Hi, my name is Richard Riegrach from the Qualcomm Data Technology Center Engineering, and this is the reference evaluation platform. It has two CRB systems that you just saw earlier, mounted in a 1U form factor. Right there in the chipsets. These are the two chipsets mounted here.  That's right. Six channels on each side, a dual channel that you are, and network interface here, we're at Melanox booth. So we're here with Melanox. Right, and here's the CX-5 card. And uh, Melanox, right? So who are you? So I'm Scott Schultz. I manage a lot of the HPC and artificial intelligence activities here at Melanox. And you work together with Qualcomm to do this solution right here, right? Absolutely. So, you know, the industry is really excited about ARM and it's actually becoming a potential solution for a lot of HPC applications. And of course, it's no different than any other platform that would require a CPU offload architecture from a network perspective. So right here you have your network card to make super fast networking? Exactly. And so this is the card, you know, kind of outside the box. It definitely is, it's a ConnectX 5. It's a dual port card. This is 100 gigabits a second, right? But it'll support Gen3 as well as Gen4. It's a by-16 card. It has all of the collectives, tag matching, and MPI offload capabilities to remove latency from rendezvous type operations. We have support for in-network computing and all of the storage for NVMe offloads and whatnot. So this is the de facto standard for HPC and machine learning. This is the same card that goes into the DOE systems that were just recently announced that we're all excited and waiting for. But again, you know, there's a lot of interest across the industry for very high performance ARM solutions. And we feel that the ConnectX 5 paired up with Qualcomm is a very exciting solution. So how's the performance for the solution? It's huge. It's a rock star. What are you talking about? It's a rock star. So because you're 10 nanometers, right? People are very excited about this. It's very high performance. Absolutely. The performance is really good. We've got performance parity and we've got performance advantage. But our story is a TCO story. Performance per watt is extremely good. And Qualcomm has been working for many generations of custom for smart phones, right? Absolutely. So this is knowledge of doing custom that helps you with this one too. That's correct. It's a fifth generation micro architecture from Qualcomm. Integrated and all the experience that we've learned about designing for low power is integrated into this chip. And that's why a lot of our differentiation for the performance per watt is very significant. And it's been a smooth ride so thus far to work on software. Everything to work together in the ARM ecosystem. Absolutely. We've actually at Melanox we've been working with ARM technology for quite some time. And we've been enabled and ready with all of the core offload capabilities for several years actually. All the previous generations of different providers? Yeah, right, exactly. So ARM technology has come a long way in the last several years, right? So I feel personally, right, that this is going to be a very compelling solution, especially when you couple it with the latest and greatest interconnect technology.


Dr. Deb Richter, it's just a pleasure to have you here with us in the Zoom world. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm happy to be here, Lauren Glenn. So the other day we got a press release which said non-profits ask the state to end one care affiliation and urge resources to be shifted to basic health care needs. And so I wanted to talk some more about that because as just kind of a regular person, I'm really not that in tune with what one care is and why this is important, but I thought that if we talked, I would be able to understand better what some of the issues are. So maybe we can just start with just that kind of the very beginning, you know, you're an active doctor working during this period of time trying to help a variety of different kinds of people. What kind of challenges do you find that the health care financing system puts in your path as you try to do your work? Well, the biggest problem I see is the insurance coverage that people have. And the studies actually show us that 40% of remoners, four and 10, they're basically, they're so poorly insured that they're effectively uninsured. So they have deductibles of some of them, five, 10, I had one patient with $12,000 deductible, which means they pay $12,000 before they get a dollar's worth of care. And what they do, these patients is they tend to avoid coming in early in their disease and preventively to prevent complications because of cost. And so that is to me the biggest problem that we have right now. In addition, 7% have no insurance at all, and that's rising. And particularly with COVID, we certainly want to see people earlier in their disease. We certainly want to help prevent, for example, people to come in and get flu shots. We want them to get flu shots to help prevent them getting pneumonia from the flu during the winter and complicating the whole emergency room situation. So that to me is the biggest issue right now is the cost to the patient and the lack of adequate insurance. Well, it's interesting you say that because I think we're under the impression that most Vermonters are covered and we have affordable health care, but it sounds like that is not the case. Right. And the thing is being covered. There are a lot of people that have insurance in quotations. But does that really cover you if you have to pay $5,000 every single year, the first $5,000, and you don't have $5,000? You're effectively or functionally uninsured. So we're assuming that we're basically categorizing those folks as having insurance, but their insurance is they're effectively or functionally uninsured. So that really is about 47% of the population. And is that largely because we're insured through our businesses and businesses offer, you know, the basically policies that they can afford to their employees? Yes, that is one of the main reasons that which, you know, essentially if an employer pays for health insurance for their employees, the cheaper policies are one with higher deductibles. And those are the ones that that they can afford at this point. I mean, years and years ago, many, many businesses, I think it was 66% had pretty generous policies that covered almost everything that a patient would need. And now you've seen over the years, insurance policies getting slimmer and slimmer and slimmer in terms of what they cover in terms of first dollar coverage. So there are very few people that have decent health insurance policies at this point, including labor, their policies are getting slashed as well. And this is not going to get any better. This effectively forces the patients to ration their own care. And I suppose that's the point that the less the insurance companies have to pay. But downstream, what ends up happening is people are sicker and they die younger of preventable causes. We know this, we've been compared internationally as one of the worst in terms of dying of preventable illnesses. And that's because other countries cover most of the care that people need, particularly primary care, which by the way is the least expensive best investment a society can make. When we know that when people have primary care and they have, everyone has access, they live longer, the costs are lower, the quality is better, there's fewer hospitalizations that are unnecessary, there's fewer ER visits. All those things are paid for in general in other countries and they spend half as much as we do per person. So what is one care Vermont and why should the state sever its relationship with that private organization? Well, one care is a for-profit entity that receives money from essentially three payers. So Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross. And what there are a certain number, tens of thousands of attributed lives. So in other words, people who are part of this one care, they receive a monthly payment that eventually goes to the provider. So essentially what it is, I guess in their own self description, is a group of providers that are there to hopefully keep people healthy and are responsible and take on risk for the health care of the people that are attributed to them. So one of the reasons that I think this isn't being discussed enough is because it's incredibly complicated. Most people I ask what one care is, they have no idea. And that is, I suppose, one of the reasons that there hasn't been more publicity about this. But one care's goals are probably, they have good intentions. Their claim is they want to lower overall costs. They want to improve quality. They want to reduce the fee for service. So in other words, they don't want doctors and hospitals getting fee for service any longer. They attribute that to the reason that we have high costs in health care. And their goal is to keep people healthy out of the hospital and then hopefully lowering the cost so that those savings can trickle down and then we'll be able to ensure more people. That is sort of the overall goal, which is again laudable. Seems like the good intention. The problem is we've had one form or another of an ACO or an accountable care organization since 2013. The newest version started in 2017 and it's a five-year contract. They signed with Medicare with the feds. And then the state signed the Medicaid contract. And then Blue Cross has another contract. So there's three different payers feeding into this ACO. And then the ACO pays the doctors in the hospitals and the other providers who are part of it. The problem that the organizations that signed on to this press release that we have is, first of all, it doesn't address access at all. So if you have a $5,000 deductible and your provider is part of one care, so your doctor or your nurse practitioner, it doesn't change your $5,000 