note that in a closed system, energy can cross the boundary of our system as heat and work. In our analysis, we are treating the system as being perfectly insulated, based on the fact that it's a well insulated thermos. Therefore, we are neglecting heat transfer through the container walls. Furthermore, there are no opportunities for work, so there are no opportunities for energy to cross the boundary of our system, either. Therefore, I'm treating this not as a closed system, but as an isolated system. Now that I've got my system defined, I can begin an energy balance on the system. I begin with delta E is equal to energy in minus energy out. For an isolated system, there are no opportunities for energy to cross the boundary, therefore E in and E out are both zero, and you're probably thinking, oh great, delta E is equal to zero, that's unhelpful. But remember that we are defining our system as both coffee and ice, meaning if I were to split the delta E into both components, delta E of the ice plus delta E of the coffee must equal zero. Therefore, delta E of the ice must equal delta E of our coffee just in opposite directions. Therefore I will add a negative sign on one of the two terms. My energy change is still delta U plus delta KE plus delta PE, and if I neglect changes in kinetic and potential energy for both the ice and the coffee, then I will be left with just delta U of the ice is equal to negative delta U of our coffee. We have ourselves a delta U term for both ice and coffee, which means that we have to consider how to evaluate it. The best option here would be to look up the internal energy at the beginning and end of the process for both substances, but that isn't really an option here because A, we don't really have good ice tables for situations like this, and B, we don't have coffee tables at all. And even if we were to assume that the coffee was close enough to water, so as to use the water tables for coffee properties, we still have to contend with the fact that we only have one independent intensive property for our coffee, that's temperature. So we could approximate the change in internal energy of the coffee by using the assumption that the specific heat capacity of water is constant across that range, but for the ice, we can't just use the specific heat capacity to approximate the entire internal energy all at once. We have to split it across the phase. And I think that this is easier to get your head wrapped around by picturing it on a graph. I'm a very visual learner, so I like to plot things wherever possible. So let's look at a plot of temperature versus internal energy. If you consider water starting in the solid phase, as we add energy to the water, we are increasing its sensible energy. The temperature of the ice will increase until eventually it reaches a point where it can contain no more sensible energy without changing phase. It becomes saturated with energy, at which point additional energy will go into the latent energy of the ice. This occurs at a constant temperature because no more energy can go into sensible energy until the ice has changed phase into liquid water. Then as we add energy, we can increase the sensible energy again, until eventually it reaches a point at which it is saturated with energy again, and we cannot add energy to the sensible energy of the water anymore. We have to change phase again. And once the phase has changed into the vapor phase, we can increase the sensible energy again. And on this graph, these changes in phase should really be horizontal lines. We'll try to draw those better. And on this graph, the region in the middle here is the liquid phase. The region on the left here is the solid phase. The region on the right is the vapor phase, or gas phase. And these horizontal segments represent the latent energy associated with that phase change. Remember that for the transition from liquid to vapor, that's called latent energy energy, interesting, latent energy of vaporization, and for the transition from solid to liquid, that is called the latent energy of fusion. And then these three segments here are sensible energy terms. So when we're evaluating an energy change within a singular phase, especially something like the liquid phase, or our temperature range is going to be relatively small, because remember, this horizontal segment between solid and liquid would be at about zero degrees Celsius, if this is at a pressure of approximately one atmosphere. And this horizontal segment up here is going to be at about 100 degrees Celsius. So the temperature change of the liquid water is going to be relatively small, so it's probably reasonable to assume that the specific heat capacity of the liquid water is constant across that range. For example, if you consider the initial condition of our coffee, we are going to be right about here. I can call that state point C, let's say, and what we are ending at is 60 degrees, which is going to be right about here, which I will call X for now. C is at 94 degrees Celsius and X is at 60 degrees Celsius, meaning that the change in temperature is only 34 degrees Celsius. It would be reasonable to assume constant specific heats across that range to approximate the delta U from C up to X. That difference in delta U is going to be what we plug in for our change in energy of our coffee, but for our ice, we have a slightly more complicated situation, because the ice begins down here at negative five. If I call that state point I, then going from I up to X is not just a matter of plugging in the specific heat capacity for that temperature range. I have to analyze from I up to here, and then I have to use the latent heat diffusion to get across the phase change. And then once I have changed phase entirely, I can jump up to X using the specific heat capacity of our water. So I'm going to be using the specific heat capacity of the ice to get from I up to zero degrees Celsius, then the latent heat diffusion to get across the phase change, and then the specific heat capacity of liquid water to get from the right side of the latent energy of fusion here up to state point X. So if I were to list the assumption of constant specific heats, then I can evaluate my delta U by using C delta T. Note that if this graph were drawn to scale and we had equal masses of coffee and ice, then determining our equilibrium temperature is just going to be a matter of splitting the horizontal distance between I and C, because the amount of energy that leaves the coffee is the same as the amount of energy that goes into the ice. If I had three times as much coffee as I had ice by mass, then that means that I would meet one quarter of the way over from the coffee. Since I don't know my masses or at least my relative proportion of masses, I have to use the position of the equilibrium point to determine the relative proportion of the masses. Meaning I am likely going to end up in a situation where I'm describing the energy change on a mass proportion. Anyway, starting with my delta U of my ice, I can get from I up to zero using the specific heat capacity of our solid water, which is ice. By all right, that is mass of ice times the heat capacity of the ice times the relevant temperature change, which is zero degrees Celsius minus negative five degrees Celsius. Then I add to that our latent energy of fusion. Note that the latent energy given to us in the problem statement describes the energy on a per unit mass basis. So in order to describe a total change in energy, I have to multiply by mass. And then once we've changed phase, we can use the specific heat capacity of water to get from zero degrees Celsius up to X. Note that our mass is still the same. So I'm still going to be calling it the mass of ice. And then this temperature would be Tx minus zero degrees Celsius. I guess to be consistent here, I will change negative five to Ti. So that's the change in internal energy of the ice going from I up to X. And that's equal to the change in internal energy from C to X. Remember that we describe the delta as n minus beginning, which would be mass of water times the specific heat capacity of the water times Tx minus Tc. But because of the negative out front, I'm going to actually write that as mass of water times the heat capacity of water times Tc minus Tx. So my energy balance leaves us with an equation which relates the mass of the