So a chip, a poet and a boy.
一個晶片、一位詩人、一位男孩。
It's just about 20 years ago, June 1994, when Intel announced that there was a flaw at the core of their Pentium chip. Deep in the code of the SRT algorithm to calculate intermediate quotients necessary for iterative floating points of divisions -- I don't know what that means, but it's what it says on Wikipedia — there was a flaw and an error that meant that there was a certain probability that the result of the calculation would be an error, and the probability was one out of every 360 billion calculations. So Intel said your average spreadsheet would be flawed once every 27,000 years. They didn't think it was significant, but there was an outrage in the community. The community, the techies, said, this flaw has to be addressed. They were not going to stand by quietly as Intel gave them these chips. So there was a revolution across the world. People marched to demand -- okay, not really exactly like that — but they rose up and they demanded that Intel fix the flaw. And Intel set aside 475 million dollars to fund the replacement of millions of chips to fix the flaw. So billions of dollars in our society was spent to address a problem which would come once out of every 360 billion calculations.
大約二十年前, 1994 年六月英特爾宣佈 他們的奔騰晶片核心有瑕疵, 在計算中間商數 必需進行疊代浮點除法的 SRT 演算法程式碼內。 我不知道那什麼意思, 反正維基百科這樣寫。 有瑕疵或錯誤, 代表計算的結果 有可能會出現錯誤, 而這可能性是 3,600 億分之一。 所以英特爾說試算表平均 27,000 年會出現一次錯誤。 他們不認為這數字很大, 但這引起科技社群一片嘩然。 科技社群說,這個瑕疵 必須要改進。 他們不會坐視不管, 讓英特爾繼續販售這些晶片。 所以在全世界掀起革命。 大家都站上街頭要求... 好吧,其實沒有這麼誇張 但他們站出來要求 英特爾修復這個瑕疵。 英特爾也投入 4.75 億美元 來回收、更換上千萬張的晶片 以及修復瑕疵。 所以我們花了上億元 處理一個 每 3,600 億才會出現一次的問題。 第二個故事關於一位詩人,
Number two, a poet. This is Martin Niemöller. You're familiar with his poetry. Around the height of the Nazi period, he started repeating the verse, "First they came for the communists, and I did nothing, did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists. Then they came for the trade unions. Then they came for the Jews. And then they came for me. But there was no one left to speak for me." Now, Niemöller is offering a certain kind of insight. This is an insight at the core of intelligence. We could call it cluefulness. It's a certain kind of test: Can you recognize an underlying threat and respond? Can you save yourself or save your kind? Turns out ants are pretty good at this. Cows, not so much. So can you see the pattern? Can you see a pattern and then recognize and do something about it? Number two. Number three, a boy. This is my friend Aaron Swartz. He's Tim's friend. He's friends of many of you in this audience, and seven years ago, Aaron came to me with a question. It was just before I was going to give my first TED Talk. I was so proud. I was telling him about my talk, "Laws that choke creativity." And Aaron looked at me and was a little impatient, and he said, "So how are you ever going to solve the problems you're talking about? Copyright policy, Internet policy, how are you ever going to address those problems so long as there's this fundamental corruption in the way our government works?"
馬丁.尼莫拉。 你們應該對讀過他的詩。 在納粹盛行的時期, 他開始重覆這段詩句: 「起初他們追殺共產主義者, 我袖手旁觀, 我不吭聲是因為我不是共產主義者。 接著他們追殺社會主義者; 後來他們追殺工會成員; 再來他們追殺猶太人; 最後他們來追殺我。 但那時已沒有人能替我站出來發聲了。」 尼莫拉提出了一種見解。 這是智慧核心的見解。 我們可以稱之為先見之明 (cluefulness)。 這是某種測試: 你能否辨別出 潛在的威脅並作出反應? 你能否拯救自己或同類? 螞蟻對這很擅長, 牛就不一樣了。 你能看出規則嗎? 你能夠看出、辨別規則模式 並以行動來應對?這是第二個故事。 第三個故事,一個男孩。 這是我的朋友亞倫.史華滋。 他是提姆的朋友。 在座很多人許多人也認識他。 七年前, 亞倫問了我一個問題。 當時我正要來 TED 發表第一個演講。 我當時感到很驕傲, 並告訴他我要講的內容: 「法律如何箝制創造力」。 然後亞倫看著我, 有點不耐煩地說: 「所以你到底有沒有 要解決你所要探討的問題?」 著作權政策、網路政策, 你有要正視、解決這些 政府運作系統中最基本的腐敗問題?