deductible. So it still keeps people rationing their own care, keeps people from going in and getting being seen. So if it doesn't do the one thing that we know that improves the population's health, which is access to primary care and access in general, then what is the point of it? So it doesn't address that at all. So it doesn't improve your insurance. It doesn't change your deductible. It doesn't change anything. And it doesn't even include the uninsured. So that is sort of the main problem that we have with it is that, first of all, it doesn't address the most important thing was the patient being able to see their physician, especially their primary care physician and nurse practitioner. So understand it now? Yeah, I understand it now. So one care is a, if I'm just to paraphrase, it's a vehicle for the distribution of the states and the feds and the private insurers health care resources. Yes, it's basically a fixed payment. Again, this is a lot like HMOs back in the 90s. What they gave was a fixed payment to the, well, at that time it was to insurers. But in a fixed payment every single month for the 120,000 or whatever the number of attributed lives that they have right now, and they get a fixed payment and they're supposed to pay for most of the health care for those who are attributed to it. And that is sort of that fixed payment is supposed to go up at 3.5% a year. So the thinking is that if you get this capitated payment that you will, will doctors and hospitals will work harder to keep people healthy because they're getting this fixed payment and they get to keep the savings. So if they're getting, if they're getting a certain person, you know, dollar figure every single month and they spend less of it taking care of you, trying to keep you healthy, then they get to keep the savings. So the goal apparently is this all payer model, which again means that these payers pay on this fixed payment that goes up 3.5% a year and then puts this money into this one care ACO and then the one care pays out to the doctors and hospitals. So again, it's the thing to remember as well is that this ACO has an administrative cost on top of what we already spend in health care in the health care system, which by the way is one in three dollars goes for administrative cost in the U.S. health care system. That's actually 34%. So what's the benefit of having an ACO if it just adds another layer of cost? What was the thinking behind having these in the first place? Well, the thinking was that the problem in health care, the reason that costs were so high was that doctors were doing unnecessary procedures because they got paid for every procedure they did. That is the thinking. It was the thinking behind HMOs back in the 90s. And again, it's not a great way to pay doctors. It's not a great way to pay hospitals. I would admit that. But the problem is that if you look at other countries, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, all those other countries pay their doctors a fee for service reimbursement. And they are cost are half what ours are. So it's hard to make the argument that the fee for service is really the problem. So this fixed payment is supposedly going to give a fixed payment to the doctors and hospitals every month. And that fixed payment is fixed. So in other words, they won't get more money if they do more procedures. This is the theory behind it. The problem is that the reality hasn't matched the theory. And they have not lowered costs. The savings have not trickled down to average Vermonters who have $5,000, $10,000 deductibles. They have not shown that they've improved quality. And they definitely have not improved access. So we're really three and a half years into this. Should we continue, and essentially what's a failed experiment, is really the question Vermonters need to ask. What are they benefiting from it now? Because if you ask Vermonters, they're all saying, I need help now. I can't wait five or 10 years to see if this experiment will work or not. I need help now. I can't pay for my kids shoes. I can't pay for my mortgage because they're paying for healthcare. And so we need to fix the problems systemically, not just sort of this piecemeal approach. The other problem is, is that we put public money into this private for-profit entity and really can't trace where the money is going. And that should be a problem for Vermonters as well.  But in your press release, you said that one care is severely reduced reimbursement for primary care physicians. So that's happening also. Right. So the important thing to know is that the fundamental basis for one care was based on primary care. And their theory was that if people got good primary care, that they would then have lower costs and be healthier. And that's actually true. We know that. Again, the problem was that it didn't improve the person's health insurance. So it didn't, it didn't end up doing that. The money that was reduced was initially they had a number of independent doctor organization or practices that received a certain payment per month to participate in one care. Those payments were vastly reduced recently. And some of those primary care doctors actually dropped out. So the thinking was, in fact, I remember going to a lecture from one of the former CEO of one care, Todd Moore, who said this is going to be wonderful. We're going to increase payments to primary care, which will help encourage them to take care of their patients and give higher quality care, reduce overall costs, reduce complications. And in fact, this most recent move does exactly the opposite. So tell me about the other organizations who have signed on to this press release. It's quite a variety. The League of Women Voters, the Vermont Worker Center, Physicians for National Health Program, Justice for All. How did you get together? What's sort of, I understand that you share this in common, but what brought you together to make this statement and call for this? Well, we, we've all recognized how much that our, our attention to this one care is taking away attention to the fundamental flaws of the healthcare system right now. And the fact is, again, when you look at organizations, Physicians for National Health Program is advocated actually.  And this is the Vermont group. Again, caring that everyone needs to be included, healthcare needs to be a public good. And we need to pay for it publicly, like every other industrialized country. The Worker Center has long advocated for actually single payer at the state level, and is recently advocating for expanding Medicaid. So again, it's about access. It's about people doing without people suffering now, not having to wait five or 10 years from now. Again, this is all about access in general. The fact is that the people are paying into the healthcare system vastly. Two thirds of healthcare is already publicly funded. So a lot of these folks who have these terrible insurance policies are paying into healthcare, paying for other people's healthcare and not getting the healthcare services themselves. So again, like legal women voters has been advocating for a publicly funded, they were advocated for the single payer act 48 that was passed in Vermont in 2011. So these organizations have all been about everyone being included. So everybody in nobody out everybody being included in healthcare and regarding healthcare as a public good. So is that the alternative position as a single payer system? The alternative position is essentially a publicly funded universal healthcare system. Our organization, Vermont healthcare for all advocates for starting with primary care and making that publicly funded for all Vermonters. So paying for it, which is a very, very small investment with a big payout. As I said before, we know that when primary care is available to people costs are lower, quality is higher, people live longer, they're in the hospital, they're hospitalized with preventable illnesses less. They have fewer ER visits. It's the best investment. It's the best bang for the buck. In fact, if it were a drug, we wouldn't hesitate to invest in it. And that is one thing that again, people are tending to avoid right now, because it's the one thing that everybody needs, whether you're healthy or sick, everyone needs a tetanus shot, everyone needs certain preventive screening services. And when something goes wrong, it's the first person they do call and they should call. How does the state extricate itself from one care? You've made this call to do so, but what actually are the steps to decommission this model and then pursue an all-payer model? Right. Well, the Green Mountain Care Board was originally the ones who signed the agreement with Medicare. So we're asking the Green Mountain Care Board to not re-up that. Essentially, this has been a failure. We need to go back to the drawing board. And we do know what does work. We have to stop doing what doesn't work and start doing what does work and helps for monitors now. So that is the one thing that we can't, as legislators, have no effect on what happens with Medicare. That is through the Green Mountain Care Board. But legislators have the effect of being able to say that we're no longer going to have Medicaid involved in this experiment. They do have, they hold the purse strings on that. Private insurance, they still can do it if they wish. We don't have any, you know, we don't have no sway over that. So those would be the steps. Essentially, legislators say no more. I mean, because the other thing to remember, too, is that who is paying for the administrative burden, essentially, of one care? Who's paying for that is actually the hospitals, which you may say, well, okay, you know, that's them. But when they can then charge more to private insurers, who pays for that? We do. Our premiums go up. So we're paying every single penny of this. This is all Vermonters healthcare dollars. It's coming from us. So when hospitals have to pay a couple million dollars each into one care's overall administrative