 So it's been a really long time since I've spoken at what some call Linux, some call GNU-Linux, let's say GNU-Linux conference. Indeed, it was 2006, the last time I spoke at an event like this, and at that time I was just finishing a second version of my book, Code, and I want to take the inspiration of that to set the theme for two ideas that will mark the introduction. First, this idea of code, and second, the idea of clues. Clues. So here's the idea of code. Four stories. Three from East Coast Code, and one about West Coast Code. So East Coast Code, what we typically refer to as law, West Coast Code, what we typically think of as technology, the stuff that happens out here, mainly north from here, but okay. So here's East Coast Code. Three stories. Number one about copyright. So I became an activist in the field of copyright on October 27, 1998, when the president signed into a law a work in honor of this great American, the Sunny Bono Copyrights Term Extension Act. Now what the Sunny Bono Act did was extend the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. 20 years. Basically, every time Mickey Mouse is about to pass into the public domain, magically the copyright term gets extended. And the question that Congress was to be asking as it extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years was, did it advance the public good to extend the term for an existing copyright? Copyrights were important to create incentives for people, artists, to have the incentive to create great new works. But what we know about incentives, at least in this universe, not in Star Trek, but in this universe, is that incentives are prospective. They're about what happens in the future. So no matter what the United States Congress does, it can't get George Gershwin to produce anything more. So when you ask the question, does it make sense to extend the term of an existing copyright? It's a pretty obvious answer, indeed, when we challenged the statute in the Supreme Court and we had a brief signed by 13 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, including this liberal, wait, I'm sorry, this is Milton Friedman, right-wing Nobel Prize winner. Friedman said he would sign the brief only if the word no-brainer was somewhere in the brief. So obvious was it that you couldn't advance the public good by extending the term of existing copyrights. But apparently there were no brains in this place when Congress unanimously extended the term of existing copyrights. What there was was more than $6 million in contributions from the Disney corporations and other interests eager to see their copyrights extended, the public good be damned. That's story number one. Story number two, spectrum. It's the reality about spectrum all around the world that spectrum is regulated. We were told it has to be regulated. We were told this by a lawyer, so we know it must be true. Murphy explaining in the case of NBC versus US, owing to its physical characteristics, radio, unlike the other methods of conveying information, must be regulated and rationed by the government, otherwise there would be chaos. And radio's usefulness would be largely destroyed. So physics gave spectrum over to the Politburo, that's called the FCC. And what the FCC then did is allocate spectrum out according to its judgment about who got to use spectrum in the right way according to their sense of what made sense. Now 16 years after this decision, a future Nobel Prize winning economist, Ronald Kos, looked at this and was puzzled and said, why should spectrum be granted as some sort of government privilege? Why don't we treat spectrum like every other resource, every other scarce resource, and just turn it into property? Sort of thing we could just sell. So instead of being allocated, there would be owners of spectrum, different owners who would buy it according to their judgment about what's the best way to use the spectrum. And that way we could, according to Kos, have a much more efficient, must-less political allocation of this resource. Now my view is that no doubt, Kos's idea would have been much better assuming that this was the only technology for using spectrum, broadcast in loud structures like this. If that was the technology, then probably Kos was right. But 18 years before Kos wrote his famous paper, the really ingenious idea was thought of by this person, Hedy Lamar, who, still they're Hedy fans, this is perfect. Only in this room I guarantee you, but okay. Hedy, who came up with a different way to think about allocating spectrum and got a patent in 1941 for it, a patent which was secret because the government determined that this was such an incredibly cool way to use and allocate spectrum. Nobody could know about it. This idea was that we would share spectrum, that there would be a spectrum commons. And with George Antiel, she patents this idea to make it so that spectrum could be allocated not by law, not by property, but by technology. There would be no reason to license if her system could work. No reason to own, instead the code would figure out how best to use. Now, how would this work? Well, it was hard to explain this idea, even circa 2000. It was in that time, still people had this intuition about the way spectrum works, where it collides and crashes. But today's people's intuition's pretty clear about this because this is the technology of spectrum tools like Wi-Fi. These are protocols, code, for enabling the spectrum space to be used by many different devices without anybody deciding who gets to use what based on privilege given by the law. The code in this sense is in the law. And some believe, like David Reed, that depending on the way that we allocate this spectrum, we can actually have more capacity, the more users we have. So that this has a potential to be an increasing resource as demand increases for it. And so therefore, obviously an incredible facility for allocating and making use of this important resource. Now, when I wrote my book Future of Ideas in 2001, nobody really knew what the right answer was for how to allocate