Ken Robinson on Passion and Creativity

Tonight Sir Ken Robinson addressed a crowd of over 1,000 parents that spilled out into the parking lots surrounding the auditorium at Sacred Heart in Atherton. In a performance that topped even his 10-balloon TED Talk, he delivered a lecture with equal parts inspiration and humor.

I was bummed that "Sir" Ken showed up with no sword and without any armor AT ALL. But he does wield a mighty pen that has inked two books on the importance of helping kids find their passions (The Element) and of adapting our educational system to prize creativity over conformity (Out of our Minds: Learning to be Creative).

Here's the basic arc of his message: most people are miserable in their jobs, drudging through work in anticipation of the weekend. Only those of us who have found our passions love to work. Everyone has talents and interests to ignite, but usually schools have pushed them aside in favor of standardized academic curricula and tests. At a time when our economy has moved beyond factory jobs, we need creative, entrepreneurial citizens. That all happens only in personalized programs, where kids are encouraged to follow dreams. As Steve Jobs liked to say, people change the world by following their dreams, not a standard formula for success.

Sir Ken cited many examples, like Paul McCartney and George Harrison, who went to school together and loved music but didn't enjoy music class. Their music teacher never thought they had potential as musicians. "He had half the Beatles in his class and missed it. That was a bit of an oversight, if you don't mind my saying."

Here are some snippets from the talk:

"It's a mistake to confuse standardizing with raising standards."


"I asked the girl what she got out of her dancing class. 'I got a B' she answered."

"We should be teaching students, not subjects... Schools are more like organisms than mechanisms. Teaching is more like gardening than engineering."

"We cannot predict what will happen, where people will go and how they will develop. We have to let them find their way, and encourage them to trust that they can follow their passions. If we do this we may not be able to predict the future, but we will create a future that we all want to live in."

In the audience I saw nearly every school principal in town nodding along with Sir Ken's talk, as though they already follow his advice in their schools! I know some who do, but if they all did, then where's the problem?

Meanwhile, Ken sets an example of great teaching by keeping his audience in stitches. For example:

"I was shocked to hear that my TED Talk was downloaded 10 million times. But then I learned that two cats jumping around on YouTube was downloaded 50 million times."

“I started my dissertation in the 70;s and finished it in the 80’ s largely because of what happened in the 70’s. it was a great decade, or so I’m told.”

"I’m now working on the sequel to The Element, called Finding your Element. People keep asking me how to find it. Now I wish I had never started this whole thing. How do I know? YOU find it, leave me alone. No, seriously it’s coming out next year and it’s going to be terrific." 

Dinner with Mork

Thanks to the invitation of an old friend, two weeks ago I had the great pleasure of a 2 hour dinner with Robin Williams, who IMHO ranks among the greatest comedic actors of my lifetime, alongside Richard Pryor, Woody Allen, Steve Martin, Bill Murray and Gene Wilder.

I think I expected to meet someone much more frenetic and, frankly, obnoxious. But Williams is gracious, and listens sincerely to the people around him. He came with his gorgeous fiancé Susan whom he married last week.

Williams shared some stories about his career, starting with his high school years studying drama at Juilliard. His big screen break was a cameo on Happy Days as Mork the alien, which later spun off. Perhaps his best known and appreciated film is Good Morning Vietnam.

As I enjoyed the Cornish Hen at Jardiniere, we talked about some of his films, like my favorite Dead Poets Society, where he learned from the director that listening can be as expressive as speaking. (My wife has told me the same thing.)  It surprised me that Williams cited the creepy One Hour Photo as one of his favorites.  He told us a lot about making Awakenings, including the challenge of acting alongside actual mental patients. We also talked about Cadillac Man, The World According to Garp, and Mrs. Doubtfire, which my kids were back home watching at the time.