structure, we end up paying that cost that comes from us in our premiums. And again, we end up with cheaper and cheaper policies, as we say, or leaner policies, and because that's all people can really afford. So this is what comes from us. So did you release this press release now because it's election season or there's this particular timing around this agreement? Yes, we felt that this needs to be something where people say to their legislators or the candidates, are you are you going to do something about this? Are you going to at least stop the piece that you can? And lobby essentially the Green Mountain Care Board to say enough is enough. This is a failed experiment. This is not working. And we need to we need to stop it. Yes. So you've worked a really long time in this field, in this work, I mean, not only as a doctor, but as an activist and an advocate for all pair systems. How do you keep up your hope that there will ultimately be a change? I keep up my hope when I take care of people that are suffering needlessly, because they don't have access. I keep up my hope because, unfortunately, you need a critical mass of middle class voters that say enough is enough. And we need to do what every other industrialized country has done and have a publicly funded program for everyone. I look at all major change in society, civil rights, women's right to vote. All of those things took decades. And I see this isn't really about me. This is really about what I can do to make a change and and educate people, educate voters, educate legislators. I am hopeful that it will work because it's the only thing that will work. We need to we need to listen to the evidence and look around the world. Every other country has figured this out. What we do is we tend to when, you know, back in the 90s, when when this was debated in Vermont, what did what did Governor Dean do at that point? Said, let's put all our hopes into HMOs. Beaver service is the problem. Health maintenance organizations is the solution. We don't need to do single payer. We don't need to do a publicly funded universal health care system. It's a bait and switch, quite honestly. And this is another bait and switch. That's what this is. And we, you know, people, it's so complicated that most people are just swamped by it, overwhelmed, including legislators, that they tend to say, it's too much for me. I trust you. It also removes them from having to make the decision. If the ACO says, don't worry, we'll lower costs, we'll take care of this for you. Just send us the money. We'll be fine. Everything will be fine. We'll take care of it for you. And that's again what happened back when when we would discuss this in the past. So when when ends up to be enough public pressure, and when people understand that, you know, we've exhausted every other possible bait and switch, we will get changed. There really will be no other way to do it. Because it is something that everybody needs at some point in their lives. We'll need health care. And you want to make sure it's there for you. Because that's the other piece. Because that one of the hospitals in Vermont that was funding one care, millions of dollars, had to drop their addiction medicine program. One of the measures that the feds are looking at is have we reduced overdose deaths and have we reduced suicide? Now why would you drop a program that was treating hundreds of patients for lack of $500,000? You're paying millions into this one care. And you drop essential programs Springfield drop their OB program. There are so their programs that are basically going away that are serving Vermonters because they're paying into this administrative structure one care. So what action can people take to support this action that you're asking for? What kind of where do you see the public participating? You said voting, but who do you vote for? And what other kind of political action are you looking to mobilize? Well, one thing we know is legislators will tell you that they are more inclined to vote for against something if they get 10 phone calls, 10 phone calls. And that is something that Vermonters can do. We have amazing access to our legislators. It's just one of the wonderful things about Vermont. And so they can they can call their legislators and say, we want you to vote against this. We want you to influence your colleagues. The other thing is educating them about what it is and what it isn't. This is not solving the problem. This is not helping Vermonters now. And we can't wait five or 10 years for, I think the current CEO said we need to wait and we're not going to see results right away. We need to wait five years. We need to wait 10 years. We can't wait. This is this is catastrophic for so many Vermonters who are doing without right now. And just in closing, we are in this special period of the pandemic. What have you been observing as a doctor? I mean, I think one of the things you did mention is people are delaying getting coverage or getting service, medical service, because of the high deductibles. But is this exacerbated by this period of time? So far, I think we're in kind of a unique spot right now. Initially, we saw a big cutback and people coming in due to COVID. In other words, everyone canceled. It was it was catastrophic for several weeks. When it became clear that that we were handling it correctly, according to the evidence, more and more people of 95% of the people we're seeing now are in person in our office, at least. So I'm seeing that because we've handled COVID in an appropriate way, we're not seeing the same circumstances that people are seeing in other places. I'm seeing more, you know, again, people avoiding care because of the cost. The whole COVID thing, it's not as much of an issue right now. I am concerned and very concerned about the flu season, however, which may start as early as December and how to handle that. I'm concerned that we're not going to have enough personal protective equipment. Health professionals won't. So those are the things that concern me in the near future. And are you advocating for people to get their flu shots? Absolutely. That's the first thing we ask them when they come in. And we have in our clinic, in our health center, we have flu clinics where that's all we do, you know, for the whole day for patients is have them come in and we see other patients as well. But we have this clinic where people can just walk in and get their flu shot. So we've been pushing that in a big way for anyone over the age of six months. And is it safe to get flu shots in the drug store, sort of these random places like the supermarket? Does it matter? Yeah, it's absolutely appropriate and fine for people to do it that way. Wherever they can get their flu shots is, and keep in mind that the state pays for the vaccines. And so no one should have to pay for a flu shot. If they have no insurance, they should not have to worry about getting a flu shot. They can get a free flu shot, they can call the health department. And just a sort of final question. I read an article, I think maybe it was in the Atlantic talking about this epidemic, pandemic that we're in, the COVID ultimately becoming kind of like a flu that, you know, it's never going to go away, it's going to become part of the infections that we have to deal with on an annual basis.  You know, I must say that I don't know. I think it's one of those things that's evolving and that we're learning a lot. Whether this will be something that we will end up seeing every year, it's hard to say.  Once we get a vaccine, a reasonable, reliable, safe vaccine, that may actually eliminate, you know, if you look at things like polio, we rarely see polio. Where we see things like measles, we see it in people who've not been immunized. So yes, it may be that if we don't get a safe, reliable vaccine, but quite honestly, I don't know if we really know that yet. Yeah. And do you think that, how high is the bar of vaccinating as many people as possible in Vermont for COVID versus the flu shot? Is it the same kind of thing we need to do? Or is it a two-step process? Or, I mean, I know we don't know exactly, but I'm just wondering, like, how big a deal is it to vaccinate the state of Vermont at that time? I think we have the capacity to be able to vaccinate every single Vermonter who's willing to be vaccinated. That is something, you know, again, it depends on supply. It depends on safety side effects and things like that. But I do trust that we will end up with a safe vaccine and that people will be able to access that. I think that'll be something that will be covered, that people won't have to worry about the cost of that. Well, Dr. Deb Richter, thank you so much for your activism, your care as a doctor, and for spending some time with us today. We really appreciate it. I'm happy to do it, Lauren Glenn. Take care. Thank you.


What's going on, everyone? Sam here, late in sports cards, ripping one box of 22 Panini Daunras Optic Choice Baseball for Scott M. Let's go look, Scott. Let's see what we got, man. 10 cards, 3 autographs on average. Got Royce Lewis on the silver, and Mike Bowman as well on the silver. Got a purple choice auto. It's going to be a Reese Nair, 72 out of 88 on the purple for the Padres. We've got the blue Glenn Otto, 98 out of 99, the Otto Otto for the Rangers. Nice one there. Then we've got Jaren Duran, that is 49 out of 99. Nice one for the Red Sox. We've got Garrett Cole on the, looks like Dragon Scale, that is 80 out of 99. Cool one there. The Green Scale, Yankees. Then we've got to 99, that's Tim Anderson for the Cubs, or not the Cubs, the White Sox, excuse me, the other Chicago team. We've got Jeremy Pena, nice one there, that's 97 out of 99 on the rated rookie. Grats on that. Followed by your Choice Excaluses, Ronald Acuna Jr., that is 35 out of 46. And rookie is Tyler McGill, that's going to be numbered 40 out of 46. That'll do it for your break there. Scott, congrats on the hits, my man. We'll get them right out to you, buddy. Thank you.


