ABOUT THIS TALK
We have no ways to directly observe molecules and what they do -- Drew Berry wants to change that. At TEDxSydney he shows his scientifically accurate (and entertaining!) animations that help researchers see unseeable processes within our own cells.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
How Madrid transformed a highway into an amazing park [video]
Shares this fascinating video of how Madrid transformed a congested highway into an urban park, and reclaimed a significant river in the process. Here’s how they did it:
MADRID — The rerouting of a major highway has left the capital of Spain with a border of green space.
Between 2003 and 2007, six kilometers (about 3.7 miles) of the highway that encircles Madrid, the M-30, was rerouted and buried underground.
The construction rescued nearby residents from congested auto pollution and left a massive space open for development.
“All of our business really suffered,” said Antonio Gonzalez, the owner of a riverfront convenience store, Alimentación de Galicia. He described the five years his street was under construction as the most difficult time in his store’s 18 years of existence.
The Madrid City Council held a contest for what to do with the new open space, which winds through five neighborhoods considered to be an older and neglected part of the city. The Madrid Rio Project was born.
Over the last four years, one million square meters (or about 3,000 acres) of newly opened space was transformed from the previously industrial Rio Manzanares into a 24/7, well-lit green space stocked with more than 33,000 trees, 63 drinking fountains, and the largest bicycle-accessible area in the city.
“Now it’s improved a bit,” Gonzalez said in his native Spanish. “There are always a lot of people on the street, moving around the river project, cycling, walking, everything.”
The tree-lined western shore, bordered in part by the city’s largest park Casa de Campos, is filled with modern playgrounds, bicycle lanes and jogging paths. The eastern side is a more tree-scattered and open prairie space. The latter side of the Manzinares sees many local, often family-owned businesses — countless small bars, sprinkled with independent convenience, food and hardware stores.
Both sides are residential in nature and have apartment buildings visited by families on the weekends and skateboarders after sundown. The coastline is often crossed by preserved old foot bridges, including the Puente de Segovia from the sixteenth century. When SmartPlanet visits, the Galician bakery is just re-opening its doors after a siesta and young families are strolling along the river and storefronts, enjoying the mild autumn air.
While no one seems to be swimming in the Manzanares yet — in some places it is less that a foot deep and fairly murky brown throughout — the ceasing of construction this summer allowed land-locked city residents to enjoy a handful of small beaches, offering sand and fountains in the same spirit as similar projects in beach-less Berlin and Paris.
The construction of the verdant coastline is finally completed, but the brown, shallow river itself is far from people-friendly. In response, the city has implemented a filtration system that will collect and filter rainwater, where much of the river’s pollution comes from. The project is partly funded by the European Union, which is working to assist local governments in achieving a 35-percent annual reduction in direct discharges. In the interest of efficiency, the scheme will retain 95 percent of the rainfall.
The protection of a bordering river is one of the reasons the Moors settled Madrid back in the ninth century. In modern times, all Madrileños live within a 15-minute walk to green space, making the MadridRio Project just another way to utilize open space in a park-filled city.
Listen to the information on audio (in Spanish).
MADRID — The rerouting of a major highway has left the capital of Spain with a border of green space.
Between 2003 and 2007, six kilometers (about 3.7 miles) of the highway that encircles Madrid, the M-30, was rerouted and buried underground.
The construction rescued nearby residents from congested auto pollution and left a massive space open for development.
“All of our business really suffered,” said Antonio Gonzalez, the owner of a riverfront convenience store, Alimentación de Galicia. He described the five years his street was under construction as the most difficult time in his store’s 18 years of existence.
The Madrid City Council held a contest for what to do with the new open space, which winds through five neighborhoods considered to be an older and neglected part of the city. The Madrid Rio Project was born.
Over the last four years, one million square meters (or about 3,000 acres) of newly opened space was transformed from the previously industrial Rio Manzanares into a 24/7, well-lit green space stocked with more than 33,000 trees, 63 drinking fountains, and the largest bicycle-accessible area in the city.
“Now it’s improved a bit,” Gonzalez said in his native Spanish. “There are always a lot of people on the street, moving around the river project, cycling, walking, everything.”
The tree-lined western shore, bordered in part by the city’s largest park Casa de Campos, is filled with modern playgrounds, bicycle lanes and jogging paths. The eastern side is a more tree-scattered and open prairie space. The latter side of the Manzinares sees many local, often family-owned businesses — countless small bars, sprinkled with independent convenience, food and hardware stores.
Both sides are residential in nature and have apartment buildings visited by families on the weekends and skateboarders after sundown. The coastline is often crossed by preserved old foot bridges, including the Puente de Segovia from the sixteenth century. When SmartPlanet visits, the Galician bakery is just re-opening its doors after a siesta and young families are strolling along the river and storefronts, enjoying the mild autumn air.
While no one seems to be swimming in the Manzanares yet — in some places it is less that a foot deep and fairly murky brown throughout — the ceasing of construction this summer allowed land-locked city residents to enjoy a handful of small beaches, offering sand and fountains in the same spirit as similar projects in beach-less Berlin and Paris.
The construction of the verdant coastline is finally completed, but the brown, shallow river itself is far from people-friendly. In response, the city has implemented a filtration system that will collect and filter rainwater, where much of the river’s pollution comes from. The project is partly funded by the European Union, which is working to assist local governments in achieving a 35-percent annual reduction in direct discharges. In the interest of efficiency, the scheme will retain 95 percent of the rainfall.
The protection of a bordering river is one of the reasons the Moors settled Madrid back in the ninth century. In modern times, all Madrileños live within a 15-minute walk to green space, making the MadridRio Project just another way to utilize open space in a park-filled city.
Listen to the information on audio (in Spanish).
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Coming War on General Purpose Computation
The Coming War on General Purpose Computation
By Cory Doctorow at 9:26 pm Tuesday, Dec 27
Here's the video of my keynote last night at the 28C3, the Chaos Computer Congress in Berlin, entitled "The coming war on general computation."
The last 20 years of Internet policy have been dominated by the copyright war, but the war turns out only to have been a skirmish. The coming century will be dominated by war against the general purpose computer, and the stakes are the freedom, fortune and privacy of the entire human race.
The problem is twofold: first, there is no known general-purpose computer that can execute all the programs we can think of except the naughty ones; second, general-purpose computers have replaced every other device in our world. There are no airplanes, only computers that fly. There are no cars, only computers we sit in. There are no hearing aids, only computers we put in our ears. There are no 3D printers, only computers that drive peripherals. There are no radios, only computers with fast ADCs and DACs and phased-array antennas. Consequently anything you do to "secure" anything with a computer in it ends up undermining the capabilities and security of every other corner of modern human society.
Transcript
Introducer:
Anyway, I believe I've killed enough time … so, ladies and gentlemen, a person who in this crowd needs absolutely no introduction, Cory Doctorow!
[Audience applauds.]
Doctorow:
27.0 Thank you.
32.0 So, when I speak in places where the first language of the nation is not English, there is a disclaimer and an apology, because I'm one of nature's fast talkers. When I was at the United Nations at the World Intellectual Property Organization, I was known as the “scourge” of the simultaneous translation corps; I would stand up and speak, and turn around, and there would be window after window of translator, and every one of them would be doing this [Doctorow facepalms]. [Audience laughs] So in advance, I give you permission when I start talking quickly to do this [Doctorow makes SOS motion] and I will slow down.
74.1 So, tonight's talk – wah, wah, waaah [Doctorow makes 'fail horn' sound, apparently in response to audience making SOS motion; audience laughs]] – tonight's talk is not a copyright talk. I do copyright talks all the time; questions about culture and creativity are interesting enough, but to be honest, I'm quite sick of them. If you want to hear freelancer writers like me bang on about what's happening to the way we earn our living, by all means, go and find one of the many talks I've done on this subject on YouTube. But, tonight, I want to talk about something more important – I want to talk about general purpose computers.
Because general purpose computers are, in fact, astounding – so astounding that our society is still struggling to come to grips with them: to figure out what they're for, to figure out how to accommodate them, and how to cope with them. Which, unfortunately, brings me back to copyright.
133.8 Because the general shape of the copyright wars and the lessons they can teach us about the upcoming fights over the destiny of the general purpose computer are important. In the beginning, we had packaged software, and the attendant industry, and we had sneakernet. So, we had floppy disks in ziplock bags, or in cardboard boxes, hung on pegs in shops, and sold like candy bars and magazines. And they were eminently susceptible to duplication, and so they were duplicated quickly, and widely, and this was to the great chagrin of people who made and sold software.