ice and the specific energy change of the ice. Note that it's still just the specific energy change. It just happens to be written across three terms to the mass of water and the specific energy change of the water. Again, water here referring to coffee. So if I wanted to, I could write the mass of ice divided by the mass of water is equal to C water times delta T divided by C ice times delta T plus latent heat diffusion plus C water times delta T. The mass proportion is equal to the energy proportion. The same logic holds, we're just writing it a little bit differently. Speaking of writing this differently, I want the mass of ice for now. So I can solve this for mass of ice. And then we can start to think about what we're going to be plugging in here. I have enough information to determine the mass of the water. Can look up the specific heat capacity of water. I know Tc, I know Tx. I know C ice because I was given C ice. I know zero, I know Ti. I know the latent heat diffusion because I was given the latent heat diffusion. I can look up the C water and I know Tx and zero. So to be able to continue here, I have to look up the specific heat of water and I have to determine the mass of water that represents the coffee. So the specific heat capacity of water will come from table A19. So if we jump into our property tables, we can see on table A19 a specific heat capacity for liquid water as a function of temperature that's going to be our first term here. Furthermore, remember that because we're talking about ice and water as incompressible substances, we are describing their specific heat capacity as a single term regardless of Cp or Cv. The best course of action here would be to use the specific heat capacity that was halfway across our range or at least approximately halfway across our range. In this case, because we're talking about two different ranges, I could use one value for C down to X and then a different value for zero up to X. But since I'm already approximating, I'm just going to use a single value for all of water and I'm going to use the property that is halfway between C and zero degrees Celsius. So halfway between 94 and zero is going to be 47. 47 plus 273.15 is going to be about 325 Kelvin. I could determine a closer value, but again, we are already approximating. So being extra precise on those sorts of approximations is a little bit moot. So at 325 Kelvin, I have a specific heat capacity of water of 4.182. Again, we are incurring error by treating the coffee as just water anyway. So being hyper specific about using 4.181 versus 4.182, etc. is going to imply that we are more confident in our result than we actually are. So 4.182 has per table a 19 and then our mass of coffee, which is mass of water, is going to be calculated by taking our density of water times the volume of our water. The density of water will come from table a 19 as well. Because we're already assuming the properties of a saturated liquid at our temperature, which is what this table is, by the way, saturated liquids. Therefore, 325 Kelvin has a density of 987.1 kilograms per cubic meter. And the volume of water I know because that was given as 16 ounces, which is 473.2 milliliters. At this point, I have everything I need to be able to compute an answer. And before I start plugging stuff in, I will open up a new page. So the mass of ice will be equal to 987.1 kilograms per cubic meter times 400 and 73.2 milliliters multiplied by 4.182 kilojoules per kilogram Kelvin multiplied by 94 minus 60. Again, remember that a change in degrees Celsius is going to be the same as a change in Kelvin. So I'm just going to write Kelvin here. Because if you take 94 minus 60, you get 34 and if you take 94 plus 273.15 minus 60 plus 273.15, you still end up with 34. In this relationship, Kelvin cancels Kelvin and milliliters will cancel cubic meters if I convert. A cubic meter is 1000 liters and a liter is 1000 milliliters, meaning liters are going to cancel liters, milliliters are going to cancel milliliters, cubic meters are going to cancel cubic meters, leaving me with kilojoules in the numerator. Then in the denominator, I'm going to begin with the specific heat capacity of the ice multiplied by the temperature change of the ice. The specific heat capacity of the ice was 2.06 kilojoules per kilogram Kelvin and the change in temperature of the ice was zero minus negative five, which I am surely going to write incorrectly on my calculator. So I'm just going to write this as zero plus five to hopefully avoid that issue. Kelvin cancels Kelvin. Then I add to that our latent heat of fusion of ice, which was 334 kilojoules per kilogram of ice. Then we add to that the specific heat capacity of water. We are still using 4.182 kilojoules per kilogram Kelvin multiplied by 60 minus zero Kelvin. Kelvin will cancel Kelvin again, meaning that I have kilojoules in the numerator and kilojoules per kilogram in the denominator. The kilojoules in the numerator will cancel the kilojoules in the denominator, meaning that my answer will be in kilograms. So if we pop up the calculator, we can begin this computation. I'm taking 987.1 times 473.2 times 4.182 times the quantity 94 minus 60 divided by the quantity 1000 times 1000. And then that entire quantity is divided by 2.06 times five plus 334 plus 4.182 times 60. And we get 0.1110222. And let me just scan through this to make sure that it looks like the division went correctly, which is good. So we get a mass of ice of 0.111022 kilograms. Now is that the answer that the question wants? No, I did not ask for mass of ice required. I asked for a number of ice cubes. So I need to determine how much mass there is in an ice cube that is one inch by one inch by two inches of ice that has a density of 917.5 kilograms per cubic meter, which means that I will take the density of ice times the volume of a cube, which will be 917.5 kilograms per cubic meter multiplied by one inch by one inch by two inches. And then in order to get kilograms, I need cubic inches and cubic meters to cancel, which means that I'm going to refer to my conversion factor sheet. And on my conversion factor sheet under volume, I see a conversion from cubic meters to cubic feet and cubic inches to cubic centimeters. So I will have to take this in two steps. I guess I could also convert from inches to feet and feet to meters. And I don't happen to have inches to meters directly, so six of one, half a dozen of the other. Two steps here, I will begin with conversion from cubic inches to cubic centimeters. That's 16.387, 16.387 cubic centimeters per one cubic inch. And then there are 100 centimeters in one meter, which one cubed yields cubic centimeters and cubic meters, giving me kilograms. So 917.5 times one times one times two times 16.387 times one cube, which is one divided by 100 cubed. And I get 0.030048. Then to determine number of cubes, I will take the mass of ice required divided by the mass of each individual cube. So 0.11122 divided by 0.030048 yields 3.69. Now is that the answer to the question? No, it is still not, because I did not ask for a fractionary answer. I asked for how many whole ice cubes should John add to ensure that he reaches as close to 60 as possible. Therefore, I will say four. John needs to add four ice cubes to make his coffee drinkable and as close to 60 degrees Celsius as possible. And I will point out here that all of this data is empirical. I actually measured the temperature of my coffee when it comes out of my coffee maker, and it is 94 degrees Celsius. My freezer does maintain about negative five degrees Celsius, and my ice cubes from my ice cube tray are one inch by one inch by two inches. And my ideal coffee temperature, equilibrium temperature, was determined by taking a series of tests, wherein I left a thermometer in my coffee and drank it at a couple of points until I found a good compromise between warm enough to still feel warm, but cool enough so as to not burn my tongue or slow down the ingestion of caffeine to any noticeable degree. I want to be able to drink my coffee and drink it fast, not just sip it slowly over time. If you want to come up with a calculation for yourself, you may want to determine an equilibrium temperature.  Or maybe you guys can just drink coffee directly out of the coffee maker like some sort of Targaryen descendant. I don't understand it, but there we are.


