Monday, March 14, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Rob Harmon: How the market can keep streams flowing
About this talk
With streams and rivers drying up because of over-usage, Rob Harmon has implemented an ingenious market mechanism to bring back the water. Farmers and beer companies find their fates intertwined in the intriguing century-old tale of Prickly Pear Creek.
Rob Harmon is an expert on energy and natural resources policy -- looking at smart ways to manage carbon, water and the energy we use every day.
Why you should listen to him:
Taking the true measure of our environmental footprint is something that Rob Harmon has been doing for years. Starting as an energy auditor in Massachusetts, Harmon went on to manage an international marketing effort in the wind energy industry and, in 2000, develop and launch the first carbon calculator on the Internet.
Harmon joined Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) in 1999, and is credited with developing their Green Tag program. In 2004, he was awarded the national Green Power Pioneer Award for his introduction of the retail Green Tag (Renewable Energy Certificates) and his ongoing efforts to build a thriving and credible Green Tag market in the United States. He also conceptualized and directed the development of BEF's national Solar 4R Schools program. His latest venture is the creation of BEF's Water Restoration Certificate business line, which utilizes voluntary markets to restore critically de-watered ecosystems. He recently contributed chapters to the book Voluntary Carbon Markets: A Business Guide to What They Are and How They Work. Rob left BEF in November 2010 to explore his next venture, ConvenientOpportunities.com.
Robot solves Rubik’s Cube in 15 seconds
A Rubik’s Cube has been sitting on Joe Ridgeway’s shelf since he was a child, but it wasn’t until he was studying at Rowan University that he fully embraced its challenge…
In a project that started in a Rowan course, Ridgeway and Zachary Grady, both senior electrical and computer engineering (ECE) majors, have built a robot that solves the cube in 15 seconds.
The Rubik’s Cube-Solving Robot, a year in the making, has earned the duo more than 17,000 hits on YouTube and a congratulatory note from Erno Rubik himself. And though it’s not yet official, they are confident, based on their research, that the robot is the fastest of its kind…
The robot wastes little time – after 17 moves, it twirls the descrambled cube in a modest celebration.
Ridgeway, 21, and Grady, 22, made the machine from scratch, they said, working under the guidance of Mease and ECE chair Shreekanth Mandayam and with mechanical-engineering help from graduate student Karl Dyer.
Japan Earthquake Live
continued...............
Watch the dramatic scenes as the tsunami smashes the Iwate prefecture in Japan.
Smashed by Tsunami
The-explosion-at-the-japanese-reactor
Watch the dramatic scenes as the tsunami smashes the Iwate prefecture in Japan.
Smashed by Tsunami
The-explosion-at-the-japanese-reactor
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
與咖啡的最佳距離
與咖啡的最佳距離
「再忙也要和你喝杯咖啡。」的經典廣告台詞令人印象深刻，風靡全球的咖啡魅力與對咖啡的眾多疑懼並存，喝咖啡到底好不好？有沒有方法能收咖啡之利，又不受其害？
�@�̡G李雪莉 �@�X�B�G天下雜誌
從便利商店平價咖啡、罐裝咖啡到精品咖啡館，台灣這幾年的咖啡市場蓬勃，規模上估兩百億。
「喝杯咖啡」不僅成為生活中休閒的註腳，這幾年，不少研究更指出，這種帶著濃郁香味和些微苦澀的飲料，還可能對身體有益。
日前國外的研究指出，咖啡對肝纖維化有保護效果：一天平均攝取二一二毫克咖啡因左右的肝病患者，要較攝取一五四毫克左右咖啡因的患者肝纖維化程度要輕。
過去更有研究指出，咖啡能抗憂鬱、控制體重，甚至可抗癌和預防心血管疾病；儘管對咖啡會不會造成骨質疏鬆、會不會咖啡上癮等恐懼，也一直沒有消失。
喝咖啡到底好不好？有沒有方法能收咖啡之利，又不受其害？
咖啡的好與壞 一體兩面
國泰醫院肝臟中心主治醫師黃奕文指出，許多對喝咖啡有益健康的「平反」是流行病學的研究，由觀察推導出結論，而非實驗的結果，儘管證據明確，還是有其限制。
此外，許多喝咖啡的好處，還未有最終定論。
如過去認為，過量的咖啡會提高罹患心血管疾病的風險，但也有人指出，咖啡中有抗氧化成分，對癌症、糖尿病的預防有幫助，也能保護心血管。去年荷蘭的一份研究甚至指出，一天喝兩到四杯咖啡，能降低罹患心臟病的風險。究竟咖啡對心血管疾病是好是壞？答案還莫衷一是。
而咖啡帶來的「好」，許多其實是有條件的，不宜過度解讀。
內湖國泰診所營養師張斯蘭就指出，如有研究指出一百毫克的咖啡因能增加身體三％至四％的新陳代謝，因此能協助控制體重。但必須注意這只是暫時性的刺激；如果長期喝，身體適應刺激，不見得就能提高代謝。林口長庚營養治療科營養師曹雅姿更提醒，如果咖啡裡加了糖或奶精，反而會帶來熱量。
新光醫院營養師謝宛青也舉例，咖啡中的咖啡因會刺激腸胃蠕動，因此有改善便秘的效果；相反的，有大腸急躁症、或者胃潰瘍的人，咖啡因刺激胃酸分泌，或腸胃蠕動更快，反而更不舒服。
喝咖啡停看聽
咖啡的許多「好」與「壞」，其實是一體兩面；研究結果也還不一致，不該將咖啡視為預防的保健品或治療的藥物。專家們建議：
適量攝取。咖啡因攝取量一天建議不超過三百毫克。許多連鎖咖啡店已開始以顏色標示咖啡因含量：紅色表示含咖啡因兩百至三百、或三百毫克以上；黃色是一百至兩百毫克，綠色是一百毫克以下。而如星巴克還提供每一種咖啡的咖啡因含量。
避開咖啡的時機
但這平均、標準、實際效果可因人而異：有人一天喝三杯還沒事，有人卻半杯就會睡不著。曹雅姿建議，當發生如心悸等不舒服、不適應的狀況，就不要喝；此外，在可樂、巧克力等其他食物中，也含有咖啡因。
特別要注意的是，許多人以為喝拿鐵，攝入的咖啡因就比較少。但曹雅姿指出，曾有調查發現，不同超商的拿鐵，咖啡因含量從九十毫克到三百六十多毫克都有，重點還是在咖啡和牛奶的比例。
避開咖啡禁忌。有幾種人是不適合喝咖啡的，包括發育中的兒童、懷孕期或哺乳的人、老年人、空腹者、腸道敏感的、胃酸過多的、服用鎮靜劑的、抽菸者、喝酒後、洗腎病人、高血壓患者等。