172.6 Enter DRM 0.96. They started to introduce physical defects to the disks or started to insist on other physical indicia which the software could check for – dongles, hidden sectors, challenge/response protocols that required that you had physical possession of large, unwieldy manuals that were difficult to copy, and of course these failed, for two reasons. First, they were commercially unpopular, of course, because they reduced the usefulness of the software to the legitimate purchasers, while leaving the people who took the software without paying for it untouched. The legitimate purchasers resented the non-functionality of their backups, they hated the loss of scarce ports to the authentication dongles, and they resented the inconvenience of having to transport large manuals when they wanted to run their software. And second, these didn't stop pirates, who found it trivial to patch the software and bypass authentication. Typically, the way that happened is some expert who had possession of technology and expertise of equivalent sophistication to the software vendor itself, would reverse engineer the software and release cracked versions that quickly became widely circulated. While this kind of expertise and technology sounded highly specialized, it really wasn't; figuring out what recalcitrant programs were doing, and routing around the defects in shitty floppy disk media were both core skills for computer programmers, and were even more so in the era of fragile floppy disks and the rough-and-ready early days of software development. Anti-copying strategies only became more fraught as networks spread; once we had BBSes, online services, USENET newsgroups, and mailing lists, the expertise of people who figured out how to defeat these authentication systems could be packaged up in software as little crack files, or, as the network capacity increased, the cracked disk images or executables themselves could be spread on their own.
296.4 Which gave us DRM 1.0. By 1996, it became clear to everyone in the halls of power that there was something important about to happen. We were about to have an information economy, whatever the hell that was. They assumed it meant an economy where we bought and sold information. Now, information technology makes things efficient, so imagine the markets that an information economy would have. You could buy a book for a day, you could sell the right to watch the movie for one Euro, and then you could rent out the pause button at one penny per second. You could sell movies for one price in one country, and another price in another, and so on, and so on; the fantasies of those days were a little like a boring science fiction adaptation of the Old Testament book of Numbers, a kind of tedious enumeration of every permutation of things people do with information and the ways we could charge them for it.
355.5 But none of this would be possible unless we could control how people use their computers and the files we transfer to them. After all, it was well and good to talk about selling someone the 24 hour right to a video, or the right to move music onto an iPod, but not the right to move music from the iPod onto another device, but how the Hell could you do that once you'd given them the file? In order to do that, to make this work, you needed to figure out how to stop computers from running certain programs and inspecting certain files and processes. For example, you could encrypt the file, and then require the user to run a program that only unlocked the file under certain circumstances.
395.8 But as they say on the Internet, “now you have two problems”. You also, now, have to stop the user from saving the file while it's in the clear, and you have to stop the user from figuring out where the unlocking program stores its keys, because if the user finds the keys, she'll just decrypt the file and throw away that stupid player app.
416.6 And now you have three problems [audience laughs], because now you have to stop the users who figure out how to render the file in the clear from sharing it with other users, and now you've got *four!* problems, because now you have to stop the users who figure out how to extract secrets from unlocking programs from telling other users how to do it too, and now you've got *five!* problems, because now you have to stop users who figure out how to extract secrets from unlocking programs from telling other users what the secrets were!
442.0 That's a lot of problems. But by 1996, we had a solution. We had the WIPO Copyright Treaty, passed by the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization, which created laws that made it illegal to extract secrets from unlocking programs, and it created laws that made it illegal to extract media cleartexts from the unlocking programs while they were running, and it created laws that made it illegal to tell people how to extract secrets from unlocking programs, and created laws that made it illegal to host copyrighted works and secrets and all with a handy streamlined process that let you remove stuff from the Internet without having to screw around with lawyers, and judges, and all that crap. And with that, illegal copying ended forever [audience laughs very hard, applauds], the information economy blossomed into a beautiful flower that brought prosperity to the whole wide world; as they say on the aircraft carriers, “Mission Accomplished”. [audience laughs]
511.0 Well, of course that's not how the story ends because pretty much anyone who understood computers and networks understood that while these laws would create more problems than they could possibly solve; after all, these were laws that made it illegal to look inside your computer when it was running certain programs, they made it illegal to tell people what you found when you looked inside your computer, they made it easy to censor material on the internet without having to prove that anything wrong had happened; in short, they made unrealistic demands on reality and reality did not oblige them. After all, copying only got easier following the passage of these laws – copying will only ever get easier! Here, 2011, this is as hard as copying will get! Your grandchildren will turn to you around the Christmas table and say “Tell me again, Grandpa, tell me again, Grandma, about when it was hard to copy things in 2011, when you couldn't get a drive the size of your fingernail that could hold every song ever recorded, every movie ever made, every word ever spoken, every picture ever taken, everything, and transfer it in such a short period of time you didn't even notice it was doing it, tell us again when it was so stupidly hard to copy things back in 2011”. And so, reality asserted itself, and everyone had a good laugh over how funny our misconceptions were when we entered the 21st century, and then a lasting peace was reached with freedom and prosperity for all. [audience chuckles]
593.5 Well, not really. Because, like the nursery rhyme lady who swallows a spider to catch a fly, and has to swallow a bird to catch the spider, and a cat to catch the bird, and so on, so must a regulation that has broad general appeal but is disastrous in its implementation beget a new regulation aimed at shoring up the failure of the old one. Now, it's tempting to stop the story here and conclude that the problem is that lawmakers are either clueless or evil, or possibly evilly clueless, and just leave it there, which is not a very satisfying place to go, because it's fundamentally a counsel of despair; it suggests that our problems cannot be solved for so long as stupidity and evilness are present in the halls of power, which is to say they will never be solved. But I have another theory about what's happened.
644.4 It's not that regulators don't understand information technology, because it should be possible to be a non-expert and still make a good law! M.P.s and Congressmen and so on are elected to represent districts and people, not disciplines and issues. We don't have a Member of Parliament for biochemistry, and we don't have a Senator from the great state of urban planning, and we don't have an M.E.P. from child welfare. (But perhaps we should.) And yet those people who are experts in policy and politics, not technical disciplines, nevertheless, often do manage to pass good rules that make sense, and that's because government relies on heuristics – rules of thumbs about how to balance expert input from different sides of an issue.
686.3 But information technology confounds these heuristics – it kicks the crap out of them – in one important way, and this is it. One important test of whether or not a regulation is fit for a purpose is first, of course, whether it will work, but second of all, whether or not in the course of doing its work, it will have lots of effects on everything else. If I wanted Congress to write, or Parliament to write, or the E.U. to regulate a wheel, it's unlikely I'd succeed. If I turned up and said “well, everyone knows that wheels are good and right, but have you noticed that every single bank robber has four wheels on his car when he drives away from the bank robbery? Can't we do something about this?”, the answer would of course be “no”. Because we don't know how to make a wheel that is still generally useful for legitimate wheel applications but useless to bad guys. And we can all see that the general benefits of wheels are so profound that we'd be foolish to risk them in a foolish errand to stop bank robberies by changing wheels. Even if there were an /epidemic/ of bank robberies, even if society were on the verge of collapse thanks to bank robberies, no-one would think that wheels were the right place to start solving our problems.
762.0 But. If I were to show up in that same body to say that I had absolute proof that hands-free phones were making cars dangerous, and I said, “I would like you to pass a law that says it's illegal to put a hands-free phone in a car”, the regulator might say “Yeah, I'd take your point, we'd do that”. And we might disagree about whether or not this is a good idea, or whether or not my evidence made sense, but very few of us would say “well, once you take the hands-free phones out of the car, they stop being cars”. We understand that we can keep cars cars even if we remove features from them. Cars are special purpose, at least in comparison to wheels, and all that the addition of a hands-free phone does is add one more feature to an already-specialized technology. In fact, there's that heuristic that we can apply here – special-purpose technologies are complex. And you can remove features from them without doing fundamental disfiguring violence to their underlying utility.