spectrum. The conventional wisdom about 2001 was that we should engage in some experimentation, try different models out, see which way would work. So between the model of Stalin, the model of Kost, and the model of Eddie Lamar, the idea was we should be chunking up the spectrum and seeing which worked best, which encouraged the most innovation, which was the most efficient way to be using spectrum. But since that time, the idea, the debate, has evolved in one direction only, in the direction of spectrum property. Because as the lobbyists have moved the policy makers in this fight, a very obvious question has been asked in Washington and again and again. Who's gonna make money with free spectrum? Unfree spectrum has become the new normal for how DC thinks about what we should be doing with spectrum. Ideas be damned, evidence be damned, good public policy be damned. That is the direction the policy makers would push us. And then one final example, broadband. So this is a technical legal term, but broadband in the United States sucks. If you look at any number of ways to rate broadband around the world, the United States is way, way down there. And to the left is bad, to the right is good, and what's embarrassing here is that France is even better than we are in broadband. Now to say it sucks is to say it sucks on average, but it sucks really bad depending on which state you happen to be in. And the worst state in the nation for some bizarre reason turns out to be North Carolina. North Carolina is dead last in the number of homes able to access internet speeds at the FCC's definition of broadband, which I think it's 200 kilobits or so, whatever. But the point is it's really bad. Now when you ask why is access to broadband so bad, in every case it's the same answer, monopoly power. There is little competition in the United States, poor competition in some places, no competition. And what that yield is really sucky broadband. And indeed just this week we saw evidence that it was because of the lack of competition we had such sucky broadband. Because when Google announced that they were gonna add their super broadband in Austin, all of a sudden Time Warner discovered that they could be offering 300 megabits per second in Austin. Something they said nobody wanted and that they couldn't do instantly, they were able to do once Google challenged them. Now when you look at a problem like this, this is a pretty obvious solution. If the problem is a lack of competition, what we need is more competition. And indeed that was the objective of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Back in those days there were two ways to get broadband over cable and over twisted pair DSL. And for DSL there was an open access requirement. Meaning competitive ISPs could connect to the head end and then offer services over the wires. So there would be competition to drive prices down and hopefully drive quality up. But by 2000, the open access requirement had been removed for DSL. So there was no open access requirement in our infrastructure. And so competition from that point on was dead. The response in many places around the country and in North Carolina was for communities to try to create competition. By muni broadband services being built to provide broadband locally in a much more efficient cost effective way than the cable monopolies were willing to do it. So in North Carolina for example, this is the graph that compares the traditional cable offerings, which of course are asymmetric and extremely expensive and very slow with the muni broadband which are symmetric and much less expensive for very, very fast service. So they were beginning to demonstrate that these munis could actually compete and provide really fast efficient broadband service. So what was the response to this response? North Carolina introduced a bill called the Leveling the Playing Field Local Government Competition Act that said competition was to be blocked. The Republican legislature passed the bill and then there's a furious campaign to get the Democratic Governor to veto it. H129 was the law that tried to get her to veto it. There are thousands of calls, resolutions across the state by local municipalities that said this is our lifeline. We need the ability to provide broadband. The result, she let the bill pass without her signing it. So the bill became law. And when she issued her non-signing statement, this is what she said, there's a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over providers in the private sector. Poor, time, orner. An unfair advantage. No, what's unfair about a government recognizing that provision of a critical infrastructure is not being made? And what's unfair about them responding to that, to defend their citizens, to provide for their citizens this critical infrastructure? Is it unfair if the city provides street lamps? Or if it builds highways, when of course private companies could be building highways? Or if it builds bridges? Because of course we could go back to the old days where bridges were privately owned and there were tolls on every single bridge. All of this is possible, but to say it's unfair is obviously ridiculous. No, it is not unfair for the state to support infrastructure, like the internet. Public support is essential, and it's not unfair, it's absurd to say it's unfair. So why give the North Carolina legislature and 20 other legislatures across the United States so far? Ban competition for local municipalities? Well, this fantastic organization, National Institute on Money in State Politics, did a nice little study. What they found was that supporters and leaders in the local legislature received 76% and 533% respectively. More contributions by these interests than those who were opposed to this, a radical difference in the total amount contributed to their campaigns. Leading them through the path to blocking competition. Okay, those are the stories of East Coast Code. And I wanna tell you one story about West Coast Code. Story that most of you won't even remember. Interesting how old we're