Recorded June 23, 2018
#spotpodnewsbrief <– join the conversation
In today’s On the SPOT News Brief, Jay Leask and Craig Jahnke review some recent SCOTUS decisions, dabble in politics, and discuss the probability of the Machine’s taking over the world through civil debate and mind control.
Today’s source material, and a few others mentioned in passing, are found below:
- SCOTUS says your privacy data is yours – go get a warrant
- SCOTUS says it’s a State’s right to tax your internet purchase
- EU Article 13 wants to block your meme – or something like that
- The GitHub 100 say “It’s us or ICE”
- IBM’s Project Debater AI changes your mind – and here come the machines
- Microsoft aquires FlipGrid
- Microsoft publishes open research data sets
If you have a topic you want us to discuss ping us on Twitter to let us know!
Featured image from OpenMedia on Twitter
Jay Leask: 00:04 – Today is June 23, 2018. My name is Jay Leask, and you’re listening to you the second On the Spot news brief in as many weeks.
Craig Jahnke: 00:17 – Hey, this is Craig Jahnke. I’m here with Jay for the speed of technology podcast. You’re right Jay. It is the second in as many weeks. It’s also the first podcast of summer. It’s actually interesting because I’m looking out my window today and it looks like summer. The last few days we’ve had 60 degree and rainy weather, so today looks a little better.
Jay Leask: 00:37 – Oh, today is 60 degrees and rainy out here. So.
Craig Jahnke: 00:43 – Come to Chicago.
Jay Leask: 00:45 – Oh no.
Craig Jahnke: 00:45 – We have good weather occasionally.
Jay Leask: 00:46 – No, I’m good. Thanks.
Craig Jahnke: 00:47 – So what’s on the plate for today, Jay?
Jay Leask: 00:49 – Well, before we jump into things, you and I had an interesting followup conversation to last week’s Why Are We Podcasting segment. We had an interesting conversation, and I said something that you made me backtrack and write down. And so, I wanted to actually say that here. I thought it would be worth sharing. People get so focused on a specific subject matter that they often forget, or miss things that tangentially effect that subject, or things that are tangentially affected by it. And the reason that that is important, is that is why we do the news brief.
Craig Jahnke: 01:25 – Yay.
Jay Leask: 01:28 – Yay, we have a reason. We would like to continue doing interviews of people around the country on Office 365, and directly related subjects. AI, and workflow, and productivity and all that jazz. But, the news brief gives us an opportunity to look at things outside of that direct subject and really see, well, what else is happening? You know, today we’re going to talk about AI. We’re going to talk about politics, we’re going to talk about the law. It’s great, because these things affect what companies do with their technology, and how they can implement it. So it’s pretty cool.
Craig Jahnke: 02:09 – Yeah. And their resources, which as we all know from many of the companies we work with, there’s usually not enough resources to go around. People cost money. People take time, meetings take time. So it’s, how can we get the money out of our best use of our resources, and what do we need to be doing it? I think we’re going to talk about some ways that government and other things happen, and take our resources that make us use them to spend them on running the business instead of working to make profit or make sales.
Jay Leask: 02:41 – A perfect example of that is this one. So, the Supreme Court, you’ve got two articles coming out of the Supreme Court. It’s that time of year there. They’ve heard their cases and they’re writing. They’ve written their responses. Two of the ones that have come out in the last a week or so were really interesting. This first one is on the ruling of state sales tax. So, what the Supreme Court has said is the states have the right to charge sales tax of any internet retailer. Now, this is different than what has happened in the past where states were charging sales tax if you had a brick and mortar location, which over the last five years has really affected companies like Amazon, when they’ve dropped distribution centers in practically every state of the country, which gives them a brick and mortar location, which means they have to charge sales tax if you live in that state.
Craig Jahnke: 03:40 – Yes. I know in Illinois, they weren’t originally in here, they weren’t originally charging income tax, but then they dropped a couple of distribution centers up closer to our airport. And, along the way for the drive to Milwaukee, there’s a couple of centers. Well, not only distribution centers, but they dropped their data warehouses too, or data centers for Amazon web services. A big one was built not too far from my house. So that did give them the brick and mortar presence you’re talking about.