816.5 This rule of thumb serves regulators well, by and large, but it is rendered null and void by the general-purpose computer and the general-purpose network – the PC and the Internet. Because if you think of computer software as a feature, that is a computer with spreadsheets running on it has a spreadsheet feature, and one that's running World of Warcraft has an MMORPG feature, then this heuristic leads you to think that you could reasonably say, “make me a computer that doesn't run spreadsheets”, and that it would be no more of an attack on computing than “make me a car without a hands-free phone” is an attack on cars. And if you think of protocols and sites as features of the network, then saying “fix the Internet so that it doesn't run BitTorrent”, or “fix the Internet so that thepiratebay.org no longer resolves”, then it sounds a lot like “change the sound of busy signals”, or “take that pizzeria on the corner off the phone network”, and not like an attack on the fundamental principles of internetworking.
870.5 Not realizing that this rule of thumb that works for cars and for houses and for every other substantial area of technological regulation fails for the Internet does not make you evil and it does not make you an ignoramus. It just makes you part of that vast majority of the world for whom ideas like “Turing complete” and “end-to-end” are meaningless. So, our regulators go off, and they blithely pass these laws, and they become part of the reality of our technological world. There are suddenly numbers that we aren't allowed to write down on the Internet, programs we're not allowed to publish, and all it takes to make legitimate material disappear from the Internet is to say “that? That infringes copyright.” It fails to attain the actual goal of the regulation; it doesn't stop people from violating copyright, but it bears a kind of superficial resemblance to copyright enforcement – it satisfies the security syllogism: “something must be done, I am doing something, something has been done.” And thus any failures that arise can be blamed on the idea that the regulation doesn't go far enough, rather than the idea that it was flawed from the outset.
931.2 This kind of superficial resemblance and underlying divergence happens in other engineering contexts. I've a friend who was once a senior executive at a big consumer packaged goods company who told me about what happened when the marketing department told the engineers that they'd thought up a great idea for detergent: from now on, they were going to make detergent that made your clothes newer every time you washed them! Well after the engineers had tried unsuccessfully to convey the concept of “entropy” to the marketing department [audience laughs], they arrived at another solution – “solution” – they'd develop a detergent that used enzymes that attacked loose fiber ends, the kind that you get with broken fibers that make your clothes look old. So every time you washed your clothes in the detergent, they would look newer. But that was because the detergent was literally digesting your clothes! Using it would literally cause your clothes to dissolve in the washing machine! This was the opposite of making clothes newer; instead, you were artificially aging your clothes every time you washed them, and as the user, the more you deployed the “solution”, the more drastic your measures had to be to keep your clothes up to date – you actually had to go buy new clothes because the old ones fell apart.
1012.5 So today we have marketing departments who say things like “we don't need computers, we need… appliances. Make me a computer that doesn't run every program, just a program that does this specialized task, like streaming audio, or routing packets, or playing Xbox games, and make sure it doesn't run programs that I haven't authorized that might undermine our profits”. And on the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea – just a program that does one specialized task – after all, we can put an electric motor in a blender, and we can install a motor in a dishwasher, and we don't worry if it's still possible to run a dishwashing program in a blender. But that's not what we do when we turn a computer into an appliance. We're not making a computer that runs only the “appliance” app; we're making a computer that can run every program, but which uses some combination of rootkits, spyware, and code-signing to prevent the user from knowing which processes are running, from installing her own software, and from terminating processes that she doesn't want. In other words, an appliance is not a stripped-down computer – it is a fully functional computer with spyware on it out of the box.
[audience applauds loudly] Thanks.
1090.5 Because we don't know how to build the general purpose computer that is capable of running any program we can compile except for some program that we don't like, or that we prohibit by law, or that loses us money. The closest approximation that we have to this is a computer with spyware – a computer on which remote parties set policies without the computer user's knowledge, over the objection of the computer's owner. And so it is that digital rights management always converges on malware.
1118.9 There was, of course, this famous incident, a kind of gift to people who have this hypothesis, in which Sony loaded covert rootkit installers on 6 million audio CDs, which secretly executed programs that watched for attempts to read the sound files on CDs, and terminated them, and which also hid the rootkit's existence by causing the kernel to lie about which processes were running, and which files were present on the drive. But it's not the only example; just recently, Nintendo shipped the 3DS, which opportunistically updates its firmware, and does an integrity check to make sure that you haven't altered the old firmware in any way, and if it detects signs of tampering, it bricks itself.
1158.8 Human rights activists have raised alarms over U-EFI, the new PC bootloader, which restricts your computer so it runs signed operating systems, noting that repressive governments will likely withhold signatures from OSes unless they have covert surveillance operations.
1175.5 And on the network side, attempts to make a network that can't be used for copyright infringement always converges with the surveillance measures that we know from repressive governments. So, SOPA, the U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act, bans tools like DNSSec because they can be used to defeat DNS blocking measures. And it blocks tools like Tor, because they can be used to circumvent IP blocking measures. In fact, the proponents of SOPA, the Motion Picture Association of America, circulated a memo, citing research that SOPA would probably work, because it uses the same measures as are used in Syria, China, and Uzbekistan, and they argued that these measures are effective in those countries, and so they would work in America, too!
[audience laughs and applauds] Don't applaud me, applaud the MPAA!
1221.5 Now, it may seem like SOPA is the end game in a long fight over copyright, and the Internet, and it may seem like if we defeat SOPA, we'll be well on our way to securing the freedom of PCs and networks. But as I said at the beginning of this talk, this isn't about copyright, because the copyright wars are just the 0.9 beta version of the long coming war on computation. The entertainment industry were just the first belligerents in this coming century-long conflict. We tend to think of them as particularly successful – after all, here is SOPA, trembling on the verge of passage, and breaking the internet on this fundamental level in the name of preserving Top 40 music, reality TV shows, and Ashton Kutcher movies! [laughs, scattered applause]
1270.2 But the reality is, copyright legislation gets as far as it does precisely because it's not taken seriously, which is why on one hand, Canada has had Parliament after Parliament introduce one stupid copyright bill after another, but on the other hand, Parliament after Parliament has failed to actually vote on the bill. It's why we got SOPA, a bill composed of pure stupid, pieced together molecule-by-molecule, into a kind of “Stupidite 250”, which is normally only found in the heart of newborn star, and it's why these rushed-through SOPA hearings had to be adjourned midway through the Christmas break, so that lawmakers could get into a real vicious nationally-infamous debate over an important issue, unemployment insurance. It's why the World Intellectual Property Organization is gulled time and again into enacting crazed, pig-ignorant copyright proposals because when the nations of the world send their U.N. missions to Geneva, they send water experts, not copyright experts; they send health experts, not copyright experts; they send agriculture experts, not copyright experts, because copyright is just not important to pretty much everyone! [applause]
1350.3 Canada's Parliament didn't vote on its copyright bills because, of all the things that Canada needs to do, fixing copyright ranks well below health emergencies on First Nations reservations, exploiting the oil patch in Alberta, interceding in sectarian resentments among French- and English-speakers, solving resources crises in the nation's fisheries, and thousand other issues! The triviality of copyright tells you that when other sectors of the economy start to evince concerns about the Internet and the PC, that copyright will be revealed for a minor skirmish, and not a war. Why would other sectors nurse grudges against computers? Well, because the world we live in today is /made/ of computers. We don't have cars anymore, we have computers we ride in; we don't have airplanes anymore, we have flying Solaris boxes with a big bucketful of SCADA controllers [laughter]; a 3D printer is not a device, it's a peripheral, and it only works connected to a computer; a radio is no longer a crystal, it's a general-purpose computer with a fast ADC and a fast DAC and some software.
1418.9 The grievances that arose from unauthorized copying are trivial, when compared to the calls for action that our new computer-embroidered reality will create. Think of radio for a minute. The entire basis for radio regulation up until today was based on the idea that the properties of a radio are fixed at the time of manufacture, and can't be easily altered. You can't just flip a switch on your baby monitor, and turn it into something that interferes with air traffic control signals. But powerful software-defined radios can change from baby monitor to emergency services dispatcher to air traffic controller just by loading and executing different software, which is why the first time the American telecoms regulator (the FCC) considered what would happen when we put SDRs in the field, they asked for comment on whether it should mandate that all software-defined radios should be embedded in trusted computing machines. Ultimately, whether every PC should be locked, so that the programs they run are strictly regulated by central authorities.
1477.9 And even this is a shadow of what is to come. After all, this was the year in which we saw the debut of open sourced shape files for converting AR-15s to full automatic. This was the year of crowd-funded open-sourced hardware for gene sequencing. And while 3D printing will give rise to plenty of trivial complaints, there will be judges in the American South and Mullahs in Iran who will lose their *minds* over people in their jurisdiction printing out sex toys. [guffaw from audience] The trajectory of 3D printing will most certainly raise real grievances, from solid state meth labs, to ceramic knives.
