On Monday, biotech company Moderna reported positive data on early-stage coronavirus vaccine trial, making its shares skyrocket and lift the rest of the market up with it as well. Meanwhile, we found out that Japan's economy contracted at an annual pace of 3.4% from January till March. Welcome to the TickMeal Update. I'm Kiana Danielle, the founder of the Investiva Movement. Make sure to subscribe to the TickMeal YouTube channel and support us by liking and sharing this video with your forex trading friends. On Tuesday, we'll be looking at the UK employment change as well as the Euro Area's Zoo Economic Sentiment Index. Today, I'm looking at the euro-dollar pair, which much like most other major currency pairs has continued to range in the past month. After dropping to the lows just above 1.06 in March, the pair has found a comfort zone between 1.099 and 1.077. Currently, it looks like it's in the process of moving back up towards the upper level of the range, as it just has broken above the Ichimoku Cloud on the four-hour timeframe. On Tuesday, we could see a bit of a pullback as the Ichimoku indicator suggests and then see further gains towards the end of the week. Do you think the major currency pairs will continue to range or will we see a new trend soon? Head over to the comment section and let me know. Of course, trading in the financial markets involves a risk of loss and it should trade only the money that you can afford to lose. If you liked this video, give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the TickMeal YouTube channel. I'll get back to you with more updates tomorrow.


Are you interested in words, or history, or culture, or how people think? Do you like knowing the strange connections between people, places, ideas, and events? Do you want to understand more about the things you take for granted, or explore odd corners of the English language? Well I do. Welcome to the Endless Knot. My name is Mark Sundram, and this channel will feature videos presenting a series of etymological explorations and cultural connections, showing that languages are the fossil remains of human culture and history, and that by examining them, we could reconstruct the complex web of interconnections that surrounds us. Along the way, we'll see how King Arthur relates to Sherlock Holmes, how wizards are connected to yearbooks, what the triangular sail tells us about humanism, how the meaning of the word Lord explains the origin of the word Dairy, and what a pomegranate seed reveals about the human brain. Please subscribe to this channel to see videos about language, history, and thought, and the interconnections in the world around us.


Hey everyone we're at Chrome Dev Summit 2016 we're completely backstage the only quiet place we could find I'm joined by Jake Archibald Who is in a very interesting choice of clothing. Yes What happened is well we were asked by management to sort of dress up a bit because it's the jazz center So we kind of did a joke where we wore the suits and they just changed into a t-shirt But management sort of pressured us into asking the audience that we had put it to a vote and the audience voted I should wear a suit and I hate it. I it is not even a joke. I really hate wearing suits I usually only wear them when someone is getting married or died. I Don't know how to respond to that. So the reason I've grabbed Jake is because you're giving a talk in a little while What's it gonna be on? Well, you know, it's of course, it's going to be about service worker Well, so this is actually the only only the second talk I've ever given it Chrome Dev Summit The other one was the first ever one and their Service worker wasn't released So I was just kind of making stuff up and all of the stuff in the slides is wrong And I thought that was a bit of a laugh. I'm gonna do it again So I'm talking about all of the future stuff in service worker that was shipping the stuff that we're looking at in 2017 Along with a few things which are kind of related to service worker But it definitely progressive without things that I've just made up You've just made up. It's gonna be great So you can catch that on the live stream on the Chrome developer YouTube channel Otherwise follow along with hashtag Chrome Dev Summit and thank you for watching


It looks comfortable. It looks really great. Ladies and gentlemen, our talks this morning have been wide-ranging. We've touched on the defense strategies in Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, need for richly endowed countries such as ours to be sensitive and helpful toward other nations, not as blessed with natural resources, space and security, nuclear nonproliferation and some of the legal issues resulting from extraterritorial application of our own United States laws. But all of our discussions have left me with two enduring feelings. Australia is a friend for the long pull where people see things basically as we do, but who will always have the courage and the friendship to tell us when they think we're wrong. Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and I lead countries whose best days lie in the future. Our friendship and cooperation will hasten the day when more of the people of the world can share what we're so fortunate to enjoy, freedom, strength and confidence in the future. It's been a pleasure meeting with the Prime Minister and I certainly thank him for coming to visit our country. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much. Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen, the discussions that we've had this morning are regarded as being particularly useful and constructive quite clearly from the policies that have been implemented in the United States under the President's charge. You'd expect, I think, that Australia would be in a fair measure of agreement and a number of those policies. The economic policies and the strengthening of the dollar and the strengthening of the economy of this country would like to say all strength to your arm, Mr. President, because economically strong the United States is important to the entire free world. And the policies in relation to East-West and again the strong United States is important not only to the American people but to Australian people and to free people everywhere. And so again, Mr. President, all strength to your arm. We've discussed, as you've indicated, a wide range of issues and I was particularly delighted, Mr. President, with your willingness to see what can be done to remove the rough edges at the extraterritorial reach of United States law. And we have agreed that as and when it will be convenient for both our Attorney Generals for them to consult to see how this might best be achieved. And thank you very much for directing for that review take place. We've discussed at length major North-South issues, economic relationships between wealthy countries such as the United States and Australia and many others and the developing countries or the least developed countries of this world. And I hope I'm not putting words into your mouth, Mr. President, in saying that I believe that we both recognize that it's important for the peace and stability of the world that we try and make progress in these major issues that we try and see that more and more peoples of the world have opportunities to live a decent life in dignity and self-esteem. And you have told me of some of the things that you have in mind to help achieve that particular objective. We're meeting again this evening, Mr. President, and I'll be looking forward to discussions with your Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Defence and other members of your administration. Again, may I say how much my wife and I and the entire Australian party are delighted to be here and may I say how delighted we are to see what is happening in the United States right at this time. Okay, all right.


I will put it back here. Hello. So one quick question for the next speakers. Can you please identify yourself towards us then? So, Karen, who's the next one? Sarah Chain. So if you're around then please come to Karen. So our next speaker here is Luca Bonisi and he will talk about one topic when I first saw what he was accomplishing there as one person. It was amazing. So, and the rest he will talk about, but yeah, it's amazing what one person was able to do there. Hello. Welcome to Fossmann and welcome to this talk. This talk is about the right to install any software on your device, on your own device. And consequently, what in my opinion is an unlawful behavior to install, to pre-install a software on a PC that you normally bought in your device. Specifically, this software, a proprietary software that are Windows and Office. I briefly introduced myself. Okay, the mage, sorry, because the mage are missing. Sorry. Display. Make a single display. Okay. I introduced myself. My name is Luca Bonisi. I came from Italy. I am, my main job is developing firmware of electronic devices. And I also support some school and small office with free software, especially one school that I defined a free software school where all teachers and students are using free software. I have some hobby that are always related to free software. Audio and video, I am, I am audio and video technicians where I use Ardolf, Jack, Jamil, Sinaldela, Cappadine live. I play guitar and piano. And I use Rose Garden as a midi player to record from piano. I like to observe celestial object like the ISS. This mage is the ISS photographed by me with a normal camera. And I built a 3D printer and I using them for, mainly for preparing or for fun. I make some free software project or activity. One is to make a job on the text of songs since I play piano and guitar and transpose it automatically. Another is I am the maintainer of the unofficial porting of Slackware Linux distribution for many platform and CPUs. A project that I just started is to free your Android TV box. I bought a cheap Android TV box and I installed a Linux to be used as a general purpose device. And I am a volunteer of