張斯蘭也建議，有睡眠障礙的人，中午過後，就不要喝咖啡。
感冒時也不建議喝咖啡。謝宛青指出，這主要是因為感冒需要多休息，咖啡卻會讓中樞神經興奮。
更年期後的婦女也最好不要多喝咖啡。咖啡其實不是引起骨質疏鬆的原因；謝宛青指出，一般年輕女孩子如果補充足夠的鈣質，適量飲用咖啡其實不用擔心；但更年期後的婦女因為女性荷爾蒙減少，鈣質本就會大量流失，這時候就不建議再多喝咖啡。
避開糖與奶精。適量的咖啡無害，加入的糖與奶精卻會傷身。
糖和奶精除了增加熱量外，奶精裡多有反式脂肪，反式脂肪長期會在血管壁上沈積。營養師建議，可以低脂牛奶代替奶精，既避開反式脂肪風險，又可增加鈣質吸收。
「再忙也要和你喝杯咖啡。」的經典廣告台詞令人印象深刻，風靡全球的咖啡魅力與對咖啡的眾多疑懼並存，喝咖啡到底好不好？有沒有方法能收咖啡之利，又不受其害？
�@�̡G李雪莉 �@�X�B�G天下雜誌
從便利商店平價咖啡、罐裝咖啡到精品咖啡館，台灣這幾年的咖啡市場蓬勃，規模上估兩百億。
「喝杯咖啡」不僅成為生活中休閒的註腳，這幾年，不少研究更指出，這種帶著濃郁香味和些微苦澀的飲料，還可能對身體有益。
日前國外的研究指出，咖啡對肝纖維化有保護效果：一天平均攝取二一二毫克咖啡因左右的肝病患者，要較攝取一五四毫克左右咖啡因的患者肝纖維化程度要輕。
過去更有研究指出，咖啡能抗憂鬱、控制體重，甚至可抗癌和預防心血管疾病；儘管對咖啡會不會造成骨質疏鬆、會不會咖啡上癮等恐懼，也一直沒有消失。
喝咖啡到底好不好？有沒有方法能收咖啡之利，又不受其害？
咖啡的好與壞 一體兩面
國泰醫院肝臟中心主治醫師黃奕文指出，許多對喝咖啡有益健康的「平反」是流行病學的研究，由觀察推導出結論，而非實驗的結果，儘管證據明確，還是有其限制。
此外，許多喝咖啡的好處，還未有最終定論。
如過去認為，過量的咖啡會提高罹患心血管疾病的風險，但也有人指出，咖啡中有抗氧化成分，對癌症、糖尿病的預防有幫助，也能保護心血管。去年荷蘭的一份研究甚至指出，一天喝兩到四杯咖啡，能降低罹患心臟病的風險。究竟咖啡對心血管疾病是好是壞？答案還莫衷一是。
而咖啡帶來的「好」，許多其實是有條件的，不宜過度解讀。
內湖國泰診所營養師張斯蘭就指出，如有研究指出一百毫克的咖啡因能增加身體三％至四％的新陳代謝，因此能協助控制體重。但必須注意這只是暫時性的刺激；如果長期喝，身體適應刺激，不見得就能提高代謝。林口長庚營養治療科營養師曹雅姿更提醒，如果咖啡裡加了糖或奶精，反而會帶來熱量。
新光醫院營養師謝宛青也舉例，咖啡中的咖啡因會刺激腸胃蠕動，因此有改善便秘的效果；相反的，有大腸急躁症、或者胃潰瘍的人，咖啡因刺激胃酸分泌，或腸胃蠕動更快，反而更不舒服。
喝咖啡停看聽
咖啡的許多「好」與「壞」，其實是一體兩面；研究結果也還不一致，不該將咖啡視為預防的保健品或治療的藥物。專家們建議：
適量攝取。咖啡因攝取量一天建議不超過三百毫克。許多連鎖咖啡店已開始以顏色標示咖啡因含量：紅色表示含咖啡因兩百至三百、或三百毫克以上；黃色是一百至兩百毫克，綠色是一百毫克以下。而如星巴克還提供每一種咖啡的咖啡因含量。
避開咖啡的時機
但這平均、標準、實際效果可因人而異：有人一天喝三杯還沒事，有人卻半杯就會睡不著。曹雅姿建議，當發生如心悸等不舒服、不適應的狀況，就不要喝；此外，在可樂、巧克力等其他食物中，也含有咖啡因。
特別要注意的是，許多人以為喝拿鐵，攝入的咖啡因就比較少。但曹雅姿指出，曾有調查發現，不同超商的拿鐵，咖啡因含量從九十毫克到三百六十多毫克都有，重點還是在咖啡和牛奶的比例。
避開咖啡禁忌。有幾種人是不適合喝咖啡的，包括發育中的兒童、懷孕期或哺乳的人、老年人、空腹者、腸道敏感的、胃酸過多的、服用鎮靜劑的、抽菸者、喝酒後、洗腎病人、高血壓患者等。
張斯蘭也建議，有睡眠障礙的人，中午過後，就不要喝咖啡。
感冒時也不建議喝咖啡。謝宛青指出，這主要是因為感冒需要多休息，咖啡卻會讓中樞神經興奮。
更年期後的婦女也最好不要多喝咖啡。咖啡其實不是引起骨質疏鬆的原因；謝宛青指出，一般年輕女孩子如果補充足夠的鈣質，適量飲用咖啡其實不用擔心；但更年期後的婦女因為女性荷爾蒙減少，鈣質本就會大量流失，這時候就不建議再多喝咖啡。
避開糖與奶精。適量的咖啡無害，加入的糖與奶精卻會傷身。
糖和奶精除了增加熱量外，奶精裡多有反式脂肪，反式脂肪長期會在血管壁上沈積。營養師建議，可以低脂牛奶代替奶精，既避開反式脂肪風險，又可增加鈣質吸收。
「見義勇為」是壞事？
「見義勇為」是壞事？
「路見不平、拔刀相助」原本是被推崇的美德，但曾幾何時，「見義勇為」卻變成要被處罰的行為了。為什麼學校和社會要教孩子見死不救？
�@�̡G洪 蘭 �@�X�B�G天下雜誌
見義勇為一向是傳統美德，「路見不平、拔刀相助」的俠士，曾是我們小時候憧憬的對象，連司馬遷都在《史記》中寫「遊俠列傳」。但曾幾何時，急難助人變成要受處罰的行為了。有一位媽媽拿著小學三年級社會科考題給我看：當你看到一位殘障同學需要幫助時，你應該?假裝看不見，趕快走開?見義勇為去幫助他?趕快去報告老師。她兒子選?，結果正確答案是?。老師還說：你逞什麼英雄？要害學校被告嗎？我看到這答案很驚愕，但了解這是玻璃娃娃判例的後遺症：學校不敢收特殊殘障的孩子，同學不敢幫忙他上廁所，因為萬一不湊巧，傾家蕩產賠不完。
無獨有偶，去年七月西雅圖市中心的一家銀行遭搶，一個戴太陽眼鏡、鴨舌帽的年輕人把一個背包推到櫃台前面，命令行員把錢裝進去。這年輕的行員恰好是運動好手，立刻跳出來追，成功把搶匪壓到地上，直到警察把他逮捕。但是這位「英雄」卻在兩天後被銀行開除，因為他違反了銀行的規定：銀行要求行員碰到搶劫時，要順應搶匪的要求，盡快把他送出銀行之外，反正錢都有聯邦保險，如果跟搶匪格鬥，可能會受傷並傷及無辜。西雅圖的警察也說他們只要求市民做個「好的目擊者」，並不要求市民見義勇為。
我們當然了解，要幫助別人必須先看自己有沒有這個能力，但是明令不得幫忙就有點過分了。「不平則鳴」是良心的吶喊，「見義勇為」是人善良本性的反應，怎麼到了二十一世紀，反而要回過頭來教孩子自私：凡是不關他的事都不要管，管了要挨罰。這種態度正是造成黃春明在宜蘭騎機車摔倒在地上十五分鐘無人相救，也使許多本來有救的傷者血流到光死去。
這態度是很不對的，現在地球是平的了，彼此是休戚相關，正如這位英勇行員講的：「我知道銀行有這個規定，但當事情發生時，我只想到這個二十歲的年輕人什麼事不好做，要來搶銀行？我今天讓他搶，明天他會去搶另一家銀行。」沒錯，他今天得手了，明天食髓知味，他會再去搶別的銀行，社會會亂不就是大家姑息養奸嗎？校園霸凌會這麼嚴重，不也是大家睜一隻眼、閉一隻眼，只要沒欺負到我，就假裝沒看到嗎？
最近公車上，有一個高一女生在眾目睽睽下，被色狼手指性侵並被拖下公車強暴，公車上的人都有看到，卻沒有一個人出面制止或告知司機，這就是這種判例的後果。一個好的法律帶領社會前進，一個壞的判例也會產生寒蟬效應，並使孩子誤以為這個世界是「人不為己，天誅地滅」，壞事只管放膽做，反正沒人會出面檢舉你。
犯罪不只是看行為後果，要看動機，「有心為善，雖善不賞，無心為過，雖過不罰」，為什麼我們要處罰幫玻璃娃娃的那位同學無心之過，把「公義」這扇門關掉了？
「路見不平、拔刀相助」原本是被推崇的美德，但曾幾何時，「見義勇為」卻變成要被處罰的行為了。為什麼學校和社會要教孩子見死不救？
�@�̡G洪 蘭 �@�X�B�G天下雜誌
見義勇為一向是傳統美德，「路見不平、拔刀相助」的俠士，曾是我們小時候憧憬的對象，連司馬遷都在《史記》中寫「遊俠列傳」。但曾幾何時，急難助人變成要受處罰的行為了。有一位媽媽拿著小學三年級社會科考題給我看：當你看到一位殘障同學需要幫助時，你應該?假裝看不見，趕快走開?見義勇為去幫助他?趕快去報告老師。她兒子選?，結果正確答案是?。老師還說：你逞什麼英雄？要害學校被告嗎？我看到這答案很驚愕，但了解這是玻璃娃娃判例的後遺症：學校不敢收特殊殘障的孩子，同學不敢幫忙他上廁所，因為萬一不湊巧，傾家蕩產賠不完。
無獨有偶，去年七月西雅圖市中心的一家銀行遭搶，一個戴太陽眼鏡、鴨舌帽的年輕人把一個背包推到櫃台前面，命令行員把錢裝進去。這年輕的行員恰好是運動好手，立刻跳出來追，成功把搶匪壓到地上，直到警察把他逮捕。但是這位「英雄」卻在兩天後被銀行開除，因為他違反了銀行的規定：銀行要求行員碰到搶劫時，要順應搶匪的要求，盡快把他送出銀行之外，反正錢都有聯邦保險，如果跟搶匪格鬥，可能會受傷並傷及無辜。西雅圖的警察也說他們只要求市民做個「好的目擊者」，並不要求市民見義勇為。
我們當然了解，要幫助別人必須先看自己有沒有這個能力，但是明令不得幫忙就有點過分了。「不平則鳴」是良心的吶喊，「見義勇為」是人善良本性的反應，怎麼到了二十一世紀，反而要回過頭來教孩子自私：凡是不關他的事都不要管，管了要挨罰。這種態度正是造成黃春明在宜蘭騎機車摔倒在地上十五分鐘無人相救，也使許多本來有救的傷者血流到光死去。
這態度是很不對的，現在地球是平的了，彼此是休戚相關，正如這位英勇行員講的：「我知道銀行有這個規定，但當事情發生時，我只想到這個二十歲的年輕人什麼事不好做，要來搶銀行？我今天讓他搶，明天他會去搶另一家銀行。」沒錯，他今天得手了，明天食髓知味，他會再去搶別的銀行，社會會亂不就是大家姑息養奸嗎？校園霸凌會這麼嚴重，不也是大家睜一隻眼、閉一隻眼，只要沒欺負到我，就假裝沒看到嗎？
最近公車上，有一個高一女生在眾目睽睽下，被色狼手指性侵並被拖下公車強暴，公車上的人都有看到，卻沒有一個人出面制止或告知司機，這就是這種判例的後果。一個好的法律帶領社會前進，一個壞的判例也會產生寒蟬效應，並使孩子誤以為這個世界是「人不為己，天誅地滅」，壞事只管放膽做，反正沒人會出面檢舉你。
犯罪不只是看行為後果，要看動機，「有心為善，雖善不賞，無心為過，雖過不罰」，為什麼我們要處罰幫玻璃娃娃的那位同學無心之過，把「公義」這扇門關掉了？
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Derek Sivers: How to start a movement
About this talk
With help from some surprising footage, Derek Sivers explains how movements really get started. (Hint: it takes two.)