1516.0 And it doesn't take a science fiction writer to understand why regulators might be nervous about the user-modifiable firmware on self-driving cars, or limiting interoperability for aviation controllers, or the kind of thing you could do with bio-scale assemblers and sequencers. Imagine what will happen the day that Monsanto determines that it's really… *really*… important to make sure that computers can't execute programs that cause specialized peripherals to output organisms that eat their lunch… literally. Regardless of whether you think these are real problems or merely hysterical fears, they are nevertheless the province of lobbies and interest groups that are far more influential than Hollywood and big content are on their best days, and every one of them will arrive at the same place – “can't you just make us a general purpose computer that runs all the programs, except the ones that scare and anger us? Can't you just make us an Internet that transmits any message over any protocol between any two points, unless it upsets us?”
1576.3 And personally, I can see that there will be programs that run on general purpose computers and peripherals that will even freak me out. So I can believe that people who advocate for limiting general purpose computers will find receptive audience for their positions. But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters. Because we've spent the last 10+ years as a body sending our best players out to fight what we thought was the final boss at the end of the game, but it turns out it's just been the mini-boss at the end of the level, and the stakes are only going to get higher.
1627.8 As a member of the Walkman generation, I have made peace with the fact that I will require a hearing aid long before I die, and of course, it won't be a hearing aid, it will be a computer I put in my body. So when I get into a car – a computer I put my body into – with my hearing aid – a computer I put inside my body – I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, and to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests. [vigorous applause from audience] Thank you.
1669.4 Thank you. So, last year, the Lower Merion School District, in a middle-class, affluent suburb of Philadelphia found itself in a great deal of trouble, because it was caught distributing PCs to its students, equipped with rootkits that allowed for remote covert surveillance through the computer's camera and network connection. It transpired that they had been photographing students thousands of times, at home and at school, awake and asleep, dressed and naked. Meanwhile, the latest generation of lawful intercept technology can covertly operate cameras, mics, and GPSes on PCs, tablets, and mobile devices.
1705.0 Freedom in the future will require us to have the capacity to monitor our devices and set meaningful policy on them, to examine and terminate the processes that run on them, to maintain them as honest servants to our will, and not as traitors and spies working for criminals, thugs, and control freaks. And we haven't lost yet, but we have to win the copyright wars to keep the Internet and the PC free and open. Because these are the materiel in the wars that are to come, we won't be able to fight on without them. And I know this sounds like a counsel of despair, but as I said, these are early days. We have been fighting the mini-boss, and that means that great challenges are yet to come, but like all good level designers, fate has sent us a soft target to train ourselves on – we have a organizations that fight for them – EFF, Bits of Freedom, EDRi, CCC, Netzpolitik, La Quadrature du Net, and all the others, who are thankfully, too numerous to name here – we may yet win the battle, and secure the ammunition we'll need for the war.
1778.9 Thank you.
[sustained applause]
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The MakerBot Replicator™!
In this video Bre Pettis, CEO and Co-founder of Makerbot Industries, reveals the newest generation of MakerBots - The Replicator!
Up Close With The Lytro
The Lytro. VP of Marketing Kira Wampler ran us through its paces as we learned how the camera grabs not only the color and intensity but the direction of light coming in from a scene.
Creating a smarter food label
Graphic designer Renee Walker says current food labels can be confusing and should instead focus on ingredients. She shows SmartPlanet how she created a new design based on blocks of color.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Monday, January 09, 2012
Saturday, January 07, 2012
A.J. Jacobs: How healthy living nearly killed me
I've spent the last decade subjecting myself to pain and humiliation, hopefully for a good cause, which is self-improvement. And I've done this in three parts. So first I started with the mind. And I decided to try to get smarter by reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica from A to Z -- or, more precisely, from "a-ak" to "Zywiec." And here's a little image of that. And this was an amazing year. It was really a fascinating journey. It was painful at times, especially for those around me. My wife started to fine me one dollar for every irrelevant fact I inserted into conversation. So it had its downsides.
But after that, I decided to work on the spirit. As I mentioned last year, I grew up with no religion at all. I'm Jewish, but I'm Jewish in the same way the Olive Garden is Italian. (Laughter) Not really. But I decided to learn about the Bible and my heritage by actually diving in and trying to live it and immerse myself in it. So I decided to follow all the rules of the Bible. And from the Ten Commandments to growing my beard -- because Leviticus says you cannot shave. So this is what I looked like by the end. Thank you for that reaction. (Laughter) I look a little like Moses, or Ted Kaczynski. I got both of them. So there was the topiary there. And there's the sheep.
Now the final part of the trilogy was I wanted to focus on the body and try to be the healthiest person I could be, the healthiest person alive. So that's what I've been doing the last couple of years. And I just finished a couple of months ago. And I have to say, thank God. Because living so healthily was killing me. (Laughter) It was so overwhelming, because the amount of things you have to do, it's just mind-boggling. I was listening to all the experts and talking to sort of a board of medical advisers. And they were telling me all the things I had to do. I had to eat right, exercise, meditate, pet dogs, because that lowers the blood pressure. I wrote the book on a treadmill, and it took me about a thousand miles to write the book. I had to put on sunscreen. This was no small feat, because if you listen to dermatologists, they say that you should have a shot glass full of sunscreen. And you have to reapply it every two to four hours. So I think half of my book advance went into sunscreen. I was like a glazed doughnut for most of the year. There was the washing of hands. I had to do that properly. And my immunologist told me that I should also wipe down all of the remote controls and iPhones in my house, because those are just orgies of germs. So that took a lot of time.
I also tried to be the safest person I could be, because that's a part of health. I was inspired by the Danish Safety Council. They started a public campaign that says, "A walking helmet is a good helmet." So they believe you should not just wear helmets for biking, but also for walking around. And you can see there they're shopping with their helmets. (Laughter) Well yeah, I tried that. Now it's a little extreme, I admit. But if you think about this, this is actually -- the "Freakonomics" authors wrote about this -- that more people die on a per mile basis from drunk walking than from drunk driving. So something to think about tonight if you've had a couple.
So I finished, and it was a success in a sense. All of the markers went in the right direction. My cholesterol went down, I lost weight, my wife stopped telling me that I looked pregnant. So that was nice. And it was successful overall. But I also learned that I was too healthy, and that was unhealthy. I was so focused on doing all these things that I was neglecting my friends and family. And as Dan Buettner can tell you, having a strong social network is so crucial to our health.
So I finished. And I kind of went overboard on the week after the project was over. I went to the dark side, and I just indulged myself. It was like something out of Caligula. (Laughter) Without the sex part. Because I have three young kids, so that wasn't happening. But the over-eating and over-drinking, definitely. And I finally have stabilized. So now I'm back to adopting many -- not all; I don't wear a helmet anymore -- but dozens of healthy behaviors that I adopted during my year. It was really a life-changing project. And I, of course, don't have time to go into all of them. Let me just tell you two really quickly.
The first is -- and this was surprising to me; I didn't expect this to come out -- but I live a much quieter life now. Because we live in such a noisy world. There's trains and planes and cars and Bill O'Reilly, he's very noisy. (Laughter) And this is a real underestimated, under-appreciated health hazard -- not just because it harms our hearing, which it obviously does, but it actually initiates the fight-or-flight response. A loud noise will get your fight-or-flight response going. And this, over the years, can cause real damage, cardiovascular damage. The World Health Organization just did a big study that they published this year. And it was done in Europe. And they estimated that 1.6 million years of healthy living are lost every year in Europe because of noise pollution. So they think it's actually very deadly.
And by the way, it's also terrible for your brain. It really impairs cognition. And our Founding Fathers knew about this. When they wrote the Constitution, they put dirt all over the cobblestones outside the hall so that they could concentrate. So without noise reduction technology, our country would not exist. So as a patriot, I felt it was important to -- I wear all the earplugs and the earphones, and it's really improved my life in a surprising and unexpected way.
