I wanted to announce something. I learned how to make matcha lattes myself and my life has now changed. However, I've been really consuming way too much caffeinated beverages lately and I don't feel okay. Anyways, cheers. Thanks for being here today, beautiful. How are you doing? Mmm. Let me just get hyped up on caffeine and then we can talk about my favorite subject in the world. Also like, Brad, why are you all of a sudden wearing eyeshadow? Because I want to. And I feel like the washed one color look is like my thing. So I feel like you might be seeing a lot more of this. But we're talking about K-pop today. Literally my favorite subject. I'm such a K-pop stan. It's disgusting. Like, I will play the same song a billion times in a row and I will try to learn the dance to every K-pop music video ever. But I never end up actually being able to learn it because they're always really complicated. Like, why are you gonna make it so complicated for me? Listen, I can get it down but I can't learn choreography. I never, never know. Anyways, so as you probably know, or maybe you don't know, maybe you have no idea what K-pop is. Well, K-pop is Korean pop. That's it. There's no secret to it. And basically all the K-pop idols have very unique looks. The guys are not scared to be feminine and wear glitter and eyeliner and have colorful hair and wear bright colors and they just look so good. And same with the girls.  Basically the way, why I look the way I look now a days is because of K-pop. I really am inspired by the whole genre of music and everything they do. But today we're gonna focus on guess what we're doing? We're gonna talk about K-pop hair because girl, they are really pushing the limits and we are gonna go over the best looks. If you have no idea anything about K-pop, just wait for these looks. Let's do it. Do I look as good as I think I do?  Okay, why don't we start for the banger? So I'm actually kind of unfamiliar with this group. I think the group is called Shine-shannies. Ooh, ooh, I probably botched that. That's, people are gonna definitely come for me on that one. But their song is called Good Evening, okay? And this guy named Keith or Kai had a really cool, really, really cool buzz cut. I mean, what? Oh, are you kidding?  I mean, look at this haircut. Look at it. First of all, living for the random like asymmetrical buzz cut going on here and then combined with the random shaped objects of color in his hair, it is just a recipe for greatness and beautifulness and only a K-pop artist, and maybe me, could pull that off. I mean, that is like, literally so good. Makes me wanna just do random things to my hair but I know that I'll regret it like the next day. I would literally date it out of him. Dude, if this isn't like a hair art, if this isn't the best thing you've ever seen, I don't know what else you've seen in your life because it's just so random and like so grungy but also like done and refined and cool and like, this is why I love K-pop. Oh, if you know how to art a K-pop stand, like are you getting it now? Dude, this look just gets a 10 out of 10. He looks so good. I don't, are we kidding? The hair sellers that do the K-pop groups, I need to meet you. I need to know who you are. I think it's probably time for me to just move to Korea and start doing K-pop hair for the rest of my life. Think I'd be really happy doing that and I don't know, man. But anyways, really great look. I, I don't wanna stop talking about it but I have to, I have to move on. I'm sorry, Key. Whatever your name is, let me know guys. Let's move on. We're seeing a ton of violet hair in K-pop right now and if you didn't know this already, ultraviolet was the Pantone color of the year and clearly the K-pop industry took that very seriously because we are seeing look after look of violet hair and it is stunning. Especially the one that Jennie wore, Jennie from Blackpink, aka my bias. I mean, Lisa and Jennie like hello, like I don't know who to pick sometimes but they are both absolutely stunning. I mean the whole group is but like oof. Jennie just gets me, she just gets me. The do-do-do music video which was really my favorite K-pop video of all year was do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do. I even learned to dance like, I'm a pretty big Blackpink fan. I saw them at Coachella and then I saw them like three weeks later in New York City. It was really good both times. But Jennie killed it with this hair color, this violet ponytail moment. I love that it goes from like a deep like reddish violet to a ultraviolet like ends. It is so snatched. It is so cute. It's like center parted. It looks so good for her and it matches like the entire scene. These shoots that they do are literally the most high budget, craziest things I've ever seen. If you've never seen a K-pop music video, please go watch one. They spend millions of dollars on these videos and you will see every little thing. Everything is perfect. And then we had Mark from Got7. I literally don't know if that's like actually how you're supposed to say it but that's how I say it. He did this ultraviolet moment. Again it's really hot in here but it's getting extra steaming here talking about K-pop boys. Like I can't, it's my weakness. This was so good.  It makes them so glowy and like that very pale skin with that violet look is so beautiful and so well done. And somehow all these guys, like their hair doesn't look that damaged and I don't know, I feel like I'm onto the K-pop industry. Like they definitely don't actually color their hair.  Like they don't actually permanently color their hair. If you guys didn't already know that there's ways of coloring your hair without it being permanent. Like you can wear it for a day and then wash it off. So that's probably what they do for the K-pop industry and that's how they change their hair color all the time. Obsessed. Another violet moment, Ren from newest. This was interesting. Listen, this might not be everybody's cup of tea but like from like, I don't know, like a hairstyle point of view I feel like this looks really cool. I love the kind of mullet style guys. I've been playing around with like wanting to have a kind of a mullet style lately and I'm probably gonna do it but like this is so well done mullet kind of look. Like it has that little like straggly hair moment going in the back but the sides are kind of tapered still and then he has that beautiful fringe going down and then of course the violet, the very light majestic ethereal violet that he has going on is just so fabulous and just works so good with his skin. Oh, look at his lips and look at his face. Like, oh, why do you have to do this to me? Such a great moment in K-pop. All the violet hair going on. Love it. Let's move on. Oh, okay. Here's something that I actually am surprised that I'm getting back into is tinsel hair. If you've never heard of tinsel hair, this is how it works. This is how it's applied. It's weird and growing up in a salon I was fascinated by tinsel hair and I wanted it in my hair. Maybe I should do that. Ideas. So that's tinsel hair and tinsel hair has been a huge trend lately and I blame the K-pop industry. Korean people are setting the trends, you guys. And I don't know if a lot of people realize this. It's like filtering down from Korea into the United States and we are getting it after them but they are literally starting it. Tinsel hair, we saw it on, I'm not even gonna try to say his name. It's like, I don't, here's what it, chen-yell, chen-yell. Oh God, this is so bad. Chien-shan-yell, chan-yell. He had like holographic highlights in EXO's love shot video which is also one of my favorite videos. Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah.  So good though. He had tinsel highlights and like that hair and makeup room at a K-pop music video set must be so fun. It must be really great and I was like a part of it. And then we had this iconic moment by a girl named Suya in the group twice and in the yes or yes music video she had tinsel hair flowing through her dark locks. Why are you gonna do this to me? It's like magic. Honestly though, I feel like if a normal person wore it it would just be like, what are you doing, man? Why do you have tinsel in your hair? But K-pop girls do it and K-pop guys do it and you're like, this works. This is good for them. This is what I need and this is how it should be, you know? Anyways, hair tinsel was so big. Our next subject, it's an interesting one. I noticed that a lot of K-pop girls and guys they have like almost colors that I've never really seen before which is they make everything into like an ash tone somehow. It's almost like green, a green cast on every color that they do. Most Asian women that come into the salon they want ashy hair. It's just a desirable thing because it's very hard to get because Asian hair is very hard to lift typically and it just doesn't wanna lift past like orange and yellow. You'll notice that a lot of these K-pop girls have this very iconic like ash toned hair. Person that comes to mind right now is Lisa from Blackpink. For a while she had this like kind of green casted like very ashy blonde but also like a light brown color going on but again, it just worked so good for her. Normally I'd be like, why do you want this color? But for some reason K-pop girls just works so good on them. RM from BTS. He always kind of has that also like that green cast gray, brown color. That just works so well but I see that being a big trend within the K-pop industry. Any color they do it's usually very ash out. Like there's no shine coming from that hair. It's just like, and it just looks good. Normally I'd be like, are you sure you want that?  But it works for these K-pop artists. Actually, that brings me to my next topic which is bowl cuts. A group that I've noticed really goes to the bowl cuts. I mean, there's a lot of them but one that's really stood out for me is TXT. They really go in with the bowl cuts girl. It is like bowl cut central over here. I also have never looked up how old these guys are but they look like the youngest ones of like all the K-pop groups. They just have like the thickest hair and it's just like all the way around and for some reason it works. I love the bowl cut. We have this like reddish bowl cut. We have this like violet bowl cut. We have this blonde bowl cut. TXT members are killing the bowl cut game and then on the female side of K-pop we're seeing a lot of bold choppy bobs to the chin and if there's one thing in life that I love more than blonde hair, it's choppy bobs. It just accentuates the cheeks, the jaw.  We have Tiffany Young here who has a black blunt chin length bob who went from this really long look here to this look here for the release of her song, Cheechoo and so much better short. Do you agree with me?  What were you literally doing with that long hair? Like it just wasn't good for you. This is so much better for you and it looks stunning.  Here we have Hyeri from Girls Day. Don't know if that's how you say her name, but she is rocking both of my favorite things. Blonde, blunt bob and she looks boing honey. Boing! She looks so good baby. Oh girl, I love it. It's so good for her. It like honestly just frames her face and she looks just so boop and cute. It's fresh, it's young, it's hip. It's like, ooh, I love it. Why don't we finish off today's video by talking about some of the most iconic blonde hair? Because you know me, Brad, I love myself some blonde hair. And you know what? That's okay. It's just something that I'll never get over. So why don't we talk about some of the, my top three best blonde K-pop moments? I feel like we can't talk about blondes without just talking about Lisa from Black Pink. She did this platinum blonde to strawberry pink moment. You are kidding with this look. Sorry, I'm gonna like, I'm getting teary-eyed in. Bangin! She looks so good as a blonde man. She needs to stop going dark. She just had her hair black and I'm just not happy with it. And then we had this like extreme ombre moment where she has like these really dark roots and then her ends are really light and for some reason, normal life, I probably wouldn't say no to somebody. I would probably be like, eh, maybe we shouldn't do that.   Honestly, honestly. I mean, it goes from this really, really deep brown to this beautiful, beautiful blonde and it is so K-pop and so fresh and I love the chopped blunt bob haircut. That's it. Just so good. Now we have Suho from the group XO. Yo, does, sometimes I think I'm cute. And then I see images like this and I'm like, we have the same hairstyle and like the same vibe going on. But like, you are just stealing the show from me and it's not okay. And I want my gig bag.  But anyways, we're here to talk about his blonde hair. He looks stunning, obviously amazing.  Like, he looks great. This blonde hair works so good for him. It's really good. I don't know, I have nothing else to say. This haircut, it's great too. And now we're back to black pink. We have Rose, who has had every blonde shade in the world, including the color Rose. And I think black pink definitely takes the cake for the best blonde. I don't even know how her hair looks so healthy. Like, obviously she's probably wearing extensions but like even the top of her hair looks so healthy and this rooted ash blonde moment is just divine on her. This was, I think, the best color she had. I do like when she does like the dusty pink color because like her name's Rose and like it's cute though she has like a rose colored hair, you know what I mean? I love the long hair on her and then the sort of like soft waves she always has. She always has kind of like an undone style going on and it just works so good for her personality and her look. Let's end it there. Like, ooh, she takes the cake for like some of the most beautiful blondes I've ever seen on some Korean girls. Like, ooh, yes! Now it's for you. So good.  And listen, I know all the stuff that goes into it. I know it's brutal, okay? But listen, sometimes you gotta make some sacrifices in life to get to where you wanna be and not everything is pretty. But I think I have what it takes to be a K-pop idol. Like I could do it, I could do it and I would change my hair all the time. I already do. I mean, I'm basically almost there but those are some of my favorite K-pop hair looks. Some of my favorite things around the industry that is just revolutionizing the rest of the world and now that K-pop's becoming more relevant I think we're gonna be seeing even more people doing really crazy things to their hair on really fun looks. Guys experimenting with their hair even more than they have in the past year. And thank you to the K-pop industry for just switching it up and changing looks and being creative and making the rest of the world feel like we're boring. Thank you for that. And if you guys don't already follow me on Instagram and Twitter, follow me there at bramundonyc and please follow my haircare brand X-Mondo hair on Instagram. And that is all for today. Thank you so much for watching today. Don't forget to live your extra life and we'll see you all next time. Peace.


