Speaker 1: Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcome to Forward Thinking, the
Speaker 1: podcast that looks at the future and says I've kissed
Speaker 1: mermaids Rhode l Nino. I'm Jonathan Strickland, and I'm Lauren
Speaker 1: Folke BAM. And Joe is out on vacation and he
Speaker 1: will be back soon. I think he's probably having amazing
Speaker 1: adventures right now, yes, and we do. Well. Yeah, as
Speaker 1: of this recording, I think he might actually be back
Speaker 1: in the future when you hear this right well, even then,
Speaker 1: he'll still have amazing adventures. He is the keeper of
Speaker 1: the mystical acts, so which we have not had in
Speaker 1: our podcast room for a long time, but we have
Speaker 1: had it in our hearts. That's true, where where we
Speaker 1: keep our access uh, which is dangerous. By the way,
Speaker 1: I do not recommend speaking of danger. There's a danger
Speaker 1: of doing a video about breaking news and science because
Speaker 1: sometimes that breaking news turns out to be a different
Speaker 1: story than what we first had thought. Which brings us
Speaker 1: to today's episode. So way back in March of we're
Speaker 1: recording this in late September, researchers at the background imaging
Speaker 1: of cosmic extra galactic polarization to project, otherwise known as BICEP,
Speaker 1: which is a lot easier to say. Yep. They announced
Speaker 1: that they had discovered patterns in the cosmic background radiation
Speaker 1: that matched what they expected to find as a result
Speaker 1: of gravitational waves, which was a big deal, and I
Speaker 1: did afford thinking video episode about it that published on
Speaker 1: March twenty two, fourteen. So why is the hypothetical discovery
Speaker 1: of of some waves a big deal? Well, gravitational waves
Speaker 1: or something that is predicted by a specific interpretation of
Speaker 1: the Big Bang theory of how our universe started. It's
Speaker 1: specifically the inflation model of the Big Bang theory. So
Speaker 1: they're after effects of the event. They're not directly detectable
Speaker 1: by we mirror mortals. We can't see gravitational waves, but
Speaker 1: we can look for their presence by the way they
Speaker 1: might affect something else, like the cosmic microwave microwave background radiation.
Speaker 1: So uh, the inflation model specifically describes that rapid expansion
Speaker 1: of the universe in a fraction of a fraction of
Speaker 1: affraction of a fraction of affraction, etcetera, etcetera. Of a second,
Speaker 1: it's we're talking such the first moments that the universe existed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the very beginning of time. Calling it a moment even
Speaker 1: seems weird because we're talking about tend to the negative
Speaker 1: thirty six of a second, to tend to the negative
Speaker 1: thirty three of a second, narrow in down. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's and I guess the terms of cosmic inflation,
Speaker 1: it's an eternity. But for for those of us who
Speaker 1: are living on our scale, this is a moment that
Speaker 1: is unimaginably fast. But in that moment, the universe expanded
Speaker 1: to an incredible amount, faster than the speed of light. However,
Speaker 1: we're talking about if you are looking at the universe
Speaker 1: from the outside, which don't even get me started there,
Speaker 1: that's the whole other conversation. But imagine you could look
Speaker 1: at the universe from the outside. You would see this
Speaker 1: thing expand faster than the speed of light. Now, within
Speaker 1: that universe, everything is obeying the various laws of our universe. Also,
Speaker 1: it was so dense that light couldn't even travel in
Speaker 1: it at this point. So, uh, this would have been
Speaker 1: an incredible moment of expansion, and physicists believe that one
Speaker 1: of the byproducts would be gravitational waves. So those gravitational
Speaker 1: waves would, according to this model of inflation, have a
Speaker 1: certain alignment in our our universe. They call it handedness,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of the curvature of the wave. So
Speaker 1: the BICEP two team were making these observations. They have
Speaker 1: a telescope at the South Pole and they were looking
Speaker 1: for signs of these gravitational waves, and they found what
Speaker 1: they thought were those signs. Um they saw twists in
Speaker 1: the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and that
Speaker 1: appeared to be an alignment with the way the gravitational
Speaker 1: waves were predicted to be. And in fact, there's an
Speaker 1: amazing video. I'm sure a lot of you guys out
Speaker 1: there have seen it. It was really very dear. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I shared it when it when it first hit the web.