Jay Leask: 04:09 – Yep. That was pretty big. That was, oh, do I have it easily accessible? Nope, not that one. It’s this article. Sorry, I’ve got my articles crossed. That was a decision in South Dakota versus Wayfair. Something I thought that was really interesting. South Dakota was quoted as saying that this was a big win for South Dakota and quote unquote, ” Main streets across America.” The big argument that the attorney generals who were in support of this were saying was that it gives online retailers an unfair advantage over brick and mortar locations, because the brick and mortar location has to charge sales tax and the online retailer doesn’t. But Overstock had a very interesting response to this. First, they said this isn’t going to affect us, but what they did say was that it would affect internet startups pretty heavily going towards what you said, Craig, about having to have that administrative capability, because those startups now had to be able to manage over 12 thousand, if I got that right. Geez, that’s a lot. Maybe it’s 1200?
Craig Jahnke: 05:17 – No. I could see it being 12 thousand. I know where you’re going with that.
Jay Leask: 05:20 – Yeah. Different tax jurisdictions, because it’s not just states, it becomes locals on top of that. You end up with thousands of different tax jurisdictions, that you need to know what are the rules, and how do I tax people from them.
Craig Jahnke: 05:36 – Yeah. And once you start getting into municipalities, it gets really complicated. Just talking about like income tax from my years when I worked at ADP, the payroll company, you know, America gets paid, you start talking into towns or cities like Ohio or-
Jay Leask: 05:55 – Cities like Ohio?
Craig Jahnke: 05:56 – … cities, like Ohio states, like Ohio or Pennsylvania, especially. Each municipality has its own little income tax and trying to account for that’s a big pain in the butt. So yeah. My question though, is how are the states going to enforce it if they choose to do that? Because yes, it’s easy for me to say, Oh, Amazon, I’m sure you can do an audit and check everything, but if I buy something, you know, if Jay sets up a little donut shop or something in his garage, and I want to buy donuts over the internet from Jay and he sells them to me, how is the state going to know about that? Som does that mean more monitoring software or something like that, or are they taking even on goodwill that you’re going to do it?
Jay Leask: 06:40 – Oh, I doubt it will be on goodwill. Give us a few months and there will be a software that helps control and monitor and build the tax codes and blah blah blah.
Craig Jahnke: 06:50 – Yeah, so I think it’s a couple of things then become interesting out of that that I hadn’t thought of. One, does it mean more business for the state? They’re going to get more revenue, but does that mean they have to hire more people to manage that, right? So, you get a few more jobs there. I could see a entrepreneur or two come up and say, “Well, if we could build software that helps the state to collect that, or if we could build software that helps the entrepreneur or the small business figure out what they have to pay easier,” or maybe that’s something that Intuit or somebody like that does as part of their QuickBooks type application. I’m sure they already have something similar to that, so it wouldn’t be that much more of a step. So, I don’t know. It could create jobs. I think it becomes a difficult to enforce, and I’m going to be interested to see how that plays out.
Jay Leask: 07:41 – Also, in the Supreme Court decisions area of our conversation today, I thought this one was really big. The Supreme Court says a warrant is necessary for phone location data in a win for privacy advocates. So basically, there are some cases out there. An example where the police gathered 12,898 different locations on a subject that they were looking at, but it wasn’t that they were tracking him actively. It’s that they looked at his location history, and were able to piece together where this person was over a period of four to six months. This is kind of a big deal. Like if you think about that, everyone’s phone has location data. They’ve got their GPS going on. This is saying the police can go back and look at where you have been. They can see everything you have done. In a society where they’re saying, stop infringing on my personal space, right?
Craig Jahnke: 08:46 – Yeah. That’s actually interesting because when I first scanned the article and we had discussed it, I was thinking that it was about a little bit different. Maybe it’s not different. Yeah, so we’re going back. We’re saying this guy’s a suspect, now let’s look at his phone history, and they got that pretty easily, right?
Jay Leask: 09:03 – Yep.
Craig Jahnke: 09:04 – Now the Supreme Court is saying you need a warrant for that. It makes sense.
Jay Leask: 09:09 – Yeah, it does. The thing that really hit me about this wasn’t necessarily the idea of needing a warrant, because if you’re a privacy advocate, you’ve already had that belief. But really, what I took from this is this is actually defining who owns that data, and what I mean by that is the people who were defending the right of a phone company to give that location history over were saying that in your agreement with the phone company, you agree to give over this data. You agree to give over a bunch of data about you, including your location history, which means the phone company owns it. But what this decision is saying in my completely unprofessional, untrained law mind, is the phone company can’t just claim to own that data anymore. That data belongs to the individual.
