 It's a pleasure to introduce Chris. Don't know for a long time. Done lots of things together. Enjoyably fun, enjoyably chaotic. But needs absolutely no introduction. So dragon, Chris Roberts, sir. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. So I was over in, I just got back from Skytalks. And so how many, there's at least one, two, or three from Skytalks. So I'll apologize. You'll see a bunch of these lights that are going to be similar because I didn't know how many people. Anyway, so how's it's keeping? Let's see if I want to see if I can tether myself a little bit further, but I can yell out and feed back. All right, so the stuff that I'm doing here is research that is literally being done in the basement. This is hacking in the basement. This is really fundamentally where we've all started off from. And I'm hacking the brain in the basement, which kind of makes like a Frankenstein hacker. Yeah, it's going to be fun. It has been then in close proximity to a lot of alcohol. So we have done a little bit of drunken brain hacking as well on this whole thing. And yes, I've also tried posting data back through the brain, which has got mixed results. My daughter came down the other day. She's actually over in the SE. It feels really, feels like there's feedback or something, but that's just me. Is that just me? All right. Yeah, she came down the other day and I had like the 14 unit on. And she's like, what are you doing? And I'm like, I'm trying to send data into the brain. She's like, Papa, are you trying to fry your brain? I don't think so. All right. For those of you who don't know me, there we go. Thank you, you rock. That's way better. For those of you who don't know me, I've been messing around in this industry for more years and I get to think of this is, I think, the 19th year I've done this lunatic asylum known as Defconn. I was here before we got kicked off the damn strip and now we're allowed back on it, which is kind of fun. Yeah, exactly. Him too. We've broken everything from trains, ISS, Mars Rover, all sorts of other things. Obviously, you're not hanging out at L.A.R.I.S. doing a bunch of stuff where I was just trying to change the industry a lot. Currently, doing a bunch of work with humans, a lot of work with humans. If you look at the security industry as a whole, we keep trying to apply technology as the solution. We keep saying, oh, buying another pair of blinky light buy something else and we keep forgetting that there's a human element to this that we need to deal with. And I might have a slightly obsessive whiskey collection. All right. Simple question. We have basically spent the last 12,000 years or so upgrading ourselves and our surroundings. We have spent a lot of that time trying to improve ourselves, our surroundings, our lives, and everything else. But if you start looking at the last 10, 15, 20 years worth of change, especially in this realm, so everything from biotechnology, nanotechnology, consciousness, and everything else, there's an argument to say that the tech itself is outpacing us. So the question is, what the hell do we do about it? And then if we have to evolve, how do we evolve about it? And we start taking a look at where we were. For those of you that follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn, I might have posted this one and I couldn't help it. We start taking a look at what Mother Nature's done and how that damn it, how Mother Nature's evolution takes a little bit of time. And then we start taking a look at the human software development life cycle and that's really been the last 12,000 years, give or take a bit. So this is a slide I like. I've been using it on a couple of presentations. This was us. This is us. And that is going to be us from a technology standpoint. It's getting kind of interesting as to where we're going. Part of the logic is obviously we're putting more and more technology into our hands. You go back 15, 20, 25 years or something like that, we had the portable device that we lugged around the size of a suitcase that weighed 50 pounds if we were lucky. Nowadays, that same technology, obviously we're happily sitting here with phones, with devices, with embedded tech. There are what, 50, 60 plus badges being given out at DEFCON this year. Every single one of them is a hell of a lot more powerful and move down stuff that we had a while ago. The problem is we're handing it to a population that doesn't necessarily fully understand or even necessarily want to understand what the hell to do with it. So there's also that argument to say, hack, we'll just let technology deal with security. That can get a little dystopian. So what the hell do we do about it? So, simple proof. I've been going to these for 20 years. And for 20 years, we've done nothing more than bitch and scream about passwords. We have blamed everybody. We started off by blaming users, then we blamed developers and we blamed the CFO, then we blamed the network team, then we went back to blaming developers and we blamed grandma, we blamed kids. We haven't blamed ourselves and neither have we actually taken a step back and gone, holy shit, this is what