Okay, we are here for exclusive HHP event here, SiliconANGLE.com, SiliconANGLE.tv coverage. I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE.com. We are here for a special exclusive coverage of HP's Project Moonshot, which is a hyperscale initiative around server technology. Dave, I'm here with Dave Vellante, my co-host, co-founder of Wikibon.org. Research, Dave, what's your research tell you? And then what's your take on it? Well, first of all, this is a very intimate event, right? We were downstairs this morning, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, some folks taking pictures and so, but it's a big deal. I mean, I think that we're seeing, to me, the big picture here is it's all about the consumerization of IT. We've talked a lot, John, on SiliconANGLE and Wikibon about how consumerization is really driving innovation in our industry. It used to be, a lot of things had happened in mainframes and the data center and they trickle out. Well, it's totally flipped. I mean, it's really, we've seen flash start in iPods. We're seeing ARM processors in cell phones now taking aim at the data center. And I think, frankly, HP's being very humble here, right? I mean, we're very careful. They don't want to upset Intel. HP doesn't really toot their own horn effectively. In my opinion, I think HP's very conservative. We said it. All steak, no sizzle. I mean, it's a major shift. I mean, I was trying to tease it out and again, they're like the Boy Scouts. They're humble, but they do a great job. And here's the thing, to me, this is all about one thing. The PC processor spawned the server processor side of the Intel server business, which was laughed at by the Unix Jockeys in the day. Resk, resk, resk, reduce instruction set. And local area networking evolved. That footprint expanded and that growth was just phenomenal. It was a great run up until today. And you can cobble all the stuff together from a density standpoint, but blade systems, blade system, matrix, we've seen all the stuff from HP, great innovations operating at scale. But this new approach is all about fundamentally rethinking it based upon mobile. Mobile's the new PC. This talks about our thesis of the PC is dead and Tarkin Maynard is probably jumping up and down going, yeah, exactly what we see. And I just think it's just going to be beginning. I think this is going to be massive growth. I mean, the results are phenomenal. Yeah, I agree. You know, John, at the time, when you were talking about the LAN servers and Novell, I was actually, one of the things I did was I ran IDC server business and some other businesses and used to track our guys used to track, you know, the suppliers compact dominated. They probably had, I want to say two thirds to 70% of that server, you know, Intel based microprocessor based server market, that LAN server market. Now, most of the people, many of the people we've interviewed today, where are they from Houston, their heritage is compact. They really are on top of a lot of these things. They were there in the last wave and I think they're really trying to drive. They're redefining the new wave and this new wave is about Hadoop. It's about big data. It's about cloud. And cloud is exploding. We've seen Amazon crash. We've seen Rackspace trying to hobble together OpenStack.   I asked, it was sort of a baited question, is this the lunatic fringe? I really don't think it is. I think this is going to be the norm of the data center design in the future. We've talked about this regarding Fusion.io. Some have said, oh, Fusion.io, it's a niche. They sell to Facebook, you know, Apple, iCloud. We heard that amazing comment. I forget who mentioned it, because it was kind of so many interviews on it. But they said, these web companies, they don't look at servers as a scarce resource. It's the power. Everything's engineered off-power. It comes like Facebook, no doubt going to Arctic for that reason. And they have, you know, solar panels up in deserts, not operational during the day, boots up at night, Arctic during the day. They're shifting resources around the globe in what they said, follow the sun. This is the new data center architecture. It's not about, oh, we got one in Ohio and it serves regional areas. The global data center is about serving the massive cloud. And that's going to be a follow the sun, power optimized on architecture. And I said it before, these data centers are, they're like ATMs for these web companies. We talked about NICCAR, does IT matter? Yeah, maybe the traditional enterprise where you're running hundreds or thousands of apps. You're talking about, you know, a few apps, maybe one app in the case, for instance, of Facebook that is optimized and it's printing money. And so the more resource you can put into that footprint, the more money you're going to be able to print. Just recapping the news here, HP announces an extreme low-energy server technology around hyperscale based on the ARM technology. Alzada is the first go-to-market vendor and they have a lot of ecosystem partners like Red Hat and Linux and others around that. And basically it's a multi-year project and the key is that this is not about CPU-bound performance. And the thing about the ARM technology that is in mobile is that it's an instant on.  So this is bringing that to service. So the ability to turn up cores, turn down cores is a key part of this technology. The web environments, everyone's going web environments. It's IO-intensive, not CPU-intensive. Diversity of applications, open source is the key. If you're writing for the LAMP stack, this product will work today. The open stack, we talked a little bit about that, sub-5 watt per core, system-level approach, attacking the whole problem. This is at the beginning of the day of a fundamentally re-architecting of the data center. Now, most people don't understand what that means because essentially they get all the benefits on their mobile device. But imagine having better power, better application performance faster to your devices. So we had five partners today in the part of this Pathfinder program, John Canonical, which does the Ubuntu Linux, Red Hat, we all know Red Hat, Calzada, which basically takes ARM processors and adds data center server class power to them and makes them data center ready. And obviously ARM, which is kind of the substrate here, the secret sauce, and AMD, which is kind of an interesting- AMD. You know, it popped in here. It's great. You know, in the essence of Intel, AMD taking an opportunity to step up the microphone. Yeah, we'll play in this game, you know. We love Intel. We love AMD. We're the Q. We love everybody. But Intel not being here is a major issue for me. I think Intel needs to be here.  And like you said before, they'll get there. I like the conical, the Linux approach. It speaks volumes to the fact that, you know, this is something that, you know, not a lot of people are talking about in the mainstream media, that Linux has reached a kind of a glass ceiling from a deployment standpoint that in production environments, Unix vendors are being switched out to pure Linux. And running Linux at scales requires massive support. That's why Red Hat's doing so well. And so to have this kind of architecture, this is purpose built. I mean, this sounds a lot like Larry Ellison's vision. I mean, purpose built gear up and down the stack. You know, I'm interested that he see how this plays out. It was interesting when we had Calzada on, you know, one of the more, one of the companies we didn't know a lot about a lot of people. I couldn't even pronounce their name at the beginning. They have this trailblazer initiative that the companies that they're working with in their ecosystem, Autonomic Resources, which is a cloud service provider for the government, Canonical, again, Keringo, which does object store, couch base, data stacks, eucalyptus systems, cluster, momentum SI, ops code, pervasive, a lot of the guys driving big data today, no Microsoft, right? So the interesting set of companies a little broader than the five that we see here. So I fully expect these and others will be involved. This is all the action is in the industry. Here's what I like about that just to riff off that point. This means HP's making bold moves. The old HP would be criticized for pandering to Microsoft and Intel. What they're basically saying in my opinion is we're going to go forward. This needs to get done. This new architecture, this new generation approach is good for the economy, good for the sustainability message, and it's the right thing to do. Now, the good news, there's demand for it. I mean, we're going to be at Hadoop World next week live to Cube in New York City. We're going to cover all those app builders and the web scene with big data. And those guys are all living the nightmare of the data center problem Dave with power, Twitter, Facebook, StumbleUpon. So some news that just came across, just hit our HP investors regained faith as the CTO retires. Silicon Angle blog just posted this. I saw that this morning. Phil McKinney? Was it Phil McKinney? I'm just pulling it up now. Let's see. After some flip flopping back and forth, it turns out a Hewlett Packard will keep its PC division. It was okay. We know that as an HP person. Phil McKinney, that's right. Yeah, he's been here like nine years at HP. I don't know. I mean, I've never met him. I know he's done a lot of evangelization with some of the social media people. I've never personally even met him in person. From what I could read from his blog, he's really a smart guy. My opinion on it is, is that he was more of an evangelist, not sure specifically which projects he's worked on. But it's a focused execution right now. It's clear from... He was instrumental in the POM acquisition, I believe. So I'm not sure what's on the signal that. He's an active blogger. In fact, he broke the news of his retirement on his personal blog. So, you know, love the guy. He's a blogger. So one of the things that impressed me today, John, is a lot of emphasis on the ecosystem, right? And on having partners and software developers. You didn't see that with the tablet.  