getting. Okay, so here it is, 20 years ago this June, Intel engineers announced that there was a flaw in the Pentium chip. A flaw deep down in the core of the SRT algorithm to calculate intermediate quotients necessary for iterative floating point divisions. Yeah, I read that. There was a flaw, and the error meant, of course, that there was a certain probability that results of the calculations would be an error. The probability, one in 360 billion, that was the probability. So that meant for an ordinary spreadsheet, once every 27,000 years, you're likely to manifest that kind of flaw, which of course is about 26,996 years after the file format made it impossible for you to access the file anyway. But okay, there was going to be a problem sometimes for these different uses of this Intel Pentium chip. Now when this was announced, total outrage everywhere about the idea that the chip was flawed. This flaw, this error, this mistake at the core of the OS of this chip was outrageous, people like you said. And you're not going to stand by quietly as Intel put at risk fantasy baseball spreadsheets. It was not going to be allowed. So there was a revolution all across the world, people gathered to protest. Okay, that's not true really, but okay. There was this incredible activist movement, people rose up and demanded that Intel fix the flaw and Intel set aside almost one and a half a billion dollars to cover chip replacements. And millions of people took the step of replacing their Pentium chips to deal with the flaw to fix the flaw. So here, billions were spent, total value of the time spent here for a problem that would inflict itself maybe one out of 360 billion times there was a calculation with the machine. Okay, that's the model of the East Coast code versus West Coast code. I want you to keep in your head for a second. Now I'm going to shift to clues. So this is a poet you don't know you know, but you do know him. His name is Martin E. Merler. He was a German pastor and theologian born in the late 19th century in Lippstadt, Germany. And around 1946, he started uttering a verse that's quite familiar. He said, first they came for the communist and I did not speak out because I was not a communist, then they came for the socialist and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist, then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist, then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew, then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Okay, so what Neymar is demonstrating is a certain kind of insight, A kind of insight at the core of what we could think of as intelligence, or maybe we'll just call it cloufulness. Cloufulness. It's a certain kind of test. Can you recognize an underlying threat to your kind and respond? Can you recognize it and save yourself? Turns out ants are pretty good at it. Cows not so much. Not so much. The question is, can you see the pattern, the pattern, and recognize it and do something about it? Now, Henry David Thoreau thought it was rare. He wrote, there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, the root meaning the thing you should recognize, the pattern that was explaining all of these things that were happening. So the question I want to ask here tonight is, can we see the pattern? Can we see the pattern? And can we find a way to respond? That's the clues. Here's the introduction. That's the argument. So just about seven years ago, a friend, an incredibly sweet boy, Aaron Swartz, someone I knew for 12 of his last 12 years of his life, came to visit me. And so Aaron wanted to make me a little bit more clueful. He came to the 23rd Chaos Computer Conference in Berlin. I was at the American Academy in Berlin that year. So we spent the afternoon and evening walking and talking, and the focus of his conversation was a single question. He said to me, so how are you ever going to achieve progress in the things that I was working on that? So I just had finished Code Version 2, I was working on the remix, all of these policy fights about copyright and internet policy. He said, how are you ever going to make progress in those areas? So long as there's this corruption in our political system, he kind of stumped me, classic for Aaron question, to stump you, but there it was, he stumped me. My initial response was, look, Aaron, it's not my field, not my field. And he said, yeah, I get it, as an academic, it's not your field. Is that what you mean? And I said, yeah, that's it. It's not my field. It's for other people, I work on IP policy, copyright and cyber law policy. He said, OK, but as a citizen, not as an academic. Now that single question Aaron asked me changed my life. And that was Aaron's style. He wouldn't ever say, get a clue, he would just ask a question. And the meaning of the question was, get a clue. That single question changed my life because at that moment, after that exchange, I realized that he obviously was right, that in every single area that I cared about in IP policy and technology policy, and not just in the esoteric areas of copyright, but in every other area of policy that I cared about, the system of our government evolved to a place where interest had the power always to block reform, to block reform. And I realized I had been clueless about the way this corruption, as he described it, had evolved. So that summer, at the ICOMN summit, I announced to the community, stunned the community by announcing that I had decided, there's no pictures of it, this is in second life. This is my speech in second life. It really happened in real life, but we don't have any pictures. I don't know why. But OK, I announced to the community that I was giving up IP as in I was not going to work on copyright anymore, and I was not going to work on internet policy, and I was going to focus my work on what Aaron had described, this focus on corruption. Now it was a good time for this kind of focus. Just at the same time, candidate Obama was challenging candidate Clinton on exactly this issue. He was saying we need to take up the fight, the fight to