I learned that Williams has gone to Afghanistan three times to perform for the troops, and heard about many other international trips to raise money for charity. He's an active advocate of gay rights, and an atheist, though he was reluctant to say so (there are some things so shocking that even Robin Williams won't say them).

Often Williams broke into character, spinning up hysterical and poignant characters in the middle of conversation. "I'm so hairy," he improvised, " Coco the Gorilla tried to take me out back. She actually signed, Let's you and me go back and get busy."

On Pseudonyms: Transparency and Free Expression are Not Mutually Exclusive

I originally wrote this as a guest post for TechCrunch, but based on some good comments, I have modified the proposal. So here is my improved version of that post...

The debate on pseudonyms persists today in the NY Times, as Google continues to eject pseudonymous accounts from Google Plus. Google crafted its Common Names Policy in order to promote trust and transparency, hoping to mitigate spam and flame wars. But the backlash has been strong from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (in this eloquent statement) and others as they advocate for those who need pseudonyms to express themselves without fear of being ostracized, fired, arrested or physically targeted.

Google has promised to review its policy and develop new ways of addressing these concerns. Until then, Google Plus remains irrelevant not only to Arab Spring revolutionaries but to anyone whose life is not completely an open book. Google's policy stifles gay teens, victims of workplace harassment, medical patients seeking information and compassion, and any others who challenge the politics or religion around them.

However, the debate need not dwell on the relative importances of transparency and free expression. We must have both, and I believe we can. If Google seizes the opportunity to get this right, it will further distinguish Google Plus from Facebook as the safe, intelligent platform for sharing.

So Brad and Vic, if you're listening, please consider that you can enable free and transparent expression on the Internet by establishing Google as the source of authenticity for all profile names. I shouldn't pretend that I have thought through all the product ramifications, but roughly speaking here's what I would suggest you do...

Classify each profile name as either: Private for self-proclaimed pseudonyms; Unverified, for new profiles with allegedly "real" names; People Verified for those profiles that reach a certain degree of social activity without any indications of fraud or other reputational issues; Bank Verified for those profiles linked to an active credit card in that same name; and Google Verified for those "celebrity" profiles for whom Google vouches through their manual authentication procedures, as Twitter does.

Once Google does that, I can decide how to interact with Google Plus profiles of varying verification. Furthermore, if you allowed other web sites to also discriminate based on type of profile name, I expect that "Google Verified" would quickly leapfrog Facebook Connect and Twitter 0Auth as the preferred Login replacement.

For example, any community that reaches out to the disenfranchised can be liberal in their policy of expression, while others can exclude, or at least moderate, content from Private and Unverified users. Any statement or request from a Private profile can be considered in light of the person's anonymity. Commercial standards would develop around escalated levels of authentication; for example, commerce sites and banks might accept only Bank Verified logins.

Having cracked the code on how to share intelligently among my different Circles, Google Plus is the perfect platform for bridging transparency and free expression. Let me craft a different profile for each Circle, so I can use my Bank Verified profile at work, and my Private profile as I publicly criticize scary fundamentalists.

There is nothing dishonest about a pseudonym, so long as it's presented as one. Rather than fight anonymity, Google should simply help us recognize it - not only on Google Plus, but across the web.

EarlyBird Hatches the Term "European Comeback"

The following was originally published as a guest post for TechCrunch.


I just couldn’t keep my big Tweeter shut. When I publicly dismissed the soundness of his widely hailed report on European VC, Jason Whitmire of Earlybird Venture Capital challenged me to openly discuss the facts in a dialogue exceeding 140 characters. So I guess I owe him a response.