Rwy'n ni gydag i feithio psychologicalig sy'n gweithio'r ystafell a'i cefnwyr a'n ddod ein holl gaffrwng o'r tynfodd nesaf ar gyfer y rhain ac i sefyllwyr, ac rydw i'r campus. Y ddyn nhw ymddylayol yn ddod maen nhw Michael Matheson. Y ddod ylliann yn rhaid i wneud yr ystafell am gwell o ran ffaguarad. Mae cyfnodd dddorol yn ddorol am y dyfodol, ac mae hynny chi'n gweithio'r cyfnodd oer a ddiogelwch oedd yn rhaid i hynny. Gw tas yn erbyn yn unigion i ddamogwadau a'r oud yn yr astrwng gfigur gan Gweinidol, ar gyfer ynglynch gwbwyr, yn unigion i Gweinidol. Oes gwybodaeth fyddwn i techa, i ddim yn ymddangos, yn ymddangos i Gweinidol i gweinidol, i gyrwch ei fod yn ymddangos i gweinidol, gynnwch ei gwaith o fath fydd yn wahanol i gweinidol. there is a huge economic prize on offer, at least £1 billion of investment for every gigawatt built, which will help to create thousands of jobs, to transform the Scottish economy. This is the first offshore wind leasing round, held since the devolution of the Scottish Crown estate and has been administered by Crown Estate Scotland, who announced winning applicants yesterday. Scotland was created with delivery at its core. It was established with the aim of creating a strong pipeline of projects that would drive or just transition and serve as a cornerstone in delivering our commitment to tackle the climate crisis. We put this challenge to the market and the market has responded so positively that Crown Estate Scotland has been able to offer awards for 17 major projects. That is a tremendous vote of confidence in Scotland. The levels of ambition shown by the market recognise the seriousness of Scotland's commitment to achieving our net zero targets and sustainable economic growth. In particular, Scotland is by far the world's largest commercial round for floating offshore wind and breaks new ground in putting large-scale floating wind technology on the map at gigawatt scale. That is encouraging to see the ambition that has been set out by the provision of floating offshore wind. As you may be aware, our seabed is considerably deeper than waters in England and Wales and without technology such as floating wind, it would not be possible to develop renewable energy projects in those areas. It is therefore inspiring to see the tremendous rate of innovation in this technology and what more could be possible 10 to 15 years from now in this fast-moving growing sector. Likewise, many of the consortia are successful in securing lease options, having ambitions for green hydrogen. That presents a range of new energy and export opportunities for Scotland and will help us to achieve our ambition of generating 5 gigawatts of renewable and low-carbon hydrogen by 2030 and at least 25 gigawatts by 2045. We will be considering those opportunities and what that will mean for our energy system further in our energy strategy and just transition plan later this year. Scotland will also deliver around £700 million in revenue to the public purse for those initial awards alone. We have already made clear that we will invest from those monies to help to tackle the twin climate and biodiversity crisis. However, in addition to those revenues, Scotland promises to deliver billions more in rental revenues once projects become operational to be invested for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Importantly, Scotland promises to be transformational in delivering wider economic supply chain benefits to help power Scotland's green recovery, the length and breadth of the country. As part of the bidding process, all applicants had to submit a supply chain development statement outlining how they will deliver benefits to Scotland. I welcome the commitment made by developers to invest at least £1 billion in the Scottish supply chain for every gigawatt generated via Scotland projects. The supply chain development statement, a mechanism that was developed through engagement with the Parliament, provides us with an excellent tool to ensure that, working with the sector, Scottish communities reap the maximum possible economic benefit from Scotland projects. Those statements are not only an indication of what Scotland can achieve, but they are our expectation of what the winners will deliver for Scotland. We must now work together to ensure that that happens. As highlighted in the strategic infrastructure assessment for offshore wind, which was commissioned by the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council, there needs to be greater collaboration between developers, the supply chain and the public sector both to help to focus activity and investment in Scottish ports and to help Scottish suppliers to grow and win offshore wind work. We work closely with SOEC to implement the five key recommendations in the strategic infrastructure assessment, starting with the creation of a Scottish floating offshore wind port cluster, with ports acting in partnership to provide the required infrastructure area and capability needed to attract manufacturers to invest in Scotland. To help to achieve that, SOEC is leading on the development of a collaborative framework to encourage the sector to come together and work collectively to support the delivery of offshore wind projects from Scotland, with a focus on growing capability and expertise, particularly around the growth of floating offshore wind. We fully support the creation of the collaborative framework and we expect the successful Scotland projects to actively engage in this process from the outset and to take collective action not only to grow Scotland's supply chain but also to help to deliver the wider economic transformation that will benefit communities across Scotland. To that end, the scale of the winning bid's augers well for creating the volume of sustained demand that will mark a step change in developing the capability and capacity of Scotland's infrastructure and its manufacturing and service sector. We are at the start of a journey that will take some years before we see these developments constructed, as well as supply chain opportunities that the focus now switches to the planning and consenting regimes, ensuring that those work as effectively as possible as we process applications from developers and the potential that can be delivered in light of environmental and other impacts. Clearly, the stated collective aspiration of the projects that have been awarded options are highly ambitious and this is to be welcomed. Scotland will make Scotland a global leader in offshore wind energy and all the consortia holding options are fully aware of the responsibilities that come with the development opportunities that they have won. However, Scotland will also be shaped by our continuing commitment to responsible stewardship of our incredibly rich natural marine resources. As well as the need to fully understand impact on other marine users. We work with sectors and with all-affected stakeholders to ensure that this process and its benefits are realised in a manner that recognises the concerns of all interests as we embark on this journey. It is not possible at this stage to predict what scale of development will be permitted, but, through our internationally recognised sexual marine planning and licensing process, there is an established pathway to facilitate development. By following due process, taking into account all-state corridors and consideration about impact, the Scottish Government can maximise the huge opportunities for energy, for the environment and for the economy that the large-scale development of offshore wind can bring to Scotland. These wind awards are a phenomenal mark of confidence in the Scottish offshore wind sector. We are now the biggest offshore wind market in the world and demonstrating global leadership in tackling the climate challenge. However, the real work starts now. Tomorrow, the First Minister and I will hold a summit with all the successful parties. It will be clear in stating our expectations to all involved. I will also meet successful developers both collectively and individually on an on-going basis to understand how we can work together in a collaborative manner to deliver the best for Scotland. In addition, the Minister for Environment and Land Reform is meeting today and tomorrow with marine environmental interests and with fishers to ensure that their perspectives and concerns are taken into account. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, which has to be realised, maximised and to deliver the environmental and economic benefits for all the people of Scotland. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which time we will move on to the next line of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request-to-speak buttons now. Scottish Conservatives welcome the announcements on Scotland as we look to drive the UK forward in our collective ambitions to achieve net zero. What is particularly notable is that what we might call big oil is that the forefront of this drive towards renewable energy. Indeed, of the £700 million that is expected to be raised, it is paying nearly £240 million. BP has set Aberdeen as its Global Ops and Maintenance Centre of Excellence for Offshore Wind. Total Energy has reckoned that the west of Orkney could deliver a renewable power to hydrogen power to the flutter hydrogen hub, but this is an industry much maligned by many who failed to see the pivotal role it would play and took positions that could discourage investment and forward planning. What diligence has been done on the successful bidders to ensure that they can deliver and that they have sufficiently strong balance sheets to deliver that £700 million? There is a supply chain. It is not lost on me as a north-east representative that 70 per cent of successful bids are within 100 miles of Aberdeen. Given that only once agreements are officially signed will the details of the supply chain commitments in the supply chain development statements be published, how will the Scottish Government ensure maximum benefit to our local and UK supply chains and ensure jobs manufacturing in the like remain in the UK? Crown Estate Scotland's website says that capital from sales is reinvested in new opportunities to strengthen the value and revenue earnings of the estate. What happens to the £700 million that is raised? Whose budget does it augment and for what purposes can it be used? I am grateful to the member for welcoming the outcome from Scotland and for recognising the huge economic opportunity that it creates. He makes reference to the oil and gas sector, a number of those who have secured lease options are major oil and gas companies. That is to be welcomed. This is oil and gas companies making the transition out of hydrocarbons into renewable energy. That is exactly what the Scottish Government has been encouraging them to do. That is exactly the engagement that I have been having with them. It is all about helping to make sure that the transition from a hydrocarbon-based economy in Scotland and the north-east of Scotland in particular is one that ensures that those who are in the oil and gas industry have an opportunity to move into a renewable sector. Therefore, the success of some of those oil and gas companies is to be welcomed on the basis that allows staff within their organisations to make that transition and to utilise the very considerable skills that our oil and gas sector has, particularly in the sub-sea sector, which will be really important in helping to support the development of some of those projects. That is a positive and welcome step that is being taken. In relation to the member's reference to due diligence on the basis on the ability of those organisations to secure those particular lease options, it is worth keeping in mind that at this stage it is a lease option. It still has to get consent and planning for the development to take place. I am sure that the member will recognise that, in order to achieve that consent, it will have to go through the financial disclosure process in order to secure that. It is too early in this stage to say what is the balance here of it. However, if you look through the list of those companies who have secured lease options through Scotland, they are all companies who are internationally operating in that particular field and committed to investing in the renewable sector, including those in the oil and gas sector. In his final point on the £700 million that we have made, it is clear that that is money that will come into the Scottish Extractor, funding that we will then use in part to help to support our net zero ambitions, and we will then consider how we utilise that across the rest of the Scottish block grant. It is worth keeping in mind that there has been some incorrect commentary over the course of the past 24 hours, where people think that the £700 million is it. There is not the case. There is an on-going annual rental payment that comes in from those who go on to start producing electricity from those developments. That in itself will bring in a further £1 billion over many years while the projects are operating. This money, again, will help to benefit the whole of Scotland. The need in a journey to net zero to fulfil Scotland's huge potential offshore wind energy is clear. The award of those licences is an opportunity for the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs, but this time it must not be squandered. History has shown us that if developers can go elsewhere, they will go elsewhere. Just weeks ago, the Government sunk plans for a publicly owned Scottish energy fund. Scotland's seabeds are now being franchised entirely to private overseas, owned by big multinationals and investment funds. I move. I hear welcomed by the Tories. It will raise around £700 million for the public purse, but billions more for firms none of which are registered in Scotland or owned in Scotland. It is not just a case of off-shore wind energy, but of-shore the profits from it. It cannot also mean off-shore the jobs. The Government's record on green jobs is not good. It promised £130,000 a year, but it has delivered less than a fifth. Given that supply chain commitments from bidders that remain unpublished were excluded from the auction, tender and assessment process and the penalties for failing to deliver developer statements are negligible, can the cabinet secretary tell us what binding action will be taken to ensure that the bulk of the work, not the crumbs, remains here in Scotland? Surely the cabinet secretary knows what percentage of the work will be carried out in Scotland for the benefit of Scottish jobs? The member will recognise that the supply chain development statement was a process that was developed in consultation with the Parliament, given experience in the past. I accept that we have not achieved the level and scale of inward investment and supply chain development in a renewable sector that we would have wanted to. That is why it is absolutely critical that we maximise the potential benefits from this particular Scotland lease-in-round. It is worth just pointing out that this is the first Scotland lease-in-round. There is an opportunity for further Scotland lease-in-round in the years ahead. I assure the member that we will do everything that we can to ensure that those who have stated in their supply chain development statements the level of investment that they will make in the Scottish supply chain, which I have stated, works out at roughly £1 billion for every gigawatt that comes on stream, that that is delivered. That is our expectation for that to be delivered. The process that we have in place, through the strategic infrastructure assessment and the collaborative framework that has been developed, is all about maximising that opportunity in doing so in a way that ensures that we reap the economic and social benefits that can come from such a significant level of financial investment in the Scottish supply chain. We will do everything that we can to ensure that it is delivered on the commitment set out in those statements. I give a bit of latitude to front-benchers, but we do not have the same opportunity for everybody else, otherwise we will simply not get everybody in. This announcement unlocks certainty for the developers, operators and the supply chain. Huge investment creates thousands of jobs. I want to ask now that we have that certainty how we will ensure a smooth transition for those working in the high-carbon sectors, like oil and