we keep losing. This is setting the scene. This is the why do we care and why do we need to care? So we keep losing lots and lots of data. We keep losing almost as much data as we keep producing. So at this point, we got a couple of options. Do we let the system evolve? Do we keep looking at how the system's evolving? Do we keep looking at what technology is doing? Do we keep going to a stage where the actual technology does become sentinel and all those other wonderful things? If we do, then there's some interesting decisions that we all might or might not have. Or do we see if we can evolve as effectively as those systems are doing, which is where we obviously come to nano and bio and all the other stuff. And yes, there is option number three, which is eventually we find a power cord and kick it out. Personally, I'd rather do some of this. I'd rather look at the evolutionary side of it. So again, for those of you that were over at Sky Talks, you saw this one. This is some stuff I'd been working on a couple of years ago and this really sets the scene for what we were talking about. How many of you are familiar with the nano tech and the bio nano tech side of the world? Anybody familiar with it? A couple of folks kind of familiar with it. A couple of folks heard the talk earlier on today and familiar with it. All right, these are amazing little critters. I would highly recommend you're in the biohacking. This is biohacking combined with our world hacking. Nano-carbon architectures, basically a carbon-based molecular at a molecule level, individual molecules, you can feed them into tubes, you can make them flat, you can do all sorts of interesting stuff with them. Depending upon what you do with them, their properties change. Conductive, reactive, reacting to elements. You can do all sorts of interesting stuff with them. And as individuals, and if you're getting into the biohacking side of the world, you can do some fairly cheap electronics. You don't need an entire hospital full of stuff to mess around with. The stuff we've been messing around with and a lot of the research has been done with about a couple of hundred dollars worth of either Arduino's or we cheat a little bit and use the hack and the blade RS. We have to learn from Mother Nature. We all know what vaccines are, whether we agree with them or disagree with them, we know what they are, we know how they work. Basically take a host, try to tame it and then put what we want over the top of it. In the molecular side of the world, we did the same thing. In the molecular research we did a couple of years ago and this is, I've had this stuff out for a couple of years and every now and again I come back to it and I update it and we do a few more things. Some of the recent stuff we've done is now combining this with the consciousness stuff. But the basics come down. We have to get the carbon nanotubes into the body. We have to understand them. So basically we infect something. In this case, we infected bird flu. So we looked at ribonuclear acids. What we ended up doing is a little bit of fun. We turned them into our uses. In our digital world, we know how to build viruses, we know how to build Trojans, polymorphs and everything else. Take a leaf out of Mother Nature, we can do exactly the same thing. We can do it two ways. Primarily, nuclear acid robots, the biotech and the bionanotech and no others using the body's own chemicals, using its own agents as a defense mechanism, as a building mechanism, the bacteria-based, though they're more complicated or the nanoscopic machines, the assembler machines. This is becoming a lot more prevalent now and the costs are coming down drastically. What used to cost like several thousand dollars per microgram, you're now looking at two or three dollars per microgram or for carbon nanotubes that we can now start messing around with. So, like anything, you have to teach it and train it. In this case, this was back in 2016, EPFL's lab. Kind of like kids, you got to teach them and train them basic language, basic understandings. In the case of what was going on with the carbon nanotubes here, it was like, okay, eventually these are gonna go into the body, how do we manage them? How do we control them? How do we have communications with them? This is a lot of the work they did to teach them basics. A lot of the communications here were done basically using RF frequency waves or using MRI scans or using lasers. In other words, you're inputting the control with an external interface because you can't exactly jack in the USP and go, hey, give it a second, I'm just gonna recode it. Little too small for that. 2017, they told him how to swim by basically applying a nanotube and then a tail to it. I'll make sure these slides are available if that makes it a little easier. I'll just hit me up afterwards, I'll make sure the slides are available. For those of you that know me or recognize, I obviously have a fairly decent LinkedIn profile, I actually have a draw box, I will put these slides up on draw box, just hit me up for the link somehow or other, I'll make sure you get it. So this is 2016. Attach a tube to it, basically