Based on the work of their summer intern, Jason and his partner Hendrik Brandis have published a “report” (actually, a slide deck) on Earlybird’s web site exposing a scandalous cover-up: the European VC asset class is actually on fire, far outpacing VC returns in the US.  And lest you think I exaggerate the conspiratorial, us-versus-them tone of their presentation, the headline on slide 28 reads:

Reprehensible

...that you are only now reading about the Comeback, but then again: Visibility on European VC Funds for investors is highly limited and prejudiced…

Now unlike Earlybird, my firm Bessemer Venture Partners has no agenda here. We’re a global, $3 billion VC that invests most of our capital outside the US – anywhere we find great opportunities for startups.  Indeed, we have found it compelling to fund several European startups – Skype, Criteo, Intego, Axis Network, Intego, several others – and hope to find many more.  To inform our geographic allocation of capital, we constantly seek and compile sound data; so I was naturally intrigued to read Earlybird’s report, and just as disappointed to find instead a glossy brochure.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the authors are wrong about Europe’s fertility for venture investment. I’m just saying that I can’t possibly draw a conclusion from this presentation, which has clearly been crafted to pitch a message, rather than discover one through critical analysis.

The reports presents data on slides 3 through 7 to back up the claim that European VCs outperform US VC’s.  The authors latch on to a few allegedly favorable metrics, such as the multiple returned on exits over $100m, the growing number of European exits, and the ratio of distributions to new commitments in venture capital.

But like an investment bank crafting the competitive slide of its pitch deck, they limit the data to a narrow slice of history – specifically 2009 and 2010, the aftermath of the catastrophic, US-centered financial crisis. During this time, US IPO markets seized up. (I’d bet that contrarily in 2011 the data will not reflect favorably on Europe’s financial markets.) Measuring venture capital returns requires a longer period of assessment than two years – every VC cycle is characterized by long periods of investment punctuated by bursts of liquidity. The US finds itself on the cusp of such a burst, with monster IPOs coming (Facebook, Zynga, GroupOn…) that will eclipse their Continental counterparts. The $15 billion of European capital gains touted in this report  - as well as the $30b of US gains – will be relatively immaterial as LP’s in 2013 review their managers’ performance over periods of time consistent with the life of a VC fund.

Indeed, home run outcomes play a critical role in venture returns. And yet Earlybird reports the median exit multiples to compare performance. The median outcome of any venture portfolio is irrelevant – what matters is the capital-weighted arithmetic mean, driven invariably by a handful of winners.  

The report even goes so far as to celebrate Europe’s lower home-run stats:

”Germany has a unique model where, in a different twist to the hugely successful VC-funded start-up ecosystem of Silicon Valley, the industry is not as much reliant on a handful of blockbusters or even a closely networked startup environment, but rather one where a high number of regionally diversified quality opportunities correspond to increasing levels of entrepreneurial activity.”

I’m not sure what the last part means, but the spin on Silicon Valley suggests that outcomes like Google and Facebook create some kind of unhealthy dependency, as though no one else can thrive. (Tell that to Redpoint.) It reminds me of the Airborne tagline “Created by a Second Grade Schoolteacher!” that turned lemons into lemonade.

Other problems with the numbers presented in this report:

• Incomplete data – the authors have no performance data on 85% of Europe’s VC industry.

• The report talks only of multiples without any mention anywhere of IRR. If the US exits (which included more internet companies) grew faster, a lower multiple may have easily yielded a higher IRR. 

•  Other comparisons in the report between Europe and the US are even less relevant, such as the post-IPO performance of venture-backed companies.

•  Several slides in the report (e.g. 38) imply or explicitly assert that Europe’s metrics outperform others without showing any non-European data. Slide 12 claims that “Europe today has the largest inequilibrium of venture capital availability on the planet,” without any comparative data at all.  Slides 20 and 21 also lack any data on the US venture industry, as if US-based VCs haven’t also seen increased deal flow in the last two years.

The presentation also makes bold generalizations that better fit an infomercial than an analytical study:

•          “Forget the charts!”

•       “What has emerged from the post-bubble struggle for existence is nothing less than some of the strongest Venture Capital firms in the world.”

