 So today, we transition to talking really more about community, use cases, and how we take the technology that we build with annotation and apply it to solving problems for real people. And one of the most interesting use cases for me is government, law, digital civil liberties and how we can apply annotation to reach into things, documents, matters of state, matters of people, and be precise and be critical about the things that are important to us. And that drive our governments and the way we work as people. And one of the most interesting organizations to me and one of the most organizations that's kind of showed up earliest and has done some of the most important work in protecting and thinking about deeply and protecting our emerging digital civil liberties is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And so when I started putting together hypothesis a couple years ago, we incorporated, we had to put a board together, so I had to think, okay, who should I ask to be a board member for hypothesis? Who would share my vision for what annotation could be and the potential of it? And who would protect the essential kind of philosophical core of this? Because with a non-profit it's different from a for-profit, but the for-profit is the shareholders that control the organization. The board is important, but ultimately the shareholders have the power. Non-profits are very different. The board has all the power, and so you have to be really careful about the people that you ask to participate. So I, over a series of a couple conversations, got to know John Perry and over the course of about a year, asked if he might be warned to be a board member for hypothesis, and I'm very grateful that he agreed. So I'd like to welcome a really unique individual who sits at the nexus of digital thinking and has led one of the most fascinating lives of anybody that I've ever met. John Perry. I, for a variety of reasons, I've been terribly sleep short lately. I've been traveling a lot, and I'm in a major deficit. And so when Dan asked me if I'd drive in from Marin at 8.30 this morning, it really tested my commitment to both Dan and this organization. I'd rather be dreaming, but the reason I'm here instead is that I have a dream, and you folks are part of it, intimately, I think. And my dream is pretty simple. It's the same dream I've had since I discovered the Internet back in about 1985, and that dream is that we will create a time, and maybe sooner than many people would think, in which anybody anywhere can know as much as they are intellectually capable of assimilating about any subject as is presently known to all of humanity. I mean that some kid in Mali can know as much about some particular intricacy of proteomics as he is capable of learning, because the information will be available to him. Now for a long time I focused on just making sure that there was the necessary infrastructure, literally, to bring that to him. And I've spent a great deal of time at the EFF and continue to trying to change the publishing model and copyright model. That is, I think, the principal obstacle between that kid and knowing what can be known. But there's a much more complicated and subtle set of problems that you folks are dealing with, which have to do with creating the ecosystem of meaning. The metabolic sort of truth that makes it possible for that kid to have access to the good stuff and not be completely overwhelmed by the irrelevant and the untrue. What the human race needs as much as anything else is a metabolic system for meaning and truth. And truth, I grant you, is tricky. I was sitting at a table yesterday with some intelligent and I think scientifically inclined people who were hard pressed to admit that anything was a fact. I mean, there's one fellow there who told me that he didn't think the periodic table consisted of facts. And I thought, well, okay, we're pretty much at sea. I actually think that there are facts in the periodic table of elements, but I'll go that far. But I could understand what he was getting at. And I understand that within the paradigm of larger human understanding, there are some things that probably will turn out not to be objectively true that are generally believed to be now. And there's a problem with that. But the process by which we alter the paradigm or expand the paradigm or adjust it properly is part of the process that you folks are engaging in here. If you can come up with ways to be instructively, briefly critical and point in the direction of what will be a better model for understanding reality, then we can be about this digestive process much more rapidly. I think of thought and society and culture as being no different from any other ecosystem. But in biological ecosystems, like a rainforest or coral reef, what you have is a system for sorting meaning. In that case, I would say that meaning consists of a photon. That's a meaningful thing. A system for sorting all those photons so that they end up in essentially the right place within a very complex system of interrelated operations. And I don't think there's any difference between that and elements of truth, genuine facts, and their sort through the system, the ecology of human thought taken as a whole. And I think that what you are doing and what you have the leverage to do, even though you are a small group of people, you are a very smart small group of people who are on to something that I think is the right thing to be on if we're really going to achieve that dream. And I'm very grateful to you. I think this is really hard work, just understanding what an annotation might be is not an easy thing. And trying to come up with a system that replaces or enhances peer review in a way that gets us closer to an understanding of what is, is not an easy thing to do. But I think that you are here, and from all evidence I see, you were doing it, and I'm very grateful to you for that.