hit a laser height or electromagnetic pulse light to it. That actually causes the tail to move, that friction of the move moves it through a liquid, in which case you can now move it through the bloodstream. What you can also do as well is you now teach a basic chemical. Can it recognize certain chemicals inside the body? Answer, yes. Why do we know this? Because we now fast forward to 2018. Bottom right-hand side, turbo-charged sperm. Yay. Let's just make it easier. Let's just improve mother nature or not, as the case may be. Taking a flat carbon, basically instead of taking a carbon nanotube, you take a flat-pane architecture, you apply a cylindrical shape to it, and then you apply treatment to it, and then you just heat it with a pulse, which point it just turbo-charges the sperm. It's quite fun to watch. Or not, depends on how you look at it. This is the one I like. I came out of the military, I got shot up a few times, and when we went back in, we had basically the chop guys would basically sell us back up to make sure that we could get in the back without getting yelled at too badly. Nowadays, what they're doing is they're embedding carbon architectures into some of the stitching system. That way, the carbon nanotubes and the actual receptors and the antennas are able to detect chemical imbalances, chemical changes, and more critically, heat change in a wound. Now you can monitor for septicemia. Way easier, way simpler. And you can see all the other stuff that's getting used on the body as well. Oxygenation, hydration, all this other stuff. Now this is all wonderful, and this is done in hospitals, facilities, but let's face it, we're a bunch of damn hackers. So what do we do? We hack the damn thing. As I said, these slides will be available. The two things you wanna pull away from this very complicated slide Verilog is actually the circuit function language. We're supposed to use cello to design the sequencing. So again, this isn't a matter of just basically jack in and have at it. What we actually do, taking your leaf out of XKCD, we basically do the code hacking. Those of you that are used to coding, we take something very similar to a combination of assembler and basic. We then turn it into almost an... I just can't stand that, can I? It's gonna get yelled at. I'm good, I'll stand here. If you go that way, you're gonna get a full range of those cello samples. I don't wanna go on the slides. Why? Can I have a laser pointer? I could be like proper, can I? Who's civilized? I say it. All right, anyway. In the middle is basically taking that code architecture and turn it into a gated sequence. In other words, electromagnetic. For that, how many of you are on the engineering side in this world? So you should understand some of that stuff. It should make sense. Now, what you do to get it in from that area into the body, you've gotta turn it into a wave sequence because it's gotta be understood. So that's the far right-hand side. So again, we have our keys. We take something, we have hexadecimal six-station ring. This has been done in the lab. We take the transport, SRNA, in this case it was bird flu. We have our bypass tools. We have our basic reporting tools, our payloads and our decoys. Does this sound like a hack that we would use on computers to anybody? Henry, we've messed around polymorphs, viruses, Trojans and other sorts of interesting things. Yeah, exactly, we build them. This is kind of how we build the damn things. We do it on the body. That's what we ended up doing. We took bird flu, SID, NRA. We applied nanotubes, so multi-walled nanotubes. So we have the ability to do different things depending upon what inferences we're doing. Fill the body into things as good. It's a vaccine. Propulsion system, tracking system, decoys delivers. This is fascinating stuff for the medical field itself. You start taking a targeted drug delivery. You start taking a look at what they're doing with cancer research, take a look at what they're doing with Alzheimer's, stone breakdown, the whole lot. The challenges at the moment on a lot of this stuff is you're still dealing with single machines. What they're now working on is making those machines more complicated. In other words, the machine has the ability to either combine an inference frequency in which case it can break down a bladder stone, but it still needs to communicate that which still means you need an antenna-based system, a propulsion system, and everything else. Think of this as an early version of a car. It had wheels and an engine, and that was kind of about it. Nowadays, we have 150 computers in the stupid thing and 150 million lines of freaking code. These are getting more complicated and more complex as we go on. We, on the other hand, can hack the stupid things with about $100 worth of gear. We don't need an entire medical facility to do this. We actually cheat it. We end up using, not just the arduinos, we end up using the hack RS and the blade RS for these things. This is where it's going. No, command and control. Purely command and gear. You've got to find a host or a system. We are producing them. I wouldn't even go down