So, ladies and gentlemen, at TED we talk a lot about leadership and how to make a movement. So let's watch a movement happen, start to finish, in under three minutes and dissect some lessons from it.
First, of course you know, a leader needs the guts to stand out and be ridiculed. But what he's doing is so easy to follow. So here's his first follower with a crucial role. He's going to show everyone else how to follow.
Now, notice that the leader embraces him as an equal. So, now it's not about the leader anymore; it's about them, plural. Now, there he is calling to his friends. Now, if you notice that the first follower
is actually an underestimated form of leadership in itself. It takes guts just to stand out like that. The first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader. (Laughter) (Applause)
And here comes a second follower. Now it's not a lone nut, it's not two nuts, three is a crowd, and a crowd is news. So a movement must be public. It's important, not just to show the leader, but the followers because you find that new followers emulate the followers, not the leader.
Now, here comes two more people, and immediately after, three more people. Now we've got momentum. This is the tipping point. Now we've got a movement. So, notice that, as more people join in, it's less risky. So those that were sitting on the fence before, now have no reason not to. They won't stand out. They won't be ridiculed. But they will be part of the in-crowd if they hurry. (Laughter) So, over the next minute, you'll see all of those that prefer to stick with the crowd because eventually they would be ridiculed for not joining in, and that's how you make a movement.
But let's recap some lessons from this. So first, if you are the type, like the shirtless dancing guy that is standing alone, remember the importance of nurturing your first few followers as equals so it's clearly about the movement, not you. Okay, but we might have missed the real lesson here.
The biggest lesson, if you noticed -- did you catch it -- is that leadership is over-glorified, that, yes, it was the shirtless guy was first, and he'll get all the credit, but it was really the first follower that transformed the lone nut into a leader. So, as we're told that we should all be leaders, that would be really ineffective.
If you really care about starting a movement, have the courage to follow and show others how to follow. And when you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first one to stand up and join in. And what a perfect place to do that, TED.
Thanks. (Applause)
With help from some surprising footage, Derek Sivers explains how movements really get started. (Hint: it takes two.)
So, ladies and gentlemen, at TED we talk a lot about leadership and how to make a movement. So let's watch a movement happen, start to finish, in under three minutes and dissect some lessons from it.
First, of course you know, a leader needs the guts to stand out and be ridiculed. But what he's doing is so easy to follow. So here's his first follower with a crucial role. He's going to show everyone else how to follow.
Now, notice that the leader embraces him as an equal. So, now it's not about the leader anymore; it's about them, plural. Now, there he is calling to his friends. Now, if you notice that the first follower
is actually an underestimated form of leadership in itself. It takes guts just to stand out like that. The first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader. (Laughter) (Applause)
And here comes a second follower. Now it's not a lone nut, it's not two nuts, three is a crowd, and a crowd is news. So a movement must be public. It's important, not just to show the leader, but the followers because you find that new followers emulate the followers, not the leader.
Now, here comes two more people, and immediately after, three more people. Now we've got momentum. This is the tipping point. Now we've got a movement. So, notice that, as more people join in, it's less risky. So those that were sitting on the fence before, now have no reason not to. They won't stand out. They won't be ridiculed. But they will be part of the in-crowd if they hurry. (Laughter) So, over the next minute, you'll see all of those that prefer to stick with the crowd because eventually they would be ridiculed for not joining in, and that's how you make a movement.