change the way Washington works. Famous speech he said, if we're not willing to take up that fight, then real change, change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans, will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo. Yeah, blocked by the defenders of the status quo. So he gave us this beautiful font, Change. It's a beautiful font. It's called Gotham. It's a great font. It's expensive, but OK, Change. When I was committed to the idea, Change was the challenge. But not just the president, Aaron and I then decided we were going to create a parallel organization. We called it Change Congress. And the objective of this organization, he was on the board, was to build this cross-partisan movement to focus on this roots, cross-partisan movement to get a political system to get a clue. The clue about what John McCain had called in 2000, the quote, system of corruption that makes it impossible for this government to function, to get people to recognize that until we fix this, we fix nothing, that this was the most important problem. Now, it was a lot of fun building and working on this organization with him, with Aaron. It was an incredible team in addition to him. Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Dean's campaign, Air dropped in a staffer who wanted to run the campaign for me to run for Congress. I refused to run, but he stayed around to work on Change Congress. And there was this team of people, Aaron, Adam Green, and Stephanie Taylor, who were the core behind this organization, Change Congress. And then with the president, won the siren call for the progressives to march out and start their own progressive organization, became irresistible. I wanted a cross-partisan organization. I was not interested in an organization focused on what the left cares about. I was interested in an organization, tries to speak to everybody, but they said, this is our chance. We've got a new progressive president. He's going to make it possible for us to get climate change and health care reform and every single thing we've been looking for, he's going to deliver it for us. So the core team left, and they started this group called Progressive Change Campaign Committee, or BOLD Progressives, described by Ed Shultz as the most important progressive organization in America today. Aaron was the founding board member of that, and then Aaron split off and started a different group called Demand Progress. Now the work of those organizations was critically important, at least for us progressives. And critically important for net freedom. They were behind the organization that eventually led to the defeat, the incredible defeat of the so-called PIPA legislation. But those organizations were critically incomplete because they were not yet focused on this core flaw in the chip inside this government. They were not focused, or at least not yet focused on this root. And I remember I teased Aaron about this mercilessly. You know, I said here he had given up the real fight, he had given up the real fight, the thing he said we had to be fighting, he did that to go off and do list building and chase girls. That's what he was doing. Like, this was the sexy, fun, new thing, the progressive organization, but I knew, I believed, and I think he knew and believed that someday he would return to that fight. And we were wrong. We didn't get a chance to return to that fight. He was on the way back to that fight, to the fight that he believed was the only fight that really matters. He got tripped by a system of justice that has gone insane and in the incredible depression of seeing two years of his life and all of his resources sucked up in this battle with a government that made no sense. Only a year and a month and ten days ago, today, he took his life. So I'm here because he sent me. I'm here with a clue. I'm here with something Aaron gave me and I want to give it to you, what Aaron made me recognize when he got me to see this critical flaw in the chip inside this government, one that corrupts this government. Not one out of every three hundred and sixty billion times, but every time, every single important issue this government tries to address, every single issue you care about that we care about, that flaw in that chip corrupts that process. Every single time, the framers of our constitution didn't give us a democracy. They gave us what they called a republic. By a republic, they meant a representative democracy. And by a representative democracy, they meant a government that would have a branch that would be, quote, dependent on the people alone. So here's the model of government. You've got the people, you've got the government, do my own slides, it's cool that bounces like that. Okay, so the people and the government. And exclusive dependence, but here's the problem, we've allowed a different dependence to evolve. Dependence on the funders of campaigns too. This is a dependence too. Members of Congress and candidates for Congress spent anywhere between thirty and seventy percent of their time raising money to get back to Congress or to get their party back to power. And what we have to do is to think about what does it do to them as they sit there dialing for dollars, calling people across the country to raise the money they need to get their party back into power. B.F. Skinner, again, is this image of the Skinner box, you know, I could have had a rat, but I was kind. So I put a pigeon here in the Skinner box. So a Skinner box is a device where even a creature as stupid as a pigeon can learn which buttons it needs to push to get the sustenance it needs to survive. We need to recognize this is a picture of the modern American congressperson. As they sit there and learn the buttons they need to push every single day so they can learn how they get the sustenance they have, they require in order to survive. This is their life and this is what it produces. It produces a dependence, a dependence that's different and conflicting from a dependence on the people alone, at least so long as the funders of campaigns are not