Speaker 1: But Andre Lindy, who's known as the father of inflation, uh,
Speaker 1: cosmic inflation, not monetary inflation, right right, he's he's kind
Speaker 1: of one of the original purveyors of this concept. Yeah.
Speaker 1: A student who had worked on the BICEP two project
Speaker 1: went and visited his home, Lindy's home, and told the
Speaker 1: professor about the findings, and it was a very emotional
Speaker 1: joyous reaction because here was this, uh, this hypothesis that
Speaker 1: this man had put forward, and he fully expected that
Speaker 1: there would never be any confirmation of that within his
Speaker 1: life time. Well, the support from the BICEP to finding
Speaker 1: would mean that there would be a stronger foundation for
Speaker 1: that particular Big Bang model of how our universe sprang
Speaker 1: into being. Uh. It is not the only model that's
Speaker 1: been proposed um there and there are variations on the
Speaker 1: Big Bang theory, and there are variations that were there
Speaker 1: are other models of the universe's existence that don't really
Speaker 1: follow the Big Bang theory. And at the time, the
Speaker 1: researchers at BICEP two said they felt very strongly their
Speaker 1: results were reliable and not due to error. They had
Speaker 1: analyzed the data for three years before announcing it, so
Speaker 1: this wasn't like a brand new discovery. They looked up
Speaker 1: in the sky and saw it. This was they saw something,
Speaker 1: and then they subjected that to analysis repeatedly to make
Speaker 1: sure that what they were looking at was what they
Speaker 1: thought it was. And they said they had even eliminated
Speaker 1: the possibility that cosmic dust cause a false reading, which
Speaker 1: means now we've got science right. Okay. So by May
Speaker 1: of two thousand fourteen, other researchers already began to question
Speaker 1: if perhaps cosmic dust might have caused an issue, after all,
Speaker 1: that even though the team had said that they had
Speaker 1: accounted for that, it may still have ended up affecting
Speaker 1: the results. And in September two thou fourteen, so it's
Speaker 1: the week that we're actually recording this, another team of scientists,
Speaker 1: this time with the European Space Agency's Plunk satellite, said
Speaker 1: that they had discovered far more space dust out there
Speaker 1: than what was previously believed to exist in this specific
Speaker 1: window of space that the BICEP researchers were looking into. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they essentially said, look, it's dusty out there, and there
Speaker 1: is no clear view at all. Even though this one
Speaker 1: particular site where BICEP two was stated was thought to
Speaker 1: have been relatively right, it turns out that there's no
Speaker 1: such thing. Well, yeah, yeah, and you know right, they
Speaker 1: had accounted for some space dust, just not enough. And
Speaker 1: the thing about this dust is that light from it
Speaker 1: can be polarized by magnetic fields and space, creating swirls
Speaker 1: that look an awful lot like what we would expect
Speaker 1: these gravitational ripples to look like, right, Now, the scientists
Speaker 1: at Plank with the Planck satellite are very careful not
Speaker 1: to say that the bicep to findings are false. What
Speaker 1: they do say is that it's likely that space dust
Speaker 1: could account for at least some of the data that
Speaker 1: the team has come up with it that they say
Speaker 1: are are their results, and uh they say, well, this
Speaker 1: this new finding brings that into question. And so researchers
Speaker 1: from both groups are going to work together and compare
Speaker 1: their their respective huge amounts of data and try to
Speaker 1: determine what extent, if any, space dust might have corrupted
Speaker 1: those findings. So it could be that we still find
Speaker 1: evidence for gravitational waves after all of the settles. Sure,
Speaker 1: it's really difficult to suss out, is the thing. It's
Speaker 1: not like with a camera that you would use where
Speaker 1: you just twist a ring on the lens and visually
Speaker 1: confirm that what you're looking at is in focus right,
Speaker 1: or what exactly within your field of vision you're focusing on. UM,
Speaker 1: you have to compare image brightness using several frequencies in
Speaker 1: the electromagnetic spectrum, which is what most of these satellites
Speaker 1: UM telescopes are using and UM and also take into consideration, right,
Speaker 1: that polarization of the light, and so this data combined
Speaker 1: can help you distinguish between things in near and far
Speaker 1: fields of view and also identify dust the noise of
Speaker 1: the dust from everything else going on. This really reminds me.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a crazy, uh comparison to make,
Speaker 1: but if you've ever seen those videos from a security camera,
Speaker 1: like at a gas station where there's some creepy ghost
Speaker 1: and it turns out it's a bug that's walking across
Speaker 1: the lens, and it's because the camera's focal point isn't
Speaker 1: close enough, right, You can't nothing that is that close
Speaker 1: to the camera is going to be in focus. We're
Speaker 1: talking about a very like macro version of creepy gravitational ways.