But you saw a real lack of applications for HP's tablet. And they, of course, pulled it from the market. And so there's a big question mark around it. So I think they're doing this right. Well, I mean, I have an opinion on the tablet. HP tablet has got a great OS in WebOS. The WebOS had a great developer ecosystem. We covered on SiliconANGLE going back to 2009 prior to the merger or the buyout. And loyal WebOS, a senior Apple engineer told me privately in Silicon Valley that the WebOS is the only operating system on mobile that can compete with Apple. Hands down, he said, he said, at Apple, Steve Jobs and others talked privately about the fact that there's only one horse that could compete with Apple quickly. And that was WebOS. OK, so, you know, I understand the Android's rapid growth and numbers speak for themselves and the rapid rise of Android. But WebOS is a major asset. I'd push that out there as an open source project. I'd get it out there. I would not kill a WebOS. So Meg Whitman, if you're watching, and team, HP, keep WebOS. You got HP Labs here. Give it to someone who's smart. Let him play with it. Early days on mobile. Let him play with it so early that the night. I think to that point, I mean, we've heard a lot about Android being really bloated and speaks to the point of it. There's a real demand for an alternative to Apple. Android's just early. I mean, Android has been cobbled together, rushed to the market by Google. It's growing leaps and bounds. Android is that PC-like Windows environment where you've got a massive distribution through the carriers and the handset guys. So Android is rocking and rolling. You cannot deny the distribution effect of Android. And again, what developers love, they love distribution and they love monetization. That's developers love that. And any kind of stability around a platform, developers will go crazy for. If WebOS is kind of like floundering, and at some point, they just got to cut it. My thing is save it. Keep the developer community bringing into the fold. And again, the tablet stuff with HP was, they sold off the shelves at $99. Now the bill of materials might be closer to 300 or 200.   You've told the story a number of times about the calculator division and how that became the distribution channel for printers. I mean, this would be an appropriate time to tell that story. Well, you know, I think you should because we're in front of. So I'm going to tell the story about it. This is, again, John's story. This is nothing. I don't think it's actually written anywhere. But behind me is the office of Bill Hewlett. Bill Hewlett was the founder of HP who wanted to have a calculator that can fit into his shirt pocket. So HP built the calculator that we know, the 15C or the predecessor. Everybody has one. We probably have one. We all had one. Everyone who's over over 30 probably had one in college. And so what happened was it became a big success. And at some point, it wasn't really making any money. So no one wanted HP wanted to kill it because the founder built it. It was his project. It was a pet project. So what they did was they essentially kept it alive and they said, well, let's just sell it through resellers and sell it to college campuses and bookstores. So they created an indirect sales channel of dealers. Barely made any money, but it kept the project alive. The founder saw his baby still out in the marketplace. And then what happened was during the mini computer crash in the 80s, and when the PC revolution that Steve Jobs created started booming, HP had no PCs. Their mini computer business was flat and dying. They were on a road like data general and digital equipment like this. And- Prime Wang, DG, Apollo, they all died. Dick Hackborn in Boise, Idaho built a laser printer. List price, $50,000. The CEO, John Young at the time, nixed it. He went out and with Canon built a laser printer for sub 4,000. OEM the engine. OEM the engine. Canon built it. All they built was the motherboard with PCL, printer control language at a Boise, Idaho. My friend Bill Murphy coined the term laser jet. That was the name. It went out the door and sold with Wangward processors. And because it was a rogue project, they had to sell it.  Which was the calculator. The calculator. That nobody wanted to kill. No one wanted to kill the calculator product, which created the indirect sales channel. And then from that point, the laser jet saved HP. Created the inkjet, which was a build off their think jet, which is a thermal printer. Created the PCC change, the servers. And since that time, the company's revenue, skyrocketed. And an ink franchise. Ink franchise, stock splits over and over again. All because they had a reseller channel. If they had killed the calculator, they never would have had the reseller channel. HP might not even be alive. That's my story. And it just goes to show you that you keep things around just because it's not making money doesn't mean you have to kill it. So tie it back to WebOS. So the PC division, my thesis was, why would you kill the PC division? They're number one in the market. May not be that most economical right now, but you have supply chain expertise. You have people and you have integrated components. Now it all came out. The analysis proved what I was saying to be true. And you have a channel of distribution there. So with that channel, you have market power. So all you gotta do is create a good product and put it through that channel. So that could take a year, it could take two years, but they have an opportunity. They are not dead. WebOS, certainly not dead. There's things in the marketplace that could come out with a new product, that could do a partnership. You just never know. It's a fantastic case study in storage on it. You just don't know. And there's actually a calculator on his desk inside here. We'll have to get some footage of that. But it just goes to show you that, if the founder wasn't around, what would have happened if they had a board that didn't care, they would have said, oh, this doesn't make any money.  There's the story. And now we're at the cusp of this huge tsunami called mobile. And HP owns one of the more interesting assets. The one that you're saying Apple was more concerned about. Apple was concerned about it. And obviously, and Steve Jobs in his biography, actually did not trash HP. He was actually, he was bummed for HP. But he didn't trash, I mean he trashed everyone else. But he actually had a huge respect for HP. Obviously, Steve Wozniak worked here. Dave Packard was a mentor to Steve Jobs. HP has a huge reputation of quality, great brand in the marketplace. I think the performance of the divisions within HP are all doing well, Dave. If you look at the numbers, underneath the leadership void that's been there in the past decade, the divisions have been doing extremely well and the executives in charge of these billion dollar businesses are actually developing great products. We're hearing this announcement here today. So with Meg Whitman at the helm and Ray Lane helping with the duties on the services side, I think you're gonna have a compelling turnaround. I think it's not as hard as people think. I think the formula is there. And again, if they can develop that next product, they need a laser jet. They need that killer product to come out. And so that would be the mandate that I would put down to the team. And you see what happens. Well, we're seeing a glimpse of that today. I mean, we've talked a lot about ESSN and we've been very high on ESSN in the networking business. Obviously, the storage business, the three-par acquisition, which was a huge acquisition, two and a half billion almost that they paid for that, but three-par has doubled its revenues in a year.  Bethany Mayer's running that now. And now we're seeing a real innovation on the server side with this announcement today with Calzada and ARM and others.  We had Stan Williams scheduled. He was a senior fellow here at HP Labs.  He's the director of the Nano-Electronics Research Group. He's not here. So Angelina Jasper.


Technique number four is going to be the stomp kick. Boom. We see this a lot in a lot of regular self defense, the crowd of guys, the batters, all sorts of long self defense. Why? It's easy to teach people in the class to do this. It doesn't take much training, you just go boom, okay? So where do you want to use the target? I mean, use the striking, ideal place would be the knee. Because if you're in the fighting position, where's the closest place I can stop? It's kind of hard to reach the feet, right? It's kind of hard to reach the groin, right? The closest place would be the knee. You see, I can reach it easily, all right? So one place is to do it is the knee.  When you do the front leg, it's just going to bounce you. All right? But if you're looking forward, boom, you just, boom. Okay, it doesn't know what you're doing. You put this weight on to it, then it's going to bust the knee up. Doesn't take much force to bust the knee up. Only about 20 pounds of pressure in the right spot. All right? So direct in front of him, number five. Use this, distraction, boom, knee. All right? So that's the first target. Another target you can do, if you're closer, you can't use the knee, it's a little bit too close, right? So just, boom, just lift it up, like this. And use your heel on the groin, okay? So that's another target, especially too close, you can't reach it, this is too close, right? So just reach up, like that. Hey, thanks for watching my top five Wing Chun techniques. If this is your first time here, make sure you click on this button right here to subscribe and get the latest and best videos that I put out on this channel. Okay, so now that you watched this video, just go ahead and watch this next video here by clicking on this box. Or you can also check out some of my most popular videos here too. All right, so comment, like and subscribe and I'll see you in the next video.