gas, who want their future to be in renewables. As I mentioned earlier, one of the outcomes from the Scotland round has been the number of oil and gas companies that have moved into the renewable sector. There is an opportunity for those who are employed presently in high-carbon, intensive industries to be able to transition into the renewable sector. It is important that we make sure that we maximise the skills and knowledge within the oil and gas sector in supporting that transition and the build-out of the projects that have secured leasing options through Scotland. I can assure the member that we want to make sure that there is a just transition for those in the oil and gas sector and that Scotland provides a pathway for us to help to secure that achievement. There is a risk that Scotland loses out here. The projects that are coming through Scotland, which I welcome, are mostly larger than 1 gigawatt, which is a big challenge for the Scottish supply chain unless there is an opportunity to develop and scale up local capabilities, particularly in the north-east. However, Scottish innovation projects are currently limited by a 100 megawatt cap compared with 300 megawatts for England and Welsh projects. Will the cabinet secretary lift the cap on innovation projects within the intog planning process, increasing their competitiveness compared to the 300 megawatt projects available to come forward in the Celtic Sea and providing a vital opportunity for the supply chain to work up its capabilities in advance of Scotland? The member raises an interesting point, although I think that he is missing one of the key risks from what he has just asked. The reason that the intog is capped at the 100 megawatts is to help to support innovation in the sector in order to scale up in support in the decarbonisation of oil and gas, but also to help to prevent it from starting to impact on the Scotland development rounds because of the danger of overdevelopment in some areas. Therefore, by raising it to 300 megawatts, it potentially compromises Scotland and its developments. That is one of the reasons why it has been capped at the 100 megawatts and why it is different from the approach that has been taken in England and Wales. As I say, its key purpose is to drive innovation in the sector. Those who are involved in the innovation side of the sector are very supportive of the levels in which we have set the cap at. Yesterday's welcome announcement will mean that the waters around the western Isles will contribute substantially to Scotland's journey to net zero and present vital economic opportunities. I ask the cabinet secretary what benefits the western Isles can expect to see from Scotland in terms of community benefit and supply chain opportunities, and how will the Government ensure that partners like the local authority are fully involved? Alasdair Allen raises an important point for his constituency and the potential benefits that there can be for the developments taking place off the coast of his western Isles in his constituency. I assure the member that we are keen to ensure that all parts of Scotland, including his constituency, have the opportunity to benefit from the investment that will be made in the domestic supply chain in order to help and support the roll-out of the Scotland projects. I am aware that, for example, in Stornoway there is a deep port development that is planned for there, which could play an important part in helping to support the industry with its build-out. However, I can assure him that we will be looking to work with all stakeholders to make sure that we maximise the economic and social benefits that can come from the build-out of those projects, including in his constituency. Those sites could generate upwards of £6 billion for those international firms, which will pay just £700 million for 10 years' rights to do so. So what does the Scottish Government assess, the payback period and the net present value to those corporations for those projects? Does that represent good value for money for the Scottish taxpayer, or are the profits simply being blown offshore? We have had an open option process that has attracted interest from global companies to invest in offshore renewables here in Scotland. I hope that the member would welcome the commitments that they have made to potentially invest £25 billion into the Scottish supply chain, with the potential for a further £10 billion to be invested in the Scottish supply chain. That is good for the Scottish economy and for Scottish communities as well. In relation to his wider point, I suspect that he is making reference to the fact that it should all be just Scottish or UK-based businesses, or that it should all be in public control, if we only had those powers in order to do so within the energy sector itself. His colleague incorrectly made reference to the Scottish energy company, which was a retail company, not a production company, because we do not have the capacity or the ability to be able to do so or the powers to be able to do so. I do not know whether the member is now saying that we should nationalise energy, because, as leader in London said, no, that is not their policy. However, we want to make sure that we secure the economic benefits of Scotland, and that is exactly what the supply chain development plans were all about doing. I hope that the member will be able to find it himself to welcome such a significant investment in the Scottish economy. It is hugely welcome that Scotland will deliver such substantial revenues to the public purse, but, for the sake of clarity, can I ask the cabinet secretary to provide any further assurance to my constituents that those revenues will be invested for the long term to support our transition to net zero? We are given consideration as to how that funding will be deployed. One of the things that we have committed to doing is to make sure that it helps to support us in achieving our net zero ambitions and to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crisis. However, we also want to make sure that we use this funding in a way that allows us to have a legacy that can benefit all of Scotland and all communities in Scotland, and to make sure that we capitalise on it in a way that has a long-term benefit to every part of Scotland. Thank you. Scotland represents a sea change in realising Scotland's wind potential. It also underlines the importance of our islands, along with the forefront of renewables, innovation and delivering our net zero ambitions. Following on from the responses to Alasdair Allan earlier, the cabinet secretary gave assurances that, rather than a top-down approach, local communities will indeed have control of the decisions about the way in which those funds are invested. What assurances can he give about the involvement of other stakeholders, notably the fishing industry, in shaping how each development is now taken forward? The guiding light on any of those developments is the sectoral marine plan, which takes into account the consenting process and how any stakeholder should feed into that process. I can assure the member that those within the fishing community that want to make representations in relation to any development will be able to do so through the normal consenting process. Those voices and views will be taken into account through the normal process for considering those issues. On how the funding will be utilised, I am sure that the member will recognise the very significant amount of funding that that brings into the Scottish Government, and what we need to do is to make sure that we utilise that funding in a way that ensures that all of Scotland gets the benefit of that, including coastal communities such as his constituency. I can assure him that we will consider that very carefully and ensure that we utilise the funding in a way that maximises the benefits to all parts of the country, including in his constituency. Scotland does open up the vast range of opportunities to maximise them for the benefit of our economy and, socially, is something that we can all agree on. Can the cabinet secretary indicate any updates that he may have about Ferguson Marine and Port Glasgow becoming the shipyard to benefit from the ships