Boink. But Doink VR is the correct way to say it. To launch a new VR section on the Pornhub website, the site is offering free cardboard VR goggles for its users.  Anyway, so good luck guys. Yeah, I'm not going to wash my cardboard. Probably not. There's a lot of things to wash. But no, it's look whatever everyone always talks about successful new technology special in the video spectrum, whether it be the home video standards or television standards or broadcast standards. A lot of these things are sometimes informed by that particular wing of the industry. Why not VR? In fact, I'm surprised there isn't more going on yet. So yeah, watch for that coming soon to a Pornhub near you. I guess the Zesmin cardboard is out to the early lead in the format more. I don't know. Israeli paper, Yediath Aranath reports that mobile forensics firm Celebrite of Israel is the company helping the FBI unlock the iPhone 5C at issue in the case involving Apple. Arstekton connotes the FBI committed to a $15,278 action obligation with Celebrite. The same day it asked the court to vacate the hearing and issue a stay. Celebrite has contracted with the FBI in the past, so that commitment could be unrelated. Thanks to Abituele Kondolse for submitting this on the subreddit. This is not really anything that's going to be revelatory other than this is a forensics company. It seems like a likely company to be doing this. Drivesaver in California has said that they are actually fairly close to a similar solution, but they haven't got there yet, so it's a feather in Celebrite's cap. But it does show that companies that worked with FBI were working on this, and Celebrite seems to be the one that got there first. You mentioned on TMS this morning doing your tech segment that this is a company they've already contracted with in various ways. Another thing is, it's not like they just looked them up on the web and said these guys might be good, so I don't know what that means. They didn't find them on Yelp. And again, Celebrite supposedly contacted the FBI, which again, if they have lines of communication because they partner on things, it's Celebrite makes devices that the FBI licenses for unlocking things. So, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if they were, if lots of security companies that have connections to the FBI were working on this. And just a quick note here and just ask your opinion on this, and I know this is going to come a million times before any of this is over or any of these fights or conversations about security and encryption are over, but do you, if they've successfully do this for the FBI, then they've successfully done the thing the FBI was trying to compel Apple to do through lawful means. Does that then mean now that there's a way in there, there's essentially not a back door, but there's a way in outside of having Apple comply, that seems worse for everyone. At least in the intellectual conversation about what this all means, like in the conversation of how secure is your stuff, how secure should it be, who's in charge of that. I don't want to get it's conspiratorial, but it feels like I'm laughing because yesterday on the show, which I think you probably just missed that part, I said, now there are those of you out there who are saying this is worse for everyone. Let me explain why you're wrong. Crap. No, and this is just my take. I didn't actually say let me explain why you're wrong. But to me, it's like there's always an arms race, right? No encryption is ever 100% secure. So all this means is that what I think should be happening happened, which is security companies are always looking for vulnerabilities. They found a vulnerability. And the FBI, here's the difference. The FBI has a warrant. So they're not asking Apple to subvert its own software. They're not doing something with metadata and secret courts. They are in the open saying, we have a warrant that says we get to break into this phone. And so we're going to and they found a way to do it. Now, the part where I think you do have a concern is it will celebrate now ethically hand over this vulnerability to Apple to say this is how we got in the phone so that Apple knows what that vulnerability is. That would be interesting. I hadn't really considered that, but I don't know. What a weird wild ride it is and it ain't done yet. How about some news about Google announcing a removal of something? Hold on, weren't you just talking about them doing this? I think you were. Google announced it's removing its Chrome app launcher from Windows OS X and Linux in July for those of them. It looks like this little icon I have, which is like a little app launcher and you click on that and up comes Gmail and Red Bull TV and Moist, I think, or Mosty or whatever that is. Anyway, you can create these sort of Chrome app, sort of Chromebook style, Chrome OS style sort of launch pad for various Google services and they're taking it out. Google says most Chrome users prefer to use launch apps from within Chrome itself. I would agree. I barely even touch that thing. This seems like a no brainer to probably get rid of it and I don't think anyone's going to complain in the way that they did about their news reader or anything else like that. This is just a silly launcher. Here's the thing. When they launched this, the talk was, ooh, Chrome making a move to subvert the operating system where it won't matter what operating system you use. If you have the Chrome browser, you can launch all your apps through the browser and I mentioned at the time that was the dream of Netscape Constellation, which was a project in the late 90s that was going to do exactly the same thing. None of those dreams have ever panned out. I'm not saying one never will. We thought tablets were never going to catch on and eventually they did once somebody figured out how to do it right. But it's not surprising to me that this didn't work out and I looked at that little Chrome launcher in Windows all the time and I'm like, oh, that's cool. I got that little Chrome launcher. I actually have a little start menu back there even back when the start menu was gone for a while and I never used it. I looked at it. I liked it. I always launched my apps from within the browser. I'll tell you, when I briefly was experimenting around with Chromebooks, I used it all the time because it was the only way you could launch anything. But I assumed Well, yeah, and it's sticking around on Chrome OS so that makes sense. Yeah, it makes perfect sense. Anyway, it's one of those things that did feel like a weird extra appendage and it's where nobody's going to miss that extra finger. We only need five. Twitter is testing a new feature tentatively called Stickers that lets users attach custom images to photos before tweeting. Feature also lets users, quote, see how other users from around the world have edited the same photo. Which if it's not a photo I took then, I guess, and suggest trending photos for users to edit. A Twitter spokesperson told Recode, we're always researching potential new ways to make Twitter more expressive. This is meme creation.  Yeah, it also confirms a theory I had that Twitter's very interested in taking social, I don't know, meme tendencies and putting them into direct action on Twitter. They did it with GIF generation and partnered with some GIF, you know, generators to do that very thing right there on the web page. So I don't find this too surprising. In a way it's kind of, I don't know, I think this is them finally embracing the fact of who they are. This is them saying, this is what we get used for a ton. So we should probably support a lot of this stuff as natively as we can so that it's simple for our users to do. And I have a confession to make, just a little side note on Scott's tech use for the week. I finally decided to take a look at the iOS Twitter, the official Twitter app, and I haven't looked at it in, I don't know how long, I've been using Tweetbot since really Tweetbot came about. And I thought, I wonder how this is over there right now. I heard about the algorithmic reordering of your feed and I thought, I should probably get at least a taste of that so I can talk about it. And a weird thing happened. I'm kind of converted to using it all the time now. I kind of prefer it. See, over the weekend Twitter's official app stopped working for me and kept hanging and locking up, which a few other people have reported as well. So I started using Twitterific, which I haven't used in years. There you go. All over the map on this, but I think it's fine. We'll see how it goes. Bring on the stickers, I suppose. After the Nikkei reported Nintendo would cease production on the Wii U sometime later this year. We all heard about that. Nintendo had something to say. The company told the IT media, quote, that's Nikkei's report, not an official announcement. We plan to continue production through the rest of the year. Unquote. Now we talked pre-show about how they basically just in different words said the exact same thing the report said. Yeah. Or at least they didn't say, we, we, you know, they're denying the, it's a non-denial denial. Dick Nixon would be proud. They're saying, I don't know, Nikkei's saying that. We plan to keep producing the Wii U through the rest of the year, which is what Nikkei said. Nikkei said, Nintendo will stop producing the Wii U by the end of the year, which both statements can be true. Stopping it by the end of the year means you keep producing it possibly through the end of the year. Yeah. Rest of the year, end of the year. Kind of the same thing. I mean, if you stop producing the Wii U on December 31st, both of these statements are correct. Yeah. I don't know. So an install base of 12.5 million devices, which is low if you were trying to compete in the crazy space that they're trying to compete in, the NX on the horizon, this shouldn't be a shock to anybody that they were at least slow production and have a kill date for when they're going to stop doing it because they've got new stuff on the way and they kind of want to put this particular slow generation behind them. So none of this is even news to me except the fact that they're just being so cagey about it. Well, this, this Patrick thinks this means the NX goes on sale this year if this ends up being true because you don't stop production. Obviously, you still have some in the channel. My thought was like this must mean that selling really slowly and even if the NX doesn't come out till early 2017, they feel like they have enough inventory to last. But Patrick pointed out they even kept producing the Wii after the Wii U came out. So it really is cutting their losses in that respect. And I love my friend from France, but he's been trying to look for reasons for the NX to come out this year and be able to purchase this year for a long time. So Patrick, good luck with your bet. I still say you're wrong. The Verge says it has learned Google has been developing a keyboard for iOS, one of those virtual keyboards that would feature gesture based typing, a Google logo that you could tap on to access search and dedicated buttons for pictures and GIF searches. In other words, please use this Android style keyboard on iOS so that we can have you using search more on mobile because mobile search numbers have not been as good as we wanted them to be. Sure. A lot of people like that keyboard. I actually would like to try it. So bring it on. Utah Republican caucus happened yesterday. Record