But let's recap some lessons from this. So first, if you are the type, like the shirtless dancing guy that is standing alone, remember the importance of nurturing your first few followers as equals so it's clearly about the movement, not you. Okay, but we might have missed the real lesson here.
The biggest lesson, if you noticed -- did you catch it -- is that leadership is over-glorified, that, yes, it was the shirtless guy was first, and he'll get all the credit, but it was really the first follower that transformed the lone nut into a leader. So, as we're told that we should all be leaders, that would be really ineffective.
If you really care about starting a movement, have the courage to follow and show others how to follow. And when you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first one to stand up and join in. And what a perfect place to do that, TED.
Thanks. (Applause)
Flipboard new version brings Instagram and other goodies
Flipboard just shipped a new version to the iPad, just in time for the iPad 2. It is full of new goodies. CEO Mike McCue gives us a great look and then talks to us about advertising, business models, and more (he's on the board of directors of Twitter, so he has a unique view of the publishing industry).
Mike McCue has had quite a year. Since launching last year he’s:
1. Won Apple’s best iPad app of the year award.
2. Been on Oprah.
3. Racked up more than a million downloads.
4. Been named to Twitter’s board of directors.
Tonight Flipboard released a new version that adds a few new features:
1. Instagram photo support.
2. Much faster performance (and that’s before the iPad 2 comes along, which will double speed).
3. Make it easier to discover new content via searches.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of what will come this year from Flipboard as they start rolling in new filtering and discovery technology that they purchased with the Ellerdale Project acquisition they made.
In the 30-minute interview Mike talks about the new competition that Flipboard is seeing and also explains how they will do advertising and where they are heading.
Toward the end of the interview Mike takes us around the office and introduces us to what everyone is doing.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The world’s best selling wearable HD cameras for sports
The world’s best selling wearable HD cameras for sports
2x world champion, Daize Shayne shows us how it's done longboard style.
GoPro HD: Kayak Chutes
Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders
About this talk
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg looks at why a smaller percentage of women than men reach the top of their professions -- and offers 3 powerful pieces of advice to women aiming for the C-suite.
So for any of us in this room today, let's start out by admitting we're lucky. We don't live in the world our mothers lived in, our grandmothers lived in, where career choices for women were so limited. And if you're in this room today, most of us grew up in a world where we had basic civil rights. And amazingly, we still live in a world where some women don't have them. But all that aside, we still have a problem, and it's a real problem. And the problem is this: women are not making it to the top of any profession anywhere in the world. The numbers tell the story quite clearly. 190 heads of state -- nine are women. Of all the people in parliament in the world, 13 percent are women. In the corporate sector, women at the top, C-level jobs, board seats -- tops out at 15, 16 percent. The numbers have not moved since 2002 and are going in the wrong direction. And even in the non-profit world, a world we sometimes think of as being led by more women, women at the top: 20 percent.
We also have another problem, which is that women face harder choices between professional success and personal fulfillment. A recent study in the U.S. showed that, of married senior managers, two-thirds of the married men had children and only one-third of the married women had children. A couple of years ago, I was in New York, and I was pitching a deal, and I was in one of those fancy New York private equity offices you can picture. And I'm in the meeting -- it's about a three-hour meeting -- and two hours in, there kind of needs to be that bio break, and everyone stands up, and the partner running the meeting starts looking really embarrassed. And I realized he doesn't know where the women's room is in his office. So I start looking around for moving boxes, figuring they just moved in, but I don't see any. And so I said, "Did you just move into this office?" And he said, "No, we've been here about a year." And I said, "Are you telling me that I am the only woman to have pitched a deal in this office in a year?" And he looked at me, and he said, "Yeah. Or maybe you're the only one who had to go to the bathroom."
(Laughter)
So the question is, how are we going to fix this? How do we change these numbers at the top? How do we make this different? I want to start out by saying, I talk about this -- about keeping women in the workforce -- because I really think that's the answer. In the high-income part of our workforce, in the people who end up at the top -- Fortune 500 CEO jobs, or the equivalent in other industries -- the problem, I am convinced, is that women are dropping out. Now people talk about this a lot, and they talk about things like flex time and mentoring and programs companies should have to train women. I want to talk about none of that today -- even though that's all really important. Today I want to focus on what we can do as individuals. What are the messages we need to tell ourselves? What are the messages we tell the women that work with and for us? What are the messages we tell our daughters?
Now at the outset, I want to be very clear that this speech comes with no judgments. I don't have the right answer; I don't even have it for myself. I left San Francisco, where I live, on Monday, and I was getting on the plane for this conference. And my daughter, who's three, when I dropped her off at preschool, did that whole hugging the leg, crying, "Mommy, don't get on the plane," thing. This is hard. I feel guilty sometimes. I know no women, whether they're at home, or whether they're in the workforce, that don't feel that sometimes. So I'm not saying that staying in the workforce is the right thing for everyone.
My talk today is about what the messages are if you do want to stay in the workforce. And I think there are three. One, sit at the table. Two, make your partner a real partner. And three -- don't leave before you leave. Number one: sit at the table. Just a couple weeks ago at Facebook, we hosted a very senior government official, and he came in to meet with senior execs from around Silicon Valley. And everyone kind of sat at the table. And then he had these two women who were traveling with him who were pretty senior in his department. And I kind of said to them, "Sit at the table. Come on, sit at the table." And they sat on the side of the room. When I was in college my senior year, I took a course called European Intellectual History. Don't you love that kind of thing from college. I wish I could do that now. And I took it with my roommate, Carrie, who was then a brilliant literary student -- and went on to be a brilliant literary scholar -- and my brother -- smart guy, but a water polo playing pre-med, who was a sophomore.
The three of us take this class together. And then Carrie reads all the books in the original Greek and Latin -- goes to all the lectures -- I read all the books in English and go to most of the lectures. My brother is kind of busy; he reads one book of 12 and goes to a couple of lectures, marches himself up to our room a couple days before the exam to get himself tutored. The three of us go to the exam together, and we sit down. And we sit there for three hours -- and our little blue notebooks -- yes, I'm that old. And we walk out, and we look at each other, and we say, "How did you do?" And Carrie says, "Boy, I feel like I didn't really draw out the main point on the Hegelian dialectic." And I say, "God, I really wish I had really connected John Locke's theory of property with the philosophers that follow." And my brother says, "I got the top grade in the class." "You got the top grade in the class? You don't know anything."
The problem with these stories is that they show what the data shows: women systematically underestimate their own abilities. If you test men and women, and you ask them questions on totally objective criteria like GPA's, men get it wrong slightly high, and women get it wrong slightly low. Women do not negotiate for themselves in the workforce. A study in the last two years of people entering the workforce out of college showed that 57 percent of boys entering -- or men, I guess -- are negotiating their first salary, and only seven percent of women. And most importantly, men attribute their success to themselves, and women attribute it to other external factors. If you ask men why they did a good job, they'll say, "I'm awesome. Obviously. Why are you even asking?" If you ask women why they did a good job, what they'll say is someone helped them, they got lucky, they worked really hard. Why does this matter? Boy, it matters a lot because no one gets to the corner office by sitting on the side, not at the table. And no one gets the promotion if they don't think they deserve their success, or they don't even understand their own success.
I wish the answer were easy. I wish I could just go tell all the young women I work with, all these fabulous women, "Believe in yourself and negotiate for yourself. Own your own success." I wish I could tell that to my daughter. But it's not that simple. Because what the data shows, above all else, is one thing -- which is that success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. And everyone's nodding, because we all know this to be true.