that are required to ask for the BPO alternative energy investments bid? We recognise that, in some of the bidding process, there have been those stakeholders who have been engaging with the range of Scottish supply chain companies. We will certainly be making sure that they are taking forward the commitments that are set out in their supply chain statements, including those that might be looking at the building of vessels here in Scotland. I am no doubt that the member will want to engage with those companies who have made commitments to businesses based on his constituency, businesses that are highly valued in his constituency and provide a lot of employment within his constituency, to ensure that the tier 1 companies that have secured lease options live up to the commitments that they have set out within their supply statement within their bids. The cabinet secretary seems to accept that the SNP did not deliver on their economic promise of making Scotland into the Saudi Arabia of wind power and did not deliver on the thousands of jobs that they promised, green jobs that they promised. The cabinet secretary told Liam Kerr and Colin Smith that the Government would do everything that it can to ensure that we see onshore supply chain development and local manufacturing content, and the jobs that everyone is talking about. What exactly does the cabinet secretary mean when he says that the Government will do everything that we can? I refer members to my register of interests. The member seems to have quite a short-term memory issue. He made a call that one of the reasons as to why there was a sudden halt is a significant level of wind development, energy development in Scotland, was because of the UK Government's decision to cut the subsidy to supporting the industry, which resulted in a massive downturn within the sector alone. No doubt the member will be wanting to make sure that in the CFD process, which I am sure he is aware of, the CFD process, which the UK Government is responsible for, it holds up the commitments that it has made to ensure that it helps to support the supply chain development. That is why, for the first time in the UK, we have required, through a leasing round, the supply chain development statements. The purpose behind that is to ensure that we do not make the errors that the UK Government did who were responsible for the last leasing round, where they made no requirements upon the industry. I assure the member that we will be doing everything that we can to deliver on those commitments. We will not repeat the mistakes of his colleagues at Westminster in mismanaging Scotland's oil and gas reserves and its renewable energy reserves, as it has done for many, many decades. Unlike Mr Kerr, I found yesterday's statement absolutely breathtaking. The scale of investment, the scale of increase in renewable energy capacity and the scale of jobs that are going to come to our communities. Any young person seeing that announcement yesterday would have been inspired as well. Of course, it is important that we also tackle the nature emergency alongside the climate emergency. What lessons can be learned from the previous offshore consenting rounds to ensure that burden marine life will be protected? We have a very robust consenting process that requires that any proposed project has a very detailed environmental impact assessment and a wider impact assessment on any marine environment linked to the development. That process will be applied in all those particular proposed developments. We need to make sure that we look to maximise the potential economic benefits of Scotland and recognise the potential environmental impact that those developments can have. That is where the sectoral marine plan is guiding light in those matters. It is the process that will be used in order to make sure that those projects are properly assessed and that any mitigations that need to be put in place or whether it is not appropriate for development to take place at the scale of the ambition that was set out by developers is that we have a consenting process that takes all those matters into account prior to making any decision on it, including the importance of protecting what is our precious natural environment and ensuring that it is not degraded further as a result of those developments. This is an enormous opportunity for Scotland. Can the cabinet secretary confirm the three main aims of the Scotland leasing round to move quickly to deployment from licensing, to secure supply chain jobs for Scottish companies and to optimise the auction and revenue payments for the taxpayer that have been achieved? In terms of Scottish supply chain jobs, in particular, when will details of the opportunities be public and what powers does the Scottish Government have to ensure that licences deliver on the proposal for Scottish jobs? The member is correct in those three areas. We have moved quickly with Scotland. I can assure the member that we are adding additional resources to the consenting process in order to help to make sure that we have the capacity and capability to deal with the scale of those potential bids. She rightly points out as well about the supply chain statements and the benefits that that will drive for the domestic supply chain here in Scotland, which is hugely welcome and will be transformative in terms of our green energy sector. In the financial elements, it is very clear from the outcome from Scotland that there are significant financial benefits, not only in the leasing options and in the rental provision, but also in the investment that will go into our domestic supply chain, which I believe will be transformational in the years ahead. I would hope that everyone across the chamber would support that and get behind the success of the Scotland bidding process. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the statement, and we will now move on to the next item of business.


Live from San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE at VMworld 2014, brought to you by VMware, Cisco, EMC, HP, and Nutanix. Now here are your hosts, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Okay, welcome back everybody. We're live here at VMworld 2014 in San Francisco, California. The world has been shaken by an earthquake over the weekend and now certainly here at VMworld. Dave, the tectonic plates have shifted again in tech. Again, this could have been worse. The earthquake really was really the biggest news and I think that there's a force major clause in every contract. Certainly earthquake qualifies. If this had happened in San Francisco, the destruction would have been over the top. Serious earthquakes, certainly in the epicenter in Napa Valley, has not affected anything in San Francisco. VMworld is going on as planned without a hitch. Maybe the no limits concrete theme doesn't really look good right now because concrete is a sign of rubble and certainly, I didn't want to bring that up in Robin, but certainly a risk and she's a little nervous about that, so we don't want to amplify that, although we just did.  