And the second point I want to make, the final point, is that -- and it's actually been a theme of TEDMED -- that joy is so important to your health, that very few of these behaviors will stick with me unless there's some sense of pleasure and joy in them. And just to give you one instance of this: food. The junk food industry is really great at pressing our pleasure buttons and figuring out what's the most pleasurable. But I think we can use their techniques and apply them to healthy food. To give just one example, we love crunchiness, mouthfeel. So I basically have tried to incorporate crunchiness into a lot of my recipes -- throw in some sunflower seeds. And you can almost trick yourself into thinking you're eating Doritos. (Laughter) And it has made me a healthier person.
So that is it. The book about it comes out in April. It's called "Drop Dead Healthy." And I hope that I don't get sick during the book tour. That's my greatest hope.
So thank you very much.
(Applause)
Friday, January 06, 2012
Sebastian Wernicke: 1000 TEDTalks, 6 words
I am a statistician by training, so for my TED talk I did a tongue-in-cheek data analysis of about 600 other TED talks. I found that the most loved talks typically evoke emotion—for example, through using words like “happiness,” “the brain,” and “coffee.” So you might want to try talking about “how drinking coffee spreads happiness in the brain.” Also, don’t talk about oxygen, aircraft, or computers—statistically, technical terms are associated with less popular talks. These also cite the New York Times much more than the best-rated ones. The more successful speakers tend to use fewer slides and more props. About half of the most popular TED talks don’t even use slides at all. And for some reason, talks that people rank as “fascinating” employ a lot of purple, and ones that are “ingenious” emphasize the color green. It is statistically significant, but I haven’t found anyone who can explain that to me.
The maximum time you are given for a TED talk is 18 minutes. This really forces the speakers to make just one point, and get to it immediately. You don’t have any time for diversions. When you prepare your talk, there are always certain phrases or slides that you think are incredible. Then you start showing them to other people, and they tell you different. You have to be really brutal about cutting them out. For my TED talk, there was tons of stuff I had to throw out. It was the right thing to do, but I’m still sad for some of that material.
At your typical conference, people there are basically forced to endure the talks—it’s happening at you. Looking at the TED speakers, many of them talk about very serious or fascinating topics, yet they don’t flaunt their ego. At TED, it’s more about contributing to the conference.
Wernicke, a consultant at Oliver Wyman, created the website TEDPad.
If you go on the TED website, you can currently find there over a full week of TEDTalk videos, over 1.3 million words of transcripts and millions of user ratings. And that's a huge amount of data. And it got me wondering: If you took all this data and put it through statistical analysis, could you reverse engineer a TEDTalk? Could you create the ultimate TEDTalk? (Laughter) (Applause) And also, could you create the worst possible TEDTalk that they would still let you get away with?
To find this out, I looked at three things: I looked at the topic that you should choose, I looked at how you should deliver it and the visuals onstage. Now, with the topic: There's a whole range of topics you can choose, but you should choose wisely, because your topic strongly correlates with how users will react to your talk. Now, to make this more concrete, let's look at the list of top 10 words that statistically stick out in the most favorite TEDTalks and in the least favorite TEDTalks. So if you came here to talk about how French coffee will spread happiness in our brains, that's a go. (Laughter) (Applause) Whereas, if you wanted to talk about your project involving oxygen, girls, aircraft -- actually, I would like to hear that talk, (Laughter) but statistics say it's not so good. Oh, well. If you generalize this, the most favorite TEDTalks are those that feature topics we can connect with, both easily and deeply, such as happiness, our own body, food, emotions. And the more technical topics, such as architecture, materials and, strangely enough, men, those are not good topics to talk about.
How should you deliver your talk? TED is famous for keeping a very sharp eye on the clock, so they're going to hate me for revealing this, because, actually, you should talk as long as they will let you. (Laughter) Because the most favorite TEDTalks are, on average, over 50 percent longer than the least favorite ones. And this holds true for all ranking lists on TED.com except if you want to have a talk that's beautiful, inspiring or funny. Then, you should be brief. (Laughter) But other than that, talk until they drag you off the stage.
(Laughter)
Now, while ... (Applause) While you're pushing the clock, there's a few rules to obey. I found these rules out by comparing the statistics of four-word phrases that appear more often in the most favorite TEDTalks as opposed to the least favorite TEDTalks. I'll give you three examples. First of all, I must, as a speaker, provide a service to the audience and talk about what I will give you, instead of saying what I can't have. Secondly, it's imperative that you do not cite The New York Times. (Laughter) And finally, it's okay for the speaker -- that's the good news -- to fake intellectual capacity. If I don't understand something, I can just say, "etc., etc." You'll all stay with me. It's perfectly fine. (Applause)
Now, let's go to the visuals. The most obvious visual thing on stage is the speaker. And analysis shows if you want to be among the most favorite TED speakers, you should let your hair grow a little bit longer than average, make sure you wear your glasses and be slightly more dressed-up than the average TED speaker. Slides are okay, though you might consider going for props. And now the most important thing, that is the mood onstage. Color plays a very important role. Color closely correlates with the ratings that talks get on the website. (Applause) For example, fascinating talks contain a statistically high amount of exactly this blue color, (Laughter) much more than the average TEDTalk. Ingenious TEDTalks, much more this green color, etc., et. (Laughter) (Applause) Now, personally, I think I'm not the first one who has done this analysis, but I'll leave this to your good judgment.
So, now it's time to put it all together and design the ultimate TEDTalk. Now, since this is TEDActive, and I learned from my analysis that I should actually give you something, I will not impose the ultimate or worst TEDTalk on you, but rather give you a tool to create your own. And I call this tool the TEDPad. (Laughter) And the TEDPad is a matrix of 100 specifically selected, highly curated sentences that you can easily piece together to get your own TEDTalk. You only have to make one decision, and that is: Are you going to use the white version for very good TEDTalks, about creativity, human genius? Or are you going to go with a black version, which will allow you to create really bad TEDTalks, mostly about blogs, politics and stuff? So, download it and have fun with it.
Now I hope you enjoy the session. I hope you enjoy designing your own ultimate and worst possible TEDTalks. And I hope some of you will be inspired for next year to create this, which I really want to see.
Thank you very much.
(Applause) Thanks.