•       “Just one example: German Venture Capital…” (except that Germany is not just one example – it’s by far Europe’s best performing country)

•       "In addition to highly misleading published historical industry data for European VC which lead to a negative bias in official statistics, there is almost no reported performance of post-bubble vintages (which effectively started only 2004/2005) – these funds are significantly better performing and, as evidenced by recent exits across top- tier funds, are now at the inflection point”

 That last statement, from slide 30, actually accompanies a chart showing almost no liquidity for European funds since 2005. As far as I can tell, the report offers this as proof that based on some anecdotal exits, Europe’s funds are doing much better than what THEY are telling us.

Well if there is a conspiracy, I’m not a part of it. I actually share Earlybird’s hopes and intuition that Europe’s entrepreneurs will generate attractive VC returns even in these turbulent times for the continent, and I look forward to seeing some compelling data.  It’s too bad that Earlybird’s report wasn’t more balanced, because I’m open to the argument that European startups are under-funded.

I only hope that when Europe does make its comeback, Jason will still invite me to co-invest with Earlybird!

Here's what comes from sending my kid to summer camp in L.A....

 

Buying an Electric Car

This is a reprint of my recent guest post to TechCrunch / Washington Post.


After 3.5 years, I’ve finally re-joined the community of car owners.

Between February 2008 and last week, I was car-less. I borrowed and rented cars, took taxis and Zip cars, and occasionally biked. I also bummed a lot of rides (thank you very much – you know who you are).  It had started when the warranty on my fancy German gas guzzler expired; I sold the thing, and never really found the time to shop around for a replacement - Who Has Time For This?

I felt a lot more excited about the prospect of driving an electric sedan, which should be greener, potentially faster, simpler to operate, and cheaper to fuel.  Most importantly, I’d never have to kill ten minutes stopping for gas - Who Has Time For This? So I put my name down on the lists for a Tesla Model S, Fisker Karma, Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, deciding to wait for one to be built.  Three years later, I got calls from Fisker, Nissan and Chevy, and it was time to decide.

After examining the options and driving the cars, it was a pretty easy decision to buy the Leaf for these eight reasons:

    1. Compared to the others, the Leaf gets twice the range from a battery charge: 100 miles, or 85 miles with the AC cranking. (Plugging the car in and out adds about 15 seconds a day to your daily routine, or 5 minutes a month - about half the time we spend at gas pumps.)


    2. With a pure electric motor (not a hybrid gasoline engine) the Leaf is nimbler, less fragile, and legal to drive in California’s carpool lanes so I can bypass the Highway 101 traffic jams - WHTFT?


    3. Driving in electric mode (without the help of a hybrid gasoline engine) is wonderfully quiet and smooth (no transmission). Even at 80 miles per hour the acceleration is immediate and impressive.


    4. The Leaf steers as smoothly as a Lexus, and the small wheels turn on a dime.


    5. Only the Leaf has open, comfortable seats with ample head room in front and leg room in back (a must if you have kids)


    6. Only the Leaf carries 5 passengers (a must if you have THREE kids!)


    7. The Leaf has the largest trunk, and the back seats fold down for more cargo space.


    8. The Leaf costs 3/4 as much as the Volt, and 1/3 as much as the Karma. You get at least $7500 in tax credits, offset by the $2,000 expense of a home 220 volt charging station.




These reasons explain why the Nissan Leaf now the outsells the pack. I can think of only three good reasons why you might wish to buy one of the other cars:

1.        The Leaf’s pure electric motor is not a problem for two car families – on that rare day once a month when you drive more than 100 miles, you can always take the gas guzzler instead (Honda Odysseys are awesome). But without that fallback, one-car households will find the Volt more practical (albeit expensive and cramped).