numbers, turns out. I live here, so I can speak to this a little bit. Anyway, it was the first to include an online voting system. It turned out more popular vote than people expected with extreme traffic happening on the state's electoral website for around 90 minutes on Tuesday. Some people reported errors in trying to enter their votes as well. Utah Party Chairman James Evans said some of the issues had to do with people who thought they were registered but missed an email meant to confirm their identity both through Republican and Democratic caucuses in Utah faced problems with traditional voting as well because of high turnout. So to show a little comparison there. But yeah, there was a lot of talk about this yesterday. Just overwhelming numbers on both sides of the aisle. For once in a very long time, as long as I've been alive, I feel like Utah kind of had an impact on the caucuses. And it was super interesting, but also to see a real world test of someone that's online voting stuff. It's interesting because Tom, it's the future, man. Almost the worst situation to test your online voting is to have a really popular primary election. Or in this case, a caucus. Because at this point in the presidential elections here in the United States, for good or for ill, you usually have a pretty good idea who the front runner is and who's going to win. And for various reasons we won't get into on this show, lots of people are still very interested even though we have significant front runners on both sides of the aisle. So I can imagine when they first said well in two years, let's make the caucus online. Let's try it. You know, Utah's a little late in the game. It shouldn't be too bad. We can handle the load. And then all of a sudden you get this record turnout.  So you're going to have problems with the website. That's true of any launch of anything. Look at online gaming for goodness' sake. But then add to the fact that a lot of people unfamiliar with the typical processes of online systems where you put in an email address and you get an email that says, hey, we saw you signed up. Click here to confirm that this is really you. Didn't click. And then they go back to vote on the day and it's like you're not registered.  I remember registering but they didn't confirm their identity. Yeah, it's part of the process that I used to. But hey, why not sell tickets before the Force Awakens opens and we won't have any problems with that. There won't be overwhelming traffic. There won't craft servers or anything. Of course it does. Everything does. So I'm bullish on the future for this. And they just picked a really weird election to see how it would hold up. I mean, that's good. We got a good load test. Finally, Dutch Startup Blende launched in the U.S. Wednesday in partnership with The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Financial Times, even the Post, which is free to read, and plenty of others. Blende's app lets you pay per story and offers refunds if you don't like the articles. Refund on your clickbait. Blende has 650,000 users in the Netherlands and Germany and is bullish on getting this amount of users in the United States. This is their big test, their big market to see if people will use an app where they're paying small amounts to read articles. Historical note, Scott. The term was coined on episode 561 of Buzz Out Loud on September 14th, 2007. Oh my. We got some audio proof of this. I have audio evidence. Here we go. Henceforth on Buzz Out Loud, refer to mashups as blend. We can call them e-blends if you want. E-blends. A blendal. A blendal. Blendal.  Done. Thank you. And joining us to comment on that history-making moment a few years ago, Jason Howell, host of tech news today. How's it going, Tom? Good, man. Thanks for joining us. What a funny thing. This why this name was familiar to me, and I swear it's because I have this weird memory in the back of my head that you once coined the term blendal. I completely forgot that. I was the one that even mentioned it. I knew that it was a Buzz Out Loud term. This morning when I woke up and read the story, I was like, oh my God, somebody finally did something with blendal. It became something. I completely forgot that I was the one that came out with it. But I like to think that it was a team effort as everything was on Buzz Out Loud. Well, yeah, I think if I remember right, we had decided that LE was going to be the new Noval R in a previous episode. So you were incorporating that. But yeah, until I went and tracked down the clip, thanks to the Buzz Out Loud Wiki, which still exists, I couldn't remember which of us had coined it either. So congratulations. I hope you're getting lots of royalties. I will say it. So basically, in this particular episode we were talking about, this was towards the beginning of the episode. I listened to the whole part on it. We're talking about a wine tasting social network that kind of didn't exist. You were saying we could combine information about wine and also information about when wine is about to go bad. We'll mash it up into one service.  Mashups were huge in 2007, primarily there were just music mashups all over the place. And you ended the segment by saying we need to registerblendle.com right now. Now had you registeredblendle.com you may have made some money right now. I registeredblendle.com. You let it lapse. I let it lapse. These guys came emailing me a couple of years ago, said hey, I think you own Blendle. It doesn't say who owns it. Oh, that's fine. I might still own Blendle. Let me look. I didn't. You could have made a good, cool, I don't know, grand or something, whatever they pay for those things now. Could have been a contender, Tom. Yeah, could have been. Anyway, good luck to the Blendle folks. I feel like there are spiritual cousins because they're using the name. I wonder how many people are going to use this. 650,000 in Europe ain't bad. It's overwhelming. Also, as they point out in the Politico story, people in Europe more used to paying for content than in the United States maybe. I don't know if that's true. I feel like I'm ready for this. If you're telling me these articles are an average of nine cents a piece and you're also being as transparent. Not an average. That's the cheapest one. Okay, that's the cheapest. Whatever the range is, but you're saying to me, if you didn't like it, you can get a return. I'm used to this with Steam and services I use already where they offer me refunds for digital content that I either value or don't. More often than not, I do and I keep it even if it's not perfect. I want to hang on to it. I think they're banking on the fact that people are willing to make these risks, especially at this small entry point. I don't know. We're finally at a time where quote-unquote microtransactions actually kind of work across a broad range of services and spectrums. I'm ready to try this. I signed up as soon as I heard about it. Let us know how it goes. I'll probably download it and try it out as well. Submit your stories to us folks and vote on them at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com helps us put the show together every single day and that is a look at the headlines. Jason Howe, are you going to stick around? Yeah, I can stick around. If you want me here, I'm here. I got some time. Let's do it. Jason Howe is a musician and we've got a music story. I love it. I love it. You can give us the music perspective on this. Recorded music revenues rose 0.9% in 2015 to $7 billion. That's not huge, but it's the first rise in recorded music revenues since 2011. The wholesale value, which is the money that goes to rights holders, so you're taking the retail, the stores out of the equation, rose 0.8% to $4.95 billion, so it's still going to the record companies. Streaming is now the largest part of revenue at 34%, 1.9% to $2.4 billion, so it was 29% in 2014. It's now 34%. Average revenue per subscriber is $112. Paid subscription and streaming revenue rose 52%. Downloads fell a little bit, $2.33 billion. Physical sales fell to less though, $1.9 billion. And sound exchange revenue, that's the amount that streamers who do online radio stations and things like that have to pay, that rose to $803 million. Ad supported streams rose, that's like Spotify's free level at Pandora, that rose to $385 million. So obviously Scott, everybody's happy, right? Like every business is booming. I'll bet they're not, because they'll find a reason not to think this is a good thing. I am a little surprised that we're where we are as quick as we are. I thought it would take, I mean everyone always talks about the idea of physical, the physical would go away, the digital would be on the rise, which it did. But then we quit downloading things and we started streaming them. And I thought, well streaming is never going to be a significant part of digital music consumption. And I thought we'd be waiting till 2020 to hear, you know, and I don't mean the show, I mean the year, to hear that there was a big shift towards streaming. And I was wrong. This feels early to me, it feels healthy for the industry, but I'm guessing that artists still are only getting a pittance compared to what they perhaps used to. I don't know if this helps independence very much. Like there's still a lot of questions about whether or not this is a good ecosystem on the whole, or if it only benefits Taylor Swift every year and a half for a new album. I don't know. Well streaming definitely doesn't benefit her because she pulled all her albums from it. That's a good point. But like, you know, I assume, and maybe Jason you can pipe in on this, I assume most of this growth is coming from this, the diversification of who's offering services. Apple Music landed last year, Spotify had big growth. You're starting to see smaller services, YouTube Red, which combines with YouTube Music. And all of that seems like this is all contributing to the reason why we're seeing a larger percentage of music being streamed rather than bought and downloaded. Yeah, it's like the transition away from how we've always felt about music, which is that I have to own it. And I've always been a big proponent of owning my music. I like to have my music library and everything. But even I in the last year have kind of come around to the convenience aspect of streaming versus owning. And I don't know, I'm torn when it comes to these topics because I love the ability to just fire up a music service, find anything that I want there more or less, and be able to listen to it immediately and not be tied into the decision of whether I need to buy it anymore because I know it's always there at my fingertips. But if the artists that are making the music aren't getting paid fairly, then I do feel like something needs to change. Where the fault lies in that is always the question, right? Like the recording industry wants to make sour grapes about the fact that while these numbers are very impressive from a streaming music perspective, the artists aren't getting paid, I have a hard time truly believing that their interests lie more in the artists than they do themselves. And maybe they need to make some changes on the inside so that artists do get more. The other part of the argument is always do artists make a lot of money when they're out on tour? Oh, it's okay if they don't make money on the music that they recorded and that's available through streaming because they'll make it out on the road. And that doesn't