the people. Just to be clear, the funders of campaigns are not the people. The people they're calling 30 to 70% of the time represent 0.05% of America. About 150,000 Americans are the people being called by these people as they sit there for 30 to 70% of their time, 150,000. The internet tells me that's about the same number of people as are named Lester in the United States right now, which is why in my TED talk I described America as Lester land. That's where we live. Lester land. Now the thing to recognize, it doesn't take a PhD in psychology to recognize that as they do this they develop a sixth sense, a constant awareness about how what they do will affect their ability to raise money. They become in the words of the X-files, shapeshifters, as they constantly adjust their views and what they know will help them to raise money. Not an issue is 1 to 10, but an issue is to 11 to 1,000. Leslie Burn, a Democrat from Virginia, describes that when she went to Congress, she was told by a colleague quote, always lean to the green than to clarify she went on, he was not an environmentalist. Now this is a corruption, a corruption of the system the framers intended us to have. Here's how we should see it. United States today has two elections. I don't mean the primary election and the general election. United States today has two elections. One is a voting election where you go out and you vote in a booth. It's a discrete event that happens on two days every election cycle. But in addition to that discrete election, there's a continuous election that happens 24-7 between one election and the next. That's called the money primary, the money primary. In the voting election, all citizens get to vote if you're over 18, in some states if you have an ID. In the money primary, it's the relevant funders who get to vote. The relevant funders who are called up 30 to 70% of the time spent by these members calling them to get them to fund their campaigns. And the structure of this democracy is to be allowed to run in the voting election, you must do well in the money election. You don't necessarily have to win, there is Jerry Brown, but you must do extremely well. Or at least you believe you must do extremely well, which drives you to spend all that ridiculous time raising money from this tiniest, tiniest fraction of the 1%. Now, this is not the first time we've had an election structured like this in United States history. Until the 1940s in the Old South, there were two elections, too. It was a general election and there was a white primer. In the general election, all the citizens got to vote. In the white primary, at least in the Democratic Party, only whites got to vote. Only whites got to vote. And just as with the money primary, in order to run in the general election, you had to do well in the white primary. And guess what? People who appealed to non-whites in the white primary didn't typically do very well. Now, the point you recognize is this structure, which we all recognize is an abomination to democracy, is exactly the structure of our democracy today. But unlike in the Old South, where the white primary was a primary where 88% of the population could participate, in the money primary, it's only 0.05% of America that gets to participate. It's the tiniest minority who gets to set the agenda, who gets to determine what issues will be set for the general election by their dramatic influence in the money primary. This is a republic. It's a republic corrupted. This is the reality that we have to see. It's the reality of this democracy. So I'm here to do what he did seven years ago. I'm here to recruit you to this cause of cluefulness, to the cause of changing us from cows into ants, of building an awareness necessary to save this republic. Now you'll tell me, not your field. It's not your field. And I get it, as technologists, it's not your field. But as citizens, as citizens. Now I'm not asking you to devote your life to it, the way Aaron asked me to devote my life to this. I'm not as persuasive as he is. But I am asking for some cycles, for some cycles. Your 20% time, or maybe your 10% time. I don't know, you tell me what it is. But there is a movement out there that has enormous needs which you uniquely can provide, the obvious ones, the technical needs. This is a movement that will only succeed if we find a way to knit together people in a different model from the television advertising model of politics today. That is meat for your skill. And this movement is starved for people with your skill who can figure out how to make this work. Desperately needs this type of skill. Offered by people who genuinely believe in the cause as opposed to people who are just trying to get rich. But more important than the technical is it needs you as citizens. Because this debate is filled with the lawyers and the politicians and the law professors and the activists and the politically engaged. And they are the ones, excuse me, who have fucked it up. What it needs is people who have not been engaged. Who have not yet been engaged because frankly your time is better spent not worrying about government. I get it. You are rational to ignore what the government does. Totally rational. But we are at a point where we can't afford that anymore. And we need people like you who have not been engaged to become engaged. Because this is one of those rare incredibly rare issues. Where it actually is not controversial. We did a poll at the end of last year. We asked how important is it to you that the influence of money in politics be reduced? 96% of America, 96% of America said it was important. 68% said it was very important. Making it the number one issue on this poll of the important issues for the government to address. But if you turn to the pundits and you ask them, what about this issue? They'll say, look, America doesn't care about this issue. They will never vote on the basis of this issue. They'll never demand that a politician address this issue. They'll never pick one politician over another politician on the basis of this issue. And the more I've looked at this, the more I'm convinced that the pundits are wrong. And it turns out this is the first time ever that they've been wrong. But the pundits are wrong and here's the clue. We asked them just after the question I just showed you where 96% said that they want money, influence of money to be reduced. How likely is it that the influence of money in politics will be reduced? 