2.        If you love driving enormous, heavy sports cars that sit low to the ground and you’ve got $100k to burn (like these guys), then you might prefer the gorgeous design of the Karma. It has the look and feel of a luxury muscle car with a growling engine, bucket seats, and beautiful wood/leather interiors. (The Leaf is all plastic.) Having said that, the Karma performs like a sports car at lower speeds but on the highway I found it downright sluggish compared to the Leaf. The Karma handled highway acceleration nearly as well as the Leaf only when in Stealth Mode which means that the gasoline engine is off. (You may be as disappointed as I was to learn that people can still see you in Stealth Mode.)

3.         Stephen Colbert will mock you for driving a Leaf.

All three cars come chock full of gizmos we all love (rear view camera, navigation, keyless entry, XM radio, Bluetooth, heated seats…) so there’s no reason to stick with gasoline. The Leaf even comes with a cool iPhone app for remote operation of the charger and climate control.

So I’ve been zipping around in my Leaf for a week now and absolutely loving it.  Even after three years, it was worth the wait.

A Logic Puzzle

My son passed the time today on the Chunnel crafting a logic puzzle. He has graciously offered it to me as blog content...

Alice, Bob, Charlie, Diana and Ed live in 5 one-garage homes on a street, each numbered 1 through 5 (but not necessarily in that order). They drive a Ford, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and Mercedes – also not necessarily in that order. Based on the following clues, who drives which car?

The women drive only Japanese cars.

The Honda is not in Garage 2.

Edward and Alice have adjacent garages.

Even-numbered homes contain only Japanese cars.

Ed and Bob live next door to each other, and Diana’s address is higher than theirs.

Charlie doesn’t like Japanese cars.

The addresses of the Toyota, Ford and Honda are prime numbers.

Alice’s address is more than twice Charlie’s.

The Ford and Nissan belong to next door neighbors.

Having shared logic puzzles before, I know the following disclaimer is necessary: this is a logic puzzle, and not a social or economic statement relating to what women drive or the quality of Japanese cars, so don't bother commenting on off-topic elements. (For the sake of this puzzle, Nissan, Toyota and Honda are the Japanese car manufacturers.) 

Enjoy, and try to be the first to submit the right answer!


Update: evan submitted the first right answer. Hemang Gadhia, Boomer, judic and Harit also submitted correct answers before I published any correct answers in the comments section. Don't read the comments if you wish to still solve this yourself. 

Father's Day in London

The view from the London Eye...

From 221B Baker Street...

In the London Dungeon...

Daughter and I sing "Feed the birds" by "the steps of St. Paul"

And she clowns around with Flying Karamazov Brother...

Aspiration

My daughter thinks she can do ANYTHING.

"I Want to Meet a Partner!"

This is a "reprint" of a post I originally authored for TechCrunch.

Over the years I’ve heard many legitimate gripes from entrepreneurs about the way venture capital firms treat them while fundraising. I must confess an imperfect record of courtesy myself, though I do try to be respectful, and to incorporate feedback. For example, I once resolved never to keep entrepreneurs waiting long for me in our lobby, and I think I live up to that.

But I often hear one particular gripe from those who simply fail to think through the issue practically: For their first pitch to a large venture capital firm, entrepreneurs are often invited to speak or meet with someone other than a partner of the firm. Some interpret this as an insult, a waste of time, and a lack of substantive interest in their startups. And they are partially right.

They are right that in any first meeting or conversation, the VC is less interested than the entrepreneur. Not zero interest, but less. This is true for every pitch meeting that has ever taken place in history. In the second meeting there is more interest, and by the time a venture investor wires the money, the firm is just as excited as the founders.

They are wrong, though, about the insult. And the numbers prove incontrovertibly that it is not a waste of time.

The experienced partner you want as a lead investor probably has a lot of board seats. He or she spends most of the day at company meetings (board and otherwise), in interviews, and with the limited partners who actually provide the capital. I, for one, always try to reserve time in my week for hearing pitches, but it is scarce, and so if I took every first meeting myself, I’d be much less likely to actually meet the entrepreneur whose startup I wish to fund.