necessarily work for a lot of independent artists. They pay through the teeth just for the chance to kind of take their show on the road. And so then they don't end up making money out there on the road either. So streaming services, by the way, and I can only speak from my own perspective and definitely a lot of the stuff that I read, really, I mean like you said, benefit maybe the super like incredibly large artists maybe, but when it comes down to like independent musicians, the reason they're there is exposure. They're not there to make money. And that kind of stinks when you put your heart and soul into something that you want to be your career and your livelihood and it's very challenging. Well, and there's a lot of perspective setting that needs to happen because what the RIAA is trying to tell you is that, and this is a quote from Kerry Sherman, the consumption of music is skyrocketing, but revenues for creators have not kept paced. And he tries to point out that ad supported streams grew 101% while revenue only grew 31%. Final sales were 416 million last year. Ad supported streams were only 385 million. There's a few things going on here. First of all, if artists aren't getting paid and we just had the best revenue, we just had the first revenue right since 2011, then forget where the money's coming from. The artists should be getting paid more. There was a revenue rise. They're trying to vilify streaming because they don't like the deals they have with it and particularly they don't like the fact that AM and FM radio since the 60s in the United States have not had to pay anything. So they're accusing technology companies of doing a value grab by getting away with streaming these things for cheap, but it's the record companies who want to do the value grab too. They want a bigger slice of the revenues that are being generated. They see that the streaming revenue is now up to 34%. They see that the paid subscription is going up and they're getting a good cut of that. They want a cut of it all. They want to make more money and if the creators aren't getting paid, that's the record business's problem if the revenues are going up. If you're telling me the revenues are declining, which they are for CDs, which they are for downloads, then yeah, there's a problem with the business as a whole. But again, if we don't want to buy music, then we don't have to. There's not a law that says the record industry even has to exist. So what I think is most significant is none of the thing in this blog post said a thing about piracy. They are not fighting that. They're not even mentioning that. Absolutely. I mean, they still, they may be perennially, I mean, always eternally fighting that, but they're not mentioning it anymore. And the idea that the only, I feel like this drives me crazy. I feel like the only time we hear from these guys is when a segment of the market is in growth and whether it was CDs and not tapes anymore or tapes and not vinyl anymore or digital and not physical anymore and now streaming and not downloading anymore, they're upset at that and not the fact that nobody's complaining now that the downloads are on the thing. The thing you used to complain was a lousy deal with Apple and Google and everybody else. And Amazon now suddenly that's dropping. I don't see you jumping up and down for joy. You'd rather that number you hire too if you're being honest. That's the problem. I don't feel like the record industry is being honest. You know what it feels like? It feels like the old movie studio system where there's no such thing as independent artist directors or actors or anything like that.  He's just the guy that drew the stuff. Who needs him? He's not important. Don't pay him royalties. He's not matters. What matters is how many people are buying these comic books and you just forget to tie the artist to your bottom line. And it may be just pure perception on my point but it feels like that there's a real disconnect between artists and management. It sounds like an internal conversation. I feel like we've had it a thousand times before but it still feels relevant and it doesn't matter what's big. As soon as holographic audio becomes the hot new thing and we're all getting it deemed into our brains, they'll complain about the deals they made with that. What's interesting is it all feeds itself, right? Like what you were talking about Tom as far as not complaining about piracy anymore. Why do you think that is? Because piracy for a lot of people was about one, saving money and two, the convenience of, you know, the convenience that you didn't have to pay any money for it. But also the convenience for not having to go to the store to pick it up, whatever. It was easy to turn on your computer and download an album for free. Now a lot of those people don't have to do that because they have their peace of mind of paying seven, eight, ten dollars a month and they get the same type of convenience. So instead of applauding, kind of the fact that that whole problem doesn't really exist in high numbers anymore, it's, let's turn our focus on the next thing that we hate. An average revenue per subscriber is up. So those people are paying more than they were last year. And many of them are paying at all. Period. They work. Exactly. I do think that this has really become the record industry trying to get you on their side in negotiating a better deal. And granted, I get why they want a better deal with AM and FM radio, which doesn't pay them at anything. I get that. I understand that. But honestly, over the year, broadcasts are going away. If they can make it so that streaming online, those radio stations have to pay the sound exchange rates. Then I, you know, they're going to be getting some revenue there. The problem really is that you don't have the ability to come up with a new format that can make everybody replace their collection and goose those revenues again. Yeah. I don't know, man. Music. It's the hot new thing. And I'll tell you what, all I know with the user is streaming is working for me. I really, really like it. I'm like Jason. I kind of became a bit of a convert. I still have my library. I still enjoy it. It's still what it is. And occasionally I'll buy an album, download it, whatever. But everything's creeping in. And more and more, I'm convinced that this is the way it's going to be until whatever the next little course correction is. And I need them all to knock it off and find a way to get along and get more money to artists so that we get better content or else at some point we're going to be fighting over garbage. And I don't want garbage or I'll be paying. No, I disagree with that. The record industry has been saying that since the fifties.  People make music, make great music that is never picked up by the record companies. The quality of our music will continue to be good. Because people don't just make music to make money. People who want to make money making music should have good opportunities to do that. But I don't think it's a human right. I think that that's just something we should as a society value. But the record companies aren't necessarily the best way to value it. When it comes down to it, what I would say is if anyone's having a conversation with you about record industry and musicians, keep in mind, recorded music revenues rose 1% 0.9% in 2015. So the music industry made $7 billion in the United States alone last year. It's not doing bad. The chunk of chain. Yeah, they're not hurting. Don't let them pull at your heartstrings. If you're talking to somebody like Jason Howell, who's making music and wants to figure out a way to get paid to do it, that is different. That's not the record industry. That's musicians. Like I said earlier, independent musicians have it hard. They also in some ways have a really good opportunity to make money in more non-traditional aspects of this industry. You don't only make a lot of money by selling billions of albums. Take the show that I'm on, the show that you produce and have created, Tom. You can make a good amount of money as an independent artist if you have enough just charged up fans that follow you and don't mind spending $10 for your album and giving it directly to you or buying it through iTunes and sure Apple takes a portion of that, but they still end up making a heck of a lot more than they do 0.0019 cents per stream on Pandora, which 180,000 plays by the way gets you $342 per month ish so I mean the numbers are skewed, but there are other ways and I guess that's good for independent musicians. Well Jason Howell, thank you so much for dropping in, talking Blendol, talking music. Find Jason's Good Works at twit.tv slash TNT and also all about Android, twit.tv slash AAA. That's right. We're having a lot of fun with tech news today by the way, the show that you created. So it's awesome. Yes, we have created a lot of things. It's great to kind of take the torch and to carry it on and make Maroney and I are just having a blast and yeah, man, thanks for inviting me on. This is a lot of fun. Maybe we'll have you back on TNT next week sometime. Yeah, I'm going to be on what, the 31st with Becky Whirly? Well, you guys get a much deserved vacation. That's right. So thank you for that. I think I get to be a guest on Monday with you. I'll keep a nice air warm for you, Tom. It's fine. Hey, thank you guys. This is a lot of fun.  Sounds good. All right, take care you guys. Cheers. Bye. Our pick of the day comes from Ryan who says, have you guys caught wind of Podcat? This is by the way, Ryan Ozawa of Hawaii fame. In other words, his Twitter ID is Hawaii. Podcat is an IMD for podcasts. You go to podcat.com and it makes it easy to see which guests have appeared on different shows and you can follow them around as they make the rounds. And he says, hey, it was created by a guy here in Hawaii. Looks like they're adding guests whitelist style. And once added, they scan all the podcast episode descriptions for the names and make them active links. That's pretty cool. That's really cool. I also podcat. Podcat.com, like a pod and then a cat, like the kitty kind. Ryan's good guy. He's always a treat and fun to talk to and worthy on Twitter and all that stuff. In fact, he's kind of my window to Hawaii in a weird way, at least social media wise. So it's nice to see him involved or at least calling us out. This is really cool. Set your picks to us, folks. Feedback at DailyTechNewsShow.com. You can find more picks at DailyTechNewsShow.com slash picks. Quick messages. One I definitely want to get to. Michael the history teacher was among a few different people who pointed out that the FBI director in the United States serves a 10-year term, which is a remnant of the fear of Hoover's long run as director. The director is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, but unlike cabinet positions, he does not automatically lose the job when a new president is elected. So the election does not have as much to do when James Comey will leave his job as he has only been in the job for two-ish years. So Patrick Beja's speculation about Comey stepping down carries a new weight. Now that we know this, I was saying, well, he might have to leave anyway because we got a new president coming in. Apparently not. He could fill out his term if he wanted to. I had no idea that it was in effect a term limited. I didn't know this either, yeah. So I appreciate everybody who pointed this out. Somebody on Twitter even pointed out that