I mean, not a good image. I would have scrapped that from the program, but a lot of good stuff here. VMworld. That's a tough audible to call, John. Come on. You got to pull that, I'm sorry. You got to get, that's like, got to be pulled. But we're not going to get critical on the keyness. Let's get critical on the products. Certainly VMware is all marching to the hybrid cloud. We brought up with Pat Gelsinger, our best guest today. Obviously the senior executive, the CEO, the chief executive officer of VMware, on here at theCUBE here. I brought up the halfway house concept. He called it a way station, this guino which he used last year here on theCUBE. It's, they're all in on hybrid cloud, Dave. I mean, clearly software defined data center, they're still chipping away at what it means. Certainly hybrid cloud is where the action is. Well, I mean, the statement is made. Hybrid cloud is the future and I'm, is it, I maybe, I don't know. We'll see. It's just interesting to juxtapose. You know, for instance, Andy Jassy's view of the world versus Pat Gelsinger and Joe Tucci's view of the world. They're completely counter poised. I think that when I go back to, let's say 2008, 2009 timeframe, and I listened to Paul Moritz talk about how they're going to build a software mainframe. And that, that term, that phrase stuck in my head. I said, wow, that's ambitious, you know. Never goes down, globally distributed, blah, blah, blah. Right? And the second thing he said is we're going to run any workload anywhere on VMware. We are going to be the platform for any type of application. And that's fundamentally happened. Well, that was the original vision. So that, so my point is that they laid out that vision and they've pretty much executed to it. So you got to give them props for that. Now, how they execute is different. Pivotal had to be created for Paul Moritz to move out to. VMware got pat Gelsinger, who was the president at EMC, comes over. And then there's Zimbra and the affinity to applications and Todd Nielsen and that was a big part of the strategy. It didn't work. Okay, so that's fine. I mean, not everything's going to work. But in general, the execution's been very, very good. Now, what I would say is back then, it was a sort of no-brainer. VMware was saving so much money for organizations by recapturing wasted server space, 10X value proposition. The big question I have is, how does VMware, the biggest criticism you hear from customers about VMware, it's expensive. Oh yeah, they saved us all the money, but what have you done for me lately? So you got to layer all these sets of services on top of it. It's expensive. So my big question is relative to the hybrid cloud is can the marginal economics of the data center compete with the public cloud? Because it's essentially linear with VMware's pricing model. And that is to me the big if. So they tick the box on Docker, they tick the box on OpenStack, they have not ticked the box in my opinion on Amazon yet.  They're innovating it very fast, but that's public cloud. You heard Pat Gelsinger say, I wish we were in public cloud sooner. Okay, that was- We heard him say that about Flash, by the way, when they were at EMC, you remember? Yeah, and then what did they do? They moved very fast. But this is bigger. I think VMware, Dave, just my take on the whole VMware situation is this. The big picture to me is very simple. The dots are being connected. I think VMware, and the reason why I brought the prop today about what I got from there, opening up their office at Belo Alto is, it's a beautiful office. It feels like what HP was as when they were the player in the Valley. I think VMware could be the most important Silicon Valley company in recent history. I think certainly Google's done great. Facebook has kind of rose up, but some say Facebook might be a flash in the pan with the social networking not being taken as a serious player in business, other than kind of like advertising. Certainly Google provides great value. But VMware could be that next huge Silicon Valley company, a place where people want to work for, breakthroughs are being made, they're close to Stanford, they're actually leasing some land from Stanford. So VMware, I'm looking at that vision. Look what Pat Gelsinger is doing. He's taking that Intel mindset, bringing it to VMware. And I think that is something that's going to be an interesting cultural change for VMware. And so certainly that's going to resonate throughout the prize. And I brought the comment up early. I want to get your perspective on this because I love when analysts say, was that a defensive move? From buying a company or making an announcement like with Docker, is VMware making defensive moves or is it truly offense that Pat Gelsinger is playing? I 100% agree with what you're saying.  I mean, I'll give you an example. Here's an example of Joe Tucci playing defense. Oh, NetApp's going to buy data domain? No, they're not. We'll buy him. Okay, that was kind of a defensive move. But then what do they do? They turned it into a multi-billion dollar business. So that's how they play defense. I just, I do not see a lot of defense going on here. I think these executives are looking at the opportunity. They've done a really, I think, good job, credible job of segmenting the TAM, communicating that, and then, you know, they're now trying to execute toward it. Again, I do think there is a blind spot. I think there's a blind spot in the entire IT business around the economics of what Amazon is doing. Not the price. Everybody talk about the price and how complex it is and blah, blah, blah, blah. It reminds me, John, of the days where, oh, it's just a toy, the PC. Right now, we're talking about a much grander scale within the enterprise, but I do think that's a blind spot, but I agree with you. There's no, there's no defense there. I want to also take on this whole federation with EMC and VMware maybe being spin out that's kind of shareholder revolt, or not shareholder revolt. Hostile shareholder's acquiring stock within EMC. It's really one, Elliott Capital, right? Yeah, so is it a shakedown or is it legit? Well, I think Elliott Capital is trying to do, you know, what they do best is make money in the short term, right? So they're saying, well, there's all this value locked inside of EMC, spin it out and that'll unlock that value. So, okay, is that a viable thing for a management, you know, of equity company to do? Sure. Is that the best thing for VMware? Questionable, is it the best thing for EMC? No way. Is it the best thing for the federation? No way. Is it the best thing for customers? That's an interesting debate, I think, John, that I'd like to have with you right now. What do you think? First of all, I think it's really crazy stuff. So to me, you don't know why people do things, right? You could say, you know, I'm also a conspiracy theorist on one level. One, you could argue that Amazon's initiating this move. Okay, you could argue that someone else might be initiating a move like Pure Storage. The competition landscape is so great right now for EMC and Amazon and others and because there's really only a few companies that could put EMC's federation out of business. Really? And that's a few. And it's Amazon and Google, in my opinion. Maybe Microsoft. Okay, but I just don't see Microsoft getting their ducks lined up to do that. You know, EMC's not shaking in their boots over Pure Storage. That's just a rounding number, nipping at the heels of the storage business. What could put EMC out of business, Dave? And affect VMware kind of collateral damage? Is Amazon? And all this docker stuff is really just, in my opinion, window dressing around the fact that everyone's racing as fast as they can, peddling as fast as they can to have a cloud solution for the enterprise. Bar none. In my opinion, this is what it's all about. So I think, here's what I would say to that. I don't think, you know, you said, I think you're being hyperbolic when you say to put them on a business. You mean as a real threat. I think what's going to happen. Well, a real threat. I think, right, I'm just sort of, you know, editing. So. Thank you. I think Amazon is a real threat to the enterprise. Not just the enterprise supply side, but I think the demand side as well. I think that data centers are in for a rude awakening relative to their current cost structures. And I think they're going to get hit really hard and there's going to be a big squeeze for those guys who don't, in some way shape or form embrace the public club. So let me just make this point. So does VMware need EMC to exist? No. No. That's Joe Tucci's architecture. He says federation players should operate on their own. But are there advantages to VMware of having EMC? Yeah, from a cash standpoint and some interesting things that they can do. Access to customers, all that stuff. Yes, but on balance, I think VMware would be just fine without EMC, but it's academic because EMC's never in the near term anyway, and even the midterm going to release, relinquish that asset.  So on the enterprise, let's talk about the enterprise landscape to customers, where the people who are paying the dough and the shift in how they're buying. The consumption of IT, the consumption of technology is certainly going to cloud. But I got to ask you, this is my theory. I just don't see IT and enterprises having a big developer core competency.  