Also, as a seasoned VC I’m a lot dumber now about new markets than 15 years ago when I had fewer obligations. Researching all thewild tangents and nuances of cloud infrastructure, cyber security, social commerce, scalable data processing, etc., is a full time job. Who Has Time For This? Not I, but I can hire people smarter than me who do!

So if you’re an entrepreneur interested in partnering with a smart, successful, well capitalized venture investor, you have many aspects of character, competency and chemistry to consider. Is the audience’s seniority at your first pitch really the most important?

Think it through before you snub a meeting with that associate, analyst, principal or vice-president. That’s who’s most likely to get what you’re doing, and to be your champion through the process. (Indeed, the last five investments I made arose from first meetings that the founders had with James Cham, Trevor Oelschig or Ethan Kurzweil.) Consider it an opportunity to scope out the firm and to polish your pitch before you meet the partners.

And please understand that the intention is most definitely not an insult. Anyone in our orbit knows that many VCs fully appreciate the talent, courage, energy and genius of the entrepreneurs we meet. It is only because we wish to meet more of you that we have the process and organization that we do.

Now I’ve got to get going——the two engineers whom Sunil met on Thursday just showed up in my lobby.

Langner calls US a Cyber Bully. I hope he's right.

Score: 5 balloons

German security researcher Ralph Langner was the first to decode and publish the inner workings of Stuxnet, a Windows-based computer worm that successfully targeted Iran's nuclear enrichment facility, setting back their nuclear weapons program by three years (according to the public statements of several authoritative sources). Although no one has claimed credit for creating Stuxnet, it has been widely attributed to a collaboration between Israeli and US intelligence agencies.

I had come into his TED Talk with high expectations, but I was disappointed -- not by the science but by Ralph's political commentary. What started as an interesting (though simplified) explanation of a ground-breaking cyber weapon devolved into a naive, self righteous rant against the US that appealed to TED's liberal audience. (I normally share that liberal viewpoint, but I overcame my bias with actual knowledge, having connected with my hacker friends at the last DEFcon, and having just read two well documented books on cyber warfare by Jeff Carr and Richard Clarke.)

Langner's first pot shot was his characterization of the US as the only superpower in cyberspace. Apparently Langner is not familiar with Russia and China's far more developed and extensive cyber militaries, which they supplement with privately contracted cyber gangs. Furthermore, Russian and China have far more experience than the US in waging cyber warfare, as evidenced by repeated, successful, multi-day attacks on the government and civilian electronic infrastructures of South Korea, Chechnya and Georgia during the last decade.

Langner's second, more damning accusation was aimed at the US for unleashing Stuxnet on the world, since it can now be repurposed as a weapon against anyone, including our own computer networks. The implication was that just as we did in 1945, the US is once again developing non-conventional weapons that threaten global stability.

But Stuxnet is not what exposes our digital infrastructure to attack. No, we opened that door long ago when we put the computers in charge. Is Langner -- or anyone -- really so naive as to think that without Stuxnet we wouldn't have to defend our networks from cyber attack?

What really irked me, though, was that at no point did Ralph question the wisdom of sharing all his findings publicly (which certainly aids and abets anyone who might wish to repurpose Stuxnet). Nor did he express any hesitation in reaching out to the Iranians to help them overcome this nasty infection. Was I the only person in the audience who thought, "Wait a minute, shouldn't we be thanking the creators of Stuxnet, instead of the guy who stopped it?"

If ever there was a time when US aggression was called for, this was surely it. Ahmadinejad has stated very clearly that Iran supports Jihad on the United States, and that he fully intends for Iran to destroy "the Zionist State" at his earliest convenience. The dictator of Iran holds the Presidential title despite having lost the election, and having brutally crushed the political dissidents who protested. Now who among you really think that stopping the nuclear ambitions of a raving, rogue, belligerent madman is a poor use of our tax dollars?