若你上 TED 的網站， 你會看到 超過一整星期的 TEDTalk 影片， 超過13億字 的字幕。 還有百萬以上的使用者評比， 資料量很龐大。 所以我在想， 如果你把這些資料 進行統計分析， 你可不可能反向製作出一個 TEDTalk？ 還是你可以創造出 一個「最棒的」TEDTalk？ （掌聲） 還是說，你可以製作出 一個最爛的 TEDTalk， 而且還可以全身而退？
為了找到解答，我選擇三個層面來分析。 我先看該選什麼當做演說的標題， 再來看看在台上該怎麼表達， 以及該使用什麼視覺輔助。 先來說標題，你可以選的標題範圍很廣， 但你應該謹慎地選擇， 因為你所選定的標題， 將會嚴重影響聽眾對你演說的反應。 為了讓你更明白一點， 讓我們先來看看篩選出來的前十名最佳字句， 這是統計分析的結果， 是分別從聽眾最喜愛的 TEDTalk， 和聽眾最不喜愛的 TEDTalk 中所篩選出來的。 所以，如果你到這兒來， 發表一個主題是「法國咖啡如何 在我們的大腦裡傳播快樂」的演說， 那就對了！ （掌聲） 但是，如果你的主題 是敘述你所從事的專案計畫， 內容與氧氣、女孩、飛機等字眼有關， 我個人其實還滿想聽這種演說的， 但統計數據卻告訴我們這不夠吸引人。 嗯, 好。 如果我們廣泛地推論， 最受歡迎的 TEDTalk 所談論的主題， 是聽眾容易與之產生共鳴的， 既簡單而又深入， 像是快樂、我們的身體、 食物和情緒等。 而比較技術性的主題， 像是建築、材料、還有 – 這非常的奇怪 – 男人， 這些就不是那麼受歡迎的主題。
該怎麼進行演說呢？ TED 最負盛名的是 對演說者時間的嚴格掌控， 所以他們會很討厭我告訴你們這一點， 因為根據統計， 你應該在他們允取你的時間範圍內，說得愈長愈好， 因為最受歡迎的 TEDTalk， 平均比最不受歡迎的演說， 時間長上一半。 這是 TED.com 的排行榜告訴我們的事實， 除非你的演說是 優美的、具啟發性的或是有趣的， 那麼，你應該簡潔些。不然的話， 你應該一直說到他們要把你拖下台為止。
（笑聲）
嗯，好.. （掌聲） 在你爭取更多演說時間的同時，還有幾項規則要遵守。 我會發現這些規則， 是因為我統計了演說中所出現的辭句， 看看哪些在最受歡迎的 TEDTalk 中較常出現， 哪些又在最不受歡迎的 TEDTalk 中出現。 我會舉三個例子說明。 首先，身為一個演說者， 我必須提供我所知道的資訊給聽眾， 而不是告訴聽眾我不知道什麼。 第二，要記住 不要引用紐約時報的報導。 （笑聲） 最後，我要告訴你們一個好消息， 要學會不懂裝懂。 如果不瞭解某件事，就用「諸如此類...」來矇混過去。 你們都知道我在說什麼吧! 這樣很好啊！ （掌聲）
現在我們來談談視覺輔助。 在講台上最醒目的視覺標的應該就是演說者了。 統計分析顯示，若你想成為 最受歡迎的 TED 演說者， 你應該把頭髮留得比一般人長一點， 記得戴上眼鏡，然後穿得比一般 TED 演說者 再正式一點， 投影片可以用，但如果能有道具輔助會更好。 然而，最重要的事是 講台上的氣氛。 色彩佔有很重要的地位， 你選用的色彩會決定 你在網路上的評價 （掌聲） 舉例來說，被評價為「引人入勝」的 TEDTalk 都大量使用 這種藍色， 使用頻率比一般的 TEDTalk 高得多。 被評價為「機智」的演說多是這種綠色， 諸如此類... （掌聲） 我個人覺得， 我應該不是第一個做這種分析的人， 但這留給你們 自己判斷吧！
現在該是我們把所有東西拼湊在一起 製作出最棒的 TEDTalk 的時候了。 由於這是 TEDActive， 從我研究的統計資料裡， 我知道我該給你們一些實際的東西， 我不會強迫你們做出最棒的 或是最爛的 TEDTalk， 但我會給你們一套工具讓你們製作出自己的演說。 我把這個工具命名為 TED Pad。 （笑聲） TED Pad 內含有 100 組精選語句， 你可以善加組合， 製作出你自己的 TEDTalk。 你所要做的決定只有一個， 那就是：你是要使用白色的版本 來製作出優質的 TEDTalk， 內容關於創造力、人類的才華？ 還是你想要選用黑色的版本？ 那讓你可以製作出超爛的 TEDTalk， 內容大部分涵蓋部落格 還有政治這些玩意兒。 現在就下載，好好玩一玩吧！
希望你們喜歡我的演說。 也希望你們喜歡自己製作出來的 最棒及最爛的 TEDTalk。 也希望你們之中有人會受到啟發， 明年可以站在台上，我真的很期待你們的演說。
謝謝你們。
（掌聲）
The maximum time you are given for a TED talk is 18 minutes. This really forces the speakers to make just one point, and get to it immediately. You don’t have any time for diversions. When you prepare your talk, there are always certain phrases or slides that you think are incredible. Then you start showing them to other people, and they tell you different. You have to be really brutal about cutting them out. For my TED talk, there was tons of stuff I had to throw out. It was the right thing to do, but I’m still sad for some of that material.
At your typical conference, people there are basically forced to endure the talks—it’s happening at you. Looking at the TED speakers, many of them talk about very serious or fascinating topics, yet they don’t flaunt their ego. At TED, it’s more about contributing to the conference.
Wernicke, a consultant at Oliver Wyman, created the website TEDPad.
If you go on the TED website, you can currently find there over a full week of TEDTalk videos, over 1.3 million words of transcripts and millions of user ratings. And that's a huge amount of data. And it got me wondering: If you took all this data and put it through statistical analysis, could you reverse engineer a TEDTalk? Could you create the ultimate TEDTalk? (Laughter) (Applause) And also, could you create the worst possible TEDTalk that they would still let you get away with?
To find this out, I looked at three things: I looked at the topic that you should choose, I looked at how you should deliver it and the visuals onstage. Now, with the topic: There's a whole range of topics you can choose, but you should choose wisely, because your topic strongly correlates with how users will react to your talk. Now, to make this more concrete, let's look at the list of top 10 words that statistically stick out in the most favorite TEDTalks and in the least favorite TEDTalks. So if you came here to talk about how French coffee will spread happiness in our brains, that's a go. (Laughter) (Applause) Whereas, if you wanted to talk about your project involving oxygen, girls, aircraft -- actually, I would like to hear that talk, (Laughter) but statistics say it's not so good. Oh, well. If you generalize this, the most favorite TEDTalks are those that feature topics we can connect with, both easily and deeply, such as happiness, our own body, food, emotions. And the more technical topics, such as architecture, materials and, strangely enough, men, those are not good topics to talk about.
How should you deliver your talk? TED is famous for keeping a very sharp eye on the clock, so they're going to hate me for revealing this, because, actually, you should talk as long as they will let you. (Laughter) Because the most favorite TEDTalks are, on average, over 50 percent longer than the least favorite ones. And this holds true for all ranking lists on TED.com except if you want to have a talk that's beautiful, inspiring or funny. Then, you should be brief. (Laughter) But other than that, talk until they drag you off the stage.
(Laughter)
Now, while ... (Applause) While you're pushing the clock, there's a few rules to obey. I found these rules out by comparing the statistics of four-word phrases that appear more often in the most favorite TEDTalks as opposed to the least favorite TEDTalks. I'll give you three examples. First of all, I must, as a speaker, provide a service to the audience and talk about what I will give you, instead of saying what I can't have. Secondly, it's imperative that you do not cite The New York Times. (Laughter) And finally, it's okay for the speaker -- that's the good news -- to fake intellectual capacity. If I don't understand something, I can just say, "etc., etc." You'll all stay with me. It's perfectly fine. (Applause)
Now, let's go to the visuals. The most obvious visual thing on stage is the speaker. And analysis shows if you want to be among the most favorite TED speakers, you should let your hair grow a little bit longer than average, make sure you wear your glasses and be slightly more dressed-up than the average TED speaker. Slides are okay, though you might consider going for props. And now the most important thing, that is the mood onstage. Color plays a very important role. Color closely correlates with the ratings that talks get on the website. (Applause) For example, fascinating talks contain a statistically high amount of exactly this blue color, (Laughter) much more than the average TEDTalk. Ingenious TEDTalks, much more this green color, etc., et. (Laughter) (Applause) Now, personally, I think I'm not the first one who has done this analysis, but I'll leave this to your good judgment.
So, now it's time to put it all together and design the ultimate TEDTalk. Now, since this is TEDActive, and I learned from my analysis that I should actually give you something, I will not impose the ultimate or worst TEDTalk on you, but rather give you a tool to create your own. And I call this tool the TEDPad. (Laughter) And the TEDPad is a matrix of 100 specifically selected, highly curated sentences that you can easily piece together to get your own TEDTalk. You only have to make one decision, and that is: Are you going to use the white version for very good TEDTalks, about creativity, human genius? Or are you going to go with a black version, which will allow you to create really bad TEDTalks, mostly about blogs, politics and stuff? So, download it and have fun with it.
Now I hope you enjoy the session. I hope you enjoy designing your own ultimate and worst possible TEDTalks. And I hope some of you will be inspired for next year to create this, which I really want to see.
Thank you very much.
(Applause) Thanks.