FSV as a translator. For FSV, I built this project that was built in Perl, a language that may be not so used, but I love it. And I built this program to help a translator in FSV, to help translation in the FSV, the translation process. So the translator has not to care about the HTML formatting and so on. I contribute also to this fantastic book. I maintain the repository of this free software book. Free software means that this book is distributed with a free license. And it was translated in five languages actually. German, Ukrainian, Italian, Arabic and English. The Italian book is not yet published, but we wish it will be soon published. And if you like this book, you can attend the reading of the book this evening at 6 p.m. And Matias will be the reader, I think. Bons hobby, I make ice creams. Since the book talks also about ice cream, it is very related to my hobby. And if you are curious, you will go between this evening. In this presentation, you will find many illustrations, like the one on the right, that come from the book. So I sponsor a little bit the book. Okay, we start with the presentation. We have two different contracts. One is for the hardware and one is for the software. This contract cannot be joined together. You cannot force to join the two contracts and force to give back also the hardware, if you ask for the refund. Because the hardware contract is a service and purchase agreement. And you become the ownership of the product or your PC of the product. And nobody can force you to do what you don't want to do. Instead, the software is a license agreement. You have a right to use the software under some conditions that for proprietary software, like Windows and Office, are limitations. Instead, for free software, are freedoms. I talk about device neutrality because on the hardware and you have the right to choose to install what software you like. Also by installing free software on your device, you gain the sovereignty of your device. With proprietary software, you don't know what proprietary software make on your device. What proprietary software connect to some site that you don't know. Using a running free software can overcome software obsolescence. Because especially with the newer version of the proprietary software, you are forced to change your hardware because the newer version of proprietary software doesn't run on older hardware. Instead, free software you can customize like I do with the two boxes and run also on lower end devices. And in this way, you extend the hardware lifetime and also you reduce the electronic impact of the worst. There is also an open letter that the Free Software Foundation Europe asked to sign for the right to install any software on the device. The link is this one, maybe we will have a label later. And the Free Software Foundation Europe asked to the European Parliament and Commission and also to public administration to be able that every device should be independent from the software it runs because using open standards and open interfaces. This is related to our work because sometimes hardware manufacturers use proprietary interfaces that limit the possibility to use some features of your device. Okay, we come first of all technical others. Manufacturers say this is real what Microsoft says from a device I purchase, for the laptop surface I purchase. Microsoft says that the device would not work properly with other operating systems and they are not supported. This is said by Microsoft. And this is true because my laptop surface, the touch screen doesn't work, the webcam doesn't work. With new links, do it with a proprietary interface of this device. Also, installing the front-stretched new links is not straightforward because the keyboard and the touchpad doesn't work if you don't build the customizes kernel. So the drivers for keyboard and touchpad are not in the main line. But okay, you can compile and then it works. And the manufacturer could also lock the boot loader. For example, Microsoft with ARM devices and Windows 8 locked the secure boot in a way that you cannot install software different than Microsoft Windows. So the device is not really your because you can only run software certified by another party. We come to a legal level. Manufacturers often say that even if the license says that you must contact the manufacturers, the manufacturer says that you have to ask the refund to the vendor or to Microsoft. But this is not true because the license agreement says that you have to contact the manufacturer. Manufacturer says that you must also return the PC. So you should have all the refund of all PC, both PC and the software. My father said you can't have only the software refund. Manufacturer set a very little time span to ask for the refund, usually only 30 days. Manufacturer says that you must prove you refuse the license. But it is impossible to prove you refuse the license because when you start from the first time Windows, you have only one button accept. You cannot even power down the PC. Especially if it is a laptop, it could be a problem because the battery is integrated as usually integrated and you cannot power off the PC if you don't know that you have to press the power button for 30 seconds. Recently, a manufacturer switched their policy and said that you must return the PC to their laboratory because you must remove the product that is information about the Windows license stored in the BIOS. Manufacturers set a price by your own, not the market price of the Windows license. When you first run the PC to see the license agreement because to refuse the license agreement, you have to see the license agreement. With the latest Windows version, it is mandatory to connect your PC to the Internet before viewing the license agreement. I think this could be not compliant to the GDPR because your PC sends information to manufacturers and to Microsoft sites without your explicit agreement. There is no refuse button as already said and you cannot install a different license if you remove the Windows and you download the Microsoft Windows from a Microsoft website and you want to install a few licenses or also the gratis license because Windows is gratis. This is only a limitation that you cannot customize the toolbar. You cannot do it because when you install the version you download it from the Internet, it looks for the bullet key.  Okay, very briefly cases of refund in Italy. There was a case in 2005 against HP. The case came to the Supreme Court of Italy and let's say the refund must be given. It's about nine years, it's last to hold the sequel. The second case is similar. It takes also nine years. It's very similar and this case is regarding this PC. I repressed the refund in 2018. Lenovo refused categorically the refund on the software. They asked that they say that I have to write a note on the PC. But I filed a court case by myself without a lawyer initially because from my side it was clear that Lenovo has won. But Lenovo introduced artificial complexity so that I cannot continue without a lawyer. So I asked for a lawyer. I won the first grade law suit. But Lenovo immediately filed the second grade appeal, the second grade law suit. And they lost the second grade. But the judge of Montserrat Court imposed to Lenovo a punitive damages of 20,000 euros because they use the legal instruments with bad fate without any valid reason. Okay, after these cases I requested also another wish refund. The case was simpler but not so easy. Asher, for example, asked to write on the PC to remove the product case. In this case, since I have some excessive front end of my I go to the bike to bring my PC to Asher. There are also other cases, one with Microsoft has already said. One with HP. I filed a court case against HP. They lost the court case. But this case, the judge does not recognize to me the legal fee. So the balance was the same. I lost what I gained from the refund. Other cases, okay. This is interesting in the last year with Asher because when I asked to Asher this time, I need the PC immediately so I cannot wait to send the PC to Asher and to give it back. And Asher said that it was Microsoft that asked to send the PC to the manufacturer to remove the product case. Then I filed a court case. But it was stopped by Asher before saying before reaching the first hearing. So they give me 129 euros. Latest case against Lenovo that was terminated three days ago. Lenovo says again that you must write on the PC to the manufacturer and they say that they are not satisfied by the license. The license, they propose, they are not satisfied by the license. They themselves propose. So it is not very coherent. Okay. Asking for the phone, I go very quickly. You have to power on the PC. You have to read the license, contact the manufacturer, send email and a certified email in Italy. And you have to be very patient because many mails you have to send before requesting the refund, before having the refund. But you will have the refund. Okay. One important thing is that manufacturers artificially increase the cost of the PC with the mandatory payment to Microsoft. I think that if you obtain the refund, you have to give part of the refund to some free software organization. I give all 20,000 euros to this association. And if you want to donate, you can go to the link down. And if you can support the Office of the Foundation for their valuable work. Thank you.


And here we see Lisa busily painting the glosswork in our door room. As you can see it was quite yellow compared to what it is now. That should help brighten everything up quite a bit. If we go through into the living room, you can see that in here. She has already painted one of the data rows. You can see the contrast between this side and this side. And I have now sanded all around the top of the room and all the rail. And the inside of the door frame. So we are ready to paint all the glosswork in here apart from the floorboard. And then this contrast we can see up here. Everything will be nice and bright rather than all in banking.