Comey was appointed deputy attorney general in the Bush administration. So he has even served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, although his term as FBI director started under President Obama's administration. And then we got Nate Langson of text message saying, hey, you guys were talking about Apple being rumored to look at acquiring British company imagination technologies. We were a little surprised that Apple actually said, no, we are not considering buying them. He said in UK, its company takeover policy called the city code on takeovers and mergers basically says that if a British publicly traded company's share price is significantly affected because it's under heavy rumor or speculation that it's being groomed for takeover, the potential buyer, in this case Apple, has to make a public statement either confirming or denying its position. Helps keep the UK stock market from exploding wildly for no reason. The other interesting thing is that once the company clarifies it's not going to buy the British firm, it's banned from trying to do so again for six months. That's not true here at all, right? There can be rumors about takeovers or hostile or otherwise. There are other rules about what you have to disclose and how you have to phrase things, but I don't think we have this specific rule of you have to comment on a rumor. Interesting. I'm guessing a lot of times that just squashes the rumor because a lot of times they're just nobody's actually buying anyone and they can just come out and say, yeah, we're not doing anything and you're done. Something about that I like. I don't know what it is I like about that, but I like it. Yes, we were talking to them. We are no longer considering it and now they can't go turn around tomorrow and buy them. That's interesting as well. Thanks for that, Nate. Check out text message, T-E-C-H, Apostrophe S message. It's great podcast with a UK perspective. And thank you, Scott Johnson for joining us as always, my friend. What are you up to these days? Oh, man, what a great episode. Thank you for having me as always. There's a lot going on. A million projects always in the works. People want to find out what those things might be coming for me that can visit frogpants.com. Where a lot of that is detailed, certainly the shows and all the access to that stuff is there, but if you want to know what's happening on a day-to-day basis, you can find me at Scott Johnson. And I would just make one plug and that would be for the other show Tom and I do on the weekend called Current Geek every Friday at 4 p.m. Pacific last an hour this weekend. We have Oh Docta on along with Jenny Josephson who's going to sit in as our fourth chair. And it's always fun. It's just a great way to kind of wrap up the pop culture of the week and talk about the things we love and we don't talk about it enough in other shows. So please come check us out currentgeek.com for details. It's your weekend geek typical current geek. Yeah, no, I have so much fun doing it. It's the best way to kick off a weekend. Believe me. Thanks to everybody who supports the show and makes it possible for us to do this show every day. DailyTechnewshow.com slash support. You can also support us on an ongoing basis at patreon.com slash DTNS. If you like the show, we just say put a dollar value on it. Maybe it's a dollar. Maybe it's a couple. Just give us that amount per month to make sure that the show keeps going. Patreon.com slash DTNS. Our email address is feedback at DailyTechnewshow.com. You can give us call 51259 daily. That's 5932459. Catch the show live Monday through Friday at 4.30 p.m. eastern at alphakeekradio.com and diamondclub.tv. And visit our website DailyTechnewshow.com. Back tomorrow with Justin Robert Young. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program. Okay, so I've done this once before where I started the show. Streaming it on alphakeekradio. Recording just fine. And didn't start the video. Oh no! So this is another plea from me to you, Roger and whoever else is on to make sure you see that live thing going before we actually start the show in the future. But for those of you watching on video, I want to quickly cover the bits that you missed. So Scott, if you don't mind, we're just going to go through the headlines up to line 13. Line 13 is when we started streaming. Yeah, I totally do that. Alright, so here you go, folks. This is on video, what you didn't see. Google is rolling out updated features for Google photos on iOS, Android, and the web. Smart Albums will now automatically create the best photos and videos into a Smart Album after an event or trip. Unlike the similar story function you may be thinking about, Smart Albums have a more traditional grid of photos with maps and locations laid out between. You'll get a notification when a new Smart Album is ready and you can add maps, drop pins, and add captions to the new or old albums. Microsoft Research Division launched a new chat bot named Tay. Tay mimics the online chatting 24-year-olds complete with emojis and banter. According to Microsoft Researcher Kat London, Tay is, quote, designed to be entertainment. Take until jokes, stories, play games, comment on photos, or read your horoscope if you're interested in what conversation you can have. You can go over to Tay.ai on kick, group me, or Twitter. And Intel's 10k annual report filing with the US SEC indicates they're moving away from the TikTok cycle of chip rollouts. If you don't know what that is, the tick is usually the smaller lithographic process. That's when you hear them say, ah, we've gone from 22 nanometers to 14 nanometers and the talk is the upgraded microarchitecture. That's when they change the microarchitecture and they deliver better performance but on the same lithographic process, still 14 nanometers but better. The new rhythm is going to be three parts. Process, architecture, then optimization and that has in fact happened with the 14 nanometer node that was used for Broadwell and Skylake and now for Kaby Lake. The next process will be 10 nanometer nodes expected in the second half of 2017. Now competition wise, there's wondering if Intel slowing down this procedure will mean they get passed for the first time. Intel saying we're just not getting enough yields out of these smaller processes to keep going at the pace we were at. Global Foundries has yet to launch 14 nanometer parts into products so they may stay on the Intel pace. But ours Technica reports that IBM demonstrated a 7 nanometer chip and TSMC may introduce a 7 nanometer chip in 2018 thanks to Skyboard 13 for submitting this on the subreddit. Do I still get to do 13? I mean you could do it again if you want. I'm going to do it. The video site Pornhub is partnering with Badoink VR to launch a new VR section on the Pornhub website. The site is offering free cardboard VR goggles to its users. There you go. And this is why I was so distracted when you started talking about that story because I realized right at that point that I wasn't streaming the video. That's amazing. You thought I was just uncomfortable with Pornhub, but it wasn't just that. I like the idea that it's explicitly about video and that reminded you to start video. Well, I actually did with someone in the chat room that said, you're not streaming on YouTube. I think it was Beatmaster maybe. I was like, I've done some more things. Yeah, for now on I will make a point of annoying you every Wednesday anyway. Yeah, just help me keep an eye out. I've only done it twice in two and a half years, two years and three months, so hopefully I won't do it again. What do we got for titles? Oh, got some good ones. Buzz Daily Tech News Today Out Loud. What's your favorite? I like the Cycle One, which is a TikTok Intel ran out the clock. That made Scott laugh. I'm in. You can go ahead and read more of them, but I'm just going to go with that one for now. Alright, and then there's, nobody's going to miss the extra finger from TV Zeegon. That one's pretty good. Alright, so back to the Wii jokes. Wii U stop production. Nintendo. The extra letter between the D and the O and Nintendo's name. The record industry playing the same old song. I guess that's kind of like a Jeopardy question. Why didn't I get your mass social media post? I'm A.I. in your context. Oh, that's like a Tay Allen Tay. Got it. It's pretty good, but it's long. Foreign VR should have seen that coming. I'll be in my VR bunk. This is kind of gross, but it's sort of funny. Danger VR may cause Harry Palms. I'm going with Tik Tok. Yeah, the rest might be a little too adult. Tik Tok Intel ran out. I'm amazed no one did a Keisha reference. I know. Intel saves dollar sign. Oh, she got rid of that though. Yeah, I know. She's had a hard time, poor thing. Yeah, it's been. Alcohol in the pills. No, it's not the alcohol in the pills, although that she's recovering from. I'm talking about her producer. No, I don't know anything about her producer. Is she a total jerk? Rape case and they won't let her interact. It's real bad. It's miserable. That whole thing is miserable. Pleasant at all. I would like to ask someone who's in the industry, is that more often the case or is that just kind of the rare, like where you just have an incident that... Yeah, because you always hear rumors like that it's the casting couch and whatever in Hollywood. It's just nothing but the seedy underbelly constantly and all we see is red carpet and glints. Glints. And I don't know. I'm guessing it's since we don't know, it's just imagination so people can think what they want but it can all be TMZ all the time. Every time I talk to someone in the industry, that's the only stories they have because those are the ones that people remember, the outrageous ones. No one remembers yet we went to Olive Garden, had a nice dinner, talked about a new movie. Yeah, but the only remembrance I have of my time when I worked at Cheechee's in high school was that our dishwasher, his name was Angel and he pooped in the beans once and that's all anyone talks about. Wait a minute, wait, wait. Is Angel a real person or no? No, real guy. He pooped in the beans because he was upset, he was mad at management for something, I can't remember what the deal was. Because Tom and I heard a similar story about a Taco Bell from a friend in email so I'm wondering is this just one of those urban legends that gets passed around? This was actual dude who got actual arrested, they shut down the restaurant for actual week like while I worked there. It was bad. It was a rough 1980, 7 or 8? Huh, I wonder if that story that gets passed around is actually Cheechee's and not a fast food Mexican place. Or it was a copycat crime. It could have been. I don't know. But yeah, it was bad and there is no Cheechee's anymore. A celebration of food. I remember one guy got so mad at his boss. He was from the Midwest and during the winter he rubbed Vaseline all over the windshield. The person driving who couldn't see, he would have used the wipers, he wouldn't be able to see anything. It's like, what did that guy got in an accident? He would have been totally in prison.  