there. I just buy the stupid things. It's way easier, way simpler. And if you want to do anything on the body inference, you start looking at the ones that are carbon-based using gold as the base underlying molecular architecture because gold is useful inside the body, whereas silver and some of the other ones can't be absorbed just as easily. Yeah, there's some really interesting nuances, should we say, when we're looking at it. So anyway, yay, it's coming to us. Yeah, GMO on steroids. It's not going to be pretty, which is kind of why we have this one. All right, so that's some background. That was all the fun stuff I have been doing. This is the stuff I'm currently working on. That's actually not too dissimilar from how I look in the basement sometimes. Yes, we're going to hack the brain. Again, for those of you who've seen the slides, I apologize. This is not how we're going to hack the brain. You can put a USB drive in, but it really doesn't go much further than that. That's a one-time use hack on the brain. Yay, but not good. This is Elon Musk's, or anybody else's. You like a complete twonk, but it is. This is a better version. So this isn't something that you can just do in the lab. You can go out and buy these systems. The one that's on the bottom left is one system that I have. It's a 14 point system. You can pull out from all sorts of signals on the brain. The one on the top right-hand side there is actually just a two port system. The one I use, and I'm using at the moment, is another pair of glasses. My old set of glasses is very similar to this, that I've taken some of the EEG monitors out of a couple of these. I've gone to the companies, and I've gone, hey, what is the best quality monitor you have? A dry monitor, because I don't want to sit there with a gunk on my face, and neither do I want to drill in and put them in. You can go buy these damn things. They're anywhere from like a hundred bucks, or if you actually buy the actual dry electrodes and solder them up yourselves. If you don't have a solo, go to the freaking hardware hacking village. They will teach you it is lots of fun. Actually, what I want to see next year is somebody come with a death combat with an EEG meter on it. Do it. All right. So you can get it with two EEG monitors just behind the ears. It's effective, it'll pull signals out, but it's not effective enough to do some of the stuff we'll be talking about. Currently, what I'm using is a set of four. So I have two sitting on here on either side on this part, and two sitting in the back here. There is a bunch of resources being put out at the moment that actually will do an inference behind and in front, and also combining with the jaw. I've looked at it, I'm kind of liking it. It still makes you look like a bit of a wombo, but it's getting better. This is the end goal. This is mapping. That's actually my brain got a year or two ago now. Looking at a couple of sequences. I haven't put updated ones on there for a bunch of reasons, one of them being because I'm actually trying to protect some of this stuff. And the right-hand side, those are three different sets of graphs. Obviously, we have to train, we have to baseline with scientists at the end of the day. We have to get an understanding. Each one of those different colors on there represents me walking up to three different objects. One of them is my computer, one of them is my phone, one of them is a module for the car. What I'm doing is I'm training the system. I'm helping it to understand who I am, what I am, and why I'm actually focusing on something. In this case with the computer, what I'm trying to do is walk up and recognize the computer, have my brain recognize it. In turn, I also have the computer reading the signals that are coming from me and it has a baseline understanding of who I am. In other words, we basically and simply become our identity. We don't have to worry about passwords anymore. For 20 odd years, we've been bitching and screaming about them. Why don't we just get rid of the stupid things? Why can't our very simple existence become the identity that we need? For logic here is simple, and it's two-fold. One, the object I'm looking at has to, we have to recognize it. It has to recognize us. Secondly, it has to have an underlying understanding as to who or what we are and it's the right individual. The way I have it at the moment is this. I've tested it in the lab. I've tested in the basement basically at a house, which is really my lab. As I walk down the stairs, if I'm thinking of the computer and not tripping over my feet, not blinking and not thinking of squirrels all the damn time, my computer will open because it's recognizing that I'm thinking about it. It's recognizing that the object I can discern is the computer, that the computer recognizes that it's me thinking about the computer because it has a correlating set of software on it as well. At which point in time, I don't need to worry about studying passwords. I have the same thing running on an Android phone. My normal work phone is an actual iPhone, but the phone I do all my testing on because obviously the architecture is the