They must, the same amount of points over the last five games. Limehold, they shape up like this. Still, Jeheem Williams between the sticks. They're playing with a 4-3-3. Demane Soule, the captain. Darius Stewart is back into the starting line-up. The player to watch, Rohan Soule. We're playing one of the wing-back positions. That's to Jimoy Jones. Devonte Redman, Marlon Penicocco, shut down in the last game. Such a talented player, two-footed as well. Seja Anderson, Campbell Miller and McCullough will complete the line-up there. Coach by Hoekstra and Gilchrist. Yeah, they're going to have to find a way. I mean, they've won the last game here. They're going to have to cling to any hope. And that's the biggest hope that they'll have.  High up between the sticks, they ever present. And a two-time winner without it. Garden Ricardo Thomas. And Devonte Hunches, the youngster, brought into that centre-back role. Of course, he would have known him very well in North Hyde at Clarendon College. Wilkes Powell, Sigry Winter comes into the starting line-up. He'll play it right back. Marlon Anel gets to start over. Nicholas Nelson in the centre-forward row. Stephen Williams, a player to watch Fabian McCarthy, one of the best midfielders in the league. And the young Dwight Merrick, who is here on loan from Mount Pleasant. They had a few players from Mount Pleasant. Chylites Andre Parkus in the man in charge. Lyme Ball, initially off to get go. A ball into the area, but he did mostly defending for the entire game. That was pushed over from Damien Hyatt. And then came the Dumbledore Hohlin pressure. Donovan Sigry out to Marlon, Allen, Marlon, Allen. But defending Dwight Merrick, clinical. Merrick's first of the season, good finish into the near post, but the work was done from Marlon, Allen. And yeah, Merrick just composed himself well to score the first. That came after 18 minutes. And Dumbledore Hohlin had the lead. Merrick and Allen both on loan from Mount Pleasant. And against there, St. Anne Counterpass, Lyme Hall. Combined well. Merrick had another chance from the edge of the area there. Had quite a few chances in a first half. Here was Stephen Williams with his shot with the left foot. The spinning, turning his body well and letting fly. And then Dwight Merrick should have made a 2-0 here on his preferred left foot. And a snatch that he did. Dwight Merrick, instead of keeping his composure like he did for his goal. And couldn't provide a finish. Neither could Stephen Williams from that chance. It was all Dumbledore Hohlin in this first half. Should have had more than one goal. But instead, they went to the half with just a one-goal advantage. Lyme Hall slowly but surely decided to commit more players forward. And they would find themselves back into this match. This was the first chance for them. Marlon, clinical. At the back post, couldn't put it on target. But they would have better moments. Darius Stewart, the player to watch. Their most senior midfielder with the strike deflected off the crossbar but bounced behind the line. And just like that, Lyme Hall against the run of play, worth all square. 1-1, Stewart after 65 minutes. But then the substitutions came for Dumbledore Hohlin. Nicholas Nelson, pulling free, thought he had scored. But he hit it with the wind.  But he continued to be right at it. This was a strike from Powell, just right on the mark. I actually think it was a pass from Shaquille Powell, looking for Nelson. And Dumbledore Hohlin started to come alive. The captain, Ricardo Thomas, getting into the area, provided for Johnson. Johnson trying to play in Nelson. Nelson wasn't happy about it. He thought Johnson should have taken it for himself. But the pass from Johnson was good. Nelson continued to cause problems for his back line. This one, taking it in instead of striking, provided for his captain. Ricardo Thomas with his first of the season, the second for Dumbledore Hohlin on the afternoon. And they regained the lead after 87 minutes. And he had the celebration to go with it, Ricardo Thomas. Not a bad gymnast is he. 2-1 to Dumbledore Hohlin, 87 minutes gone. They would finish with four goals, believe it or not. Ricardo Thomas with two of them. One for Alex Gale and, of course, Dwight Merrick, 4-1. They defeated Lyme all day at 15 shots and five on target. Not bad to have five on target and score four. One on target for Lyme Hall, which was their goal. Darius Stewart from their three attempts. Lots of fouls in it. 24, five yellow cards shown by Andre Farkasen. Just the one save for their goalkeeper, Jaheem Williams, but he was beaten four times by Dumbledore Hohlin. Majority of the position for Dumbledore Hohlin and a big three points for them. They regain sixth position on the table. It's a 4-1 win for the team from Portmore. Dwight Jeremiah is with us, man of the match. It is the captain, Ricardo Thomas, with his brace. Ricardo, it's a captain's performance from you today. You started, you played pretty much your left-back position, but once the team required an impetus to go forward, you stepped up. Tell me about your game today. The coach instructed half a bench that I need to go more forward and get in the game, so that I did and I get two goals for me. You got two goals, you went forward, yes, but I think also the coach helped you with Nikolas coming on the park. It must have been easier for you when you get forward. Good player to play with, isn't he? Yeah, Nikolas is a great player. Thanks for those two assists. Very thankful for it. It's your two first goals of the season these are for you, right? Yeah, first two goals, yeah. I mean, how does that make you feel? I feel very good for now that I have scored my first two goals for this season. I have more to offer, so I'm thankful. In terms of what to offer, what's the offer you think Donbeholden has known with this push for the playoff? You feel that you can get into this playoff spot? I think we have to take it one game after game. I think these three points mean a lot to the team. Really grateful. Good performance from your captain's performance and long made continue all the best. Thanks, thanks. All right, you have it.


Live from New Orleans, Louisiana at theCUBE. Covering .NEXT Conference 2018, brought to you by Nutanix. Welcome back, I'm Stu Miniman joined by Keith Townsend and we're here at Nutanix .NEXT 2018. Happy to welcome back to the program, Binny Gill who's the CTO of Cloud Services at Nutanix and welcome a first time guest, long time caller, you know, long time watcher, first time caller, Vijay Raiapati, who's the general manager of Nutanix Beam, a brand new service and acts, came from the Minjar acquisition. Gentlemen, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you for having us. Great. Yeah, Vijay, so for those that don't know, bring us back a little bit, you know, Minjar tells a little bit about the company, how many people and then we'll get into the integration and the launch. Yeah, so we started Minjar in 2012, late 2012, primarily focused on, you know, building a public cloud optimization service. So our flagship product is Botmetric, which is one of the highest rated and reviewed solution in AWS marketplace. We are primarily based in Bangalore and focused on, you know, helping customers as they're moving to this public cloud journey. How can you help them deliver governance across their consumption from a cost perspective and compliance, you know, from a security perspective. That's what we were focused on and we joined Nutanix last quarter. You know, I'm really excited to be here and look forward to continue, you know, building on it. All right, Vinny, maybe you can help us connect the dots. So look at XI, look at the services that Nutanix is building. Usually it starts with your infrastructure. Yep. That's not where Minjar, you know, came from. So help us connect the dots as to how, what led to the acquisition, how it expands the portfolio and what's your first-ask product? I mean, if you look at what we are talking about as our true north, what we are doing is we're building a hybrid cloud. You know, we started with building a private cloud and customers asking us, hey, solve the public cloud problem for us, hybrid cloud, multi-cloud, and most of the enterprises today are dispersed, right? So when we talk about enterprise cloud, what we mean is this dispersed cloud including IoT devices. And you'll see some of that in the demo this evening. So the first question that comes to mind is, okay, how am I going to manage all my dispersed cloud entities and not all of them are owned by Nutanix? So when we looked at Minjar and the capabilities, it was right on target. They are helping customers consume the cloud and solve the two problems that they have that they lose sleep on. One is, do I have control on cost? And the other is, do I have control on security compliance? So that's a good capability to have and with Vijay's team's help, we are going to expand it to all the clouds including Nutanix and beyond and provide it to all our customers. So today, where is the service? How do I consume it? Help me understand that. So this is the first SaaS service that Nutanix has launched. And it can be consumed from beam.nutanix.com and we intend to continue on the service in future as a SaaS offering for customers, both Nutanix customer and not Nutanix customers. What we have today is we support Amazon Cloud and Azure and we are working on bringing integration for Nutanix and then we'll bring support for other cloud providers as well. I'm sorry, just how many customers did you have running on the bot metric service in the past? We have a couple of hundred customers using bot metric. We track close to about a billion dollar plus in public cloud consumption through bot metric before it became Nutanix and yeah. So Vijay, help us understand the larger industry in this larger space. It's been relatively a crowded space for some time. There's been a lot of solutions that helped with cloud security, performance monitoring, et cetera. What was the unique gap or value opportunity you saw bot metric? Yeah, I mean there are two unique things that we found when we work with this