Okay, so just to complete the answer to any question, does Israel have any connections with the IAEA? First of all, remember, IAEA was established in 1957 before the MPT, I mean like 11, 12 or so years before MPT was sort of signed and ratification. Israel is a member of the IAEA just like Pakistan, India, India and Pakistan as well as Israel, they stay out of the MPT but they are members of the IAEA because IAEA is older than MPT. But if you ask the question, whether there is any inspection agreements between the IAEA and the Israeli Niktor facilities or Israeli government, no, there's no such thing. So Israeli Niktor facilities are not inspected by the IAEA, which is not possible because IAEA Israel is not a member of the MPT as a non-Niktor rapid state. All right.  But I'm spending a little bit time about every aspect that are stated here, because it is not only about Iran's Niktor ambitions, it is something which is at the core of today's discussions with respect to the Middle East and also with respect to the rest of the world. So I mean, I am trying to use this as a template, whereby I can extend our discussion to many other issues here. So if we are slow in advancing in these slides, does that mean that we are spending too much time on Iran issue? But just look around you and what you see is discussion or talking about Iran only. Of course, with different aspects of the different dimensions of the problem. So I think we have said enough about why the United States is concerned about Iran's Niktor capabilities, because the United States, which is very much concerned about its security, of course, as well as the security of Israel, and knowing that Iran, at least from the perspective of Israel and the United States, is a challenge and threat to the Israeli security, the United States spends so much time in considering as to what to do with Iran's Niktor capabilities. So therefore, this issue is important and bearing in mind that we do not yet, as of today, have a clear picture of the Iranian Niktor capabilities. We can understand why the United States is concerned, because, well, even in its most recent report of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors stated that they cannot say exactly with confidence that Iran does not have the capability to produce Niktor weapons. Neither can they say that Iran produces Niktor weapons. They say we are not positioned to make any comment whether Iran develops Niktor weapons or doesn't have any intention or capability to do so. So, the situation is unclear and the lack of clarity is confirmed by the highest authority, the most objective or impartial authority, which is the IAEA. IAEA is a technical body, I mean, of course, it has not to be politicized and so far, at least to the extent that I can say, the director generals of the IAEA have done their best not to politicize the IAEA and not to be used as a tool to advance some of the arguments of some of the countries. And as we will see in the coming slides, neither the United States is happy with the IAEA's performance nor Iran. So, actually, this is a good sign. So, both sides are complaining about the IAEA, meaning that neither side is happy, meaning neither side is satisfied because both sides actually want IAEA to serve its own purpose and the IAEA tries to be impartial and for reasons that we will explain in a moment. The EU's position, which was back in 2006 when I used it, prepared a slide for this NATO school for the presentation, at that time, the EU's position was slightly. Indeed, when we look at some of the most recent statements made by the European leaders, significantly indeed different than what it is today. So, the EU actually agreed with the United States on that, I mean, that the Iran's capability is a threat. I mean, the EU never said Iran is not a threat at all, but they agreed on the sort of existence of a certain degree of threat, but they disagreed on the level or the imminence of the threat and also what to do with it or how to deal with it. So, the EU agreed with the United States on that, you know, Iran's capabilities are posing a certain threat and they also want, the EU also wants Iran to halt Iranian enrichment, to stop Iranian enrichment. They agree with the United States on this particular issue but they disagree, the EU disagrees with the United States on how to do it, on the ways and means of dealing with Iran. Again, at a quick look, then we will have more extensive and detailed discussions about each actor's position. Russia disagreed with the request of both the United States and the EU, which was the Iran's permanent stopping enrichment, but supported and also supported Iran's right under the NPT and Russia's position also changed a little bit, not significantly, not drastically or radically, but and I will explain also why Russia's position has changed, which in my personal opinion, and I have my reasons to believe this and I could write an op-ed on this subject and I've written something actually on the building of the atomic scientist, which is available on my website, as you might have seen already. Russia disagreed with the request of both the United States and the EU and supported Iran's right under the NPT. Well, after all, according to Russia, Iran is using its treaty rights and there is nothing wrong that can be proven as being wrong that Iran is doing. Of course, from the Israeli perspective, well, which is a country which takes its decisions based on its security, almost on all occasions, and among other things, they do not rule out the possibility of a military attack on Iranian facilities and Israel sees Iran as a clear challenge or threat to its vital interests as well as its existence and therefore they are concerned about Iran's advancing its capabilities and if the international community fails to stop Iran's advancement of its capabilities and developing nuclear weapons, Israel says we will take certain measures which might also include a military attack on the facilities in order to destroy these capabilities that Iran might develop nuclear weapons. Of course, here the position of the IAEA is that, I mean, the IAEA wants to do its job, which is to go to places, carry out inspections, have a clear picture of what the situation is and to write its report and come to a conclusion. But IAEA cannot verify the allegations of Iran's nuclear work but they cannot sort of also give or write a clean bill of health. They can neither say Iran is building a weapon nor can they say Iran is not building a weapon. So it's like an unmovic situation. Remember in Iraq, so 12, 84, et cetera, et cetera. So the positions of these actors in a very brief manner is like this. So let's start with Iran for more detailed discussion. Iran leaders say that they will never agree to permanent cessation of enrichment on the grounds of their Article 4 rights of the MPT. So that was actually the basic bargain. The first four articles of the MPT are the most important for at least your purposes because according to Article 1, nuclear weapon states promise not to give nuclear technology or weapons to non-nuclear weapon states. I mean, United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom, according to Article 1 of the MPT, they bound, they commit themselves not to give nuclear technology or nuclear weapons to other states. So let's say Article 1, nuclear weapon states, they will not give weapons to non-nuclear weapon states. And Article 2, of course, you should go and read these articles, which are available on the web. Just click on the Google MPT treaty or MPT text. You will get the full text of the MPT, or just the text must be available in some of the reading assignments that I gave for this course. And Article 2 says non-nuclear weapon states will not look for weapons. I mean, they will not even show any inclination to do so. They will not even express any desire to do so. So non-nuclear weapon states will remain non-nuclear. They will not pursue nuclear weapons. Article 3, there comes the IAEA into play, because states might make promises. But how can you make sure that states keep their promises? You need to have an impartial organization, which must be empowered with the capability to carry out inspections to write a report about what exactly the non-nuclear weapon states are doing with the capabilities that they develop either by themselves or by way of transfers from other countries. So the IAEA, remember, again, the model protocol and for some additional protocol, go to states, facilities, carry out inspections. And after these inspections, they will write a report about the standing, about the position of that state, whether there is anything that really makes them concerned about the true picture or if everything is clear. So it is essential that the IAEA give a clean bill of health, saying that, yes, I went to this country, according to the safeguards agreement that we have. Then I sort of spent so many days of inspections, so many man hours of inspections in this and that facilities. And I have found nothing wrong. And there is nothing wrong with this country. This is what the IAEA is looking for. But if the IAEA goes to a country, carries out inspections. And if it encounters with some difficulties in terms of fulfilling all these inspections or terminating these inspections, or if there are certain sort of material that are missing and there is no clear explanation by the authorities about the status of that material, then the IAEA writes a report like, well, we have carried out inspections in this and that facilities. There's nothing wrong here. There's nothing wrong there. But we are not sure about the status of this particular facility. And we need further clarifications, but the authorities have not provided this clarification. So this is the situation. Then the Board of Governors of the IAEA may ask from that country's authorities. It depends on the report that the IAEA must have written already and ask for further clarifications. And there is no further clarification coming from that state after the inspections, according to the point that was raised by the IAEA, then the Board of Governors might take the issue to the United Nations Security Council. So the IAEA itself does not deal with the country beyond a certain limit all by itself. Its task is to go to these countries, carry out inspections, find if something there is wrong, and give a clean bill of health if everything is fine, and raise some questions if there are certain questions to be raised. And then the Board of Governors takes control of the situation, asks for further clarification. If there is no clarification coming, the issue can be transferred to the UN Security Council. As has been the case in the case of Iran lately, not at the beginning. So this is the article, this article three. And article four, well of course, if you commit yourself not to produce weapons, and if you