There's a really good study that shows this really well. There's a famous Harvard Business School study on a woman named Heidi Roizen. And she's an operator in a company in Silicon Valley, and she uses her contacts to become a very successful venture capitalist. In 2002 -- not so long ago -- a professor who was then at Columbia University took that case and made it Howard Roizen. And he gave case out -- both of them -- to two groups of students. He changed exactly one word: Heidi to Howard. But that one word made a really big difference. He then surveyed the students. And the good news was the students, both men and women, thought Heidi and Howard were equally competent, and that's good. The bad news was that everyone liked Howard. He's a great guy, you want to work for him, you want to spend the day fishing with him. But Heidi? Not so sure. She's a little out for herself. She's a little political. You're not sure you'd want to work for her. This is the complication. We have to tell our daughters and our colleagues, we have to tell ourselves to believe we got the A, to reach for the promotion, to sit at the table. And we have to do it in a world where, for them, there are sacrifices they will make for that, even though for their brothers, there are not.
The saddest thing about all of this is that it's really hard to remember this. And I'm about to tell a story which is truly embarrassing for me, but I think important. I gave this talk at Facebook not so long ago to about a hundred employees. And a couple hours later, there was a young woman who works there sitting outside my little desk, and she wanted to talk to me. I said, okay, and she sat down, and we talked. And she said, "I learned something today. I learned that I need to keep my hand up." I said, "What do you mean?" She said, "Well, you're giving this talk, and you said you were going to take two more questions. And I had my hand up with lots of other people, and you took two more questions. And I put my hand down, and I noticed all the women put their hand down, and then you took more questions, only from the men." And I thought to myself, wow, if it's me -- who cares about this, obviously -- giving this talk -- and during this talk, I can't even notice that the men's hands are still raised, and the women's hands are still raised, how good are we as managers of our companies and our organizations at seeing that the men are reaching for opportunities more than women? We've got to get women to sit at the table.
(Applause)
Message number two: make your partner a real partner. I've become convinced that we've made more progress in the workforce than we have in the home. The data shows this very clearly. If a woman and a man work full-time and have a child, the woman does twice the amount of housework the man does, and the woman does three times the amount of child care the man does. So she's got three jobs or two jobs, and he's got one. Who do you think drops out when someone needs to be home more? The causes of this are really complicated, and I don't have time to go into them. And I don't think Sunday football watching and general laziness is the cause.
I think the cause is more complicated. I think, as a society, we put more pressure on our boys to succeed that we do on our girls. I know men that stay home and work in the home to support wives with careers And it's hard. When I go to the Mommy-and-Me stuff and I see the father there, I notice that the other mommies don't play with him. And that's a problem, because we have to make it as important a job -- because it's the hardest job in the world -- to work inside the home for people of both genders if we're going to even things out and let women stay in the workforce. (Applause) Studies show that households with equal earning and equal responsibility also have half the divorce rate. And if that wasn't good enough motivation for everyone out there, they also have more -- how shall I say this on this stage? -- they know each other more in the biblical sense as well.
(Cheers)
Message number three: don't leave before you leave. I think there's a really deep irony to the fact that actions women are taking -- and I see this all the time -- with the objective of staying in the workforce, actually lead to their eventually leaving. Here's what happens: We're all busy; everyone's busy; a woman's busy. And she starts thinking about having a child. And from the moment she starts thinking about having a child, she starts thinking about making room for that child. "How am I going to fit this into everything else I'm doing?" And literally from that moment, she doesn't raise her hand anymore, she doesn't look for a promotion, she doesn't take on the new project, she doesn't say, "Me. I want to do that." She starts leaning back. The problem is that -- let's say she got pregnant that day, that day -- nine months of pregnancy, three months of maternity leave, six months to catch your breath -- fast-forward two years, more often -- and as I've seen it -- women start thinking about this way earlier -- when they get engaged, when they get married, when they start thinking about trying to have a child, which can take a long time. One woman came to see me about this, and I kind of looked at her -- she looked a little young. And I said, "So are you and your husband thinking about having a baby?" And she said, "Oh no, I'm not married." She didn't even have a boyfriend. I said, "You're thinking about this just way too early."
But the point is that what happens once you start kind of quietly leaning back? Everyone who's been through this -- and I'm here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it's hard to leave that kid at home -- your job needs to be challenging. It needs to be rewarding. You need to feel like you're making a difference. And if two years ago you didn't take a promotion and some guy next to you did, if three years ago you stopped looking for new opportunities, you're going to be bored because you should have kept your foot on the gas pedal. Don't leave before you leave. Stay in. Keep your foot on the gas pedal, until the very day you need to leave to take a break for a child -- and then make your decisions. Don't make decisions too far in advance, particularly ones you're not even conscious you're making.
My generation really, sadly, is not going to change the numbers at the top. They're just not moving. We are not going to get to where 50 percent of the population -- in my generation, there will not be 50 percent of people at the top of any industry. But I'm hopeful that future generations can. I think a world that was run where half of our countries and half of our companies were run by women, would be a better world. And it's not just because people would know where the women's bathroom are, even though that would be very helpful. I think it would be a better world. I have two children. I have a five year-old son and a three year-old daughter. I want my son to have a choice to contribute fully in the workforce or at home. And I want my daughter to have the choice to not just succeed, but to be liked for her accomplishments.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg looks at why a smaller percentage of women than men reach the top of their professions -- and offers 3 powerful pieces of advice to women aiming for the C-suite.
So for any of us in this room today, let's start out by admitting we're lucky. We don't live in the world our mothers lived in, our grandmothers lived in, where career choices for women were so limited. And if you're in this room today, most of us grew up in a world where we had basic civil rights. And amazingly, we still live in a world where some women don't have them. But all that aside, we still have a problem, and it's a real problem. And the problem is this: women are not making it to the top of any profession anywhere in the world. The numbers tell the story quite clearly. 190 heads of state -- nine are women. Of all the people in parliament in the world, 13 percent are women. In the corporate sector, women at the top, C-level jobs, board seats -- tops out at 15, 16 percent. The numbers have not moved since 2002 and are going in the wrong direction. And even in the non-profit world, a world we sometimes think of as being led by more women, women at the top: 20 percent.
We also have another problem, which is that women face harder choices between professional success and personal fulfillment. A recent study in the U.S. showed that, of married senior managers, two-thirds of the married men had children and only one-third of the married women had children. A couple of years ago, I was in New York, and I was pitching a deal, and I was in one of those fancy New York private equity offices you can picture. And I'm in the meeting -- it's about a three-hour meeting -- and two hours in, there kind of needs to be that bio break, and everyone stands up, and the partner running the meeting starts looking really embarrassed. And I realized he doesn't know where the women's room is in his office. So I start looking around for moving boxes, figuring they just moved in, but I don't see any. And so I said, "Did you just move into this office?" And he said, "No, we've been here about a year." And I said, "Are you telling me that I am the only woman to have pitched a deal in this office in a year?" And he looked at me, and he said, "Yeah. Or maybe you're the only one who had to go to the bathroom."
(Laughter)
So the question is, how are we going to fix this? How do we change these numbers at the top? How do we make this different? I want to start out by saying, I talk about this -- about keeping women in the workforce -- because I really think that's the answer. In the high-income part of our workforce, in the people who end up at the top -- Fortune 500 CEO jobs, or the equivalent in other industries -- the problem, I am convinced, is that women are dropping out. Now people talk about this a lot, and they talk about things like flex time and mentoring and programs companies should have to train women. I want to talk about none of that today -- even though that's all really important. Today I want to focus on what we can do as individuals. What are the messages we need to tell ourselves? What are the messages we tell the women that work with and for us? What are the messages we tell our daughters?