Speaker 1: But it was dust. No, maybe, maybe we don't know.
Speaker 1: It may turn out again that there are, uh, there
Speaker 1: is some evidence of gravitational waves there, but that the
Speaker 1: thought right now is that those waves are going to
Speaker 1: be significantly weaker than what the BICEP two team originally thought,
Speaker 1: which might make it necessary for people to kind of
Speaker 1: re evaluate how they think about this particular model of
Speaker 1: the universe. Right. Yeah, it may just mean that some
Speaker 1: of the models of the inflation are a little off.
Speaker 1: In fact, when this finding was first announced by the
Speaker 1: BICEP two team, they actually said, these waves are much
Speaker 1: stronger than what we had anticipated. So it could be
Speaker 1: that this all just sort of evens out in the
Speaker 1: long run. I mean, that is a possibility. So the
Speaker 1: worst case scenario for the BICEP two team is that
Speaker 1: the plot data ends up invalidating the earlier findings entirely,
Speaker 1: where the space dust ends up being the full extent
Speaker 1: of what they discovered, and they did not, in fact
Speaker 1: notice the polarization of cosmic microwave background radiation. Now, that
Speaker 1: does not necessarily mean that gravitational wave hypothesis itself is invalid.
Speaker 1: It just means that the evidence we thought we had
Speaker 1: isn't what we believed it to be, and that maybe
Speaker 1: that we need to find new evidence. We need to
Speaker 1: find a new way of engineering test in order to
Speaker 1: look for that exactly. It just made me that, you know,
Speaker 1: the evidence is still there, we just have to find
Speaker 1: the way to find it. Um. So we can't be
Speaker 1: certain that even if the Planck satellite data does invalidate
Speaker 1: those results, that the hypothesis itself is wrong. It just
Speaker 1: means that we don't have the evidence to support it anymore. Right,
Speaker 1: So this is this isn't quite this sad story that
Speaker 1: it might seem like on the surface, Right, This is
Speaker 1: actually a great story. And the reason why it's a
Speaker 1: great story is because it really illustrates how science is
Speaker 1: supposed to work. And this is what is we really
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about. And we kind of use this
Speaker 1: as a as a launching pad to do two things.
Speaker 1: One to address something that was said in an earlier
Speaker 1: video and to to talk about the scientific process. And
Speaker 1: it sounds like it is kind of a bummer to
Speaker 1: have your discovery invalidated, But that's how we get at
Speaker 1: the information that gives us a better idea of how
Speaker 1: reality works. Yeah, that is how we science. In fact. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if we didn't do that, if we just decided that
Speaker 1: every single time someone discovered something and there was no
Speaker 1: critical analysis of it at all, that that was reality,
Speaker 1: we would have a very skewed vision of reality. We'd
Speaker 1: be back to humors. Yeah. Yeah, And and this isn't
Speaker 1: wishy washy either. I Mean, sometimes in some portions of
Speaker 1: the media, you you hear people misinterpreting this kind of
Speaker 1: discovery process or or process of questioning as scientists don't
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about. And well that's the point.