International pressure has not worked. Economic sanctions have not worked. Sure, we could have used conventional missiles to disable this dictator's Jihad machine, but that would have killed Iranians, possibly spread radiation, jeopardized the lives of our soldiers, cost hundreds of millions, provoked military reprisals, and it may not have even worked.  If indeed our intelligence community helped develop and launch Stuxent, then I for one am grateful.

On the final day of the conference, one TEDster was so fired up by Langner that he got up on stage to denounce the people behind Stuxnet for their evil ways, demanding that the US bring them to justice for their illegal aggression and for exposing our country's infrastructure to Stuxnet variants. The audience applauded loudly.

Except that cyber warfare is NOT illegal. (Though unlike Russia and China, the US does prohibit citizens from computer hacking.) Cyber warfare is, however, fast, effective, precise, virtually free, stealthy and usable without loss of life. If we can't altogether rid the world of conflict, our species is surely better off fighting cyber wars than conventional ones.




 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Kathryn Schulz, Wrongologist

Score: 10 balloons

In one of the best TED Talks ever, Slate columnist Kathryn Schulz exposes human nature. It doesn’t feel good to be wrong, and so we naturally inflate the confidence we have in our convictions. (My personal theory is that we grow addicted to the endorphnis our brains produce when we’re right, in order to drive the back error propogation fine tuning our neural networks.) A 60% likely belief swells to 90% in our minds. This simple observation that we try to avoid the feeling of ignorance explains a lot of screwy things in the world.

 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Harvey Fineberg on Neo-Evolution

Score: 8 balloons

Medical ethicist Harvey Fineberg shows us three paths forward for the ever-evolving human species: to stop evolving completely, to evolve naturally -- or to control the next steps of human evolution, using genetic modification, to make ourselves smarter, faster, better. Neo-evolution is within our grasp.

 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

Name-Calling Ninny Loose in Los Altos

So just now I was waiting patiently on the side of the road in the car line to drop off my son at school when a jogger comes running towards us right along the CENTER DIVIDER LINE with iPhone buds in his ears. Apparently he decided to cut in front of me to get to his left side (shouldn't joggers stay to their right?), but I hadn't used my ESP to leave him lots of room in front of my car. So right there in front of all the school kids (and my son) he yells "Idiot!"

Is this you? Claim your profile!

TED 2011: Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir

This review was written by Nina Khosla.

Score: 5 balloons

Eric Whitacre, a well-known composer, began his talk with a personal story. He described how one day, he logged onto his computer to find a YouTube video recorded by a teenage girl who was singing one of his songs. The young singer, Britlin, left a message for Whitacre:

Britlin's message to Mr. Eric Whitacre... I was REALLY nervous!!! but hopefully he will see this video and see how thankful I am for him... he is the one who inspired me to compose!!! I hope to talk with him or meet him one day... wouldn't that be a dream come true!!!!!

It was this video that gave Whitacre the inspiration for his latest experiments - virtual choirs. He realized that by having individuals record each of the parts of a song, he could stitch them all together, creating a complete recording. This allowed him to connect all these individuals through music. 

Whitacre put a call out for submissions on his website, and has received thousands of submissions. He shared two videos and the process used to construct them: his first virtual choir, Lux Aurumque, and a reveal of the beginnings of his second, in-progress virtual choir.

 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Sebastian Thrun on Google's Driverless Cars

Score: 9 balloons


Here's a tasty 4 minute TED snack on how and why Google promises to vastly improve the nature of automotive transportation.



 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Eythor Bender, Human Exo-Skeletons

Score: 7 Balloons

Eythor Bender of Berkeley Bionics brings onstage two amazing exoskeletons, HULC and eLEGS -- robotic add-ons that could one day allow a human to carry 200 pounds without tiring, or allow a wheelchair user to stand and walk. It's a powerful onstage demo, with implications for human potential of all kinds.