Now at the outset, I want to be very clear that this speech comes with no judgments. I don't have the right answer; I don't even have it for myself. I left San Francisco, where I live, on Monday, and I was getting on the plane for this conference. And my daughter, who's three, when I dropped her off at preschool, did that whole hugging the leg, crying, "Mommy, don't get on the plane," thing. This is hard. I feel guilty sometimes. I know no women, whether they're at home, or whether they're in the workforce, that don't feel that sometimes. So I'm not saying that staying in the workforce is the right thing for everyone.
My talk today is about what the messages are if you do want to stay in the workforce. And I think there are three. One, sit at the table. Two, make your partner a real partner. And three -- don't leave before you leave. Number one: sit at the table. Just a couple weeks ago at Facebook, we hosted a very senior government official, and he came in to meet with senior execs from around Silicon Valley. And everyone kind of sat at the table. And then he had these two women who were traveling with him who were pretty senior in his department. And I kind of said to them, "Sit at the table. Come on, sit at the table." And they sat on the side of the room. When I was in college my senior year, I took a course called European Intellectual History. Don't you love that kind of thing from college. I wish I could do that now. And I took it with my roommate, Carrie, who was then a brilliant literary student -- and went on to be a brilliant literary scholar -- and my brother -- smart guy, but a water polo playing pre-med, who was a sophomore.
The three of us take this class together. And then Carrie reads all the books in the original Greek and Latin -- goes to all the lectures -- I read all the books in English and go to most of the lectures. My brother is kind of busy; he reads one book of 12 and goes to a couple of lectures, marches himself up to our room a couple days before the exam to get himself tutored. The three of us go to the exam together, and we sit down. And we sit there for three hours -- and our little blue notebooks -- yes, I'm that old. And we walk out, and we look at each other, and we say, "How did you do?" And Carrie says, "Boy, I feel like I didn't really draw out the main point on the Hegelian dialectic." And I say, "God, I really wish I had really connected John Locke's theory of property with the philosophers that follow." And my brother says, "I got the top grade in the class." "You got the top grade in the class? You don't know anything."
The problem with these stories is that they show what the data shows: women systematically underestimate their own abilities. If you test men and women, and you ask them questions on totally objective criteria like GPA's, men get it wrong slightly high, and women get it wrong slightly low. Women do not negotiate for themselves in the workforce. A study in the last two years of people entering the workforce out of college showed that 57 percent of boys entering -- or men, I guess -- are negotiating their first salary, and only seven percent of women. And most importantly, men attribute their success to themselves, and women attribute it to other external factors. If you ask men why they did a good job, they'll say, "I'm awesome. Obviously. Why are you even asking?" If you ask women why they did a good job, what they'll say is someone helped them, they got lucky, they worked really hard. Why does this matter? Boy, it matters a lot because no one gets to the corner office by sitting on the side, not at the table. And no one gets the promotion if they don't think they deserve their success, or they don't even understand their own success.
I wish the answer were easy. I wish I could just go tell all the young women I work with, all these fabulous women, "Believe in yourself and negotiate for yourself. Own your own success." I wish I could tell that to my daughter. But it's not that simple. Because what the data shows, above all else, is one thing -- which is that success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. And everyone's nodding, because we all know this to be true.
There's a really good study that shows this really well. There's a famous Harvard Business School study on a woman named Heidi Roizen. And she's an operator in a company in Silicon Valley, and she uses her contacts to become a very successful venture capitalist. In 2002 -- not so long ago -- a professor who was then at Columbia University took that case and made it Howard Roizen. And he gave case out -- both of them -- to two groups of students. He changed exactly one word: Heidi to Howard. But that one word made a really big difference. He then surveyed the students. And the good news was the students, both men and women, thought Heidi and Howard were equally competent, and that's good. The bad news was that everyone liked Howard. He's a great guy, you want to work for him, you want to spend the day fishing with him. But Heidi? Not so sure. She's a little out for herself. She's a little political. You're not sure you'd want to work for her. This is the complication. We have to tell our daughters and our colleagues, we have to tell ourselves to believe we got the A, to reach for the promotion, to sit at the table. And we have to do it in a world where, for them, there are sacrifices they will make for that, even though for their brothers, there are not.
The saddest thing about all of this is that it's really hard to remember this. And I'm about to tell a story which is truly embarrassing for me, but I think important. I gave this talk at Facebook not so long ago to about a hundred employees. And a couple hours later, there was a young woman who works there sitting outside my little desk, and she wanted to talk to me. I said, okay, and she sat down, and we talked. And she said, "I learned something today. I learned that I need to keep my hand up." I said, "What do you mean?" She said, "Well, you're giving this talk, and you said you were going to take two more questions. And I had my hand up with lots of other people, and you took two more questions. And I put my hand down, and I noticed all the women put their hand down, and then you took more questions, only from the men." And I thought to myself, wow, if it's me -- who cares about this, obviously -- giving this talk -- and during this talk, I can't even notice that the men's hands are still raised, and the women's hands are still raised, how good are we as managers of our companies and our organizations at seeing that the men are reaching for opportunities more than women? We've got to get women to sit at the table.
(Applause)
Message number two: make your partner a real partner. I've become convinced that we've made more progress in the workforce than we have in the home. The data shows this very clearly. If a woman and a man work full-time and have a child, the woman does twice the amount of housework the man does, and the woman does three times the amount of child care the man does. So she's got three jobs or two jobs, and he's got one. Who do you think drops out when someone needs to be home more? The causes of this are really complicated, and I don't have time to go into them. And I don't think Sunday football watching and general laziness is the cause.
I think the cause is more complicated. I think, as a society, we put more pressure on our boys to succeed that we do on our girls. I know men that stay home and work in the home to support wives with careers And it's hard. When I go to the Mommy-and-Me stuff and I see the father there, I notice that the other mommies don't play with him. And that's a problem, because we have to make it as important a job -- because it's the hardest job in the world -- to work inside the home for people of both genders if we're going to even things out and let women stay in the workforce. (Applause) Studies show that households with equal earning and equal responsibility also have half the divorce rate. And if that wasn't good enough motivation for everyone out there, they also have more -- how shall I say this on this stage? -- they know each other more in the biblical sense as well.
(Cheers)
Message number three: don't leave before you leave. I think there's a really deep irony to the fact that actions women are taking -- and I see this all the time -- with the objective of staying in the workforce, actually lead to their eventually leaving. Here's what happens: We're all busy; everyone's busy; a woman's busy. And she starts thinking about having a child. And from the moment she starts thinking about having a child, she starts thinking about making room for that child. "How am I going to fit this into everything else I'm doing?" And literally from that moment, she doesn't raise her hand anymore, she doesn't look for a promotion, she doesn't take on the new project, she doesn't say, "Me. I want to do that." She starts leaning back. The problem is that -- let's say she got pregnant that day, that day -- nine months of pregnancy, three months of maternity leave, six months to catch your breath -- fast-forward two years, more often -- and as I've seen it -- women start thinking about this way earlier -- when they get engaged, when they get married, when they start thinking about trying to have a child, which can take a long time. One woman came to see me about this, and I kind of looked at her -- she looked a little young. And I said, "So are you and your husband thinking about having a baby?" And she said, "Oh no, I'm not married." She didn't even have a boyfriend. I said, "You're thinking about this just way too early."
But the point is that what happens once you start kind of quietly leaning back? Everyone who's been through this -- and I'm here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it's hard to leave that kid at home -- your job needs to be challenging. It needs to be rewarding. You need to feel like you're making a difference. And if two years ago you didn't take a promotion and some guy next to you did, if three years ago you stopped looking for new opportunities, you're going to be bored because you should have kept your foot on the gas pedal. Don't leave before you leave. Stay in. Keep your foot on the gas pedal, until the very day you need to leave to take a break for a child -- and then make your decisions. Don't make decisions too far in advance, particularly ones you're not even conscious you're making.