Craig Jahnke: 10:04 – Right. Yeah. No. To me that’s a good thing. It kind of goes along with some other things that we’ve talked about, like GDPR coming out of Europe that, you know, the data that you enter into websites is your data. So, it’s interesting. It kind of plays along with what the GDPR talks, that the Supreme Court tends, might be starting to lean that way, so you could see more regulation just in general on privacy coming down, requiring people, or companies and organizations to treat data as people’s data, as rather than our own. The other thing I thought was kind of interesting was if they don’t make that ruling in the … They say that tell the phone company that that’s their data, then what kind of deal can you get the phone company making with the police? Right? Because what if I just was able to give that data up freely and then the police were able to use, or I wanted to use that data for like AI purposes and then I could kind of-
Craig Jahnke: 11:00 – … to use that data for, like, AI purposes and then I could kind of track what people are doing. Because then you can … you start talking about selling. I never thought about it, but if I wanted to sell, as a phone company, your data, Jay, of what you do during the course of the day, that makes a really nice advertising marketing. Like, if I know that you drive by this … let’s use donut shop again, because I love donuts this morning.
Jay Leask: 11:24 – I am sensing a theme today.
Craig Jahnke: 11:25 – Yeah, so if you drive by this donut shop, I might be able to figure that out and send you a coupon as you’re driving by, right?
Jay Leask: 11:31 – Yeah.
Craig Jahnke: 11:31 – Now, that would be kick ass, but that might be an invasion of your privacy.
Jay Leask: 11:35 – Yeah, that would be kick ass if you volunteer that information, certainly not if you just steal that information. But, yeah, I’m with you on that one. There’s a conversation of convenience versus right, and really this comes down to rights. Do you, a phone company, have the right to make money off of my location awareness, or do I have to give you that permission first?
Craig Jahnke: 12:01 – A lot of people give up their rights pretty easily, not knowing it. I mean, they put all their information that they have about what they’re doing, where they’re going to be on Facebook and Twitter without second thought. Then you do this stuff on phones, and things like that … I don’t know. I don’t know where I was going with that, but sometimes I’m thinking that people share too much information on places like Facebook and LinkedIn and that opens them to liabilities and things that they don’t realize. I think we’ve had the discussion probably in the past that I don’t post pictures of when I’m on vacation until I get back from vacation because I don’t wasn’t somebody to see it and break into my house, that kind of stuff. So … but, you know, that sharing information … I’m off on a tangent here, Jay. Pull me back in.
Jay Leask: 12:47 – I’m just letting you dig, man. I mean, you know …
Craig Jahnke: 12:49 – Pull me back in. So, let’s go back to the legal thing.
Jay Leask: 12:56 – I’ve already had the thought that we should restart this recording.
Craig Jahnke: 13:01 – No, I think we’re doing pretty good.
Jay Leask: 13:02 – Uh, no, but following … do you want to finish that thought or do you just want to move on to the next article?
Craig Jahnke: 13:07 – Uh, yeah. Let’s see. I can finish the thought was that it’s interesting where people decide that it’s too much information is being shared. It’s like I can share what I want, Facebook and Twitter, but if I give it to … if I put that information on another site or whatever and somebody shares it for me … I guess it’s the without permission that really makes it kind of weird, right?
Jay Leask: 13:31 – You know, Craig, I’m actually really glad you finished that thought out because I was not following you until you said that and yes, I’m completely with you. The conversation is really about do you get to decide to tell people where I am, or what I do, or what I like or do I get to decide that? If I’m into some really kinky stuff, do you have a right to tell another retailer that I’m into that kinky stuff so they can advertise to me, or should that be my little secret? Just as an example. For a friend.
Craig Jahnke: 14:05 – For a friend. Yeah, I know you want the flirty costume, Jay.
Jay Leask: 14:10 – Changing that conversation as quickly as I can and the last of our major legal convers … well I guess not really the last, but the next big thing in our legal conversation is regarding the European Union. So you brought up GDPR, we’ve talked about that a ton in the past. This one is a new article, Article 13, that is “it could threaten the Internet memes”.
Craig Jahnke: 14:35 – Oh, no. Not memes.
Jay Leask: 14:35 – I know.
Craig Jahnke: 14:37 – Anything but memes.