Speaker 1: Now scientists don't know what they're talking about. We're questioning
Speaker 1: it up, questioning it all the time, right, and if
Speaker 1: it turns out that it holds up to the questions,
Speaker 1: then you feel more confident about the answers. And so, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's not a black or white scenario. I seen so
Speaker 1: many stories that have tried to um to summarize this
Speaker 1: particular story about the Planck satellite data as Planck satellite
Speaker 1: data invalidates Big Bang theory, and I think, well, you
Speaker 1: now you are mostly overexaggerated. So yeah, there there's some
Speaker 1: critical thinking is needed, not only when you're doing science,
Speaker 1: but when you're reading science news. It's very important. So
Speaker 1: some things were pretty darn sure about. So with those
Speaker 1: things were really sure about, it would take extraordinary evidence
Speaker 1: to the contrary to make us change those those ideas,
Speaker 1: those thoughts. Right, So like the theory of gravity, it
Speaker 1: would take extraordinary evidence for us to significantly change the
Speaker 1: theory of gravity. That theory of evolution is another great example.
Speaker 1: It would take extraordinary evidence to really make us say
Speaker 1: that theory. Oh wait, we were wrong. Yeah, and keep
Speaker 1: in mind again, I know all of you guys out
Speaker 1: there know this, But in science, a theory is not
Speaker 1: I have an idea. A theory is where we have
Speaker 1: a body of information about something that we are extremely
Speaker 1: confident reflects reality. And when we say extremely confident, we
Speaker 1: do allow for the possibility that there could be something
Speaker 1: that's wrong. It needs to be tweaked. There might be
Speaker 1: tiny elements of it that need to be fixed. But
Speaker 1: it's very unlikely that the full collection of ideas is
Speaker 1: wholly incorrect. If it is, that requires phenomenal evidence to
Speaker 1: support the objection. And this is how science works. Okay,
Speaker 1: So so this sounds an awful lot like we're talking
Speaker 1: about some kind of method of doing science. Wow, if
Speaker 1: only we had a term for the method with which
Speaker 1: science is put to use. You mean you mean a
Speaker 1: scientific method, that would be brilliant. Yes, it is the
Speaker 1: scientific method we're talking about, which is not a brand
Speaker 1: new idea. Oh certainly not what we know today, as
Speaker 1: the scientific method came out of the Renaissance and the
Speaker 1: thinkers influenced by it in the surrounding centuries. There. During
Speaker 1: the Renaissance, the Catholic Church started backing off of its
Speaker 1: domination of public thought. You know that their persecution of
Speaker 1: resistors to their dogma led in part to the Dark
Speaker 1: Ages and it's six hundred year erosion of kind of
Speaker 1: civilization as we know it circa five hundred to Europeans
Speaker 1: during the Renaissance became a reacquainted with ancient Greek and
Speaker 1: Roman works, and be their entire capacity for dealing with
Speaker 1: data and mathematics were vastly expanded by Islamic influences. So
Speaker 1: all of that was super rad um, and a few
Speaker 1: people were really quite key in bringing the scientific method
Speaker 1: into being. First in the early to mid thirteenth century
Speaker 1: we have Albertus Magnus, who made the distinction between revealed
Speaker 1: truth i e. Like from a divine power and experimental findings.
Speaker 1: Then in the mid to late thirteenth century, Roger Bacon
Speaker 1: called for an end to blind acceptance of popular ideas.
Speaker 1: He particularly targeted Aristotle's work, which was really just to
Speaker 1: point out that even great thinkers can be and frequently
Speaker 1: are wrong about things, and that evidence must always be
Speaker 1: considered right. This is this is the rise of critical thinking.
Speaker 1: So that we stress all the time on this show. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: Then in sixty one influenced by the scientific work of
Speaker 1: folks like Copernicus and Galileo. Francis Bacon published a proposed
Speaker 1: approach to scientific inquiry called the Novum Organum science trum
Speaker 1: because Latin was super posh at the time. It was
Speaker 1: it was the the the language of currency at that point.
Speaker 1: But but yes, this this paper that this was published
Speaker 1: and put forth inductive reasoning as the best way to
Speaker 1: science and and really the he didn't phrase it quite
Speaker 1: like that. Well, I mean, I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: really speak Latin very well, so maybe that was how
Speaker 1: he phrased it. Um. But but really as the only
Speaker 1: way for humankind to master the world around us. I
Speaker 1: like that. We have to thank the Bacon boys for
Speaker 1: a lot of the scientific method, uh huh um. And
Speaker 1: and this paved the way for folks like Isaac Newton
Speaker 1: and Robert Hook and Louis Pastor to make and test
Speaker 1: observations about our world that still vastly influence our civilization today. Um.