hell of a lot more open is the Android system. And the car module works about 60% of the time and I've managed to start the car in the garage a few times and almost put it in fricking gear. Not a good thing to do when the garage door's closed. So the logic here is simple. Let's get a little bit more detail on this one. Our thoughts, our general concepts need to be, we're at the stage, it's well documented that the brain can be used to identify thoughts, feelings, ideas. We can pull message blocks out of it. We can pull concepts out of it. We can pull objects out of it. But what we're now looking at doing is defining that a lot further. Take us as the authentication model, take us as basically our existence and everything else. This is where we are the last six months, which is why I haven't put this up and it's nowhere else. So obviously situational awareness becomes very paramount. Running down the stairs, going open the damn computer and the QB is gonna go, who the fricking hell are you? I came out of SkyTalks, there'd be F-bombs all over the place, I'm probably more civilized here. Who the bloody hell are you? There has to be a level of situational awareness, hence the drunk programming as well. There has to be an awareness of stress levels and all these other things. This is where there's a very fine balance between how many signals you pull out of the brain and how much you apply any filtering to them, any noise reduction to them, any analysis to them, any mean standard deviation to them, all of these other things at the moment. I'm running at about a 90 to 95 percentile. So the computer has to recognize me in a very, very narrow band, not just that I'm thinking about it. In other words, what I don't wanna do is walk down the stairs and every piece of equipment goes, hi Chris, how's it going? That's not gonna work, that's not gonna be pretty. What I have to do is walk down the stairs and go either I'm thinking of my laptop, I don't have to think about the word, I just have to visualize the laptop. That visualization is pulled in and because I'm pulling from four of the main cortexes and I'm amplifying and looking at the specific signals, what I'm trying to do is not just pulling the fact I'm thinking of my laptop, but I'm pulling historic data, I'm pulling situational data and awareness of that laptop out. So I'm basically putting myself in a position that it's mine. Now can somebody else walk down and do that? Yes, but there isn't the underlying signal that it's me doing it. And that's where those two pieces have to come together, which is where the computer looks at what it's getting in response from my signal from the EEG and then basically from the Bluetooth or RFID, whichever one I'm using and goes, oh, it is him, it's the six foot three hairy thing coming down once his bloody computer opened. It's kind of like Jarvis with a Scottish attitude basically. So there's all sorts of stuff that I'm working on, stresses, allowances and a bunch of other stuff. Trying to work on the humans as one time use pads and obviously capturing what makes us us. What is this? Is it the consciousness thing? Is it a humanizing thing? Is it signal detection? In other words, on this one, it's removing the squirrel element because some of us in this industry, let's face it, can be a little squirrely. So here's what I'm kind of messing around with at the moment, better metrics. So trying to get that balance between how many data points I have to pull out from versus how many I need to get a decent signal. What I'm relying on at the moment is two things. One, the paramedic signals that are coming out. How closely can I get and pull those signals out? How much noise is around them and how much can I actually eliminate that noise? The more the computer understands it's me, the more it realizes as I walk down, I look at the window. As I walk down, I trip over my feet. I'm thinking about the whiskey lab. I'm thinking about other things. All of those elements can be pulled out as noise. So then it's focusing just on it, the computer. It basically becomes a selfish signal. The other thing I'm trying to figure out is how much other work I can do on this. In other words, basically anything else, come up to the ATM, go up to your car, any of these other things. Anything that requires us to authenticate that we are who the hell we think we are and say we are, why can't we use something similar to this? If you take the concept here and you start taking a look at nanotech and bionanotech, specifically the antennas that are being built, the biggest challenge we have is pulling signals out from the brain in a way that they are much more readable and usable. At the moment, I've got the glasses that make me look a little kind of dorky with the other ones that I have, but not too much. There's a couple of bloody wires running down the same with this little signal holding off the back of this one, but that's about it. If I can have something where I can basically pull carbon architecture out, in other words, I can actually have antennas inside that are accentuating those signals, then I don't have to look like quite such a wombo. So