91% said it's not likely. So 96% wanted, 91% says it's not likely. What that produces is the politics of resignation, which is where we are today. So look, think about flying like Superman. I think at least 96% of us would really want to fly like Superman. But 91% at least believe that's not possible, which explains why we don't typically fling ourselves from the top of buildings. We accept the fact that this is just not our future. And we live our life accepting this fact. But if you begin to thaw that resignation, if you begin to give people a reason to hope that in fact there was something that could be done here, you could unleash an incredible amount of energy and passion to do something about that. And that was the challenge that a year and a month and 10 days ago I realized I had to take up when Aaron died. What could we do to crack that pessimism? So when I was thinking about this anniversary of his death, I thought to myself, what I wanted to do was to do something that was as physically miserable as the last year had been emotionally miserable. So we started this organization called The New Hampshire Rebellion. And inspired by this incredible woman, Doris Haddock, aka Granny D. So exactly 15 years ago this month, or last month, January 1st, 1999, started not far from here at the age of 88 and walked across the United States with the sign campaign finance reform on her chest. It took her 13 months. She arrived at the age of 90 having walked 3,200 miles for the cause of raising awareness about this issue. Now, we don't have 13 months, but I thought, what could we do that would be similar, but more painful? So we organized a march from the tip of New Hampshire to the bottom, starting in Dixville Notch, which is where the presidential primary in 2016 will start ending in Nashua. And we started that march on January 11th, the day Aaron died. And for two weeks, we marched across the state. Total of 212 people participated in the march. We walked a total of 6,412 miles twice as much as Granny D did. And as we marched across that state, there were thousands of people who came out to engage with us about this issue. Honking their horn, coming out from their houses in their pajamas, putting signs on the front of their road, go Granny D walkers. Passionate, passionate about this issue, desperately finding a way to crack the resignation that all the pundits say is there. And when you begin to think about the numbers, there's a reason to be hopeful that this could be cracked. I mean, you think about the state of New Hampshire, which is the critical state in the primary process in America. There's only 1.1 million people in New Hampshire, 750,000 voters. But if you look at the actual election, in 2008, the difference between Clinton and Obama was 8,000 votes. The difference between Romney and Ron Paul in 2012 was 40,000 votes. So this is an incredibly manageable project, the project of, let's say, isolating, identifying 50,000 people in New Hampshire who say, this is my issue, the number one issue that I will focus on, this is the issue that I will demand every candidate address. And so what the objective we have in New Hampshire is, is to weave a briar patch through the state so that no candidate can go anywhere without catching him or herself on someone who demands that they answer one single question. What will you do to end the system of corruption in Washington? And as those questions are asked, they will be captured on film and we will post them and ask people to critique them on an incredible, collective project to raise awareness around this issue and shift the focus of New Hampshire voters to this one cause. Every single newspaper in New Hampshire followed what we did and every single major newspaper wrote a bed saying, this had to be New Hampshire's issue. So you think about the objective with the aspirations that your projects have. The objective of just identifying 50,000 people. It's trivial for you, trivial for you. It's the sort of thing you guys do on a weekend, trivial. But if we did it, imagine the shape shifting then. Imagine the shape shifting of candidates as they began to think, I only get through New Hampshire if I address this issue successfully. And then imagine how that shifts the potential, the hope for the rest of that presidential campaign. So we walked and in 2015 we will walk again. We have a goal of 1,000 people in 10 different routes across the state and in 2016 leading up to the primary, we will walk again. And we will walk again and again until this state resonates with this idea and makes this the issue and until this objective of finding 50,000 seems like a very small objective because it's more than 50,000, it's 100,000 who have identified this as the issue. This is just one idea. An idea motivated by this incredibly sweet boy who once had a life which was your life. Your life. And then decided, however cool, however great, how incredibly powerful your life was, however powerful and great that was. That life was not enough. The he as a citizen had to do something more. And Ben Franklin was carried from the Constitutional Convention in September of 1787. He was stopped in the streets of Philadelphia and asked by a woman, Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought? And Franklin said, a Republic, madam, if you can keep it. A Republic. A representative democracy. A government dependent on the people alone. There is no doubt, but that we have lost that Republic. Now I get it. It's not as important as a flaw in the Pentium ship. It is more important than a flaw in the Pentium ship. And we have to find a way to rally people to demand that we get it back. Thank you very much.