I always tell people that what distinguishes Silicon Valley is not its successes but the way in which it deals with failure. We live in an industry, innovation industry, and we live in a place, Silicon Valley, that operates much like the home run averages for batters in the Major League. They’re going to strike out more than they get home runs, and they're going to hit less than 500. That's the deal. That's the deal in the Valley. We're going to hit less than 500. It's by definition the case. This is about experimentation. Innovation is about taking risk to do things that haven't been done before. If you could do them with a level of certainty that would increase the odds above 50%, we wouldn't need Silicon Valley. Big companies would do it, and they'd do it well. The reason big companies don't venture into what Silicon Valley does is because their business models do not tolerate the level of failure required for innovation. The only business model, solid business model that has been created to deal with failure and still make substantial amounts of money, so substantial that they're able to continually invest in failure, reaping just few success as they can, is the venture capital model, the portfolio model. Big returns on winners and a lot of losses. So we live in a world of risk and we live in a world of failure. And the real issue is, how do we deal with that failure? When I travel around and look at the Silicon Valleys of other places in the world, one of the distinguishing factors as you look at them is certainly not the infrastructure. They've got cubicles. They've got broadband. They've got lawyers. They've got accountants. You go to India and you walk into Wipro emphasis offices and you swear you're in Silicon Valley. What generally is lacking is a culture of constructive failure. Constructive failure, the ability to tolerate failure, proceed with your career, and do it again; and take your experience and cash in on it as an asset. Still,...