commit yourself to accept inspections, there must be something as a reward, something in return, which is expressed in article four, that is part of the bargain. You will be allowed to get nuclear technology transferred, and the IAEA will help you in getting this technology, or developing yourself by yourself this nuclear technology. So according to the Iranian leaders, the article four writes, I mean, are being used by Iran, nothing else is being done. So this is the official position of Iran. They say, we do not do anything wrong. And according to article four, we have the right Iranians, say, to enrich uranium and to repress plutonium. Well, Iran did not repress plutonium in large quantities. As far as I know, something that I discussed with the Iranian authorities when I was there in 2004, and possibly in 2005, they say that they had actually a German scientist had repossessed at a laboratory scale in one laboratory a minute quantity of plutonium, which is not significant for weapons purposes, but it is significant for demonstrating or developing your capability to repress plutonium, because it's a very complex process. It is something that requires advanced technology and scientific knowledge. And even if you do it at very low levels, or small quantities, well, it might not be significant for weapons development. We cannot develop nuclear weapons with 200 grams of plutonium. You need at least eight kilograms, seven, five kilograms, whatever, depending on your technological capabilities. But if you can do it for a small scale at low levels, I mean a small scale, then this is something that tells us, the world, that Iran might have at least the basic capability to repress plutonium. But what is more important than that in the Iranian case is the capability to enrich Iranian. As I just wrote here on the board, Iran had this Natanz facility, which may host 55,000 centrifuges. But at present, not all of them there. They have installed, according to different sources, there are different figures, they have installed something in between 6,000 to 8,000 centrifuges. And not all of them operate every day. And what I follow from the international community of scientists and think tanks, information that are supplied by these sources, of course, you cannot make sure about the veracity about the correctness of this information. But most people rely on these information, provided by some credible institutions. There is this information out that some 6,000 or 8,000 of them have been installed. And out of this amount, 4,000 or 5,000 of them are operating on a daily basis. And Iran is capable of producing something like 30 kilograms per, or three, sorry, three or four kilograms per day. Well, it depends, of course, if there's any enrichment. So, enrichment as well as repossessing are such technologies that are not prescribed by the MPT, that are allowed by the MPT, provided that enrichment and repossessing are used only and only for peaceful purposes. You might ask this question. Yes, we understand enrichment because you need low-enrich uranium, 3.5% uranium for nuclear reactors. What about plutonium? There are certain reactors, fast breeder reactors, such as the ones in Japan, which use plutonium as fuel. So, in order to run the nuclear reactor in Japan, almost all of them are plutonium-based reactors, some 50 plus of them. Fatih asked me during the break if Japan has the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Well, having the capability, of course, does not necessarily mean that they have the will, hopefully, to build a bomb. But there is this discussion in the international community that if a country has the capability, technological capability to build a bomb, it is a matter of political decision. And therefore, it's a matter of time for that country to develop weapons. Hopefully, at least at present time, and when we look back, there is no indication that Japan might even think of developing nuclear weapons. And if you say something like that, Japanese are really getting furious because they say they are the only victims of nuclear weapons in the world. And how can we think about Japan building nuclear weapons? But some people do not look at this emotional part of the issue and look at the capabilities. And if and when Japan decides to develop nuclear weapons, can they do so? And the answer is, unfortunately, yes, because Japan has the technological capability, scientific accumulation, plus more important than that, plutonium, which is much more than necessary for their 54, 55, whatever the number is, nuclear reactors. So, of course, Japan is most likely to remain peaceful for the foreseeable future. But there is this talk of what Japan might do in case United States withdraws its umbrella, which secured umbrella on top of Japan, and if North Korea develops further capabilities for nuclear weapons. And if the two Koreas, South and North Korea, are joining and then reuniting, and then they still keep their nuclear weapons, then Japan might consider developing nuclear weapons. So, therefore, it is a matter of intentions plus capabilities, plus capabilities. Japan has the infrastructure, the capability, of course, hopefully not the intention, but in the future. We don't know. Don't forget. Capabilities take time to develop. I mean, in order for a country to develop nuclear weapons capability, it might spend billions of dollars and tens of years. And, therefore, capabilities are taking time to develop, but intentions can change if not overnight, but in a very short time. So, therefore, you have to keep an eye on both the capabilities as well as intentions, and depending on which sort of a term you look at the situation. So, going back to the rights within, under the NPT, according to the NPT, non-nuclear weapons states, such as Iran, must not develop nuclear weapons, must open its facilities to the IAEA inspections, and in return for this, they can acquire technology by way of transfers from other countries or by way of indigenous development. So Iran says here, what I'm doing, enrichment, it is my inherent right, coming from the NPT's Article IV, and, therefore, I will never stop using my right, and, therefore, I will never agree to a permanent cessation of enrichment, because the West is concerned about Iran's enrichment capabilities, because once you are capable of enriching uranium from its natural levels, 0.7% to 3.5% for nuclear reactor use, then, actually, there are not many hurdles, I mean, there are not many obstacles in front of you to develop nuclear weapons, because once you have the technology and capacity or capability to enrich from natural level to 3.5% or 5%, you can enrich up to 90% for weapons purposes. So the West says Iran, by way of investing in enrichment, and also, not only this, but also doing this clandestinely, because from I-84 to 2002, Iran did not declare its enrichment facility to the IAEA, to the world, and this, they say, is an indication of their intentions that they are going to produce nuclear weapons in the future, this is what the West says. Iranians also say they will end cooperation with the IAEA if sanctions are imposed on Iran. Well, that was before the IAEA took the dossier, the file of Iran to the United Nations Security Council, because after the revelations of the Iranian opposition group, as I said, during the first hour, the director general of the IAEA gave this automaton to Iran to sign the additional protocol by the end of October, 2003, and by that time, three European countries, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, sent there four ministers to Tehran, and they sort of, they went to Tehran, talked with the Iranian officials, and Iran agreed to sign the additional protocol. That was either late October or early November, 2003. And then, they have not signed anything, everything was on promises, and Iran started to act after signing the additional protocol as if it was a party to the additional protocol. That is, as if the Majlis, the Iranian Majlis, the parliament, as if it had ratified the protocol and cooperated with the IAEA. And of course, in return for this, the EU-3, European Union-3 countries, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, they made some promises, economic, they provided some economic incentives, political incentives, encouragements. So there was a sort of a milder climate between Iran and the West. When I say West, I mean here, Europe, because the United States found that actually as a waste of time, consider this initiative of the EU as a waste of time, but actually, as we will discuss later on, it was also something that served the United States' interests because United States was not, or had not decided what to do and was not ready to do anything. So therefore, in the meantime, the European-3 kept Iran under certain control and imposed in a sort of acceptable level certain conditions on Iran such as to cooperate with the IAEA to the extent possible. So Iran and the IAEA have started a cooperation which was more than the model protocol, which is weak of the 1970s, but less than the additional protocol because it was not yet entered into force. If you want to sleep, you can go out, okay. So therefore, if you have headache, you don't have to stay here. You can go to the arms, okay. So this is something that Iranians said, I mean, they will cease cooperation. They will stop cooperating with the IAEA because after 2005, June elections, when Ahmadinejad came to power, and after having made some statements, you might remember, he said Zionism must be swept out of the surface of Earth, something like that. And of course, he said Zionism is not Israel, but actually there's not much difference between Zionism and Israel. So Israel saw this as a clear challenge, clear threat to its vital interests and existence. And European leaders also have seen this extreme statements as inimical to sort of Iran's relations with the West. So we have started to hear certain statements from the West, especially after Sarkozy came to power in France and Merkel came to power in Germany. They were much more concerned than their predecessors in France and Germany, as well as in the United Kingdom. So in some respects, the statements of Ahmadinejad frightened caused fear among European leaders because Hatemi, who was the predecessor of Ahmadinejad and who stayed as the Iranian president for eight years from 1997 to 2004, actually his stance was much more milder when compared to Ahmadinejad. And Ahmadinejad's statements came one after another, shortly after he assumed the presidency. I mean, he assumed office, he started as the president. So the European leaders were shocked and not, of course, only the Israelis but the Europeans themselves. And I heard many Israelis saying, well, Ahmadinejad could not have done a bigger favor if he were the president of Israel. So the statements that he made with respect to Israel actually