So I was a little put off by this. He wasn't sharing in my celebration. And I said to him, "You know, Aaron, it's not my field, not my field."
我好像被澆了冷水, 因為他並沒有跟我共享喜悅。 我告訴他:「你知道嗎,亞倫, 這不是我的領域、非我能力範圍。」
He said, "You mean as an academic, it's not your field?"
他說:「不是你的領域? 你意思是說,因為你是學者嗎?」
I said, "Yeah, as an academic, it's not my field."
我答:「對,身為一位學者, 這不是我的領域。」
He said, "What about as a citizen? As a citizen."
他接著說:「那身為一位公民呢? 身為一位公民。」
Now, this is the way Aaron was. He didn't tell. He asked questions. But his questions spoke as clearly as my four-year-old's hug. He was saying to me, "You've got to get a clue. You have got to get a clue, because there is a flaw at the core of the operating system of this democracy, and it's not a flaw every one out of 360 billion times our democracy tries to make a decision. It is every time, every single important issue. We've got to end the bovinity of this political society. We've got to adopt, it turns out, the word is fourmi-formatic attitude -- that's what the Internet tells me the word is -- the ant's appreciative attitude that gets us to recognize this flaw, save our kind and save our demos.
這就是亞倫。 他不會告訴別人該怎麼做,他只問問題。 但他的問題有如當頭棒喝 跟我四歲孩子的擁抱一樣清晰。 他就像在告訴我, 「你要知道該怎麼做阿。 你要知道怎麼解決, 因為這個民主社會的 運作系統核心中有瑕疵。 而這不是每 3,600 億次的民主決定 才出現一次的瑕疵, 而是每次做決定都會出錯。 每次、每個重要議題時都會出錯。 我們必須終結這政治系統下 像牛一般的遲鈍愚昧。 我們必須要改以 螞蟻的運作模式 (fourmi-formatic) 及態度 —— 這也是網路上查到的字 —— 要以螞蟻有洞察力的態度 讓我們辨別出這個瑕疵, 拯救我們的同胞以及民主。
Now if you know Aaron Swartz, you know that we lost him just over a year ago. It was about six weeks before I gave my TED Talk, and I was so grateful to Chris that he asked me to give this TED Talk, not because I had the chance to talk to you, although that was great, but because it pulled me out of an extraordinary depression. I couldn't begin to describe the sadness. Because I had to focus. I had to focus on, what was I going to say to you? It saved me.
如果你認識亞倫.史華滋 就會知道 我們約一年前失去了這位良友。 大概是我 TED 演講的前六星期時的事。 我當時很感謝克里斯 邀請我發表 TED 演講, 不只因為我有機會與各位交流, 這當然是很棒的機會, 但還將我從絕望憂鬱中拉了出來。 我無法形容這種心碎難過。 因為我必須專心。 我必須專心思考要跟各位說些什麼。 而這拯救了我。
But after the buzz, the excitement, the power that comes from this community, I began to yearn for a less sterile, less academic way to address these issues, the issues that I was talking about. We'd begun to focus on New Hampshire as a target for this political movement, because the primary in New Hampshire is so incredibly important. It was a group called the New Hampshire Rebellion that was beginning to talk about, how would we make this issue of this corruption central in 2016? But it was another soul that caught my imagination, a woman named Doris Haddock, aka Granny D. On January 1, 1999, 15 years ago, at the age of 88, Granny D started a walk. She started in Los Angeles and began to walk to Washington, D.C. with a single sign on her chest that said, "campaign finance reform." Eighteen months later, at the age of 90, she arrived in Washington with hundreds following her, including many congressmen who had gotten in a car and driven out about a mile outside of the city to walk in with her. (Laughter)
在所有的興奮過後, 我感受到這社群所帶來的力量, 但我開始希望以比較有用、 以非學術的方式解決這些 我所探討的問題。 我們把重心放在新罕布夏州, 作為這次政治運動的目標, 因為新罕布夏州的初選 至關重要。 當地有個組織叫新罕布夏州反抗軍 當時開始討論我們能夠如何 把這種腐敗問題提升為 2016 年的重心。 除外,我還注意到一個人, 她叫朵瑞絲.哈達克 (Doris Haddock), 我們都叫她 D 奶奶 (Granny D), 十五年前, 1999 年一月一日, 高齡 88 歲的 D 奶奶開始一場改革之行。 她從洛杉磯出發 往華盛頓特區前進, 身上掛著一個牌子,寫著: 「財政改革運動」。 十八個月後, 高齡九十歲的她 抵達華盛頓,身後上百位跟隨者, 包括許多國會議員驅車前往 然後把車停到一英哩外市郊 陪她走進市區。
Now, I don't have 13 months to walk across the country. I've got three kids who hate to walk, and a wife who, it turns out, still hates when I'm not there for mysterious reasons, so this was not an option, but the question I asked, could we remix Granny D a bit? What about a walk not of 3,200 miles but of 185 miles across New Hampshire in January?