Although there was that funny story from Cleveland about that guy pooping on car hoods. I feel like I'm on the morning stream. That's a total TMS story actually. The right thing to talk to Scott about. I don't mean to perpetuate your stereotype, Scott, but you do sort of enjoy those stories, don't you? They crack me up. I find it funny that anybody anywhere, let alone Cleveland, would ever do this to anyone's car. For whatever reason, it's that kind of behavior that... They got a photo of the guy with his pants and squandering and he has that look like turned around in the deer in the headlights. When I posted that story on Facebook, a friend of mine commented on the story. It's like, no, no, no, those are his cars now. Yeah, yeah. That's amazing. I just like the guy in the tree in Seattle. I'm fascinated by extreme human behavior. I don't know. Here's the thing about that. I think it is fascinating when people do things. And the guy in the tree fridge is very fascinating. But what happens, and I actually think the internet is making it less of an issue, even though it's shining a bright light on it so it feels like it's worse, is that people misunderstand it or they hear an exaggerated version of it that doesn't explain what's really going on sometimes. Or it's just urban legend and it's not actually true.  I think that happens less now because we have so many people going, well, hold on a minute. That didn't happen at a Taco Bell. That happened at a G-Cheese and I was there, let me tell you. It actually is causing us to understand what are the actual aberrations and what are the things that didn't happen or actually are fairly normal. It's just maybe you didn't encounter it before but they happen frequently. So the guy in the tree, things like that have happened before but they're pretty rare. That is a pretty unusual thing. It wasn't a protester or nothing. I remember guys hanging up on trees to protest logging. I don't know. I think they know yet. It's interesting though he's in Seattle so maybe it's Pacific Northwest logging. I don't think they know. He's come down and they're talking to him and making sure he's okay. He was up there for 24 hours, like a whole day. It wasn't a logging thing. It wasn't like a platform or a nice little hut up there. The people that go up to tree to prevent protest logging or violent protest prepare themselves. Well I'm not going to do any of that and I probably won't be eating at Cheechees. I don't think you can. It's not around anymore right? They're gone. Are they? Yeah. I saw some terrible things when I worked there. Some very terrible things. Chilies. Are you thinking of chilies, Roger? Chilies are still around. Cheechees. No, Cheechees. They're around. Let's just say this, that if you at the store we were at, if you brought your steak back because you didn't think it was well done enough, our guy on the grill would put it on the floor first and then cook it more. What? It was bad. I'm not surprised they're gone. They should be gone. There was bad stuff and I remember going to somebody and saying I don't want to beat up in the parking lot or something so maybe you keep this anonymous. It was mad because the guy's steak was too rare. Put it on the ground, flip it over and put it on the ground again and then grill it and then send it back and they said all right let's see. We'll do something about it and we'll keep you out of it. I said okay great and the guy never, it was still there. He worked there the entire time until I left. It was weird. That was a bad place. You don't do that to people's food ever. Super jerky customers. No, you don't do that. You might charge them more or something just because they're being overly excessive especially when they bring in their own steak or fish. Say can you cook this? It's like all right. That's happened at your parents' restaurant? They go into a seafood restaurant, brought their own seafood. That's happened more often than you would think. You guys use it. I can see that being a restaurant concept. We're like hey, it's BYOF or whatever but I would never go into a restaurant that didn't advertise that as a service. That's crazy. Roger, when you say it happens more than you'd think I would have thought one time would be more than I would think. That sounds crazy. What sucks is unless they're actually really good at filleting the fish, which sometimes they're not sure that you get the rest of the bones out because if some happens to it, you're at fault. That's the other thing, right? You don't know how that fish was handled before it got to the restaurant. I don't know if that can violate health codes, couldn't it? Generally, it only happens if I'm not going to go too far into it but really good customers I guess. Generally, there's an understanding. There's red tide in it, not our fault. I guess it's not too different from the oyster place up in Northern California where you can actually catch your own oysters and then they'll grill them for you. I love oysters. I love clams even more.  Still though, the idea of bringing in your own stuff. I'm going to go to McDonald's today with a little patty of red meat and say look, can you put this in a bun and that's actually a good idea. Just from a crowd awareness social responsibility position, it's the strangest thing to do. Why would you do that? You know what they're there for.   That annoys me. I have empathy for your parents. I don't even know them. I've dealt with that even once. Such as life. Such as life. Soundcloud is just not wanting to process the file today. TMS was slow with that. It finally went through but I had to keep hitting. So here's what I did. I kept hitting save and it would pop out as if it wasn't saved. Maybe that's to you. I don't know. But when it finished and looked like it was done processing but everything was sort of hanging there waiting for me to hit save again, it still didn't matter. It wouldn't do it. So what I did is when I went and checked the page, it had indeed posted it just didn't do the album art. So I edited the post, put album art in it and otherwise everything was the same. Close the page that was uploading. It said are you sure you want to shut this down? There's still something going on. I said yes. It all worked. So I don't know if that's what yours is doing or not but it was being real fruity this morning. So maybe something's up. No, I was able to save it. It's just not. It's just still processing. Forever. Forever processing. So much processing. Actually I haven't had any issues for a long time there but today was weird. And I must have the Germans. Must be the Germans.  Is that even German? Dingo? I don't know. I'm a terrible German accent but I like it. Dingo's German. Is she? Well, she's a Rottweiler. That's a German reed, isn't it? Yeah. Christoph Wall's talking to your dog. Dingo. He must leave this town now. That makes me think of the clash of Klan's advertisement that played Force Awakens. What's his name? James Corden and Christoph Wall. That makes me think of Clash Royale. Which is really good by the way.  Are you in a Klan? No, there's an AE1 and I thought about joining it but I feel like I'm so bad I haven't joined anything yet. I want to join a Klan. Maybe we should start our own Klan. I would like for someone to remember that episode of Star Trek the next generation where everyone on the crew gets really wrapped up in this weird VR game that they're so they can't do it. The cones and the little Frisbee things, yeah. It's like a 25th century of putting the ball in the cup or whatever.  Someone should edit in Clash of Klan's or something. Or like Farmville or something.  The dumb episode but the concept was pretty spot on I think. I don't know. It was Ashley Judd too was the girl by the way in that episode. Her and Wesley getting all. That was Ashley Judd for her earliest roles. Interesting episode. Well recently. It's really poorly done but it's as usual Star Trek can be really thoughtful and execute poorly. Yeah and just don't have the budget or the time or the idea of how to best portray what they're trying to say but the core idea is always kind of cool. Just don't show the game. Just don't show the game.  Yeah. You know what? That would have been better. Imagination would have been more important there. But you ruined it by doing like really this is the game that has everyone at Rapture on a ship of what, a thousand people? Yeah. In the 23rd century you got lawnmower man graphic cone with a Frisbee flying in it and everyone going ah it was terrible. It was terrible. I didn't actually much care for their music either. You know what? I'm a big Goldsmith fan but only on the themes. I guess he didn't do all the interstitial stuff though. I don't know. I know what you're talking about. There's a thing in Star Trek where it's the same pattern of, they'll start a scene and then Picard going Captain's Log, something something. There are four lights, right?  Captain's Log. There are still four lights. To me it's the elevator music equivalent of mood music. He's just like, there's nothing distinguishing about it. I mean I understand budgets are tight and stuff but they built a living room for the bridge of the enterprise. I think you'd have squeezed that a little more for a guy with a synth or maybe a couple of synths. They were really sure that carpeted flooring and like carpeted walls and wood panels they were sure that was going to be the... Maybe it'll come back. Things do go in cycles. I know they made it that way because it's easier to get all the angles and camera angles that you need on the bridge and it's easier when you have all that space. Because the spaces are meant for the fictional crew. It's meant for the camera crew. But yeah, I don't know. It did pick up a little better. But Babylon 5 had really good music. They also had really cool sets as well. I thought the sets hold up like you look at them now and they still... That kind of Battlestar Galactica modern used kind of industrial feel. And that seemed weird at the time but I think that stood the test of time. What's amazing is they actually had very few sets. They just reused a lot of the wall panels. You don't really notice it until someone tells you and you start trying to look for it. That was like a really good show cranked out with their budget wasn't as big as definitely Star Trek in the third season and moving forward. Your effects budget was garbage. It was a great show man. You know I got used to the graphics. Yeah it was alright. It's the 90's. What you get into the fight sequences was pretty cool. You got like hundreds of ships flying around. Everybody talks about news science fiction shows that deserve to be rebooted and put on TV and whatever. I could go totally go for like a revitalization of that series. If it's in the hands it'd be pretty neat. The story arc was great. I really liked it. It's like wait it's those guys. No it's that guy. No wait a minute. Everyone's been being played. Also one of my favorite pilots we watched on my autopilot Tom. I enjoyed that. Oh bevel on five. All the pilots we did it was one of my faves. Alright. Bonus extra long video to make up for the fact that we shorted you at the beginning of the show and if you really want everything from the beginning of the show check out the audio file or you can actually download if you have access to the treasure chest on Patreon. You can get the full pre-empo show in audio format as well. I am going to log us off. Thanks everybody for watching. Thanks everyone.


So we call them lab engineered natural ingredients or Lenny. So basically one example could be you take stem cells from an orchid and instead of harvesting multiple orchids multiple times you're taking one and you're basically cloning it genetically to create the material that you need. And it's a much less intensive lift on the environment.