that's something that we're working on. All right, obviously security. Well, it's me. Let's face it, I've hacked the damn thing. I'm trying to unhack it. I'm trying to reverse engineer it. At some point in time, what I do want to try to figure out is how breakable are we as humans? In other words, can it be replicated? Can it be replayed? Everything I've tried so far, the answer is no. As a human, every single time we walk up to something, it is a unique set of situations. We're basically walking one-time use paths no matter what we're doing. So how much of that can we use versus how much of that do we have to ignore? There's all sorts of interesting stuff on that one. And as it says, I got to try and patent this or do something with the damn thing at some point. So we're pulling stuff out of the brain. The next obvious question, can we put something back in? That's what I'm working on. What I have at the moment on the computer, stand back here. I can't do it, can I? Damn it, stand here. What I have at the moment, one of my other systems is reading what I'm doing. In other words, as I'm sitting at the computer, as I'm looking at the computer, as I'm walking towards the computer, as I'm basically interacting with it, with the headset on or with the glasses on. Typically when I'm doing this, I've got a commercially available 14 unit on that I'm actually messing around with. What I'm actually doing is taking a look at machine language and the predictive side. In other words, how can the signals that are being pulled out, the situational awareness of the system, knowing it, measured with the machine language and go, I know what he's gonna do next. I know what key's getting depressed. I know what system's getting depressed. I know that he's getting, he wants a damn cup of tea for crying out loud or whatever the hell it is. That's what I'm working on at the moment. At the moment, I'm getting about a 75% hit rate on effectiveness. So I'm training the computer to basically think as me. We test some really fun consequences and some really scary ones. Again, this is being done in the basement, but this, you know, part of the reason we stand up here doing these talks isn't to go, hey, this is the shit I'm doing. This is like, hey, go play with this too. Go research it, do analysis on it, go pick all the paperwork's up from the various different universities, from DARPA and everybody else that's working on this stuff and see what else is going on. The biggest challenge on any of this is, again, what we can pull out from usable signals. So again, if you combine what's going on with consciousness and with what we're doing with this and you combine this with what's coming out of the healthcare field with the carbon architectures and signal analysis, it gets really interesting. Now for those of you that are old farts here and were here at DEFCON in the early days, I had to put this one up. How many of you remember the matrix? Yeah, we were creeping around DEFCON 10 and DEFCON 11 over at Alexis Place and we went through the matrix time when everybody turned up with a pair of freaking neoglosses and the damn overalls on. I kid you not, how many of you were here? I know you were. Not many, can't you guys see young buggers? All right, yeah. All right, don't do it, it was bad. But it brings into that question of what can we write back in? Can we write any kind of situational stuff back in? At which point can we get to a point where the computer system itself is affecting our actions, our reactions and our perceptions of reality? Answers are, I don't know, but I think it's gonna be a yes. So at which point in time are we at tinfoil hat time? I can currently pull signals from about an inch or two away from the scalp with a system that I have. So I don't actually have to have something about an inch or two from the scalp, I can pull signals out of. We can detect signals six to eight inches from the scalp. Doesn't mean we can do much with them but we can detect them. But again, if you merge this in the architecture, I'm probably not gonna be too far off of a tinfoil hat, especially if we start letting the government play with them, which is why we have this picture, which one I get to drink. All right, the future, this is what I'm working on. I think one of my taglines on LinkedIn or something, on Twitter I think it is, is at some point in time in the next 10 to 15 years I would love to be able to retire to a nice AS 400 in New Zealand. That's what I'm working on. If you think about the implications of what we're working on, and this doesn't just mean the basement, this is a bunch of research projects, it's a bunch of DARPA projects, it's a bunch of other stuff. Can we actually take much more advantage of what is nothing more than a bunch of basically electromagnetic signals going on? And if we can take advantage, what are we doing? Oh, by the way, I keep pointing up here, for those of you that know the brain, it sure as hell isn't just the brain, all of this other stuff that's in the rest of the body has a huge influence on what goes on, not just up here, but even some of the stuff that doesn't bother, these things