I'll probably be saying very much the same thing but through a slightly different lens. I actually harken back to a couple of days ago when I read the presentation that was given by Industry Canada. They talk very much about disruptive as having a certain number of characteristics in terms of its impact.
First of all there is a market impact. Is it changing the way you do business or what you buy significantly? Does it put other people out of business? That's a disruption in the market. Is it changing the way people behave, for example to access to information both good and bad?
The second thing is that it's moving very quickly, and it's moving globally. I think if you're looking at it from an impact at those kinds of levels, I think it allows you to get a better feeling on how we're going to do that.
I'm coming back to the same thing that I think all three of us are saying. In and of itself, the technology is only a technology that does things. It's to do something, how and what. It is from the brilliance of innovation and innovators, but it's a neutral thing. It's just an advancing of things that get smaller, that are more intelligent.
How they are used...totally. The best example that struck me was the Arab Spring. They called it the Facebook.... No one could have possibly imagined that having these kinds of technologies in hand would have changed so significantly the course of history in many cases, in Egypt for example. We have no way. But certainly that was disruptive.