 One concern is that the polygraph community may see eye-detect as a threat to their industry or their profession. Will it replace polygraphs or is it a tool to be used together with polygraphs? The way Converis and the scientists involved envision this, it is an adjunct, an assistance to the vetting process to complement polygraph techniques, not replace them. So the advantage of eye-detect is you use it as a first screen. We talk about successive screens. The term screening actually comes from analyzing soils and materials to run them through screens that concentrate the smaller and smaller particles looking for gold, for example. That's what screening is. So you have a series of successive screens, the same is true in vetting potential employees. You start with a screen that can take the large number and reduce it quickly to a smaller pool of acceptable people. And then you can run them through a second screen using polygraphs. So you start with the least expensive technology that can screen large numbers of people in a short period of time and follow it as necessary with a more expensive technology that's more time consuming but is now used on a smaller subset of the people. And when you combine the accuracies of the two in a successive screening process like that, if you have two techniques that are, say, 85% accurate each, by the time you're finished and people pass both screens you're into the upper 90% level of confidence that your result is correct.