have completely independent thought almost, let's be perfectly honest. So that's part of it. You start taking a look at where we can take this for the future, if I can actually get to the stage where I can digitize what I am doing with consciousness, guess what, it's ones and zeros. From a transmission standpoint, that makes life real easy to be able to move consciousness around. Societal changes, we start taking a look at who's going digital, who doesn't, why is the wherefores all this other stuff, so then the question becomes one, how far should we take this? Simple answer, we're already on the journey. The train has left the station. The question is, what are you gonna do? Are you going to get involved? Are you going to pick up, do some research? This is death con, we kind of buck the trend. Our job is to be the voice of reason a lot of times. Our job is to be the ones that stand up and go, we might want to consider security in this shit because there's a guy on the corner with an antenna that's about to hack off the humans. That's our job, do it, be those voices. So, wrap up, I like this quote, I've got it in most of my slides now. The measure of man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. We are there, we are there because we have this technology tsunami that's hitting us. We are there because we're basically boggling into this whole idea of consciousness and nanotech without considering societal or security changes. We're doing a lot of it without involving us, therefore get involved. Biohacking Village, basically start building some of this stuff, because quite honestly, this should be our future. If we do it right, there is so much good that can come out of this, but like anything in tech, we fail and we screw it up. This is how and what we are facing, it's going to be a little bit messy. Simple, this is my last slide almost, and I like this one, we need to work together. There's 28, 29,000 of us here at Vegas this year. That's a lot of voices, collaborate, work with everybody, communicate, peers, friends, families, the whole lot. This isn't just spreading the word, this is just how can I get involved? Sound good? Okay, final slide. As always, tribute to Douglas Adams. So long and thanks for all the fish. All right, questions. Everybody sat through this, it was fairly dry when you go for it. With the motion, so if you're mad at your computer that day because it's not working, is that safe for each question? All right, so the question is, does it filter out emotions, yes? So in other words, have I got the filtering in for that? I actually do have some of that, yeah. It's actually really interesting. Again, the cool thing about doing this, I would, if you're interested in any of this, literally go spend your money, go borrow somebody else's money. I'd say go grab a credit card on the internet, but we're being recorded. So, this isn't Sky Talks. Don't steal anybody else's credit card. But seriously, go out and do some research on this one. It's actually fascinating. Yes, as you walk out of the computer, you're happy, angry, sad. All those emotions, peak and spike, all the different stuff. That graph that I had up there, yeah, there's all sorts of weird shit. There's stuff in there with me with a couple of drinks inside me. Oh yeah, there's some fun stuff. So yes, it does change it. Because it's pulling in other signals. So even though I got the full running, what it's doing is it's also pulling in my history with the computer. So if I'm thinking about my history of the computer, and I'm not just thinking about walking up to the computer, one of the key indicators that I had was actually, I started to replay the memory of when I actually walked into the damn Apple store to buy it. And I captured that signal architecture. It's a pain in the ass to try to do it. And the timing's up. The problem is you're recording yourself while you're recording yourself, while it's, it's kind of fun. But yes, you can actually signal that out and go, that is my reaction to actually the acquisition of that computer, and I can normalize that. But you can also pull in other things as well. There's a bunch of other ways of normalizing stuff. Yeah, it's kind of fun. Questions? What do we got? Like one more? I got one more question. Yes. Different, yeah, oh no, it's an entirely different set of, yes, an entirely different set of patterns that's getting pulled in. Yeah, I've had her come down with the headset on and hers are completely different from mine. So it's really nice to look at the different humans. I've had a couple of other friends come over, different walks of life, different, all sorts of other things. And yeah, their signatures are just so complete. I mean, it's like off the freaking charts different. It's actually fascinating. So, but there's also some underlying stuff that you can normalize. So some of the thoughts on the computer are almost normalized, but the problem is the relationships of them with the computer and everything around them is some completely different. It's kind of fun. All right, I need to shut up and get out here. Thank you very, very much, everybody. Much appreciated.