 Thank you very much, Carl. I'm a huge fan of what you're doing and it's very, very important. So let me try to put this effort in context with an analogy that I have been thinking about since I began my activism in the government technology space. And it was the idea that when we look at the computer industry, we see that the most powerful innovations are the development of platforms. And by platform, I mean a set of technologies that have in some ways relatively minimal characteristics. What they do is to enable others to build on top of them. And so when you look, for example, at the personal computer, that first revolution that sparked the democratization of computing, the personal computers were much simpler than the mainframes of the day. But it was because the platform was more open that we saw the wave of innovation that made computing a fact of everyday life. The second enormous revolution, which Carl already alluded to, which actually began earlier, took a little longer to develop, was this development of the internet. And again, simplicity won. It was the simple platform that didn't specify very much, that focused on openness and interoperability and lowered the barriers to innovation that created this networked economy that we now know today. World Wide Web was not part of Vince's original vision when they wrote TCPIP, HTTP didn't exist. But when Tim Berners-Lee came along and dropped up the World Wide Web, he didn't need to ask permission. He didn't need to go to any standards body. All he needed to do was find one other person willing to put up an instance of a compatible server and client and they were off to the races. And we're seeing a similar revolution today in smartphones. I like to remind people that Apple wrote perhaps 15 applications for the iPhone. And sure, they were remarkable. It was a fabulous phone. But all of a sudden we have 200,000 applications on the iPhone, which Apple did not have to write because they designed the phone for really for the first time as a fairly open platform. And the analogies there in computing to what I think should be the goals of government, what should be the goals of our legal system are very, very potent. We can learn a lot from the history of computer platforms and we can start to think how does it apply to law and to the role of government. And what we see first off is that I think the best platforms are fundamentally simple. And I think one of the places that we have lost our way as a nation, one of the places that we have lost our way as a society is we are writing ever more complex, ever more definitive specifications that are not tested against reality. And we do not measure the outcomes. Now, if you build a simple platform, you're not actually specifying very much. I think Vint can talk to this in terms of what they thought about with the internet, what did they specify? And what did they expect? And the simple rules by which the internet was built. And I was struck recently by the thought that the Glass-Steagall financial reform was, I think, something like 35 pages long. The current financial reform bill is something like 1,500 pages long. And then that analogy is, I think, something that we really need to study. And one of the implications for me of the Law.gov effort is by making the law more accessible, we can start to study it. We can start to understand when is it serving us. Because in the end, we don't want laws. We want the outcomes of those laws. Laws are effectively programs, again, using my analogy from computers. Laws are actually, they're really not even programs. They're specifications for programs. And those programs are designed to have an outcome or designed to work for our society. And we do not have a science yet of understanding whether the code that we write is producing the desired outcomes. And what I want to see as a result of Law.gov is a profound effort to understand whether our laws are serving us. I want to understand how we can apply the engineering practices from software, which of course are also being invented. I won't say that software works perfectly. In fact, there's a famous quote I remember seeing on Usenet said, if architects built buildings the way programmers write software, a single woodpecker could come along and destroy all of civilization. But that's even more true, I think, of our legal system. But we will see that in transparency of our laws, in access to our laws, we have the beginning of a hope of starting to measure, starting to look in and understand what works. We have a massive challenge in that we are starting with a system that is overly complex, overly difficult. And we need to somehow get back to an idea of simplicity, of specifying less and accomplishing more. There's a concept in computer called refactoring, trying to understand how all the different pieces of a program work together, how it could be designed differently to accomplish its goal without tripping all over itself. And I think we need to start to do that with our legal system. As you know, not only do we often write laws that don't achieve the desired outcomes, we often write laws that conflict. We write laws that specify things that are impossible. We write laws that are ignored. And we need actually to start to build systems in which the outcomes of laws are measured, in which there are feedback loops. And I think all of that is, I think, a future outcome of thinking of law as a kind of programming for our society. And I'd love to see us explore that analogy. I'd love to see us take this analogy of law as the source code of our democracy and understand how we could better use the tools that we have developed for writing the laws by which our computers operate, and actually watching those programs execute, understand when they work, creating feedback loops so that we can fix them when they're broken, and effectively debugging the system. A friend of mine wants to find debugging as the art of understanding what you really told your program to do instead of what you thought you told it to do. And I think in a similar way, we need to debug our legal system. We need to understand what did we really tell it to do versus what we thought we told it to do. And I think making that law available, making that law more accessible to everyone is the beginning of that process. And, you know, once we have that opportunity, we can start to say, how can we write laws that will better unleash the creative potential of our citizens? How will we write laws that better enable the outcomes that we want? How will we write laws that don't get in our way, but instead support what we want to accomplish as a society? And I think that begins very much with Carl's vision of the transparency of the law, the availability of the law, the universal study of the law, and I think that will lead us down the path to the simplification of the law and the improvement of the law. Thank you. Wow. That's a head full of thought. Sorry.