 Well, I've tried rather hard to think about how what I'm going to talk about is directly relevant to the theme. And I realized that when I wake up in the morning, I ask myself one question every day. And that is, what I'm doing today, will normal market forces do it? And if the answer is yes, stop. Anything normal market forces will do, I do know what to do. Because I believe that normal market forces will be do many things, but not the important things and the ones that I would like to intervene and see happen. Hence, my whole life is, if you will, in the public sector. I don't look at the private sector. Many people ask me, why didn't one laptop per child cooperate with these CSR programs of big corporations? Well, there tend to be a bad joke. Corporate social responsibility is in the world of philanthropy and affect a bad joke. Because they are small, they are divided geopolitically, and the real meaning of those is more public relations than making the world a better place. And the public sector is in the places that you really want to affect sort of a mess. And so it's a hard place to deal with. So what I'm going to do is talk to you a little bit about education in the way that we tried to do it with one laptop per child with the benefit of having done this now for four years. I would come to your center to hear. I'd give talks in the early days when it was a wish. It was sort of a dream, a proposition. Now there are 3 million laptops in the hands of kids, five to 12 years old in 40 countries, 25 languages, growing by leaps and bounds. And those are our laptops. Now there are lots of other laptops, probably five or six times as many as ours. So even though the number is smaller than I would wish, the number of kids in the developing world that are connected with their own laptop, maybe not one that they can take home, like ours. In fact, we make that a requirement. Is probably some number closer to 10 or 15 million children. Still not huge considering that the population of kids that we would want to reach is something like 500 or 600 million to be at 15 as a step, but not a very big or a complete one. What we have discovered, I think more than anything else, is that everybody who had thought of the use of computers in learning was completely fixated on teaching children, on imparting to children a body of knowledge, and that children would learn through maybe a curriculum, through content. When people tell me the word content, I sort of shiver because I realize that they don't really understand what you want to see happen. And that is you want to see children teaching. And we have in Peru about a million laptops in that one country. And I would say as many as 20, 30% of those children are teaching their parents how to read. And if that doesn't put goosebumps on your goosebumps, I have nothing else to tell you. But when these kids teach their parents how to read, it completely changes their role in the family, in the village, and that to me is the most profound kind of learning because the self-esteem of those kids, the joy they get out of teaching and the joy they get out of learning is the one thing you want them to get. Not about test scores or memorizing stuff. So when I now use these pictures really like Musac to sort of remind myself to say things and also some of them are quite extraordinary. This picture was sent to me recently. I have no, obviously no idea who this young girl is, but the intensity with which she is focused on what she is doing. And you may notice there's a little hat in the background which is her baby brother. I just think that the effect on this young girl's life will be quite dramatic. This is a child again in Peru. I'm sorry, the images are not higher resolution. We were very often criticized for being too child-centric. And the reason I show this image is because you would like to see this happen all over the world. This teacher had never worked with computers obviously, but more importantly, the way he taught was that every child was sitting on little sort of in lines, one behind the other, perfectly still, and it was in a corporal punishment was actually part of the curriculum. And this is the way he teaches now. He doesn't teach in any other way. And the kids run to the classroom and the parents hang in the windows. And that is again the kind of learning that you wanna see happen. And I think that when the world is a connected world, you're gonna see a lot more peace and that's gonna come in part from the elimination of poverty, which could only happen through education. I mean, there are many ways to eliminate poverty, but they all include education. So what I would like to focus on is what might be sort of counterintuitive in this. And I had to give opening speech at the UN on Monday and I as usual try to take a position that sort of annoys the audience and advocated that sustainability was really a very bad thing. And of course, everybody was trying to make sustainable NGOs. And the reason sustainability is not a good thing in my mind is that it usually leads to very small thinking. And a lot of the so-called NGOs of this world spend a lot of their time in existence and figuring out how they're gonna exist and do something micro, feeding itself and sustainability is an excuse to be small. And sidewalks aren't sustainable. Clean air isn't sustainable. That's not done through an economic model of sustainability that I'm gonna do something or in something, it's done with a much bigger vision. And the next thing that I suggested that was wrong and I'm gonna get into trouble in this group, but I really believe it and that is I think measurement is wrong. Measuring results is a waste of time. And when people measure results, that means that what they did was so small that the only way you could see it was by measuring. And that the things you wanna do in life are big enough that they don't need