convinced Europeans in such a way that the Israelis themselves could not convince them. So Israel was trying to explain to the Europeans, the EU tree in particular, that cooperating with Iran would not bring anything and that they would give or gain Iran some more time for developing their nuclear weapons but Europeans were not agreeing to that. So they said, or they were hopeful about the end result of the process that EU tree's initiative would prove successful, et cetera. So once Ahmadinejad made all these statements, European leaders said, well, maybe Iran is not the Iran that we think or maybe it is the Iran that the Israelis are telling us. So the Iranian situation or the perception of Iran started to change with these statements made by the Iranian president, Ahmadinejad and the Europeans position actually started to change slightly. So they started to talk about imposing sanctions because Iran, although was apparently seemingly cooperating with Iran, with the IAEA, Iran was not sort of agreeing to everything the European Union asked from Iran, one of which was the permanent cessation of enrichment. They never stopped enrichment fully except for some short period. So therefore, the United States on the one hand and the new European leaders on the other hand plus Russia for other reasons that I will explain have started to sort of increase the heat, the pressure on Iran to comply with some of the requirements or expectations of the international community. Otherwise, they threatened Iran with sanctions and Iran said in return if you are sort of going to threaten me with sanctions then I will end cooperation. So that was a stalemate. Then therefore the EU tree stopped its initiative and from mid-2005 until last year there was no actually substantial negotiations between the West or the EU and Iran. So actually there is another issue that we must state here, something that I also personally observed when I was in Iran or in other countries and especially in the Islamic countries, in the Gulf, in other parts of the world. What I have seen was the sort of the policy of Iran to mobilize as much support as possible especially among the Islamic nations. Of course they use this leverage, Islam as a leverage in advancing their position and of course they also benefited from the already existing anti-American feelings, anti-Israeli feelings, anti-Semitic feelings and therefore Iran used this sort of anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli feelings among the Eastern world, Islamic world also in the non-aligned countries to sort of mobilize support for its own position in the international community, especially within the body of the United Nations. So and for instance, among other things in their relations with the non-aligned movement they promised the non-aligned countries as well as Turkey. I mean I know from my conversation with the Iranians and I also read in the press on papers during some of the visits of the Iranian high-ranking officials as well as Ahmadinejad himself that they offered cooperation in developing technology, nuclear technology in a cooperative manner. So Iran said to the, or told the non-aligned movement countries, look, you are not going to get nuclear technology from the West because they have this preferential treatment. They do give technology to the countries that they wish to give and they do not give to other countries and look what they do to me and if you support me and protect me against all these sanctions and everything I have advanced my capabilities and I can share this technology with you. So Iran in a sense promised technology transfer from Iran to non-aligned movement countries or Islamic countries if Iran would be supported by them. So as I just mentioned, anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli feelings played into the head of the Iranians. As you can see Iran wanted to become a potential nuclear supplier. Well, well in some respects this is true. Iran has developed, I mean is now building a heavy water reactor which is again an advanced technology. It is a small one but not that small and big enough for weapons production because for enough plutonium production which can be extracted by way of processing later on. They have developed enrichment technology based on the Pakistani design which was provided to Iran by the Abdul Qadir Khan, the Pakistani scientist. There are all these allegations and I believe I true. I have reasons to believe and I cannot say right in front of these cameras but so for the record at least I can tell you that this is true. So therefore these are the reasons or the leverages that Iran used in order to advance its position in the international community. Anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli feelings, Islamic states. Well actually this is also important. Non-aligned movement countries do not want Iran to give in to the pressures of the United States because if Iran I mean stops enriching Iranian or acts the way the West ask from Iran to do to act then non-aligned movement countries will see Iran as another example of Western imperialism. So they want Iran to defy all this pressure and to stand up against all this pressure. So therefore non-aligned movement countries support Iran in position or at least at the rhetorical level. So therefore they don't want Iran to be a bad precedent for them because if today Iran, which is a powerful country militarily, economically, politically and otherwise. So if Iran cannot stand up against all this pressure how could they stand up against these, stand against this pressure in the future? So they don't want Iran to set a bad precedent for selective mistreatment. Again as I said they see Iran as a potential supplier. So this is therefore important. The United States position we talked a little bit about it but again yes we know that United States considers Iran as a threat. I mean not only with all other military capabilities that Iran has but also and more specifically with the nuclear capability that Iran develops and a threat to its US interests, Israel as well as the Gulf region but in return for this I mean how to mitigate the threat or how to manage this situation. Their policy is what can be, this is something that is agreed upon by many scholars in the international community. It is what is called stick only policy. You might have heard this carrots and sticks and some people especially in the third world countries they don't want to hear this carrots and sticks. They say we are not rabbits, we are human beings so how can we be treated with sticks and carrots et cetera but carrots and sticks policy is a statement which is widely used in international literature, international relations literature. Carrots mean encouragement, incentives and sticks mean punishment. But the United States pursues no carrot and stick policy but rather stick only policy, something that I use in my articles as well. And the United States wants Iran to take certain steps before United States starts taking some steps that Iran expects from United States. So therefore it is not something like you do something now and I do something now and then next step we do some other things. No, United States says you do this and that and this and that and then I may consider doing or acting the way you expect from me to act. So therefore it is stick only policy and it doesn't take us anywhere. Of course the United States has limited economic and diplomatic leverage and faces difficulties in dealing with Iraq because United States does not have diplomatic relations and neither do they have any economic relations that we know. Well I underlined this part because after the first Gulf War that was a policy which was started with the Bush administration but right after the first Gulf War in 1991 at the end of 1991 there was this presidential elections in the United States and Clinton came to power. And one of the policies that the Clinton administration pursued was the encirclement policy. I mean they wanted Iran and Iraq not to advance their capabilities not to sort of earn lots of revenues from international trade. So which was called dual containment. Dual containment policy, I'm sorry this board market doesn't write anything, dual containment like containment of the Soviet Union by the United States right after the World War II. So dual containment in and containing Iran and Iraq together because they were seen as threats to the Middle East peace process which had already started between Arab nations and Israel. So Iran and Iraq which could provoke this Middle East peace process had to be contained by the Clinton administration. At that time in the early 1990s Iran's nuclear capabilities were of course concerned for the United States but not that much. The level of concern increased dramatically after the revelations about the clandestine enrichment facility in Natanz in 2002. And prior to that and prior to 2001 September 11 Iran's level of threat was always there but not as high as it is today. So the dual containment aimed at containing Iran and Iraq and prevent them from provoking anything that could disturb the Middle East peace process. And the United States imposed sanctions on Iran, imposed sanctions on its own companies and also asked from the European allies not to do trade with Iran and Iraq. But in the second half of the 1990s it was so learned or known by the international community that the second biggest trade partner of Iran actually was a group of American companies under the guise of or some other companies which were not directly of course making trade with Iran but using some partner companies or some sort of other techniques they were still doing business with Iran. And when European countries learned this they got furious because they had imposed sanctions or limitations on their own companies and asked from them not to do business with Iran but they have learned after some time that some large American companies were doing business behind the doors through some companies, parent companies or other companies some business with Iran. So therefore the United States policy of dual containment just collapsed. But today of course there is no such an indication to the extent that we know and the United States has therefore limited economic and diplomatic leverages and therefore United States does not have much common ground for Iran to discuss these issues. And this issue need to be further discussed and as I said at the beginning of the first hour I strongly recommend you to go over these slides we will discuss every single aspect here in detail extensively and we'll continue because with these slides we go here and there and expand the scope of discussion to cover the region, the Middle East and also the rest of the world. So this is something that can be used as a template. All right, I'll see you on Friday. Don't belate at 9.40 we'll start on Friday in the morning.