Since then, you've seen client server and PC, shift the developer landscape to different areas. Management consulting firms for client server, like the Accentures of the World. And commercial off the shelf software. Commercial off the shelf, general purpose software with general purpose computing platforms. And then certainly the personal computer revolution, you saw it shift to shrink wrap software, and then the web became the web. So I think, Dave, we're back in the first time where the enterprises actually don't know what to do. They don't know how to hire developers and they don't have the core competency. They can't run to the management consulting firms, they got to bring the core competency in-house. So I think you're seeing a major shift where enterprises are saying, hey, we need to have developers in-house. Now, the only caveat to that is financial services, insurance, some of the high, high-end IT shops have it in-house. What's your take? Do you agree with that thesis? What's your analysis?  I mean, I think there's no question about it that these internal IT shops are going to get disrupted. This is, people always say to me, you're focusing too much on marginal economics, but it really is the business model that is going to determine, and the economics that are going to determine what happens here. That's what it comes down to. And I think when you look at the economics of what's happening with cloud, it's driving mundane provisioning services, so-called outsourcing of infrastructure. It's driving that down to a software-like economic model, where essentially the cost of selling the next one goes to zero. And I think that's something that a lot of companies are trying to figure out right now. They haven't phrased it in those terms, but they're sitting on their hands. That's why you're seeing softness, generally, across the board in IT. You know, Meg Whitman is saying they grew 1%. That's better than shrinking. Okay, great, but you don't expect HP to start growing at double digits anytime soon. Why? Because people aren't buying what they used to buy. They're trying to figure out what to do. Now the other thing I wanted to add, the other blind spot, I think, for companies like VMware is open source. And that's where Docker, maybe it's not Docker, but projects like Docker can really disrupt a company that is known for its proprietary software. In a big way. So Docker's success, in my opinion, has to do with fundamentally one thing. The open source ethos of how they handle their community has been by far the number one factor in its success. What Docker basically is a container for application developers to put around their apps that can run on different kind of environments, clouds, infrastructure, especially DevOps. You provision to the container and it works across multiple environments and interoperates. But the secret sauce to Docker is the fact that you have to share your IP with the open source. And if you don't share, you don't get the benefit. So it's like, it's not like dual source license. It's just a different version of being open where sharing is the norm. The more you share, the more you gain. This is fundamentally accelerating the traction of Docker and has forced people's hands to saying, hey, apps are in charge.  In my opinion, that's my assessment. Now, there's some, you can discussion around that. You can argue that all day long. But to me, that's clearly why VMware is embracing this right now. And the beautiful thing about it is they don't have to do any acquisitions to do it. I mean, they bought member spring source. That thing kind of just, poof, disappeared. So they don't have to buy anything. All they do is join, embrace Docker and they get all the benefits. So I think this might be a good move for Pat Gelsinger in a big way. We'll see, we'll be watching it. I think that's it. Great day, Pat Gelsinger's on theCUBE. So one of the things I was talking about all these existential threats to VMware. I'm going to come back to the original statement I was making about execution. It's quite good. This company is going to do $6 billion this year.  And I think that a company that's $6 billion growing at 18% a year, John, that's pure software. That's pretty good. And not a lot of people predicted that. And it's been fun to watch. We've been here since the beginning. So we're wrapping up day one. We're going to have three days of wall-to-wall coverage. I actually had Pat Gelsinger on CEO of VMware, the CMO of VMware. We had great guests all throughout the day. Tomorrow, more VMware executive, more CEOs. We have a VC panel of two alumni. We're going to have three of the biggest VCs in the business. Tier one venture capital firms. All ex-VMware alumni. Pete Sunsini from NEA, new enterprise associates. Also known as NEA. Jerry Chen, who, big cloud guy at VMware. Also an investor in Docker. He's now at Greylock. And we're going to have, obviously Steve Herry with General Catalyst come on theCUBE. All VMware mafias. We say VMafia, the VMware alum. So, stay tuned for theCUBE. Watch tomorrow. Come here live at SiliconANGLE.tv. Join us. That's a wrap for day one. This is theCUBE. Thanks for watching.


Hi everyone, my name is Nekash and I'll be presenting my research titled something in eternal lateral displacement enables friction sensing and awareness of surface cleverness. Without friction information, we might not be able to perform various tasks with our hands, which in all gripping object surfaces, we adjust with forces to be just enough so that sufficient fictional forces develop, maintaining safe contact with the object and excessive forces are avoided which might damage delicate objects. For example, imagine holding a raspberry without scratching it, holding a cup of coffee, holding a body weight on a cliff face when rock climbing, walking with tools or performing delicate surgeries. Human tactile perception and motor control rely on the frictional estimates that physically cannot be possible unless slip occurs, but the challenge is that when handling objects we cannot afford slipping, the solution is partial slips in some parts of the contact instead of a full slip. It has been found in the previous studies that skin deformation patterns and radial diverges may account for such slips and a lying friction estimate. However, it in many situations is not sufficient, an additional tiny lateral strain may have a decisive effect enabling friction sensing when otherwise it wouldn't be possible. In the current study, we aim to investigate how small lateral displacement might be sufficient to enable friction sensing. We also evaluate the effect of speed of these movements. Here is the experimental setup, where we used a friction reduction device to change the friction of a smooth surface. In a 2AXC task, stimuli were presented to the fixed index finger using a robotic manipulator which after pressing the finger at 1 Newton moves the plate laterally at 4 different distances and at 3 different speeds. Here you can see from the figure that the displacement is so minute that it can hardly be observed. The graph on the right showing probability to correctly identify more slippery surface as the function of displacement distance. Indicate that for some subjects, lateral movement of 0.2 mm was sufficient to enable friction sensing and performance improved with larger displacements. It has to be noted that without lateral movement, none of previously tested subjects could achieve above-chance performance. One of the surprising findings in this study was that lateral movement speed had relatively small effect on discrimination of surface difference as shown in the figure on the left even when displacement speed changes 10 fourth. Overall, we found that a small lateral movement of 0.2 to 0.5 mm of the touched surface relative to the rigid nail is sufficient to perceive surface difference. Displacement speed change is even by 10 fourth at relatively little effect on friction perception. In motor control, natural movements when reaching and gripping objects would rarely occur without the presence of subtle lateral motion jitter. This study indicates that such natural movements are sufficient and potentially could be the key enabling us to feel superness of the surface. Thank you.