若你上 TED 的網站， 你會看到 超過一整星期的 TEDTalk 影片， 超過13億字 的字幕。 還有百萬以上的使用者評比， 資料量很龐大。 所以我在想， 如果你把這些資料 進行統計分析， 你可不可能反向製作出一個 TEDTalk？ 還是你可以創造出 一個「最棒的」TEDTalk？ （掌聲） 還是說，你可以製作出 一個最爛的 TEDTalk， 而且還可以全身而退？
為了找到解答，我選擇三個層面來分析。 我先看該選什麼當做演說的標題， 再來看看在台上該怎麼表達， 以及該使用什麼視覺輔助。 先來說標題，你可以選的標題範圍很廣， 但你應該謹慎地選擇， 因為你所選定的標題， 將會嚴重影響聽眾對你演說的反應。 為了讓你更明白一點， 讓我們先來看看篩選出來的前十名最佳字句， 這是統計分析的結果， 是分別從聽眾最喜愛的 TEDTalk， 和聽眾最不喜愛的 TEDTalk 中所篩選出來的。 所以，如果你到這兒來， 發表一個主題是「法國咖啡如何 在我們的大腦裡傳播快樂」的演說， 那就對了！ （掌聲） 但是，如果你的主題 是敘述你所從事的專案計畫， 內容與氧氣、女孩、飛機等字眼有關， 我個人其實還滿想聽這種演說的， 但統計數據卻告訴我們這不夠吸引人。 嗯, 好。 如果我們廣泛地推論， 最受歡迎的 TEDTalk 所談論的主題， 是聽眾容易與之產生共鳴的， 既簡單而又深入， 像是快樂、我們的身體、 食物和情緒等。 而比較技術性的主題， 像是建築、材料、還有 – 這非常的奇怪 – 男人， 這些就不是那麼受歡迎的主題。
該怎麼進行演說呢？ TED 最負盛名的是 對演說者時間的嚴格掌控， 所以他們會很討厭我告訴你們這一點， 因為根據統計， 你應該在他們允取你的時間範圍內，說得愈長愈好， 因為最受歡迎的 TEDTalk， 平均比最不受歡迎的演說， 時間長上一半。 這是 TED.com 的排行榜告訴我們的事實， 除非你的演說是 優美的、具啟發性的或是有趣的， 那麼，你應該簡潔些。不然的話， 你應該一直說到他們要把你拖下台為止。
（笑聲）
嗯，好.. （掌聲） 在你爭取更多演說時間的同時，還有幾項規則要遵守。 我會發現這些規則， 是因為我統計了演說中所出現的辭句， 看看哪些在最受歡迎的 TEDTalk 中較常出現， 哪些又在最不受歡迎的 TEDTalk 中出現。 我會舉三個例子說明。 首先，身為一個演說者， 我必須提供我所知道的資訊給聽眾， 而不是告訴聽眾我不知道什麼。 第二，要記住 不要引用紐約時報的報導。 （笑聲） 最後，我要告訴你們一個好消息， 要學會不懂裝懂。 如果不瞭解某件事，就用「諸如此類...」來矇混過去。 你們都知道我在說什麼吧! 這樣很好啊！ （掌聲）
現在我們來談談視覺輔助。 在講台上最醒目的視覺標的應該就是演說者了。 統計分析顯示，若你想成為 最受歡迎的 TED 演說者， 你應該把頭髮留得比一般人長一點， 記得戴上眼鏡，然後穿得比一般 TED 演說者 再正式一點， 投影片可以用，但如果能有道具輔助會更好。 然而，最重要的事是 講台上的氣氛。 色彩佔有很重要的地位， 你選用的色彩會決定 你在網路上的評價 （掌聲） 舉例來說，被評價為「引人入勝」的 TEDTalk 都大量使用 這種藍色， 使用頻率比一般的 TEDTalk 高得多。 被評價為「機智」的演說多是這種綠色， 諸如此類... （掌聲） 我個人覺得， 我應該不是第一個做這種分析的人， 但這留給你們 自己判斷吧！
現在該是我們把所有東西拼湊在一起 製作出最棒的 TEDTalk 的時候了。 由於這是 TEDActive， 從我研究的統計資料裡， 我知道我該給你們一些實際的東西， 我不會強迫你們做出最棒的 或是最爛的 TEDTalk， 但我會給你們一套工具讓你們製作出自己的演說。 我把這個工具命名為 TED Pad。 （笑聲） TED Pad 內含有 100 組精選語句， 你可以善加組合， 製作出你自己的 TEDTalk。 你所要做的決定只有一個， 那就是：你是要使用白色的版本 來製作出優質的 TEDTalk， 內容關於創造力、人類的才華？ 還是你想要選用黑色的版本？ 那讓你可以製作出超爛的 TEDTalk， 內容大部分涵蓋部落格 還有政治這些玩意兒。 現在就下載，好好玩一玩吧！
希望你們喜歡我的演說。 也希望你們喜歡自己製作出來的 最棒及最爛的 TEDTalk。 也希望你們之中有人會受到啟發， 明年可以站在台上，我真的很期待你們的演說。
謝謝你們。
（掌聲）
Thursday, January 05, 2012
A Youngster's Bright Idea Is Something New Under the Sun
By SOPHIA HOLLANDER
NORTHPORT, N.Y.—A new way of collecting solar energy has polarized scientists around the world and ignited fierce debate on the Internet, where the innovator in question has been called everything from an alien to the agent of a global conspiracy.
13-year-old Aidan Dwyer developed a new way to collect solar energy, and along the way sparked a fierce debate among scholars and scientists. He joins the News Hub to tell his story. Photo: Claudio Papapietro for The Wall Street Journal
Maybe a better title would be an intellectual Hannah Montana. That's because the scientist, Aidan Dwyer, is 13 years old.
This past summer, Aidan won a national science competition with what seemed to be a bright idea: His research appeared to show that solar panels arrayed like the leaves on a tree collect sunlight more efficiently than traditional setups.
Enlarge Image
Claudio Papapietro for The Wall Street Journal
Aidan with his tree-branch mode
Many people on the Web called the Long Island teenager a "genius" who had achieved a true "breakthrough" in solar power. Others praised him for proving that nature's own designs are superior to man's.
But there was one little problem: To prove his hypothesis, Aidan had measured the wrong thing.
As readers figured out the mistake, the Internet went supernova. Commenters and bloggers attacked Aidan with vitriol usually saved for political enemies and the Kardashians. Blogs decried his experiment as "bad science" and "impossible nonsense." Someone called him "an alien—a cool one, though."
Aidan and his family watched in amazement as strangers around the world debated his intelligence and abilities, as well as his opinion of subjects generally beyond the scope of a suburban boy his age: politics, evolution and the state of modern society, for example.
He got some constructive advice, said Aidan's mother, Maureen. "Then there were people who were just—"
"Haters," Aidan chimed in with a grin.
The legitimacy of his original idea remains unsettled, though scientists are skeptical. Aidan is now revamping his experiment as he maneuvers around homework, sleepovers and the odd curfew violation.
But there is no disputing that he has become a star. Many in the scientific community are championing his intellectual curiosity and graceful ability to weather an Internet firestorm, making him a hot speaker at events around the world.
"It looks like there is some validity to what he's come up with. But even if there wasn't any validity, I wanted to give this young man the opportunity to sort of say, 'Here's what I learned and here's what I did,'" said Andrew Zolli, the executive director of PopTech, a nonprofit organization focused on innovation.
AIDAN DWYER
In October, Aidan got a standing ovation from more than 500 people at PopTech's annual innovation conference in Maine after discussing his work and touching on the controversy.
He has been invited to address 300 undergraduate engineering students at New York University in the spring. He has filed a provisional patent application for his research. He has had, and declined, friend requests on Facebook from venture capitalists.
After viewing one of his talks on YouTube, organizers of World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi invited Aidan to participate—and offered to fly his family over, too. He is scheduled to speak at the event's opening ceremony this month.
"Our mandate is to look for great minds, talents, technology innovations around the world," said Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the CEO of Masdar, a company owned by the Abu Dhabi government that founded and hosts the conference. "We need thousands of Aidans to help transform the way we produce and consume energy."
On a recent afternoon, Aidan and his parents admitted they were somewhat baffled by the attention for a project that began two years ago on a winter hiking trip through the Catskill Mountains.
Aidan, then 11, stared at the tree branches denuded of leaves and noticed they looked alike; he wondered why. Back home, his parents encouraged him to research the subject. Google searches uncovered that a mathematical concept called the Fibonacci number sequence underlies the structure of tree branches.
His parents had been hoping to install solar panels on their Long Island house, but their yard was too small and their roof wasn't suitable. There was, however, enough room for a tree. Perhaps, Aidan postulated, trees arranged their branches to improve the collection of sunlight. If he used the Fibonacci sequence to imitate that design with solar panels replacing leaves, maybe the structure could fit his family's limited space, look pretty—and power the house.
He did chores to earn the money to buy about $75 worth of materials. With help from his father—and after many mistakes—Aidan ended up with two models: a traditional flat-panel array and a tree-shaped solar collector designed to mimic the branch sequence of an oak tree. Over the course of months he compared measurements. To his delight, the tree structure's numbers were higher.
Exuberantly, he submitted the results to the Young Naturalist Awards, a national contest run by the American Museum of Natural History. Of 700 entries, his was picked as one of 12 winners.
"Then," Aidan said with a slight smile, "things got out of hand."