Speaker 1: And and for them, I mean, and you know, continually,
Speaker 1: for us, disproving ideas was every bit as important as
Speaker 1: proving ones. That's a great point if if you're if
Speaker 1: your scientific presentation is not falsifiable, as in, there is
Speaker 1: no way for someone to check against you, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no way to present a counter to it because
Speaker 1: it relies on something that isn't itself unfalsifiable. That's not
Speaker 1: scien is. You have to have it be falsifiable for
Speaker 1: it to be science. And uh, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: it's itself is false. It just means that you have
Speaker 1: to be able to have a scenario in which evidence
Speaker 1: contrary to what you found would prove it to be wrong.
Speaker 1: That doesn't necessarily mean that evidence actually exists. It just
Speaker 1: has to have the possibility of existing. And if you
Speaker 1: are a really good scientist, I mean, no one likes
Speaker 1: to be proven wrong. Let's get that all the way
Speaker 1: right now. I hate it when it happens. It happens frequently,
Speaker 1: and I hate it every single time. However, if you're
Speaker 1: a good scientist, you accept that as a possibility. And
Speaker 1: when someone provides an objection to something that you have
Speaker 1: put forth, then it is the responsibility of scientists to
Speaker 1: make sure to look and see does the objection have
Speaker 1: merit to it, And if it does, then you have
Speaker 1: to go back and look at what went wrong. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was the methodology that the first scientist use in
Speaker 1: his or her experiments. Maybe it was a mistake in
Speaker 1: analyzing the data that came out of the experimentation process.
Speaker 1: And through this, we can get closer and closer to uh,
Speaker 1: what we believe is to be reality. Keeping in mind
Speaker 1: that we're filtering, filtering everything through the human experience. So,
Speaker 1: oh sure, you know we're we're measuring what we can
Speaker 1: measure based on our limited senses. Yeah. There, we know
Speaker 1: there's stuff out there that we like, gravitational waves, we
Speaker 1: know their stuff out there. At least we highly suspect
Speaker 1: there is stuff out there that we cannot directly observe,
Speaker 1: and so this becomes really super tricky. But but it's important,
Speaker 1: right to UH, to be able to accept the fact
Speaker 1: that you can be wrong, and to be proven wrong
Speaker 1: is not is not a strike against you. It's a
Speaker 1: strike four science right right, It's the entire thing is
Speaker 1: a revolving process of asking questions and finding ways of
Speaker 1: testing hypothetical answers to those questions. And so if you
Speaker 1: are encountering someone who resists that, who says that they
Speaker 1: don't want people questioning their work, that's a warning flag.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, So if you were to come up
Speaker 1: and uh, and you see a critical analysis of someone's
Speaker 1: work and that person, the person who's being analyzed, is
Speaker 1: being reactive in a negative way. They're saying, you know this,
Speaker 1: You're being ridiculous or whatever. Assuming that the critical analysis
Speaker 1: is in fact merited, it not always is correct. But
Speaker 1: if it is merited and the person is putting up
Speaker 1: a big fuss about being analyzed, then that is not
Speaker 1: a good sign of science. Uh. You know, you a
Speaker 1: good scientist will welcome analysis and criticism. Um. And if
Speaker 1: things all went well, then what you end up with
Speaker 1: is other scientists replicating that. First, scientists work to make
Speaker 1: sure that the results are also replicable, and if they are,
Speaker 1: that's great. It means that it adds to our vision
Speaker 1: of what reality is. So this is where we get
Speaker 1: into things like, let's say I make an extraordinary claim,
Speaker 1: and let's say I even get a patent for my
Speaker 1: extraordinary claim because this has happened where I claim that
Speaker 1: I have created a perpetual motion machine, which, according to
Speaker 1: our understanding of the universe, is impossible. Yes, very much that,
Speaker 1: but I've got the patent for it. I've even put
Speaker 1: off put on some demonstrations where I've got a thing
Speaker 1: that seems to be working, but don't let anyone get
Speaker 1: too close to it, because you know, I don't want
Speaker 1: to end up breaking my one working prototype. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: an extraordinary claim. And if I resist any attempts to
Speaker 1: analyze that, then that's a warning flag. Um. And uh,
Speaker 1: just as we have to take a critical eye toward
Speaker 1: the science, we also have to take a critical eye
Speaker 1: toward those who object to the science and make sure
Speaker 1: that those objections are in fact merited. Evidence needs to
Speaker 1: be supported on all ground and that's where we get
Speaker 1: into that scientific method. That's what it's about. Yeah, so, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's the whole prove it part of science.