(笑聲) 但是我沒有十三個月的時間 能走越美國。 我有三個討厭走路的小孩, 以及我的太太 現在仍討厭我不陪在她身邊, 天曉得為什麼。 所以這對我來說不可行, 不過我想問 我們是否能稍微修改 D 奶奶的做法呢? 我們別走 3,200 英哩 而是走 185 英哩 於一月時橫跨新罕布夏州如何?
So on January 11, the anniversary of Aaron's death, we began a walk that ended on January 24th, the day that Granny D was born. A total of 200 people joined us across this walk, as we went from the very top to the very bottom of New Hampshire talking about this issue. And what was astonishing to me, something I completely did not expect to find, was the passion and anger that there was among everyone that we talked to about this issue. We had found in a poll that 96 percent of Americans believe it important to reduce the influence of money in politics. Now politicians and pundits tell you, there's nothing we can do about this issue, Americans don't care about it, but the reason for that is that 91 percent of Americans think there's nothing that can be done about this issue. And it's this gap between 96 and 91 that explains our politics of resignation. I mean, after all, at least 96 percent of us wish we could fly like Superman, but because at least 91 percent of us believe we can't, we don't leap off of tall buildings every time we have that urge. That's because we accept our limits, and so too with this reform. But when you give people the sense of hope, you begin to thaw that absolute sense of impossibility. As Harvey Milk said, if you give 'em hope, you give 'em a chance, a way to think about how this change is possible. Hope. And hope is the one thing that we, Aaron's friends, failed him with, because we let him lose that sense of hope. I loved that boy like I love my son. But we failed him. And I love my country, and I'm not going to fail that. I'm not going to fail that. That sense of hope, we're going to hold, and we're going to fight for, however impossible this battle looks.
一月十一日這天 也是亞倫的忌日, 我們開始一場遊行,直到一月二十四日, 這天是 D 奶奶生日。 總共有 200 人加入這場改革之行, 我們從新罕布夏州最頂端走到最底端, 共同討論這個問題。 令我驚訝、 我沒料到的是 大家的熱情與憤怒, 這是討論這個議題時眾人所展現出的。 根據統計,我們發現 96% 的美國人 相信減少金錢在政治界的影響是很重要的。 政治家和政權人士會告訴你, 在這議題上我們無能為力, 而且美國人一點也不在乎。 不過他們會這麼說的原因 是因為有 91% 的美國人 認為我們對此議題無能為力。 而 96% 與 91% 中間的隔閡 解釋了我們的政治冷感。 畢竟,至少 96% 的美國人 希望我們可以跟超人一樣飛, 但因為至少 91% 的人覺得做不到, 所以當我們每當有飛越大樓的衝動時, 卻無法一展身手。 因為我們接受了自己的能力限制, 而這改革也一樣。 但當你給人民希望時, 便開始將不可能化為可能。 就如哈維.米爾克 (Harvey Milk) 說的, 如果你給他們希望, 就是給他們一種思考的機會, 思考如何推動改變。 希望。 而希望是身為亞倫朋友的我們 沒有給他的,因為我們讓他 失去了希望。 我視如己出的愛他, 但我們讓他失望了。 我也愛我的國家, 而這次我不會失敗。 我不會失敗。 我們將心存這種希望, 並為其奮鬥, 不管這場戰役看起來有多不可能。
What's next? Well, we started with this march with 200 people, and next year, there will be 1,000 on different routes that march in the month of January and meet in Concord to celebrate this cause, and then in 2016, before the primary, there will be 10,000 who march across that state, meeting in Concord to celebrate this cause. And as we have marched, people around the country have begun to say, "Can we do the same thing in our state?" So we've started a platform called G.D. Walkers, that is, Granny D walkers, and Granny D walkers across the country will be marching for this reform. Number one. Number two, on this march, one of the founders of Thunderclap, David Cascino, was with us, and he said, "Well what can we do?" And so they developed a platform, which we are announcing today, that allows us to pull together voters who are committed to this idea of reform. Regardless of where you are, in New Hampshire or outside of New Hampshire, you can sign up and directly be informed where the candidates are on this issue so you can decide who to vote for as a function of which is going to make this possibility real. And then finally number three, the hardest. We're in the age of the Super PAC. Indeed yesterday, Merriam announced that Merriam-Webster will have Super PAC as a word. It is now an official word in the dictionary. So on May 1, aka May Day, we're going to try an experiment. We're going to try a launching of what we can think of as a Super PAC to end all Super PACs. And the basic way this works is this. For the last year, we have been working with analysts and political experts to calculate, how much would it cost to win enough votes in the United States Congress to make fundamental reform possible? What is that number? Half a billion? A billion? What is that number? And then whatever that number is, we are going to kickstart, sort of, because you can't use KickStarter for political work, but anyway, kickstart, sort of, first a bottom-up campaign where people will make small dollar commitments contingent on reaching very ambitious goals, and when those goals have been reached, we will turn to the large dollar contributors, to get them to contribute to make it possible for us to run the kind of Super PAC necessary to win this issue, to change the way money influences politics, so that on November 8, which I discovered yesterday is the day that Aaron would have been 30 years old, on November 8, we will celebrate 218 representatives in the House and 60 Senators in the United States Senate who have committed to this idea of fundamental reform.