measurement. And if you're gonna eliminate poverty or you're gonna build buildings that don't fall down with earthquakes, you don't have to measure just noticeable differences and that the measurement comes from a process where donors, particularly bureaucrats, are so nervous they want you to measure the results. Now I told you there are three million laptops out there. Do you know how many the world bank did? Somebody like to guess? Out of three million? Zero, zero. Now why does the world bank do zero? Because they want you to measure the results. And we say, what do you mean measure the results? We can give you some examples. Truancy, which averaged 30% in one country we went to drop to almost zero, it was like 1%. No, no, no, no, we want other kinds and then we want these, this kind of testing and that kind of testing is saying, you know, come on. You really are changing society in very fundamental ways. So who were the people who did it? Which countries? One country was Uruguay and the president of Uruguay did it because he had the strength of character. He stood up and he said, every child in my country will have a connected laptop in 18 months, period. And in 18 months every child in that country, 500,000 of them today have a connected laptop. People of the world bank don't do that because in bureaucracies if it doesn't go well you get the blame and if it goes well your boss gets the credit. So there's really no sort of incentive and we looked around at various countries and the countries that have done it like Peru in case of Garcia or Rwanda in the case of Kagami was always the strength of character of the head of state. So to not take more than my time I wanna show you quickly what we're doing today only because I don't think I've shown this publicly before and the first one of these arrived in Jakarta, I haven't even seen it about three hours ago. So one of the things we're doing today is which is very different than the laptop. When we built the laptop about four, four and a half years ago we had to build the laptop. There wasn't one. Everybody thought it was a silly idea, the industry didn't want it and so we just had to actually build it. So now we're doing a tablet and this is the tablet. It's waterproof, covered rubber, the rubber fits on the back and you can see sort of images of it, very simple, be well below $100, be better than an iPad, it'll be as good as a Kindle in the sunlight. This time we don't have to build it. This time we can just threaten to build it. And all we need to do is show working engineering models and we can prove that the bill of materials is well below 70 bucks and anybody else is welcome to build it. We might build it too, but anybody. And so all you have to do this time around because nobody questions it anymore is to actually threaten to do it. So this is what we're threatening to do. There it is and I'll use the rest of the time for Q&A. Thank you. So I'll open it up to the room in a minute but I have a question because it brings up one of the themes that I think we've been skirting around a lot today which is the question of privilege because one of the, certainly one of the issues around privacy is that it's easy to be in public when you're very privileged and when you have a lot of power and that one of the things that we need to deal with with privacy is perhaps protecting the role of the underprivileged or those whose actions and beliefs are not part of the mainstream. And so I was struck with looking at your slides. How many of you have read Sherry Turkle's book Alone Together or have heard of it? Most of you have heard of it's a phrase but there's certainly a big resonance in a lot of writing today that when views show well off children sitting next to each other each side by side with their screens. It's shown as this nightmare of contemporary culture that we don't know how to talk to each other anymore that we're asocialized and all we do is sit in front of our computers. And when we show a picture like this of school children in a poor community sitting side by side at their screens the story it tells is of the wonders of technology and the openness of education. I was wondering if you could say something about why do we see these different currents between giving this laptop here doesn't make people think oh my God why are they doing this, why can't they talk anymore? And why do we see that same image when we see it with American youth as such a nightmare? Well, I'm not sure that when I see American or European kids huddled around laptops that way that I think of it as a sign that they can't communicate. And many people say to us why, if you're doing this why don't you do it in the United States and why don't you do it in developed countries? And the answer is that it's first of all a much harder problem. It's much harder to renovate a house than to build a new one. And education in this country is such a catastrophe for all sorts of structural reasons. Give you three quick ones is that they're 15,000 school districts. Another one is it's run on real estate taxes and the third being that it's based on tests. So you got three fundamental structural problems that change your view of the way kids talk to each other and the way they might use, which make it a much harder problem. So I'm not sure it's so much the social difference or the privilege. It's sort of our education system has got such fundamental flaws. Flaws that when I see programs like KIPP or some of the things the Gates Foundation says or Bill says, I say to myself, wow, they just don't see the real issue in our education system. And it's a much deeper problem than sort of alone together, which I think by the way is a great title and Sherry's book may benefit from people using it as an expression in the language where you go out to dinner and your spouse is on the cell phone and you say sweetheart, we're alone together.