 Regarding the statements that security is just firewalls and networks and tools and gadgets and widgets, that is totally not true. Those things make up a large portion of what security is, but in today's landscape, the real boundary to make a secure organization are the people. And it's the people in the organization who we have to educate on how to recognize where there are risks. And it's less about putting up barriers and walls, which are still important and are still necessary, but more about educating the user environment and the university environment on how to recognize risk and how to manage the risk much better. It's really too bad that you guys apparently had decaf this morning, whereas David and I are clearly fully caffeinated. I think you're making actually, oh, is that caffeinated? I hope so. The truth is, we're all agreeing that security is important and that it isn't just technology that we deploy at our borders. But I think this is exactly the rub, is that by putting it at the top of the list, it becomes something in, I think, a lot of the leadership minds that can be dealt with with sort of focused attention. And for me, so much of security is persistent, regular, incremental change and growth. So to give you an example, I would much prefer not to invest a couple hundred thousand dollars this year in new border firewalls. I would rather have all of my staff have security written into their job description. So it becomes that working with the entire ecosystem. And what I do worry about is that when it floats to the top of a list, like the edge of cause list, it gets treated like a problem that can be solved. When as my esteemed colleague, Mr. Escalante has pointed out to me, much of the risks around security are ones where the adversary adapts to what you put in his or her place. That's not true for many of the other risks that we're dealing with. So it's that persistent, organic presence of security in our environments that I think being number one on the list works against. I would have to agree with you, Mr. Corn. Okay, the debate's over. Great, we're done. We won. Except, except that... Wait, there's a butt? There's a butt. There's a big butt. Well, let's not go there. Too late, already there. Except that the landscape is evolving. So even as we go to change something in how we're performing our activities, once, like as you said, once we do that, the malware actors then make a change. And then we have to then go ahead and make a change. So it's an endless cycle, which at some point, again, the edge of cause top 10 issues list is a cyclical list. Various things bubble up to the top and then go back to the bottom and bubble to the top and then go to the bottom, which mirrors the cycle of how things change within the IT world. Security, albeit, is now questionably, should it be IT, should it be uniformly organizational, is a question that, well, we're debating about here as well. But there is a large IT component to it, which edge of cause has focused on and has allowed it to rise to the top. Or I should say, through the surveys, it has risen to the top again. But it's always on the list. And I don't think it's ever going off the list, unless security becomes a non-technology issue, which I don't know about you. I don't foresee happening in a while. So I agree with you with basically what you're saying. But I do think that through the cyclical nature of things, it will keep bubbling up to the top. And for us as security professionals, that is the indicator to, hey, you know, it's time to reassess our security program and see if we have to do any changes, which may include looking at all the job descriptions and making sure security is written into everybody's job description or something else that is non-technology related. I feel as though Mike sort of made our point for us, Neil, that IT security needs to be number one on the list. And I would add, in some ways, because of that evolving nature, because the actors have become more sophisticated in their attacks against our institutions, that there may be some that because of whatever reason, a budget, not paying attention to it, that this is a time to reinvest in security and think about what's needed. And not every institution is in the same place in this arena. What does it mean for a community college to invest in security efforts? What does it mean for a research institution to invest in security efforts? And that might be a bit different. But I do think that in many ways, because of the changes and then the nature of how we address security changes that we may have fallen behind in some places. And so this is why it's bubbling to the top as an issue. It also is a challenge for our communities. I mean, we've talked about how awareness is important for everyone on the campus. And this is certainly something that we need to invest in as well. Not all of our students understand, not all of our faculty understand. Sure, they get the notification that their Home Depot credit card has been compromised in some way. But what does that mean when it translates into work? So this kind of awareness is something that we need to invest in more broadly as well. And that's why I think it continues to bubble to the top. I think it would be easier for us if we didn't have to make your points for you, esteemed opponents. So get to work over there. I just wanted to mention something from the EJECO's review that came out with the top 10 issues. That was a quote from the CIO here at Boston College that I think ties in with what we're talking about here. And the quote from Mike Burke, our Vice President, is, The expectations and needs of the user community at an institution of higher education are wide-ranging and fast-changing. Agility in our delivery of technology-based solutions and services is key. But without appropriate security measures, any open and agile solution lessens in value. And I think this is what we're talking about in our somewhat in agreement on that what ought to be core to our mission and what we ought to be working on is coming up with meeting the expectations and needs of our user community. And if in fact a base technology like security ends up being our top concern year after year after year after year that lessons our flexibility in our budget and our ability to meet user needs and represents a failure on our part to meet the expectations of both the rest of IT and the rest of our community to make sure that the foundational stuff is actually functioning right and properly so we can go ahead with stuff that advances the mission. I think you just remade a point that I made earlier. That's why it's number one. Well, and that's what I'm saying. It's tough when we have to keep remaking your points.