public cloud customers. The challenge is there were a lot of tools which were providing visibility, right? But there weren't many tools providing ability to remediate those things that you detect, right? Essentially from day one when we built bot metric platform, we built it like an action-oriented platform so you not only get visibility, you can essentially automate those issues either for an optimization or for control through our automation engine. So there is a lot of invisible automation in Nutanix Beam versus just being this beautiful UI which can give you a lot of insights and reports. And that's a big differentiator. That's one of the reason why a lot of customers when they write reviews about the product, they say, man I really love it because it not only tells me what I need to do, I don't need to go and do those hundred things as an engineer and I can rather click to fix or deploy an automation that can go and do these things. And one of the other things that was very interesting in what Beam does is it also can predict what the cost is going to be at the end of the month. Instead of being surprised by the end of the month and you will, you know how it is today and how the system is predicting it. So that gives you more control on making sure that if there's an over expenditure that's going to happen, you can take actions today. So what type of automation and adjustments can Beam make on my behalf? Yeah, I think pretty much anything that a cloud ops or a DevOps engineer do, what we don't do is we don't do any provisioning or orchestration, right? Even as a bot metric, we never did that. What we were focused on is how can we solve operational issues on a day-to-day basis, whether they're related to cost or they're related to compliance or they're related to automation. So it can detect things. You can do custom scaling from Beam. You can do, you know, resizing of things. You can clean up unused resources. You can go and run custom audits using Python on Beam. So there are like a lot of things that a day two or a day three on a continuous basis as a cloud ops or a DevOps engineer that you need to do. That's what we deliver as a invisible automation or we call it event-driven automation, right? When certain events happen, you know, how can we automate those things or right once use, you know, multiple times? Vinny, can you walk us through what kind of Nutanix stamp has been put on the product leading to the Beam, maybe give us a little bit of your philosophy as to, you know, how the software acquisitions, what they have to go through before they become really Nutanix products. First of all, any acquisition, we want to make sure that the team is a great team, that people are the most important. From a technology perspective, they need to be solving the pain points of the customers. Now, when we integrate any service into our cloud platform, we focus on three things. One is identity. So when a customer logs in to our ZyCloud services or logs in on-prem, they should be able to use a single sign on across all the services. Second thing is billing. We want to make sure that how we bill the customers, not like separate bills that come and they have to put them together, has to be single billing. Also in terms of how you spend, we're working on programs where you can buy some Nutanix currency coins and then you can use it either in the private cloud or in the public cloud, but the decision could be a late-binding decision. And finally, it's about making sure that the one-click simplicity that we keep talking about and delivering is there. And we've been lucky that with the Beam product, a lot of it is already there. That's why it's already G8, but we make sure that it goes through the same rigor of making sure that the user experience is awesome. So let's talk about that time to integration, I'll call it. The ability for you guys to take Beam, which is, or biometric at the time, a completely separate product from Com, XI, and then you take that, turn it into Beam, a SaaS product, which is your first SaaS product, how do you keep that consistent view across the entire Nutanix portfolio experience so that administrators are not leaving one to the goal until another one, which a SaaS offering is very different than what you guys have offered in the past. Correct. So we're working on that, both on-premises view and in the cloud view. So as you might have noticed when we came up with XI, we said it's XI Cloud Services and DR is the first service, because when you log into XI, you're logging into all of the cloud services. And then the menu of services will show up and Beam is one, DR is one, and more will come in. So we've already thought through that. On-premises, if you've noticed in our history, we had Prism Central, and then we announced Com support and it's baked into Prism. It's not a separate tool. We took one and a half years to make sure that it does not look like a schizophrenic set of products when we announced Flow. If you look at other vendors like VMware, they have separate NSX manager, NSX controllers. In our case, it's the same Prism Central. Once you upgrade, you get that feature. So that's in our discipline and anything we do, we take the time and make sure it's going to be a single experience for the customer. We're doing the same thing. So Vigis team is quite rapid in agile and doing stuff. They've integrated with our single identity system, integrating with a single billing system. So that has happened rapidly with this case. I think we focus a lot, at least at Nutanix, when I joined, there's a lot of emphasis on experience. How do we make sure we deliver a consistent experience for the user from an identity perspective, from a service usage perspective, as well as from a support perspective? I know it's a common support, it's a common identity, and it's a common billing. And you rightly touched upon, as we are innovating on a lot of the services, there is a lot of thinking going on, saying how do we bring a common experience, unified experience that is seamless, rather than having different endpoints, people who need to go and try to remember these things. I think we'll continue to work and innovate on that front. But experience is one thing that Nutanix is really good at. If you go on to digital media and look at it, a lot of people are saying, oh man, we really like what we saw from a user experience perspective of the product. And we already took a lot of those design concepts you know, Nutanix has in terms of the UI and UX. The beam that you said today is completely consistent with our 3.0 design philosophy internally for all products. So the customer has same kind of experience. Of course, it's a SaaS service. As Vinny said, we are trying to bring a lot of this SaaS services under ZyCloud services so the user can consume it. Just like they consume a GCP or an Azure or AWS, right?  There is a common frame that brings all these things together. And one additional thing that we're doing which has not been done before is providing these services in a hybrid mode. So some of these services like Calm and our infrastructure as a service capability, we've announced error, how do we provide it in a hybrid cloud view world where you can run the service on-prem, you can migrate the app that depends on the service. So the service should also be available in the cloud. And those are some of the hard problems that we are working on, but we believe that we have the tools and the experience to make that happen. So, Vijay, just one dotto's announced. You got some cool new t-shirts you're going to show us. What should we be looking for from the roadmap there? And yeah, show that t-shirt off. So there are three, I mean, like there are two primary things that we are very focused on, right? You know, one is how can we bring a lot more intelligence, not just, you know, from insights and actions? How can we help customers, you know, make those choices of, you know, moving the workload? Because if you see there are a lot of components that Nutanix is building, even today we announced Cloud Extract, which is kind of a one-click mobility, not just from cloud to Nutanix, it is going to support from Nutanix to, you know, other, you know, clouds as well. Because there is a strong cultural belief within the company that, you know, we need to have, give customers the freedom of choice and deliver a good service at the right price, you know, so that, you know, they feel confident, right, of, you know, about what we are doing and what we deliver to them.  We won't stop just with them.  So that customers can get visibility, of course, by workloads, by apps. They don't need to come, you know, to beam, you know, to consume them. So, Vinny, one last question. Keith, this is critically important as you bring on your first SAS offering, billing and procurement. What is the average experience for the Nutanix customer who hadn't, you know, the infrastructure team didn't whip out a credit card by a NX system. What is the experience for setting up billing with your SAS services? Right, so a lot of it has not GAD yet, but, you know, if you look at some of the demos that we have done for XI Cloud Services, including DR, it's, you know, the customer can provide a credit card and, you know, consume it as they're used to with the public cloud. We're also, we also have programs where they can buy some credits, you know, Nutanix coins up front and use them, both on-prem and in the cloud. So these things are in the works and we are listening to our customers, not one size does not fit all and we know that in the enterprise, but we'll have multiple options for them. Excellent. Sounds just like, I've listened to my children saying, I get the coins to do Fortnite and things like that. The millennials will be good. They buy some credits, buy it here, buy it there, use it up. Vinny and Vijay, thanks so much for joining us. Congrats on the launch of the product. We look forward to keeping an eye on it as that grows in the portfolio grows. Thank you. Thank you for having me. For Keith Townsend, I'm Stu Miniman. Back with lots more program here at Nutanix.NEXT 2018. Thanks for watching theCUBE.