As the report went viral, attacked and championed in hundreds of comments, museum officials became worried. "We do think it's really important that information that we put forth is scientifically accurate," said Rosamond Kinzler, senior director of science education at the museum. They were also concerned for Aidan, she said.
Critics had a point: Aidan had recorded voltage, when he needed to calculate power. It is a serious flaw, explained Jan Kleissl, an assistant professor of environmental engineering at the University of California, San Diego.
Imagine a water pipe, he said. Voltage is equivalent to water pressure. Current is the size of the pipe. Power is equal to the flow of water out of the pipe, which depends on both variables.
Dr. Kleissl praised Aidan's work, but added that even if Aidan had measured the right variables, "I'm certain that he will not find that his arrangement is better," he said. "I think it's a romantic ideal that nature has many lessons for us, and there are a few cases where this is true, but in the majority of cases we could teach nature, in a way, how to be better, faster."
On a recent afternoon, Aidan showed a visitor his newest model, tweaked to respond to his critics: a towering seven-foot tree form adorned with solar panels and painted green. He is now measuring current and power. So far, he said, the tree continues to outperform the traditional panel. "I'm thinking that it could actually change the world."
Next gen UI: Learning tools and toys for the digital age
What if you no longer needed a screen, mouse, and keyboard to use a computer? Siftables creator, David Merrill, shows us how individual, cookie cutter-sized tiles that use motion sensing, graphical display, and wireless communication will teach users a new way to learn.
David Merrill: My name's David Merrill and I'm a principal at Taco Lab based in San Francisco and we build next generation user interfaces.
Background Music My background is in cognitive science and computer science and I've been interested for a long time in how our interactions with computers can be more natural and more efficient and more delightful. My colleague Jeevan Kalanithi and I were at the MIT Media Lab as graduate students, and we started working on a new physical interface called Siftables. Siftables is one example of what I think will be a new ecosystem of what I'm calling hand tools for the digital age, ways to interact with computation that's very different than the mouse and keyboard we use today.
Background Music We have built Siftables so that each tile is a little, self-contained interactive computer with a screen on top, the ability to sense its neighbors and the ability to communicate wirelessly. So you can represent a problem, say a math equation, on the screens of the Siftables with each screen showing one piece of the equation. And then by putting them together, it can compute the results of the equation showing you the answer. The way we use computers now, or even our mobile phones and other mobile devices is usually one person per display, one person per piece of technology. But Siftables is an example of what we've been calling cookie-scale computing where you've got smaller pieces of computation, the size of cookies, and you're actually interacting with a group of them together. And that's a version of computing that we haven't really seen yet, a way of interacting with computers that we think has a lot of potential to increase the ease with which we can manipulate digital information. I think our interfaces for computers in the future are going to take a lot of different forms that are not just gonna be the mouse and keyboard. And so that's really what I'm excited about is to see the ways that we can more seamlessly connect our brain and our intentions to what we can create with the computer, because it's a wonderful tool. It's got a lot of potential, but we're not yet leveraging it in the way that we could. That's the way that I want to interact with computers in the future, is for there to be a seamless translation from a thought that I have in my head to something that I've created with the machine.
SRI invents tiny medical instruments for pediatric surgery
In order to perform surgery on children, doctors often have to jury-rig adult instruments to fit their needs. But Pablo Garcia, a principal engineer at SRI International is working to solve this problem. He's teamed up with Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford to develop new surgical tools that will fit smaller, hard-to-reach areas. SmartPlanet visits SRI and looks at a neurosurgical instrument in development that will excise cysts in the brains of small children.
iPod father Tony Fadell shows off latest gadget--a thermostat
At Nest Labs, former Apple product engineers Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers have molded their thermostat with many of the design and technology characteristics of Apple products like the iPod and iPhone. SmartPlanet's Sumi Das visits the startup to see what they've been up to and finds out what Fadell--who oversaw the design and production of the iPod--learned from Steve Jobs.
I'm Thomas Meyerhoffer and I'm a designer.
Music
Background Music
>> I used to work for company called IDEO, a big consult firm and then I went from there to Apple where I was part of the design group and then I started my own company. For me, it's about creating a story in the end for the user so that the user will have a good experience with the product. One of my big priorities right now is surfboards. The surfboard I designed is quite radical for that audience. The design of the board looks like a peanut. Basically what I've done I had gone in taking a large board, the long board, and taking a way as much material as possible for the long board to still perform as good as a normal long board but then bring in the ability of a short board into that design. That means taking away the middle of the board, making a rounder tail where you stand which makes the board turn a lot easier in the waves. So it's kind of a combination of two designs into one.
Background Music
>> Another project that I'm working on, it's called the WikiReader and it's a kind of a low technology. So we took one of the most simple things from the internet which is the Wikipedia information and we put that on one device. Everything in the device is designed to take as little power--be as efficient as possible. You don't have to charge it. I mean that's three and a half million articles from the Wikipedia in this device and you don't have to do anything. You can bring it everywhere. For me personally, I just want to keep doing what I'm doing. I think the most challenging part is to make the right decision. It's not difficult to be creative. It's not difficult to come up with new ideas. I think its understanding what you are doing in the context of what's needed and where you need to go so that you take in the right turns and go on forward.
Loosecubes: A more intelligent way to work?
New York-based startup Loosecubes has created an office-sharing portal that helps people find and rent work spaces. SmartPlanet talks to company CEO Campbell McKellar about how her Web site is making it easier to find a work space almost anywhere in the world.
'Printing' your next house
MIT's Mediated Matter Group is developing ways to use new materials like concrete in 3D printing. See how researchers are working with biologically inspired designs in this MIT video.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Monday, January 02, 2012
Viral Video: 15-Year-Old Korean Girl Channels Adele
If you’re impressed by British singer Adele, you’ll be wowed by this 15-year-old girl covering her hit, “Rolling in the Deep,” on Korean singing show, “K-Pop Star.”
I was definitely not expecting this from the slight, sweet-looking singer:
Adele - Rolling In The Deep (Live)
I was definitely not expecting this from the slight, sweet-looking singer:
Adele - Rolling In The Deep (Live)
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Video: Japan Gets Vending Machine 2.0 With See-Through Full HD Display, Facial Recognition
Maker Sanden says the machine’s display can produce text, pictures or animations in HD quality.
The company commands a 30% global market share for vending machines and is also active in the US, meaning this prototype could also make its way over to North America one day.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
02 pursuit motorcycle
MELBOURNE — Last month industrial designer Dean Benstead unveiled the 02 Pursuit — a prototype for a motorcycle fueled not by gas or electricity, but by compressed air.
Based on the geometry of a 250cc motocrosser, the O2 Pursuit prototype uses the breakthrough engine technology developed by Angelo Di Pietro of Engineair.
Benstead, a recent graduate of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), has harnessed the power that exists in the air tanks to mechanically drive the vehicle.
According to Benstead, testing of the motorcycle showed close to a quarter of an hour running time with stops at around 25-45 km/h. During stationary testing, Benstead’s team timed the speed off the back wheel, registering over 100 km/h. Preliminary testing of the prototype was limited to an indoors factory environment on a circular track.
“The bike is running a standard scuba tank which runs air compressed up to 200 bar, with further developments, we would be looking at running a tank at 400 bar with increased capacity to also increase the range,” he said.
The innovation was the result of Benstead’s final-year design research into the future of motorcycles, looking at air as a genuine alternative to petrol and electricity.
“Air was the starting point back in 2010, but I continued to explore this for the prototype because of its low-tech nature,” Benstead said. “A solar panel and a compressor now becomes your refinery and without huge battery packs to dispose of, we now have a low-cost to free powered bike with minimum impact on the environment.”
The project began mid last year at the RMIT Ecomoto, the only motorcycle-specific design studio in Australia. Led by RMIT Lecturer and Acting Program Director Simon Curtis, Benstead’s super motard bike project won him the Product Design – Automotive and Transport award at the 2010 Melbourne Design Awards.
The air engine developed by Engineair is still yet to be commercialized. The motor used in the 02 Pursuit was one of five prototypes in the world.
Benstead, recently named in Melbourne’s Top 100 most influential people, is currently working with Australia’s Engineair on a new design that can bring the technology to the market.
02 Pursuit specs:
Top Speed: >100 km/h
Weight: <100kg
Engine: ‘Di Pietro’ 9 chamber air engine
Engine Weight: 10kg
Material: Aluminiumhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Development: Melbourne
http://www.engineair.com.au/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