Jay Leask: 14:38 – Alright, what Article 13-
Craig Jahnke: 14:38 – That’s what the Internet is for. That and porn, but-
Jay Leask: 14:43 – Oh, so, what Article 13 does is it’s requires large platforms, such as Facebook, to scan content before it’s posted online to make sure that anything that could be stolen … not anything that is, but anything that could be stolen, is stopped.
Craig Jahnke: 15:01 – Yeah, that’s a little vague.
Jay Leask: 15:02 – Now, if you’ve posted a video to YouTube, you’ve dealt with something along these lines. You’ve posted something with a recorded audio in the background and big record companies have put out there that you can’t post their music without permission and therefore your audio gets stripped or your video is completely blocked. So you’ve dealt with this before, but what I really love about this, and it’s probably going to be the header of the article on our website, is the picture of Dr. Evil holding his air quotes and saying, “Banning memes because “copyright”. What an “original” idea.” And it really … I mean, that’s exactly what this is. This is … anything that “could” be stolen … that’s a lot of quote unquotes-
Craig Jahnke: 15:02 – Yeah.
Jay Leask: 15:53 – … is now subject to being blocked. We’re getting a little out of hand here.
Craig Jahnke: 15:59 – Yeah, I know. I agree with you, but I guess if I created a picture or something, or … I would be upset if somebody else borrowed it, maybe. Maybe I wouldn’t.
Jay Leask: 16:09 – Yeah.
Craig Jahnke: 16:10 – It depends on if I found it amusing, or whatnot. Part of me would-
Jay Leask: 16:13 – So this is … so this goes to the enforcement side of things, right? You mentioned in the tax conversation, how are they going to enforce this? This is the European Union saying, “We are going to enforce copyright by saying if something could be copyrighted, we’re going to block it.” It’s really interesting.
Craig Jahnke: 16:35 – Yeah. I don’t know how you’d tell if it could be, but … unless it has a little copyright marking that, you know, like the people that take the school pictures or whatever and take pictures of them and get them developed, or scan the proofs and try to do that instead of buying them from the photographer. But, yeah, unless they have a watermark on them, or something like, I don’t know how you would know.
Jay Leask: 16:59 – So that’s a really great point, which is this law is interesting in idea. Academically, it’s a good thought process. We’re going to enforce copyright law. But realistically … I’m with you. I don’t know that this is really enforceable without overextend … grossly overextending the reach into things that really are not appropriate … copyrighted or that you may own the copyright to. So.
Craig Jahnke: 17:29 – Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out, but I don’t see it going … I don’t see Internet memes going anywhere soon.
Jay Leask: 17:37 – Oh God, no. I really hope they never do. It’s half my life. I’m not even going to get into that. When I first got into collaboration platforms, my boss … I watched my boss. He said … we were trying to convince a federal agency to install … to use SharePoint for collaboration, and he looked at them and he said, ” When you install a system like this,” … actually it wasn’t SharePoint at the time, it was Yammer. That’s what it was. He said, “When you install a system like this, you have to accept the cat memes with the share of work data,” and I truly believe that. That’s part of what … that’s why robots don’t do our jobs.
Craig Jahnke: 18:22 – Right. Well, and it’s part of … you know, you get a lot of companies nowadays talking about that work life balance, right? So … and that’s where you get, hey, you got to make the job fun if you want your employees to stay engaged, right? If it’s all heads down and we’re not allowed to share a joke or anything like that, you know, that’s when you get people who say, “Hey, I could go elsewhere to work at,” so it’s all about employee happiness, employee retention. It’s the little things that make you happy, right?
Jay Leask: 18:49 – Well, let’s take that … I’m going to move around and let’s talk about robots taking our jobs and happiness and let’s move into IBM. We don’t talk about IBM very much. They are a major player in technology. They are-
Craig Jahnke: 19:02 – Really? What do they do? I’ve never heard of IBM.
Jay Leask: 19:04 – You’ve never heard of IBM? I once … when I was in college, I really wanted to work for IBM. I’ve never done it, but what they did … you’ve heard of their AI platform. They’ve had their robot in their commercials for years now.
Craig Jahnke: 19:21 – Yeah, and Watson has been their analytics platform.
Jay Leask: 19:22 – Yeah. Yup. So, they have a variant of their AI platform called Project Debater, and it uses artificial intelligence to debate humans. They’ve been running this for years, mostly internal. They hadn’t publicly shared a debate with Project Debater until recently, and I don’t know about you, man, but the scary thing for me is Project Debater almost won. Think about that. If a computer can debate a human and actually win the argument, we are moments away from computers controlling the world.