The next item of business is the member's business debate on motion 2639, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the NPT review conference and anniversary of TPNW entry into force. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now and I call on Bill Kidd to open the debate up to seven minutes please Mr Kidd. Thank you very much Presiding Officer and thank you to my fellow MSPs joining me here in this debate to bring to attention a serious concern and continued importance surrounding the implementation of nuclear disarmament internationally. This Saturday coming marks the one year anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As the motion for this debate highlights, the NPT review conference was scheduled to take place this month. However, as you may be aware, this was postponed due to the pandemic and it is now likely that the NPT review conference will take place in August where I am determined to be able to attend in person as the head of delegation for PNND or Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. As co-president of PNND, I will be representing parliamentarians from across the globe who are committed to seeing the implementation of total nuclear disarmament. Today we are debating two international treaties, the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, otherwise known as the BAN Treaty. Both of those are of critical importance to nuclear disarmament. Firstly, the NPT has been in force since 1970 as a landmark international treaty through which nuclear states committed to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms. The UK, the US, Russia, China and France, all of whom are permanent members of the Security Council at the UN are nuclear state members of this treaty. It is therefore a highly important international treaty that needs to be respected by all its members as it underpins critical international security structures. The treaty commits its members to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology to other countries and to stop an increase in their own nuclear weapons stockpiles. Moreover, in signing the treaty, the P5 members all committed to international law to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and actively work towards complete nuclear disarmament. The treaty is hugely important and yet the NPT entered into force over 50 years ago and total nuclear disarmament very obviously has not been achieved. Moreover, there are worrying instances of non-compliance from nuclear states in recent years, including from the current UK Government. As international security concerns heighten and the world changes, we need fresh impetus to encourage nuclear states to renew their investment into the nuclear disarmament process. That is where the new international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons or the ban treaty comes in. The threat of nuclear arms has not diminished and the commitment of nuclear states to no first use of those weapons is welcome, but it is not enough. The nuclear disarmament debate needs to be reframed and diplomatic thinking needs to be renewed. Nuclear arms states need to reconcile their security strategies with the moral question of whether nuclear weapons would ever be right to use. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, they do not target only a military base and they actually devastate entire nations, including hundreds of thousands of civilians who in any country cannot afford to have to bear the weight of the actions of their leaders. The ban treaty is, like the NPT, a landmark treaty. For the first time ever, non-nuclear states and civil society led an international treaty on nuclear disarmament. That perhaps ironically helped the NPT in its 50-year-old commitment to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. The SNP has stood firm in its opposition to nuclear weapons, along with the many invaluable civil society organisations here in Scotland, as MSPs from across the parties continue to do in our CPG on nuclear disarmament. I must mention, as convener of our cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, that here in the Scottish Parliament we stand for the majority wish of the Scottish people across parties in their commitment to ridding Scotland of the nuclear weapons that are currently stored here against our will. As many here will be aware, the international NGO called ICANN was the driver of getting the ban treaty into the United Nations, accepted and ratified in international law. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for this work and an atomic bomb survivor, whom many of us have met, an incredible woman called Setsuko Thurlow, accepted this award on their behalf. After the atomic bomb was first made, her fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Albert Einstein, commented, that I do not fear the explosive power of the atomic bomb, what I fear is the explosive power of evil in the human heart. As much as deterrence argument can persuade some, I believe that it can never rule out or compensate for this aspect of the reality that evil actions do take place and can sometimes override the good governance of nations. The only way out of this is through total nuclear disarmament and continued oversight of international agencies on compliance. Although, until recently, the Cold War had felt long gone even, and it could easily be pushed to the back of our minds, the threat of those weapons has not diminished. We have a responsibility whether Scotland is devolved or independent to look at this reality head on. I am pleased that the majority of MSPs have signed the ICANN pledge to support the ban treaty, and that means that there is enough political will and commitment within this Parliament to stand together in working for an end to the danger to the world's long-term future that nuclear weapons stand for. Going back to our cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, I want to take this opportunity to mention the work of all the organisations involved in the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament who have continued in their efforts over the years to promote the nuclear disarmament agenda among Scottish Parliamentarians and the general public of our country. I must particularly mention Janet Fenton, the ICANN Scottish Liaison and the chair of Scottish CND, who has worked tirelessly in this regard and has been a tremendous help in the cause. Alongside those partners, I will be attending in the first meeting of state parties in Vienna this March on Covid rules allowing to develop the ban treaty rules further, and I encourage my fellow MSPs from across the chamber to do likewise, if at all possible. I thank Bill Kidd for securing this important debate on the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which came into force on 22 January. I would also like to acknowledge Bill's long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament, peace and justice. I will not call him a veteran campaigner, because the last time I did that, he did not like it very much, and I will just say that his perseverance is inspiring. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons entered into force on 22 January, and so far 59 states have fully ratified it and are now bound by its provisions. Countries that have joined the treaty must never develop, test, produce, acquire, stockpile, transfer, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. They are also forbidden from hosting in other countries nuclear weapons on their territory or assisting or encouraging anyone else to engage in any of those prohibited activities. I have to ask why anyone, why any state would wish to use or threaten to use these abhorrent weapons, the most inhumane instruments of destruction ever created. Weapons that, when deployed, incinerate human life. Close to a quarter of a million civilians met this unimaginable end in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and many thousands more have since died from radiation-related illnesses. To date, the UK has continued to insist that it will not sign the treaty, nor be an observer at the first meeting of states parties to the treaty in March. The UK has also shockingly decided to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons in clear breach of its obligations under the NPT. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, with its emphasis on prohibition and elimination, could rectify that deficit. Safety and security is about more than the absence or violence or war. It is about creating a just and equal society in which everyone can achieve their full potential and where no-one is left behind, and we help to nurture and support those who need it. The challenges and sacrifices that we have endured over the past couple of years highlight that more than ever, they highlight what is important. As we build back from Covid, recovery must include the end of nuclear weapons. Of course, nuclear weapons are immoral, but it is not just immoral. It is also economically illiterate to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction when that money could be invested on a recovery that actually benefits our citizens. Article 4 of the treaty has a clear relevance for Scotland. It states that each state party that has any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its jurisdiction are controlled, and that are owned, possessed or controlled by another state shall ensure the prompt removal of such weapons as soon as possible. When the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, endorsed the Scottish Women's International League for Peace and Freedoms Covenant to support the TPNW entering into force, she said, while the Scottish Government is unable to become a party to the treaty, as First Minister, I strongly support the principles of the treaty and the work of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. An independent Scotland would be a keen signatory, and I hope that that day that we can do it is not far off. As Bill pointed out in opening in Scotland, we have a majority of our parliamentarians signing the ICAN parliamentary pledge and a First Minister who has spoken out in support of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the only way to guarantee an end to nuclear weapons here in Scotland is for us to regain our independence as a nation, and I look forward to very much the day that we can do that. I now call Jamie Greene to be followed by Paul MacLennan up to four minutes, please, Mr Greene. I am a lone voice on the side of the chamber, but I'll do my best to contribute to the debate. I'm very pleased that we've taken part. I commend Bill Kidd for not just this debate, but his endless campaigning for nuclear disarmament. The name Bill Kidd is synonymous with that campaign, not just in Scotland or the UK, but right across the world, as his testament to his letter to the new US president, Joe Biden. That Nobel gong is yet within reach, Mr Kidd, and in my view, it probably would be quite well deserved. I suspect that some of my contribution may not always necessarily be in agreement with the premise of the motion, but I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who has a lifelong passion like the one that we've just heard today, politics with principles, if you're new, Presiding Officer. In fact, I'm more inclined to agree than not disagree with the member's motion, because I don't want to live in a world where nuclear weapons are a live and very active threat to humanity, but the sad reality is that we do, and the end of that scenario is very difficult to see any time soon. The black and white images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died, are the sort of images that stick in spongy minds, certainly one of a modern studies student, as I was. The thrice postponed NPT summit, which we will hopefully get round to, will be as tough and probably monumentally important as COP26 was last year. There is a problem, though. The NPT is plagued by a disarmament deficit, is the sad reality. Five nuclear states who are party to the treaty are currently not meeting their commitments, and tensions between the US, China and Russia are just rising the likelihood of reducing the deficit by the day. The theory and the practice of disarmament, I'm afraid, are awkward friends. Bill Kidd is right, all nuclear weapons should be dismantled for a safer world. That's the theory, the practice, though, is different. The NPT must be worth more than the paper, it is written on, I agree with that. A treaty that was fit for purpose in 1968 is not necessarily fit for purpose in 2022. The notable absence of Israel or North Korea, India or Pakistan, although I think the latter two are more likely to have an ability to have a change of heart on that. Reforms to legacy treaties such as those are very difficult, they will not come easy, and negotiations will take a long time to conclude. The practice