Speaker 1: So the cool thing to me is that these two teams,
Speaker 1: the PLOCK satellite team in the BICEP two team are
Speaker 1: going to work together. They're going to look at this
Speaker 1: data together and they're going to determine what to you know,
Speaker 1: what is as close to the truth as we can
Speaker 1: get according to all this data, And after that we
Speaker 1: will have a better idea of whether or not there
Speaker 1: were any gravitational waves detected in that amazing discovery that
Speaker 1: was announced back in March or if that was just
Speaker 1: a misguided misinterpretation of the data. Either way, it's not
Speaker 1: something to be discouraged about. It's something to be happy
Speaker 1: about because it means the process is working. It's the
Speaker 1: coolest possible failure. Yeah. In fact, scientists say all the time, well,
Speaker 1: at least the theoretical ones do. I don't know so
Speaker 1: much about the experimental scientists. But uh, scientists say all
Speaker 1: the time that they that failures in a way are
Speaker 1: more exciting successes because of success. While that does is
Speaker 1: it tells it confirms something that you've suspected and and
Speaker 1: it basically means that you need to find other ways
Speaker 1: of attacking it. Yeah, or yeah, you gotta you know, well,
Speaker 1: we prove that you guys want to go to lunch.
Speaker 1: But a failure means there's something else going on. You
Speaker 1: gotta figure out what that thing is, and that's the
Speaker 1: exciting discovery part of science, right. So um, some some
Speaker 1: scientists appear to be masochistic in that way. They want
Speaker 1: they want to see more failures because it means that
Speaker 1: there's more stuff going on. The Higgs boson is a
Speaker 1: great example of that too. Yeah, oh yeah. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of scientists who were saying, I kind of
Speaker 1: hope we don't discover the Higgs boson, because if we do,
Speaker 1: that's almost like a dead end. Like we we found
Speaker 1: the thing we thought was there, and yes it was there,
Speaker 1: and now we're done. Whereas if we look for it
Speaker 1: and it's not there, something else is going on, and
Speaker 1: that's really exciting. For those of us who report on science.
Speaker 1: We kind of like to have the end. The the
Speaker 1: ends kind of do make stories better a lot of
Speaker 1: the time. It does make the narrative easier to tell. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: although you know, at the same time, there's a lot
Speaker 1: to be said for it to be continued. Yes, And
Speaker 1: in fact, that's what this show largely is. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's all about looking at the future, which spoiler alert,
Speaker 1: guys were not there yet, uh and never will be
Speaker 1: because tomorrow is another day. But it does mean that
Speaker 1: we get a lot of to be continued in this
Speaker 1: So Lauren, thanks so much for for really getting into
Speaker 1: that research on the on the history of the scientific method.
Speaker 1: That was super cool and even as a medievalist, I
Speaker 1: was not aware of a lot of it. Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm medievalist who does a podcast about the future. It's
Speaker 1: a weird world we live in. So uh, guys, if
Speaker 1: you have any suggestions for future topics that we can tackle,
Speaker 1: maybe there's an old episode of forward thinking that we've
Speaker 1: done that you think merits a revisit, kind of like
Speaker 1: in this instance where new information has come up and
Speaker 1: we really needed to address the fact that things have changed.
Speaker 1: You need to get in touch with us and let's
Speaker 1: know about it. Let us know on Twitter or Facebook
Speaker 1: or Google Plus. You can find us on Twitter or
Speaker 1: Google Plus. We have the handle f W thinking. Just
Speaker 1: put fw thinking in the search bar over at Facebook.
Speaker 1: It will pop right up. Leave us a message, tell
Speaker 1: us what you think, and we'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. For more on this topic in the future
Speaker 1: of technology, I visit forward thinking dot Com, brought to
Speaker 1: you by Toyota. Let's go Places,