My generation really, sadly, is not going to change the numbers at the top. They're just not moving. We are not going to get to where 50 percent of the population -- in my generation, there will not be 50 percent of people at the top of any industry. But I'm hopeful that future generations can. I think a world that was run where half of our countries and half of our companies were run by women, would be a better world. And it's not just because people would know where the women's bathroom are, even though that would be very helpful. I think it would be a better world. I have two children. I have a five year-old son and a three year-old daughter. I want my son to have a choice to contribute fully in the workforce or at home. And I want my daughter to have the choice to not just succeed, but to be liked for her accomplishments.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action
About this talk
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers -- and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.
How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. And he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out control-powered, manned flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded, and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here.
About three and a half years ago I made a discovery, and this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked. And it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out -- there's a pattern -- as it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple, or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it. And it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why" I mean: what's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in. It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations, regardless of their size, regardless of their industry, all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this. "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" Neh. And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done. That's how most sales are done. And that's how most of us communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm. We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients. We always perform for our clients who do business with us. Here's our new car. It gets great gas mileage. It has leather seats. Buy our car. But it's uninspiring.
Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was reverse the order of information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company. There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. They've been making flat screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs. And they make great quality products. And they can make perfectly well-designed products. And nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Here's the best part.
None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, What you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains. And our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making, doesn't control language. And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in you limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do. Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hired people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for your you with blood and sweat and tears. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. I mean, even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things, under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Deptartment to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected. He knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find. And the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere. And everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come you've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money. They paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop. Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur. And the New York Times followed them around nowhere. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream, worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing, the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation. And if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.
(Laughter)
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration. And then the system tips. And I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right. That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap, that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "crossing the chasm." Because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.
These are the people who stood on line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf. These are the people 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great. They did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy what you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them. They were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions. Right. You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out, about eight or nine years ago, to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't even think it's traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us." What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe. I believe. I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And low and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day, at the right time, to hear him speak.
How many of them showed up for him? Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours, to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white. 25 percent of the audience was white. Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world, those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man. And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority, will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.
(Laughter)
Listen to politicians now with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority. But those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers -- and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.
How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. And he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out control-powered, manned flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded, and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here.
About three and a half years ago I made a discovery, and this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked. And it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out -- there's a pattern -- as it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple, or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it. And it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why" I mean: what's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in. It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations, regardless of their size, regardless of their industry, all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this. "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" Neh. And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done. That's how most sales are done. And that's how most of us communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm. We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients. We always perform for our clients who do business with us. Here's our new car. It gets great gas mileage. It has leather seats. Buy our car. But it's uninspiring.
Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was reverse the order of information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company. There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. They've been making flat screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs. And they make great quality products. And they can make perfectly well-designed products. And nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Here's the best part.
None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, What you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains. And our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making, doesn't control language. And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in you limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do. Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hired people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for your you with blood and sweat and tears. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. I mean, even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things, under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Deptartment to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected. He knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find. And the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere. And everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come you've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money. They paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop. Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur. And the New York Times followed them around nowhere. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream, worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing, the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation. And if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.
(Laughter)
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration. And then the system tips. And I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right. That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap, that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "crossing the chasm." Because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.
These are the people who stood on line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf. These are the people 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great. They did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy what you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them. They were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions. Right. You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out, about eight or nine years ago, to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't even think it's traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us." What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe. I believe. I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And low and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day, at the right time, to hear him speak.
How many of them showed up for him? Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours, to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white. 25 percent of the audience was white. Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world, those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man. And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority, will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.
(Laughter)
Listen to politicians now with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority. But those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Justin Bieber - Never Say Never ft. Jaden Smith
Music video by Justin Bieber performing Never Say Never. (C) 2010 The Island Def Jam Music Group
"Never Say Never"
See I never thought that I could walk through fire.
I never thought that I could take the burn.
I never had the strength to take it higher,
Until I reached the point of no return.
And there's just no turning back,
When your hearts under attack,
Gonna give everything I have,
It's my destiny.
I will never say never! (I will fight)
I will fight till forever! (make it right)
Whenever you knock me down,
I will not stay on the ground.
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up up up,
And never say never.
I never thought I could feel this power.
I never thought that I could feel this free.
I'm strong enough to climb the highest tower.
And I'm fast enough to run across the sea.
And there's just no turning back,
When your hearts under attack,
Gonna give everything I have,
Cause this is my destiny.
I will never say never! (I will fight)
I will fight till forever! (make it right)
Whenever you knock me down,
I will not stay on the ground.
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up, up, up,
And never say never.
Here we go!
Guess who?
JSmith and Jb!
I gotcha lil bro.
Justin Bieber Never Say Never lyrics found on http://www.directlyrics.com/justin-bieber-never-say-never-lyrics.html
I can handle him.
Hold up, aight?
I can handle him.
Now he's bigger than me,
Taller than me.
And he's older than me,
And stronger than me.
And his arms a little bit longer than me.
But he ain't on a JB song with me!
I be trying a chill
They be trying to side with the thrill.
No pun intended, was raised by the power of Will.
Like Luke with the force, when push comes to shove.
Like Cobe with the 4th, ice water with blood.
I gotta be the best, and yes
We're the flyest.
Like David and Goliath,
I conquered the giant.
So now I got the world in my hand,
I was born from two stars
So the moon's where I land.
I will never say never! (I will fight)
I will fight till forever! (make it right)
Whenever you knock me down,
I will not stay on the ground.
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up, up, up,
And never say never.
I will never say never! (I will fight)
I will fight till forever! (make it right)
Whenever you knock me down,
I will not stay on the ground.
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up,
Pick it up, up, up,
And never say never.
Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
Salman Khan is the founder and faculty of the Khan Academy (www.khanacademy.org)
-- a not-for-profit organization with the mission of providing a free world-class education to anyone, anywhere.
It now consists of self-paced software and, with over 1 million unique students per month, the most-used educational video repository on the Internet (over 30 million lessons delivered to-date).
All 2000+ video tutorials, covering everything from basic addition to advanced calculus, physics, chemistry and biology, have been made by Salman.
Prior to the Khan Academy, Salman was a senior analyst at a hedge fund and had also worked in technology and venture capital.
He holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, an M.Eng and B.S. in electrical engineering and computer science from MIT, and a B.S. in mathematics from MIT.
About this talk
Salman Khan talks about how and why he created the remarkable Khan Academy, a carefully structured series of educational videos offering complete curricula in math and, now, other subjects. He shows the power of interactive exercises, and calls for teachers to consider flipping the traditional classroom script -- give students video lectures to watch at home, and do "homework" in the classroom with the teacher available to help.
-- a not-for-profit organization with the mission of providing a free world-class education to anyone, anywhere.
It now consists of self-paced software and, with over 1 million unique students per month, the most-used educational video repository on the Internet (over 30 million lessons delivered to-date).
All 2000+ video tutorials, covering everything from basic addition to advanced calculus, physics, chemistry and biology, have been made by Salman.
Prior to the Khan Academy, Salman was a senior analyst at a hedge fund and had also worked in technology and venture capital.
He holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, an M.Eng and B.S. in electrical engineering and computer science from MIT, and a B.S. in mathematics from MIT.
About this talk
Salman Khan talks about how and why he created the remarkable Khan Academy, a carefully structured series of educational videos offering complete curricula in math and, now, other subjects. He shows the power of interactive exercises, and calls for teachers to consider flipping the traditional classroom script -- give students video lectures to watch at home, and do "homework" in the classroom with the teacher available to help.