is different from the theory. Right now, there are serious geopolitical threats, not just to Scotland and the UK but also to all our NATO allies, and they are our allies. Mr Kidd recently was on the record saying that the three big issues facing the next generation are… I haven't got a huge amount of time, but I'm happy to if I get the time back. Yes, you will. Ruth Maguire? I thank Jamie Greene for taking the intervention. I know that we are short of time. I would be interested to hear his reflections on whether he thinks that rising global tensions increase the case that we need to get rid of nuclear weapons. They don't decrease it, they perhaps make it more urgent. Jamie Greene? Yes, they do, but the problem is that there are some very live active threats at the moment where the people opposing the threat are increasing their capabilities. Therefore, that acceleration is inevitable, and it's hard to stop. It's hard to see an end of that in sight. Since 2007, Russia has been completely overhauling its nuclear capabilities with underwater nuclear drones, hypersonic missiles, and it doesn't take much more than a cursory look at evening channel 5 television to watch some very real-life examples of what our armed forces are currently doing out in the seas to stave off real threats. The fact that Russian troops right this very second are lining up on the Belarus-Ukraine border shows that these are not just merely to exercise, they are very real threats. If you look at what's happening in China, the current hostility towards, for example, Taiwan, and I refer members to my register of interests, I think our testament that these are not just academic or theoretical questions, these are real live ones. How we react to those, of course, is a very valid point. Back in 2020, in the space of just six days, RAF Lossymouth took to the skies on three separate occasions to ward off aircraft to be able to identify themselves. These aircraft weren't lost. Are they testing our response times and our capabilities? I'm pretty sure they are. Those are only the ones that officials are willing to talk about. In the short time that I have, the issue of the continuous at sea deterrent is a complex one. The capability sits in my region. I've been to Faslan and met personnel there. I do have some pride and faith that they take that monumental responsibility extremely seriously. There are very mixed views in my part of the world about the presence of those, but I genuinely don't think—and this is where I do disagree with the member—that simply moving them across the border to Liverpool or northeast England will move the problem away, nor make Scotland any particularly safer. It is worth noting that the number of nuclear warheads globally is down from 70,000 around 70,000 in 1986 to just over 13,000. There are still 13,000 too many. It only takes one. Clearly, more has to be done. The UK has a role to play in that. It must do better. Notwithstanding our differences of views, or even opinions, I still commend Bill Kidd on his efforts. His zeitgeist in that is something that perhaps we could all learn from in politics. Deputy Presiding Officer, I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this debate forward today on his long-term commitment to the cause. Back in 1982, I was in fourth year at Dunbar grammar school, sitting in my favourite subject, modern studies. We were all asked to choose a topic to study as part of our studies that year. In 1982, we were in the middle of the Cold War, President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher on one side, President Brezhnef and then Yureann Drop-off on the other. It was then that I decided I wanted to do my study subject on the CND. I joined the CND that year and I have been a member ever since. It is a redline in my political beliefs and always will be. The phrase that stuck in my head when we were researching the subject was mutually assured destruction. Mad, let that sink in, mutually assured destruction. Here in Scotland right now, we are the home of the UK submarine service, including the UK nuclear deterrent and the new generation of hunter-killer submarines, Hunter-killer, says it all. Those four submarines are permanently based at Faslain, or at least until Scotland becomes independent and we remove nuclear weapons from Scotland. We are told that Faslain itself was chosen to host these vessels at the height of the Cold War because of its geographic position, and I quote, which forms a bastion on the relative place that the cold is a bit deep and easily navigable, gearlock and furth of Clyde. The fact that it is less than 30 miles from Glasgow was of no significance to the UK Government then and it is certainly not now. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, also known as the TPNW or the Nuclear Man Treaty, is an international agreement between countries. All countries that have signed or ratified the treaty have committed to a complete global ban on nuclear weapons, and all activities related to the creation or use of nuclear weapons. Today, we are celebrating the first year of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, or to be precise, as we have heard on Saturday 22 January. This marks one year since this entered into force as international law. Nuclear ban has already began to change the world. Billions of pounds have been taken out of investments in nuclear weapons, with over 100 financial institutions completely disvesting from nuclear weapons. Countries continue to join the treaty, while a growing number of non-member states have committed to observe the first meeting of state parties. Cities and local authorities around the world are showing their support in growing numbers through the ICANN cities appeal, where parliamentarians here in Scotland and worldwide stand firm in support of nuclear disarmament. Scotland cannot sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons unless we become an independent country. However, we can be guided by the principles of the treaty and can take steps to embed as much of it as possible into domestic law. We can prepare for a day when Scotland is able to achieve full nuclear disarmament and sign up to the global nuclear ban. ICANN that Bill was mentioned before the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons asked parliamentarians to sign the following pledge. I quote, We have undersigned parliamentarians. We are only welcoming the entry into force of the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons as a significant step towards a realisation of a nuclear-free world. We share a deep concern expressed about the catastrophic human and humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and we recognise the consequent need to eliminate these inhumane and important weapons. As parliamentarians, we pledge to work for the signature and notification of the landmark treaty by our respective countries, as we consider the abolition of nuclear weapons to be a global public good for the highest order and an essential step to promote the security of wellbeing of all parties. I was proud to sign that pledge and look forward to the day. Scotland becomes independent and nuclear weapons are finally removed from the Clyde. I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to parliament. As the motion points out, article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty is clear. It calls for the cessation of the nuclear arms race, but it also calls for the complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. In addition, 120 countries have now signed up to the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which proposes a total global ban on these weapons of mass destruction. For the avoidance of doubt, these are treaties which carry with them binding obligations. We hear a lot about the rule of law, the rule of international law. What about the observance of this international law? I have a long held view that nuclear weapons themselves are illegal. Nearly 40 years ago, along with others, I tried to take Margaret Thatcher to court on the grounds that their possession is in direct contravention of international law because they destroy lives indiscriminately.  Today, we continue to witness the flouting of international law with no evidence whatsoever of meaningful negotiation of material progress or anything resembling even a strategy for disarmament. We are told that these weapons are a deterrence. The nuclear deterrent is part of the language, the doublespeak, the propaganda of the debate on disarmament, but does anybody really believe that the threat of first strike nuclear weapons or their location 80 miles from this parliament makes us any safer? Incidentally, their relocation 180 miles away in Barrow Infernis would not make us any safer either. In wilful or ignorant defiance of the non-proliferation treaty and who knows which, Boris Johnson announced last year that he was escalating the number of 100 kiloton nuclear warheads from 180 to 260. By any definition, this is not multilateral disarmament, this is unilateral rearmament. This represents a proliferation of ballistic missiles, but it also represents a proliferation of risk, of lies and disinformation, a proliferation of nuclear waste, of missile convoys and terror threats, a proliferation of instability, of curbs on civil liberties and of austerity in every other public service. The honest division in this debate is not between those of us who support unilateral nuclear disarmament and those who support multilateral nuclear disarmament. The honest division is between those of us who believe in nuclear disarmament and those who frankly do not. That is what the Trident debate is about. Of course it is also about jobs and we need to understand that the £200 billion that is to be spent on Trident's replacement would create jobs. Of course it would, but how many more jobs could we create with that kind of money to rebuild our manufacturing base, to invest in our national health service and to provide the education, health and environmental protection the world is crying out for? Finally, I am in no doubt that what we need at this time is political leadership, but I am equally certain that it will not come from the political elite whose heads are turned by the twin temptations of militarism and nationalism. It will come from the people who will once again lead the leaders. That is what this debate is about. That is what this motion is about. It is about summoning up a renewed spirit of popular resistance. It is about taking action in support of our moral objection to genocide to secure our common survival and it is about grasping the historic opportunity of building a just, a civilised and a peaceful society in a just, a civilised and a peaceful world. I now call Bob Doris to be followed by Maggie Chapman and Maggie Chapman will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond. Mr Doris, up to four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to congratulate Bill Kidd on securing this important debate and pay tribute to Bill's work over many years of nuclear disarmament and acknowledges current role as co-president of parliamentaries for non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. This debate and, of course, the UN treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons, which in the subject of the debate, are powerful reminders that there is nothing moral, normal, acceptable, palatable or humane about nuclear weapons and their use for human destruction and destruction of the planet. Nations must raise their voice against them and, of course, meet their international legal obligations. The nation's treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons came into force almost one year ago as sweeping treaty designed to outlaw and rigged the world of weapons from a bygone Cold War era. Despite that, it is with great sadness to note that the British Government has failed to ratify this treaty, an action that demonstrates the failure of the United Kingdom to be world leaders in the fight for nuclear disarmament. Westminster continues to fund a nuclear defence system that goes against the United Kingdom's long-established commitment to the United Nations. Unfortunately, that Westminster nuclear obsession includes the UK party defence spokesperson who describes UK nuclear weapons as non-negotiable. I would, however, acknowledge those in all parties, including the Labour Party and the Labour movement and, of course, wider civic society over many years who have campaigned to their shores and the world of nuclear weapons. I clearly wish to see an independent, nuclear-free Scotland, and we must, of course, make common cause with all those who seek the elimination of nuclear weapons and recommend the work of the cross-party in this Parliament for their work in that also. The UK positions Holy Count are productive. How can Westminster condemn the action of foreign states