SCP 6470 is an anomalous medication developed by the Foundation, with the common name, Paganini Oral Medication. After consuming SCP 6470, humans will lose the ability to vocalize. Their vocal cords will vibrate, but no sound will be produced. General Code for the Silent Era, SCP Foundation Department of Miscommunications. This code is enforced by the SCP Foundation, the Global Occult Coalition, the United Nations, and your National Government. For your safety and the safety of those around you, you must comply with this code. You are not to speak, no matter how quietly. When you retrieve your dose of Paganini Oral Medication, you are to consume it. Stay calm, and always remember that as long as you are quiet, you are safe. If you find someone showing extreme distress, move 15 meters away to ensure your safety. Do not touch. It is dangerous. Do not fight back. It is useless and dangerous. Do not record or discuss it by any means, or your life will be in danger. Continue learning, working and living normally. You may continue to pretend that nothing is by your side. It is currently being researched, if recordings of a human voice are equally dangerous. Until further notice do not use any devices that may produce a human voice, such as music players. Artificial voices, such as the one you are hearing, are only safe in controlled environments. They are not permitted for civilian use. This code will be updated by the SCP Foundation as research progresses. Please stay tuned. Please remember. This code is enforced by the SCP Foundation, the Global Occult Coalition, the United Nations, and your National Government. For your safety and the safety of those around you, you must comply with this code. Thank you for listening. Secure. Contain. Protect.


Okay. Welcome back everybody for our second hour on VC212, Christian Apologetics. We are looking at faith and science. Let me just go ahead and share the notes and we will progress in that lesson. Okay. Lesson three, we were just talking about faith and science, the fact that science doesn't have to contradict our Christian faith. I just move forward and look at a few other thoughts and insights on this. The next question that people may ask is, what about discoveries made in science that cannot be explained by biblical accounts? So what we must keep in mind is the Bible is not an encyclopedia. It's not like it records every animal, every bird, every tree, every historical event. That is not what the Bible is. So there will be a lot of things that we see outside which are not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible is not an encyclopedia of everything on this planet. It is not an encyclopedia of history or geography or botany or zoology. It's not that. So some people say, hey, look at these animals, they're not mentioned in the Bible. Yeah, all animals are not mentioned in the Bible. Or look at these plants or look at these places. They're not mentioned in the Bible. Of course, a lot of things are not mentioned in the Bible. Because the Bible is meant to point us to God, it is to teach us to God.  It's not a record of every plant and every animal. So obviously there'll be a lot of things that are science information in science which are not in the Bible. It doesn't, in any way, disprove the Bible or make the Bible any lesser. It doesn't make it. It's just that there is so much information outside. And there will be things that we may not have answers for. So Deuteronomy 29 and verse 29, somebody could read that. Deuteronomy 29, 29. Deuteronomy 29, 29. Deuteronomy 29, 29. The secret things belongs to the Lord our God. But those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. Yeah. So there are some secret things which we don't know. Only God knows. There are secret things that belong to the Lord our God. But what has been revealed to us is for us to live and follow. So there are certain things God has revealed to us in the Bible. We live by that. But we also know there are a lot of things we don't know. It's okay. Leave it to God. So will science come up with information that is not mentioned in the Bible? Yes. Because the Bible is not a scientific encyclopedia of everything, physics and chemistry and everything. It's not. So obviously you will have information, but that doesn't intimidate us. It's very clear. We know Bible is not meant for that. It is meant to teach us about God and how to follow the instructions of God. Now, another important question. Should we use science to interpret the Bible? So this is again a problem. Now some good Christian, poor scientists have started doing this. They are using science to interpret the Bible. And then they come up with all kinds of things, all kinds of ideas. They're trying to fit science into the Bible. So example, let me just make some general statements and then we'll read what is in the notes here. In an attempt, so example, so science will say earth is about 4 billion years old. So how can I make the Bible say earth is 4 billion? Yes, you're going, you're trying to bring science and use that to interpret the scriptures. So we have different theories. Oh, okay, then we found the fossils, skeletons. This fossil is 1.4 billion years old. We found that dinosaur. So many billion years. We found that so many billion, all those things. So now they want to use science to interpret scripture. So they come to Genesis chapter one and all kinds of things people do. I'm just mentioning some examples. Okay, so between, and some of these things you may have heard, right? Between verse one and verse two, there were those big gap, like when I was discussing this. So many, there was a big gap between Genesis one, one, Genesis one, two. That's when dinosaurs were on the earth. That's when, you know, so we can adjust, we can make adjustment. So 4 billion years we can fit. Okay, or some others have said, no, no, no, each day is not one day. It is actually billions of years. So, so we will look at that. We look at Genesis chapter one a little later, but I'm just giving some examples. How they're using science to interpret the Bible. So, no, no, no, no. What God was telling Moses and Moses didn't know all this. He simply said day one, day two, day three, day four. But actually there were big periods of time, epochs. When the animals, I mean the plants came, then the animals came, so on. So, therefore, when somebody says this is 1.4 billion years old, yeah, yeah, yeah, it is correct, it is correct. Do you see it? Where do you see it? Between chapter verse three and verse four, like that. You know, so what is happening? And this is all happening. Like, you know, scientists are trying to explain the Bible using that. But it causes so much fuss. It is so much confusion. And second, it is a misinterpretation of scripture itself. Right. So what must we do? We should use normal rules of language to correctly understand the Bible. And the Bible has simile's figures of speech. So even today when we speak, we also, in our own language, you know, we, we, in day to day speaking, we also use figures of speech.  He said, what, that person was your pain in the neck? No, it is just a figure of speech to say that that person was giving you a lot of trouble. Right. So even in our own language, we use that. So in the Bible, there are figures of speech. For example, you know, what people have used often is in Job 38 and Psalm 104, there is a phrase, the foundations of the earth. You can see the Bible is wrong. Where you got foundation? Earth is round. Where you have foundation? Earth is floating in the sky, in the space. Where you have foundation? And he said, no, no. This is just a figure of speech. He's saying that when God established the earth foundation, he created the earth. He established the earth. That is what foundation, starting the starting of the earth. So it's not that the earth was, the Bible is teaching us something wrong. It is using a figure of speech. That's all. And like this, you'll find many. Right. So and that is normal to any language. Any language we use figures of speech is part of the language. So we see that in the Bible and we shouldn't use that to say it's wrong. Then from our understanding, the Bible is final authority. While we welcome scientific discoveries that corroborate the Bible. So, you know, we say what the Bible says that is final. Science can change because they discover something today. They'll say something tomorrow. They'll discover something and then they will change what was said earlier. And their examples have happened that, you know, for instance, the early idea was that the universe was in an eternal steady state. That means nothing was created. Nothing. I mean, it was always like this. That was the initial scientific idea. That's what they thought. It was in a steady state. Everything was there. Just existed. Then slowly Einstein came. He started thinking. He started doing his calculation. He said, no, no, no, no, no. Things have had to have a beginning. Oh, then everybody said, yeah, yeah, yeah. Things have had to have a beginning till now. Everybody was saying everything was steady state. It always was there. But then somebody was doing thinking and came up with some idea. Oh, then they said, oh, the universe had to have a beginning. Okay. So now everybody is. So what we are saying is our understanding in science is something we are still learning and discovering. We can change. Science, our theories can change. Okay. So what we are saying is the Bible is final authority. We will stay with what the Bible says. This is what God revealed to man through his prophets. It's final authority. Science will keep changing fine. They will make discoveries and keep changing fine. But we stay with the word of God. So we're not going to change the word of God to accommodate the changing discoveries in science. And third is our goal is not to fight, but to present truth in love. Right. That means that we're not going to argue. We can only say what the Bible says. We'll present it in love. Right. And, you know, what they discovered in science. Fine. You're free to, you know, make those observations and so on. We're not going to fight this present truth in love. So the thing is we're not going to let science dictate our understanding or our interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is God's word. It is written in language of its time. But we're not going to change what the Bible is saying in order to accommodate scientific discoveries. So we'll be very clear with that. Another question that we must think about as we talk about faith in science is can science explain everything? So one, there are these big questions of life for which science and these are, you know, maybe we could say philosophical, moral questions. But they are big questions, which are important for us. They may not be important for a cow and a dog or animal or a bird. But for human beings, these questions are important. Okay. And science cannot give an answer. So what are those questions? Origin. Where did we come from? The dog is not going to sit and think, where did I come from? The dog is not worried about that. Animals are not worried. Birds are not worried about this. But human beings are asking the question. So we can't say, well, look at all of animals, but they're not worried about this question. Why are you worried? You're not an animal. So for us, this question is important. So we can't equate ourselves to an animal and do away with these questions. No, these are real questions. And there's a questions which we as human beings are asking. We can't just push it aside. Where did we come from? Origin. Who are we? So are we just another cow, dog, animal or something more to us? Because like we said in the previous lesson, something very different. People are moral beings. Animals may not think about it. But we are moral beings. So something different about us. We can't just equate ourselves. For us, who are we? Question is important. Why are we here? Question is important for us. How should we live? This question of morality. And where are we going? So these five questions, the big questions of life are important for us as people. We are asking these questions. And if you go anywhere in the world, again, we're going back, same thing. Any culture, any language, you sit down with people. They would like to think about this. Five questions. Where did we come from? Who are we? Why are we here? How should we live? And where are we going? So it is common to every human person. And faith, God's word, gives a clear answer. Whereas science is, you look at the answer. Science, if we can put it on a table like this. The Bible, Christian faith says, God created for us purpose. Science will say, hey, we just came over time. You happen to come. You're here. Who are we? Bible says you are created in God's image.  