Craig Jahnke: 20:06 – Yeah.
Jay Leask: 20:07 – And I don’t mean like my phone controls me because I use it. I mean, like, telling me what to do, how to think, how to dress, where to go. Oh, that’s some scary stuff.
Craig Jahnke: 20:17 – And you already have a wife for that, right, so?
Jay Leask: 20:21 – Oh.
Craig Jahnke: 20:21 – Sorry, that was too easy.
Jay Leask: 20:23 – Every feminist in the world just started sending you hate letters.
Craig Jahnke: 20:27 – That’s … I’m sorry. That was like a big softball tossed up there. No, I-
Jay Leask: 20:34 – Craig-
Craig Jahnke: 20:35 – I’m sorry.
Jay Leask: 20:35 – That was inappropriate.
Craig Jahnke: 20:36 – That was. that was inappropriate.
Jay Leask: 20:40 – Alright, keep going.
Craig Jahnke: 20:42 – But anyways … no, it was … yeah, I mean you’re looking at Sky Net and Terminator-type scenarios coming left and right at you and everything that Elon Musk said about AI and Stephen Hawking had been talking about could be coming true. I don’t know. I hope that we build them a little bit smarter than that, or it’ll take them a while before they decide that we’re … we need to be exterminated, so … tried to go Dr. Who there. I can’t do that very well.
Jay Leask: 21:09 – Oh geez.
Craig Jahnke: 21:10 – That was my horrible dialect. Never mind.
Jay Leask: 21:13 – That was … that was … yeah, that wasn’t even close. But, no, seriously, this is … AI is going to be really interesting to watch as it becomes more and more a part of our lives. I think it is more a part of our lives than most people realize. A lot of what people call AI are really just decision trees, but in this particular case, you have a computer using the breadth of Internet knowledge and whatever databases it has been told it can utilize for that debate. It is taking a subject it has not previously have insight into and it is making … I don’t know. I don’t want to say it’s making decisions, but it is providing information on which decisions can be made.
Craig Jahnke: 21:58 – Yeah.
Jay Leask: 21:58 – And in this particular case, in one of the debates … there were two of them with two different humans …
Jay Leask: 22:01 – In one of the debates, there were two of them, with two different humans. In one of them, a series of the judges actually said that it changed their mind. Now, if you start thinking about that, and you start thinking about how people’s minds can be shaped, their decisions can be changed based on what they hear, we’re starting to look at robots, with artificial intelligence having the ability to tell us what to think. That’s as far as down that conversation as I want to push it today, but I think it’s-
Craig Jahnke: 22:44 – I wasn’t planning on going into this, but we started talking about elections, and things like that. You’ve heard, in the past, that … you know, fake news maybe, or fake ads and stuff on things like Facebook or whatever, have swayed people’s decisions, and there was some of that being pumped out in the last elections. You start talking about, “Now let’s take that and up the ante on that,” where somebody can write a program to argue better, right, for what it believes and then go out and supply data to back that up. That could be really interesting, either in a good or bad way, right? Help people become more educated on a subject, so that they could vote a certain way, or to ply them with “fake news” and steer their directions in ways that somebody else is trying to determine. So yeah, it could get ugly.
Jay Leask: 23:37 – Yeah. I think what bothers me about it is, specifically, that it’s not a conscious mind that is directing this. It is an artificial intelligence, literally. It’s an AI. It’s a robot. And you brought up politics, and the reason I’m steering into the next conversation that I’m steering into, again, changing the order of things here, is you brought up politics and people changing minds. Well, we talked about Microsoft buying GitHub in last week’s episode.
Jay Leask: 24:14 – Shortly after, there was a … I would call it small in numbers, but not small in quality, a small letter from GitHub users saying, ” With everything that’s going on with ICE, with the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, with the separation of families and “dehumanization,” and I am using quotes because I’m trying specifically not to pick a side on this one, that’s not what this podcast is about. But there are 204, it was originally 100 but there are 204 people who have added their name to this letter, demanding that Microsoft either stop working with ICE on what they announced earlier this year, delivering services such as cloud-based identity and access, and helping employees make informed decisions faster, and lastly utilizing deep learning capabilities to accelerate facial recognition and identification.