and their development of nuclear weapons whilst demonstrating its complicit failure to act on eliminating its own nuclear arsenal? £200 billion more to replenish it is heard from Richard Leonard. If the British Government's moral compass is broken on nuclear weapons, perhaps they ought to ratify the UN treaty on economic grounds. The cost of annually maintaining and running such a system for the UK equates to £18 billion every year. That fee equates to the state spending of over £30,000 per minute over the course of any year to continue the programme. This financial burden itself is a moral outrage. Such eye-watering sums can be better spent helping those who most need at home and can contribute to our overseas aid obligations rather than cutting the source as the UK currently does. However, at the heart of encouraging all nations to sign and ratify the UN treaty and play their part in ridding the world of nuclear weapons is the moral case. I welcome the first meeting of state parties that will take place in March this year. I am delighted that Bill Kidd will attend to discuss the continued strength of the UN's commitment to nuclear prohibition. I wish everyone well who is participating in that conference that will take place in Vienna. I absolutely heartily thank Bill Kidd MSP for its on-going leadership in seeking to advance the cause of a nuclear-free Scotland and the nuclear-free world. I now call on Minister Ashrykin to respond to the debate up to seven minutes please minister. No, I am really apologising. The minister was looking at me with a confused look in her face and quite rightly so. Many apologies to Mackie Chapman. I was ahead of myself there. I now call Mackie Chapman up to four minutes please, Ms Chapman. Thank you very much, no problem at all. I would like to begin by thanking Bill Kidd for his motion and for securing this debate today. I share his enthusiasm for the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and was delighted when it came into force a year ago. I also appreciate the detail Bill and others have given about both the prohibition and non-proliferation treaties. It is absolutely right that we devote parliamentary time to this important issue. We have a role to play in educating ourselves and others, and I thank Bill for his leadership in this. I thank him too for acknowledging the work of Janet Fenton. She too has been inspirational for so many in Scotland and further afield. I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, although I wish it were not necessary. Nuclear weapons are a stain on us all. They are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They are unlike any other military force in the devastation that they cause in the moment and for generations. They are uniquely persistent. They spread genetically damaging radioactive fallout. They are weapons of indiscriminate intergenerational mass murder. As if all of that is not bad enough, the development and potential use of these weapons destroys all forms of life and disrupts life support systems, including our climate. Less than 1 per cent of the nuclear weapons that currently exist could disrupt the global climate and threaten as many as 2 billion people with starvation in a nuclear famine. The thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by just the United States and Russia would destroy the world. Nuclear winter does not even come close to describing what would be experienced.   It teaches us that violence is a legitimate answer to difficult questions. It indicates that Governments care more about their egos and shows of strength and power than about life. As a South African citizen, I am very pleased that South Africa made the conscious decision to disarm. The South African Government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, the first state in the world that voluntarily gave up all nuclear arms that it had developed itself. The country has been a secondary other treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1991 and ratified the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons three years ago, becoming the first country to have had nuclear weapons disarmed them and go on to sign those treaties. For the many reasons outlined already by others this afternoon, the economic, humanitarian and moral reasons, I do wish that the country I have chosen as home could sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons today, but unfortunately it looks like we are going to have to wait until Scotland is an independent country before we can do that, and we must make sure that we do that when we can. I agree with Jamie Greene and others, I don't just want nuclear weapons out of Scotland, I want them out of every country. We can and should be using all of our resources for good. We must also use the powers that we have now and powers that I hope we will have to restrict and stop the proliferation not only of nuclear machinery but of the broader military-industrial complex, the two are related. As a priority, I think that we should stop the preferential government support for Raytheon, BAE systems and other dealers in death. We can see in Yemen the damage Britain, including Scotland, continues to do in the world through support for arms manufacture, and we need to use all peaceful avenues open to us to prevent the UK Government from renewing its huge financial support for Trident and other nuclear weapons. We can and must be a force for good in the world. We can be peacebuilders, we can be peacemakers and we can say that we will never again use indiscriminate weapons of mass murder. I now call on Minister Ashrygan to respond to the debate up to seven minutes. I thank Bill Kidd for raising the debate in Parliament today and to express my appreciation to him and to the work of the wider cross-party working group on nuclear assignment for their commitment and for their work on this important issue. Also for his powerful speech that he gave to the chamber this afternoon, there were thoughtful contributions from right across the chamber from Ruth Maguire, Jamie Greene, Bob Doris among others. I would like to say that it is very good to see Ruth Maguire back here in the chamber this week. The Scottish Government is firmly opposed to the possession, the threat and use of nuclear weapons. We are committed to pursuing the safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland and have called repeatedly on the UK Government to cancel its plans for the Dreadnaught programme. Nuclear weapons are morally wrong—that was a point made by a number of contributions this afternoon—strategically wrong and economically wrong, a point that was raised by Bob Doris and his contribution. They are indiscriminate and devastating in their impacts and their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage. Nuclear weapons are obsolete, dangerous and impractical weapons, and yet, last year, the UK Government broke its commitment to the international community by increasing the nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 260 warheads. That is a 40 per cent increase from its 2010 commitment of no more than 180 warheads. That move is completely at odds with article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which the UK Government is, of course, a signatory. Two independent defence experts from the London School of Economics also concluded that the UK's increase of warheads constitutes a breach of article 6. Nuclear weapons do not provide a meaningful deterrent to many of the modern-day threats, such as terrorist attacks, nor have they proved to be a deterrent to other nuclear armed states carrying out atrocious acts on British soil. Rather than making repeated and damaging cuts to conventional military forces and capabilities, the UK Government would do better to use the £41 billion at its spending on replacing trident to invest in modern warfare capabilities that are relevant to today's threats. The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the non-proliferation treaty. We recognise the important role that the international community has in collectively creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. The three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty, non-proliferation disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy provide the international community with a balanced and a step-by-step framework for disarmament, and we will follow the outcomes from both the treaty conferences carefully to help further our own thinking on the nuclear debate. Of course. Jamie Greene Can I ask a good book going back to my concept of theory and practice? If theoretically every signatory to the treaty got rid of all the nuclear weapons, the countries that are not party to the treaty, who have not signed up to disarmament, but still hold weapons or have ambitions to, how would the world deal with them? The member raises a very important point. As I said, that is the way that we need to look at those things and that is why the Scottish Government is going to watch very carefully the outcomes from these treaty conferences to develop our own thinking on this further. Turning to transportation of defence nuclear material, the responsibility for the transportation of nuclear warheads lies with the Ministry of Defence. The Scottish Government, however, expects that transportation to be carried out safely and securely and has made this expectation clear to the UK Government. As the lead Government department for the response to a defence nuclear emergency, the Ministry of Defence organises regular training and exercises in respect of its emergency response planning and arrangements. Scotland's emergency responders participate in that as appropriate. Although there has never been a defence nuclear transport incident posing a radiation hazard, I can well understand public concern about these convoys. I would like to take the opportunity today to stress that the Scottish Government takes this matter very seriously indeed. There is significant resilience planning in place. Members may wish to note that Scotland's three regional resilience partnerships, including the local authorities, led by Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services, and supported by Scottish Government resilience co-ordinator teams, undertake a risk and preparedness assessment process on a regular basis. The resilience register is maintained on an on-going basis. That enables the resilience partnerships to identify and to assess the main risks that are relevant to their region and to determine how prepared they are to deal with the consequences of those risks. To support that, the Scottish Government has published a range of guidance for the resilience partnerships to assess the risks relevant to their region and to determine how prepared they are to deal with those and the consequences of those risks. The MOD has provided assurance that the routes adopted are carefully selected and part of a rigorous risk assessment process and are regularly reassessed for their continued suitability. The MOD has also provided assurance that operational planning takes into account other factors such as road and weather conditions. There are well-established resilience structures in place to manage consequences of any emergency. Those structures have been and continue to be tested and proven both by exercises and by real events. I thank the minister for taking a brief intervention. Having seen the details of those risk assessments, I wonder if she personally feels that it is ever an acceptable level of risk to have those weapons travelling through our major cities and roads at any time, but perhaps particularly when we are in a pandemic and our emergency services are already stretched. The member raises a very understandable point, and I completely understand the public concern about the level of risk that this poses to communities in Scotland. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has put plans in place and made pragmatic preparations to deal with incidents involving nuclear defence material, including convoys of such material. Similarly, Police Scotland can give assurance that up-to-date plans are in place to deal with all major incidents, including nuclear incidents, and its procedures relating to defence nuclear material are current. Its resilience staff liaise regularly with the Minister of Defence Police on a range of matters, including the above. As I said at the outset, the Scottish Government believes that nuclear weapons are immoral, illegal and a huge waste of money. We wish to see the Trident replacement programme scrapped and the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money put to better use. We have called on the UK Government to do that. The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international treaties on nuclear weapons and will work with partners to make an independent Scotland a nation that is free of nuclear weapons.