That's all you are. Christian, what is the purpose? You're here to glorify God. You're here to serve His purposes. Just find your own purpose. Do what you want. Just find something. How to live? God has given us His word. In naturalism, it is, okay, you define your own morality. That is why there is so much of problem in the world today, because each one wants to define what is right and wrong themselves. It's a much problem now. Whereas the Bible has already told us what is right, what is wrong. Now everybody is trying to do what is right for you. That is fine. But it may be wrong. It may be hurting somebody else. What is our destiny? There's eternity with God. Atheistic view would be nothing beyond this life. Once you die, you're gone. Finished. So you think about this. Science cannot give satisfying answers to these questions about life. These fine questions. We saw what kind of answers. Whatever you want. The word of God is giving us very clear answers. But like I said earlier, these questions are important for us as people. It matters to us. And if somebody is convinced about these answers to these five questions, then life becomes very meaningful. It is totally different as opposed to somebody with an atheistic view. Very different. Then if you look at science itself, science can tell us that something is there. It tells us example. There is gravity, but it cannot explain how it came into being. How did gravity come? And why? Who thought it was important to put it there? How it came? Why it came? I can tell you, gravity is there. You can use it for these things. You can use it to go up. You can use it to come down. It is there. This is the measure of it. You can use it for these purposes. But how did it come? Who put it there? Who thought it was important for it to be there? Who thought? So like this, in science, we discover many things. We can say what to use it for. But we cannot answer some questions. Why and how? Who put it there? So Italy does not answer every question. Even science does not answer every question in the natural world itself. So somebody says, the law of gravity did not create gravity. It only tells you gravity is there. No, no, laws are there. But who put the laws? Law of physics. Fine, fine, fine, fine. But the laws themselves did not create those things. The law describes it is there. It tells us how it works, but it didn't create. So there is something greater than the law. Someone who put the law in place for a reason. So we have to think about that. So there are many other things, many other laws in nature which we can describe. We know it is there, but they didn't bring the law itself into existence. They didn't create the law. And all these laws put together did not bring creation into existence. The laws are there. But you put all the laws together, it still cannot cause creation to come. So science cannot answer everything. Another question related to this is, has science done away with God? So some people say, hey, we have science, we don't need God. And so what are we saying? One we're saying is, so they think that we, just because we don't understand certain things, that's when we say God. If we understand, we don't need God. But we are saying, whether you understand or not understand, God is there. So there's a difference. They're saying, just because you don't understand something, you're saying God. So it's the God of the gaps. That means if you don't understand, you put God there. But we are saying that's not how we think. Whether we understand or don't understand, for us, God is everywhere. He's above everything. What we understand and what we don't understand. So their assumption, the scientists who, the atheist assumption, that we are just making up something for things we don't understand, that is not how we are thinking. We're not creating a God of the gaps. Fill in the blank. I don't know, put God there. For us, no, that is not how we are doing. Our God is not a fill in the blanks God. He's God who's above the whole full sentence. He's God. Even the blanks, I don't understand everything before and after. He is God. So for us, God is more than a fill in the blanks God. The second thing is, oh, and this was true of the ancient world, meaning the reason God, so man was man created God. And the reason man created God was whenever he encountered something bigger than him, he put God, lightning. Oh, I don't know how to control lightning. God of lightning, God of thunder, God of rain. So man created God. Whenever there was something he could not, it was bigger than him.  Something bigger you call God. No, there are many things that are beyond us, but whether there are things we can control, things we cannot control, we believe God created all things, is bigger than all things. So the God of the Bible was God even before the material world came in. So we didn't create God after lightning came and no, no, no. For us, God was there before the beginning. So he's not the material God. That means we didn't create God just because there was lightning and thunder. For us, God was there before and then he created everything, the world. Okay. So when they say you created God, man created God because he couldn't understand certain things. No, no, no. God was before the beginning. That is the God we believe. And the other part that we must present here is see our scientific discovery, study, learning, we are only discovering the universe. We didn't create the universe. Right. So no matter how wonderful, how brilliant our knowledge is, our knowledge did not create the universe. We're only discovering something already created. We're only discovering the universe that was already created. That means our knowledge itself is not greater. It is not greater than the creation and not greater than the creator. So science cannot do away with God because your science didn't create the universe. You're only discovering the universe. So science cannot do away with God. It's not greater than the universe that you're discovering is not greater than the creator. Right. So lastly, what we conclude is science done right will only lead us to a better understanding of God. So C.S. Lewis made a nice statement here. Men become scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a legislator. That means man is expecting nature to be very organized, to have design, to have all of that. Why? Because there is a designer. There is somebody who's created everything with law, with precision, with order. So that's what we are doing discovery. We're doing research and because we're expecting design, we're expecting intelligence and the reason we're expecting it is underlying that is there is an intelligent being who's designed everything. So the fact that you're practicing science is actually telling you that there is someone who's created everything, given order to everything. Which is what we need to respond. Last few thoughts here. Is science the only way to truth? See, for example, we have so many other disciplines. Science is not the only thing. There's business, history, art, language, music, all of that. Just because we have so many other disciplines, we don't say we don't need anything else. We don't say, hey, only thing you need is art. Art will explain everything. We don't say that. We don't say music will explain everything. So why is it that some says science will explain everything? No, science is one of the many disciplines to enjoy our worlds. But we need all of this and science does not do away with everything else. We need all of this. So our conclusion is that science can explain how and what, but the meaning and purpose is something bigger that we have to discover. And does science inherently include a leap of faith? The thing is this, that in many aspects of science, there is a lot of faith involved. Meaning you're actually believing something. For example, atheists, they actually believe in their philosophy. So they think, okay, what I am saying is true. That is belief. You're believing. So an atheist says, I have no faith. No, no, no, you have faith. You have faith in what you are. You're believing that that is true. So you can't say have no faith. You have faith in something. You have faith in what you are thinking, your line of thought. So is an atheist really a person without faith? No. An atheist is a person who has faith in his philosophy. He believes that is true. So you have belief. Secondly, if you look at what they are saying, that life came out of nothing. All this thing evolved over time, morality, rationality just evolved. Then that itself is faith in something that cannot be proven. Because if you ask a scientist, have you ever seen a monkey become a human? No, never seen.  I believe. Have you ever seen it? No, but you believe. So is there a leap of faith in that theory of evolution? Have you ever seen matter acquiring morality and rationality? Never. But you believe. You believe. So there's a leap of faith in their thinking, in their process. Actually, so believing what you, your philosophy, there is a leap of faith even in what some of the things they are saying. And there are many theories that cannot be proven. And so even in those theories, they say, okay, we'll start with the hypothesis. We'll say, let's assume this is true. The hypothesis is a belief that you're assuming it's true. It's an assumption. So so many assumptions they'll make, which is part of their actual practice. So they have a leap of faith in all these three counts. There is a leap of faith in science itself. So last we're close with this. Is belief in God delusion? Delusion means I just believing something that is not true. So the last bottom. So if God does exist, then atheism is a grand delusion and escape from the reality of a creator and a blissful avoidance of truth. So Stephen Hawking said this. There is no heaven or afterlife. That is a very story for people afraid of the dark. Then John Lennox responded. Atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light. So, you know, so the thing is this, look, if you, if the science, if scientists and atheists are pointing fingers at us, look, they themselves are practicing what they are accusing us of. They're having faith actually on many counts. Now, John Lennox is a Christian who's all the scientists. I think he's with Oxford University. You can look him up, read his books. You can trust it. There are the websites that you can go to and look up. So let's just keep some time for questions. Any questions online? Yes, Sean.  So does what area of science you're specializing? Does that affect your faith in God? Like you said, you can be a scientist and you can have faith, right?  So I don't think that will affect much. But when you go like when you become like a physicist and stuff like that, that you'll be in there. You'll go into this theory and stuff. So will that affect your faith in God as a scientist? I think just from my observation, I think you have people in all disciplines who are believers. And of course you also have atheists in all disciplines. I think it's kind of, it doesn't, I think that we can't always say that certain disciplines that are more believers or not. Okay. For example, this Hugh Ross and a couple others who were in the physicist astronomy, that space, and they all came to believe in God. And then you have people who are in other disciplines with life sciences, biology, and so on, who also are believers. So I think there's a, I mean, my observation is I think you have people in all disciplines who are on both sides of the fence, you know, the believers or the atheists. Yeah. Any other questions online? Okay. Any questions in the class? All right. So we will pause here for today and then next week we will get into creation. So the next few lectures will be a little, whatever I would say, more science based. Okay. Don't worry if, you know, if it's not something you're very excited about, just nod your head and let it go. But if you are interested in science, the next couple of lectures will be kind of interesting. But only in this area of creation and Genesis, we will explain Genesis chapter one and all that. And then we'll go off into other topics. Okay. So just hold on for a couple of classes. We'll look at it from a scientific perspective. And then we will get back into other things. All right. Let's close. Can somebody close? Okay. So Chaya, there's law which was created by God. Humans will investigate it. That's right. That's right. Okay. All right. Let's close and pray. Somebody could pray and then we'll dismiss, please. Heavenly Father, thank you very much for bringing here for this class, Heavenly Father. And thank you very much. I hope I understand your word, Heavenly Father. I hope I understand new things about your word, Heavenly Father. And Heavenly Father, help us to keep improving understanding as we go further in the subject, Heavenly Father. And I press all to keep up with it, Heavenly Father. And thank you very much for bringing new things to Pastor Ashish, Heavenly Father. Thank you very much once again for the lovely class, Heavenly Father. And bless all those present here, Heavenly Father. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you, everyone. See you again. Bye now.