Jay Leask: 25:18 – These 204 users are saying, “Either stop helping ICE in protest of what they’re doing, or we’re going to go somewhere else.” One could argue that they’re trying to blackmail Microsoft into forcing its hand. I think on the other hand, this is free market. This is exactly what free market’s all about. These people decided that they don’t like what ICE is doing. They looked at Microsoft and said, “You now own this platform that we use. We have no problem going somewhere else if you, Microsoft continue to support practices that we are not in favor of.”
Craig Jahnke: 25:59 – I know that Microsoft has come out and made public statements that … not so much directly against ICE but for humanely treating people nicely, and that kind of thing. So it will be nice to see if maybe Microsoft respond with ways of helping the situation. Because I don’t want to get into politics and pick a side either, but you know, it’s got a lot of money, a lot of resources. You know, there’s a lot of things that it could possibly do to help with immigration or help with … I think the thing they’re talking about now is with the children specifically in immigration, and how do we handle those, and how do we handle the people who are coming across not just here but all over the world.
Craig Jahnke: 26:44 – I know Microsoft, especially with their new … I don’t know why I call him new but Satya Nadella, he’s been there for a little while now, but he’s doing a ton of humanitarian projects, so I would kind of have to look at that if I was a GitHub user and say, “Well, they are doing good things. I want to voice my concerns about some of the things that they’re not doing well.” I don’t know that I would necessarily pull out of GitHub based on contracts that they have, but I would like to see them put their influence behind some of the policies that they’re doing and help people out in general, right?
Jay Leask: 27:21 – You’ve seen more and more I think, or you will see more and more people choosing which organizations to support, maybe a bit more selectively than they’d like to admit, based on the politics that they are standing behind. And by the way, you did mention Microsoft came out against this. They did. They came out and said they are dismayed by the forcible separation of children from their families at the border, and went on to talk about how they are not working with ICE on any projects relating to this specific policy. So it was interesting. You know, I don’t want to beat a dead horse. I think it’s all over the news, I think it’s all over everywhere you’re looking, but where this relates to what we’re talking about is one, we’ve got a company that a lot of what we work on is based out of. Two, we have a series of policies that are being enacted by the government, and three, we have people saying that we are going to choose what tools we use, what software we utilize based on the policies that that organization either supports politically, or with technology. Really interesting, and something to watch. I think we’re going to see more and more of this over the next couple of years.
Craig Jahnke: 28:44 – Yeah, so we’ve got a lot of political stuff, we’ve got a lot of legal stuff to watch over the next couple of years, and we’ve got a lot of AI stuff to watch. And pretty soon we could have … we’ll create a Jay bot and a Craig bot, and they’ll just do the podcast themselves.
Jay Leask: 28:59 – I already am a bot. You don’t know what you’re talking about, Craig.
Craig Jahnke: 29:03 – But we are coming up on a half hour now, Jay. Do we want to maybe wrap this up?
Jay Leask: 29:08 – Yeah. I think this was a good starting point for what’s been going on in the week. You know, there were a couple other things that you had earmarked, something about Microsoft Research, something about Microsoft acquiring Flipgrid. You know, there’s a lot going on out there today. I think if I were to walk away from today’s podcast with one thing that I wanted you, the listener to really think about, it’s don’t just think about the subject right in front of you. Think about everything that is happening around the world that might be affecting the subject right in front of you. And hopefully our news briefs can help you do that.
Craig Jahnke: 29:50 – Very well put, Jay. Yeah, just open up your minds and start thinking not just what the technology is doing today but what’s down the road, and like you said, how the government and the courts are going to be playing more and more parts of the decisions on how that technology manifests itself in everyday life. That was a big word for me, manifest.
Jay Leask: 30:15 – Tangential manifestation, that’s going to be today’s phrase of the day.
Craig Jahnke: 30:19 – Yeah, that’s the headline for the podcast.
Jay Leask: 30:21 – All right. Craig, it’s been a pleasure as always. I’m glad to be [crosstalk 00:30:25].
Craig Jahnke: 30:24 – It’s been a pleasure for you. Cool, well I hope you enjoy your 60 degree rainy weather in D. C. and I will see you on the next podcast.
Announcer: 30:34 – This episode brought to you by Jay Leask and Craig Jahnke, two guys who like to talk technology and live in a connected world. The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers only, and in no way do they represent the opinions of their employers, their customers, or their wives. This has been an On the Spot podcast production.