In Chad, at the border crossing in Adre, I'm probably just about 75 meters from the border. I've had discussions with returnees, Chadian returnees. I've heard harrowing stories of separation. I've heard harrowing stories of fear.  What they were most concerned about is when they would be together as a family again, when they would have their own homes, when they would be able to return to the lives that they had. Many of them are teachers and nurses and traders in markets and all of that's gone. They said that they're back to zero and they want the opportunity for a future where they can live a life of dignity. What IOM is focused on is right from the start, ensuring that the Chadian returnees are on the pathway to a durable solution, either here in Adre or returning to their communities of origin in Chad. We've done registration, we have provided some water, some tarpaulin for shelter, some hygiene kits particularly for women, but it's not enough. We stand in solidarity with the government of Chad. We call on our international partners, our international donors, to support us in addressing humanitarian needs but more important in supporting a pathway to a life and livelihoods of dignity.


You're listening to the ECB podcast, bringing you insights into the world of economics and central banking. My name is Katie Ranger. Today is Thursday, 14th of April, 2022. It's time for our regular episode with the latest monetary policy decisions taken by the ECB's Governing Council. I'll be back at the end of the episode, but now you'll hear President Christine Lagarde explaining the main decisions in the press conference. Russia's aggression towards Ukraine is causing enormous suffering, and it is also affecting the economy in Europe and beyond. The conflict and the associated uncertainty are weighing heavily on confidence of businesses and consumers. Trade disruptions are leading to new shortages of materials and inputs. Surging energy and commodity prices are reducing demand and holding back production. How the economy develops will crucially depend on how the conflict evolves, on the impact of current sanctions, and on possible further measures. At the same time, economic activity is still being supported by the reopening of the economy after the crisis phase of the pandemic. Inflation has increased significantly and will remain high over the coming months, mainly because of the sharp rise in energy costs. Inflation pressures have intensified across many sectors. At today's meeting, we judged that the incoming data since our last meeting reinforced our expectation that net asset purchases and our asset purchase program should be concluded in the third quarter. Looking ahead, our monetary policy will depend on the incoming data and our evolving assessment of the outlook. In the current conditions of high uncertainty, we will maintain optionality, gradualism, and flexibility in the conduct of our monetary policy. The governing council will take whatever action is needed to fulfill the ECB's mandate to pursue price stability and to contribute to safeguarding financial stability. I will now outline in more detail how we see the economy and inflation developing, and will then explain our assessment of financial and monetary conditions. So, turning to the economic activity. The euro area economy grew by 0.3% in the final quarter of 2021. It is estimated that growth remained weak during the first quarter of 2022, largely owing to pandemic-related restrictions. Several factors point to slow growth also in the period ahead. The war is already weighing on the confidence of businesses and consumers, including through the uncertainty that it brings. With energy and commodity prices rising sharply, households are facing a higher cost of living, and firms are confronted with higher production costs. The war has created new bottlenecks, while a new set of pandemic measures in Asia is contributing to supply chain difficulties. Some sectors face growing difficulties in sourcing their inputs, which is disrupting production. However, there are also offsetting factors underpinning the ongoing recovery, such as compensatory fiscal measures and the possibility for households to draw on savings that they accumulated during the pandemic. Moreover, the reopening of those sectors most affected by the pandemic and a strong labour market with more people in jobs will continue to support incomes and spending. Fiscal and monetary policy support remains critical, especially in this difficult geopolitical situation. In addition, the successful implementation of the investment and reform plans under the Next Generation EU programme will accelerate the energy and green transitions. This should help enhance the long-term growth and resilience in the euro area, turning now to inflation. Inflation increased to 7.5% in March from 5.9% in February. Energy prices were driven higher after the outbreak of the war, and now stands 45% above their level one year ago. They continue to be the main reason for the high rate of inflation. Market-based indicators suggest that energy prices will stay high in the near-term and will then moderate to some extent. Food prices have also increased sharply. This is due to elevated transportation and production costs, notably the higher price of fertilisers, which are in part related to the war in Ukraine. Price rises have become more widespread. Energy costs are pushing up prices across many sectors. Supply bottlenecks and the normalisation of demand as the economy reopens also continue to put upward pressures on prices. Measures of underlying inflation have risen to levels above 2% in recent months. It is uncertain how persistent the rise in these indicators will be, given the role of temporary, endemic-related factors and the indirect effects of higher energy prices. The labour market continues to improve, with unemployment having fallen to a historical low of 6.8% in February. Job postings across many sectors still signal robust demand for labour, yet wage growth remains muted overall. Over time, the return of the economy to full capacity should support faster growth in wages. While various measures of longer-term inflation expectations derived from financial markets and from expert surveys largely stand at around 2%, initial signs of above-target revisions in those measures warrant close monitoring. Looking at the risk assessment now, the downside risks to the growth outlook have increased substantially as a result of the war in Ukraine. While risks relating to the pandemic have declined, the war may have an even stronger effect on economic sentiment and could further worsen supply-side constraints. Persistent high energy costs, together with a loss of confidence, could drag down demand and restrain consumption and investment more than expected. The upside risks surrounding the inflation outlook have also intensified, especially in the near term. The risks to the medium-term inflation outlook include above-target moves in inflation expectations, higher than anticipated weight rises and a durable worsening of supply-side conditions. However, if demand were to weaken over the medium term, it would lower pressure on prices. Financial markets have been highly volatile since the war began and financial sanctions were imposed. Market interest rates have increased in response to the changing outlook for monetary policy. The macroeconomic environment and inflation dynamics. Bank funding costs have continued to increase. At the same time, so far there have been no severe strains in money markets, nor liquidity shortages in the euro area banking system. Although remaining at low levels, bank lending rates for firms and households have started to reflect the increase in market interest rates. Lending to households is holding up, especially for house purchases. Lending flows to firms have stabilized. Our most recent bank lending survey reports that credit standards for loans to firms and for housing loans tightened overall in the first quarter of the year, as lenders are becoming more concerned about the risk facing their customers in an uncertain environment. Credit standards are expected to tighten further in the coming months, as banks factor in the adverse economic impact of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine and higher energy prices. In conclusion summing up, the war in Ukraine is severely affecting the euro area economy and has significantly increased uncertainty. The impact of the war on the economy will depend on how the conflict evolves, on the effect of current sanctions and on possible further measures. Inflation has increased significantly and will remain high over the coming months, mainly because of the sharp rise in energy costs. We are very attentive to the current uncertainties and are closely monitoring the incoming data in relation to the implications for the medium term inflation outlook. The calibration of our policies will remain data dependent and reflect our evolving assessment of the outlook. We stand ready to adjust all of our instruments within our mandate, incorporating flexibility if warranted, to ensure that inflation stabilizes at our 2% target over the medium term. Those were the decisions taken by the ECB's Governing Council today. If you want to find out more, check out the show notes for the full transcript and the Q&A session with journalists. We'll also link to an easy to understand overview of what we decided. You've been listening to the ECB podcast with Katie Ranger. If you like what you've heard, please subscribe and leave us a review. We'd also love to hear from you, so do share your feedback and ideas with us via social media. Until next time, thanks for listening.


Dude, Malcolm in the middle owned parking lots. Malcolm in the middle for real? Yeah, the actors. Frankie Munich has a story where it's like he didn't know where to put his money. He just wanted to be like the chief parking lot guy. He would look cross street if it was 10 bucks, he'd be 9 bucks. That's crazy. Like that's simple. And he just liked it. Like he just liked giving people a place to park. He probably cashed out crazy with the sell. Oh, sure.