Cars 2
A full trailer and several new images from Disney-Pixar’s Cars 2 have arrived, giving fans a better look at the action-packed animated feature due in theaters July 22.
The film is directed by John Lasseter and co-directed by Brad Lewis. It features the voices of Owen Wilson, Larry the Cable Guy, Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer. It will be released in Disney Digital 3-D, IMAX 3D, RealD 3D and 2-D.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Lighting the world with LEDs
According to analyst estimates, by 2020 the LED lighting industry will be close to a $25 billion market worldwide. LED lighting manufacturer Bridgelux wants to be on the forefront of this shift. SmartPlanet correspondent Sumi Das talks to CEO Bill Watkins about Bridgelux's new LED array that delivers 5,000 operational lumens and how its latest technology is different from its competitors.
Lighting the world with LEDs
According to analyst estimates, by 2020 the LED lighting industry will be close to a $25 billion market worldwide. LED lighting manufacturer Bridgelux wants to be on the forefront of this shift. SmartPlanet correspondent Sumi Das talks to CEO Bill Watkins about Bridgelux's new LED array that delivers 5,000 operational lumens and how its latest technology is different from its competitors.
Is the cure for cancer inside milk?
Bruce German, a professor at UC Davis is researching the properties of milk and how it functions when ingested by growing infants. In his lab, scientists disassemble milk from mothers around the world, probing every molecule, then study the exact structures to come up with an understanding of how milk fights disease and improves health.
Inside Tesla's 1,000-pound battery pack
SmartPlanet takes a peek inside Tesla Motors' R&D lab and talks to CTO JB Straubel about the evolution of the electric vehicle and the technology behind the company's lithium ion battery pack.
Courtney Martin: Reinventing feminism
About this talk
Blogger Courtney Martin examines the perennially loaded word "feminism" in this personal and heartfelt talk. She talks through the three essential paradoxes of her generation's quest to define the term for themselves.
Stephen Colbert continues love affair with iPad
You’ll recall Mr. Colbert was given one of the first iPads to pull out of his suit at last year’s Grammy’s. He subsequently took ownership of the iPad suit pocket. I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard from him. International/Flashless users, talk to Comedy Central.
Video – 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
You can see this guy design and carry out a series of experiments that employs thermite to show how it can be made to cut steel beams.
Anthony Atala: Printing a human kidney
About this talk
Surgeon Anthony Atala demonstrates an early-stage experiment that could someday solve the organ-donor problem: a 3D printer that uses living cells to output a transplantable kidney. Using similar technology, Dr. Atala's young patient Luke Massella received an engineered bladder 10 years ago; we meet him onstage.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Sunday, March 06, 2011
The Coolest Tech Tour Ever: A Look At How SRI Is Augmenting The Human Condition
Let’s kick it off with an introduction to the tour where you’ll meet Norman and Bill.
What could this be used for in real world? How about training of customer service agents? Or police officers?
SRI International edit
Silicon Valley-based SRI International is one of the world’s leading independent research and technology development organizations. SRI, which was founded by Stanford University as Stanford Research Institute in 1946 and became independent in 1970, has been meeting the strategic needs of clients and partners for more than 60 years. Perhaps best known for its invention of the computer mouse and interactive computing, SRI has also been responsible for major advances in networking and communications, robotics, drug discovery and development, advanced materials, atmospheric research, education research, economic development, national security, and more. The nonprofit institute performs sponsored research and development for government agencies, businesses, and foundations. SRI also licenses its technologies, forms strategic alliances, and creates spin-off companies. In 2009, SRI’s consolidated revenues, including its wholly owned for-profit subsidiary, Sarnoff Corporation, were approximately $470 million. Sarnoff Corporation, a leader in vision, video, and semiconductor innovations, will be fully integrated into SRI effective January 1, 2011.
What could this be used for in real world? How about training of customer service agents? Or police officers?
SRI International edit
Silicon Valley-based SRI International is one of the world’s leading independent research and technology development organizations. SRI, which was founded by Stanford University as Stanford Research Institute in 1946 and became independent in 1970, has been meeting the strategic needs of clients and partners for more than 60 years. Perhaps best known for its invention of the computer mouse and interactive computing, SRI has also been responsible for major advances in networking and communications, robotics, drug discovery and development, advanced materials, atmospheric research, education research, economic development, national security, and more. The nonprofit institute performs sponsored research and development for government agencies, businesses, and foundations. SRI also licenses its technologies, forms strategic alliances, and creates spin-off companies. In 2009, SRI’s consolidated revenues, including its wholly owned for-profit subsidiary, Sarnoff Corporation, were approximately $470 million. Sarnoff Corporation, a leader in vision, video, and semiconductor innovations, will be fully integrated into SRI effective January 1, 2011.
Picturelab
Picturelab Demo Reel 2011 from Picturelab on Vimeo.
Picturelab is a team of creative folks who are passionate about visual storytelling and everything web and tech. We make things that move, explain, interact, and engage
ScribbleLive at Hacks/Hackers Toronto (VIDEO)
About ScribbleLive
ScribbleLive is a groundbreaking content delivery platform that gives the new web generation what they want – news now. Without flaws and without delays, ScribbleLive enables real-time journalism and audience engagement. Users always have full editorial power and reader retention within their branded websites. Think of it as “live-to-air” for the web. With the immediacy of Twitter and the professional control of a CMS, users can maximize the impact of their brand and/or their advertisers with ScribbleLive.
ScribbleLive has been tried and tested by benchmark organizations like Reuters and Hearst Television and has been the lightning rod for such events as the iPad launch and the Red Bull Air Races. National media companies like Rogers and Canwest have used ScribbleLive to successfully engage their audiences in real-time.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
First look: Hurricane Party gets us ready for SXSW (look for parties with friends)
It is an iPhone app that helps you do everything from getting your friends together after work to making a bigger event happen.
No apps, no sale: iPad 2 vs. Motorola Xoom vs RIM Playbook vs HP TouchPad
http://down
We now know what the choice is:
1. Apple iPad 2. Has apps. 65,000 of them.
2. Motorola Xoom. Has no apps. Oh, sorry. 16. At least no apps designed for the large format. Designing an app that works on a smart phone isn’t the same as designing one that works on a large screen. Most of the apps I’ve “stretched” really suck compared to their iPad equivalents.
3. HP TouchPad. Has no apps. Heck, it isn’t even shipping yet.
4. RIM PlayBook. Has no apps. Heck, it isn’t even shipping yet.
No apps, no sale.
We now know what the choice is:
1. Apple iPad 2. Has apps. 65,000 of them.
2. Motorola Xoom. Has no apps. Oh, sorry. 16. At least no apps designed for the large format. Designing an app that works on a smart phone isn’t the same as designing one that works on a large screen. Most of the apps I’ve “stretched” really suck compared to their iPad equivalents.
3. HP TouchPad. Has no apps. Heck, it isn’t even shipping yet.
4. RIM PlayBook. Has no apps. Heck, it isn’t even shipping yet.
No apps, no sale.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Apple's Steve Jobs introduces iPad 2
Despite being on medical leave, Apple CEO Steve Jobs steps back in the spotlight to show off the 2nd generation of the iPad tablet. Shipping on March 11, the thinner, lighter iPad 2 is also faster, and it comes with two cameras.
Get around by biking in the sky
Scott Olsen, inventor of Rollerblade in-line skates, has developed a concept for a new mode of transportation called the SkyRide. Passengers sit on a bike and propel themselves forward with human strength and a belt-driven track. SmartPlanet shows you raw video of the eco-friendly transportation system that can also help get you in shape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