那接下來呢? 我們的遊行原本有 200 人加入, 明年將會有一千人 走不同的路線, 在一月時遊行 並在康科德齊聚一堂,為改革而走。 然後在 2016 年初選前, 還會有一萬人跨越新罕布夏州, 並在康科德齊聚一堂,為改革而走。 當我們遊行時,其他州有許多人 開始也問:「我們能不能在自己的州也進行?」 我們開始建立一個叫 G.D. Walkers 的平台, 表示 D 奶奶的追隨者, 而全美的 D 奶奶追隨者 將會為改革而走。這是第一點。 第二點,這場遊行中, Thunderclap 的其中一位創始人大衛.卡辛諾 也加入我們, 他問:「我們能做些什麼?」 所以他們開發了一個平台, 今天也宣告上線, 能讓我們將關心改革的選民集結在一起。 不管你在哪裡, 在新罕布夏州也好,在其他州也罷, 你可以註冊並可直接得知 在這議題上,不同候選人的立場為何, 便能決定要投給誰。 這功能可以 讓可能化為真實。 最後第三點,也是最難的一點。 我們現處在 超級政治行動委員會 (Super PACs) 的時代。 甚至在昨天梅里亞姆 (Merriam) 宣布 韋氏詞典將把 "Super PAC" 納為字典中。 現在正式成為字典中的字了。 五月一號是五朔節, 英文也有求救的意思, 我們要做個試驗。 我們要試著推行 一個終結所有 Super PAC 的 Super PAC。 簡單說明如下: 去年,我們開始與 分析師及政治界專家合作, 計算要花多少錢 才能在美國議會中贏得足夠選票 以實現徹底改革。 要多少錢?五億?十億? 到底是多少錢? 不管金額多少, 我們都將開始集資 但不能使用 KickStarter 集資網站作為政治用途, 但我們開始集資 從下往上的 向民眾募集小額資金 慢慢累積到可觀的目標, 這些目標達成後 我們會轉向更大額的捐款者 請他們捐款以達成 我們成立 Super PAC 所需的資金, 以贏得這項議題, 改變金錢對政治界的影響。 所以在十一月八日, 我昨天正巧發現這天 將剛好是亞倫三十歲生日。 十一月八日這天 我們將慶祝 218 位眾議員 以及 60 位美國參議員 致力於這徹底改革的想法。 昨晚我們的演講主題是願望。
So last night, we heard about wishes. Here's my wish. May one. May the ideals of one boy unite one nation behind one critical idea that we are one people, we are the people who were promised a government, a government that was promised to be dependent upon the people alone, the people, who, as Madison told us, meant not the rich more than the poor. May one. And then may you, may you join this movement, not because you're a politician, not because you're an expert, not because this is your field, but because if you are, you are a citizen. Aaron asked me that. Now I've asked you.
我的願望就是 實現一個人的希望。 請讓一位男孩的理想 團結整個國家, 這背後最重要的想法就是, 我們同舟共濟, 我們被允諾一個政府, 一個承諾以人民為先的政府, 以人民為先, 如麥迪遜所講的, (註:美國憲法之父) 人民不論貧富皆為平等。 盡一己之力。 你願意嗎? 你願意加入這場運動嗎? 並非因為你是政治人物、 並非因為你是專家、 並非因為這是你的領域, 僅因為 你是這國家的公民。 亞倫這麼問我。 現在我這麼問你們。
Thank you very much.
非常感謝各位。
(Applause)
(掌聲)