About Eythor Bender

Eythor Bender is the CEO of Berkeley Bionics, which augments humans with wearable, powered and artificially intelligent devices called exoskeletons or "wearable robots.

 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED2011: Sarah Kay, Performance Poetry

Score: 9 balloons


Sarah Kay shared her experiences as an underage fan of poetry readings, and her use of poetry as a teacher to connect with students. She also performed her original works to a standing ovation. Her talk was widely viewed as a surprise highlight of this year's TED. Her work is animated and sharp, reaching young and old alike. Just listen...



 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Janna Levin, Soundtrack of the Universe

This review was written by Nina Khosla.

Score: 6 balloons


Janna Levin was TED's first speaker of the conference, and a physicist who focused on exploring and discovering a particular phenomenon - the sounds of space. While much of physics has focused on light - "most of what we know about the universe," she explained, "comes from light." But what about the sounds of space? What would space sound like if we could hear it? “The universe has a soundtrack, and that soundtrack is played on space itself," she began.

Levin took us on a journey to black holes, starting with the basic science of black holes. In particuar, black holes are interesting because you can't "see" a black hole using traditional methods - light tends to pass through a black hole rendering it all but invisible. From there, Levin shared with us the music and noises that a black hole would make in various situations - the drumbeat of black holes on space itself.



 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED2011: David Brooks

This review was written by Nina Khosla.

Score: 8 balloons





David Brooks has a certain, calm demeanor and stood up on stage in the presentational equivalent of being stark naked - it was just him, in front of a podium, sharing with us his insights from many years as a journalist and observer of human nature.

In a thread continued from many of his columns, and as an introduction to the ideas in his new book, Brooks asked and explored a perplexing mystery: when did our views of human nature become so flat-minded, particularly in the way we approach it from an economic or political point of view? This revolution is slowly happening, as we begin to understand more about human nature, and this is being particularly driven by new scientific insights.

What particularly caught my imagination was Brooks' descriptions of the kinds of things that are unmeasurable, but predict so much of our success. While we would like to be able to measure the human capital available in our economic institutions through SAT and IQ scores, the human mind and potential incorporates much more depth. He describes a few of these factors, for example, the human capacity for "mind sight," which   describes our ability to empathize, to place our selves in another's mind and imagine the world from their perspective. Other intangibles include things such as our ability to work in a group - "it's not the IQ of the group, it's how well they communicate," that defines success in groups, and our sensitivity to our physical environment, which encapsulates our ability to notice things from around us and see patterns.



 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Deb Roy's Unusual Home Movies

Score: 9 balloons

The MIT Media Labs Cognitive Machines Group's director Deb Roy wanted to understand how his infant son learned language -- so he wired up his house with 11 videocameras and 14 microphones to catch every moment (with exceptions) of his son's life, then parsed 7 million words spoken in 90,000 hours of home video to hear "gaaaa" slowly turn into "water." Astonishing, data-rich research with deep implications for how we learn.

See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

TED 2011: Founder of free online Khan Academy

Salman Khan
Score: 8 balloons

This first-hand account of the creation and rising popularity of Khan Academy was widely considered a highlight of TED.

Salman had started making math videos as a favor to his cousins, but they became so popular on YouTube that he decided to quit his job at a hedge fund and record thousands more videos across diverse subject areas. His intellect, light style and generosity have seeded a tremendous online educational resource.



 See the Guide to TED Talks 2011.

Wall Street Journal, Come Join the 21st Century

I made the mistake last week of turning my attention to the Opinion pages of the March 2 Wall Street Journal. I was suddenly reminded of the newspaper’s common ownership with FOX News.

The top essay, The Decline of US Naval Power, laments our shrinking navy, but fails to make me care. According to the author Mark Helprin, 20 seaward ships at a time are insufficient to “project military power”. Completely ignoring common sense, he implies that a larger navy would have prevented Somali pirates from killing four American tourists. And he declares with surprising certainty that if the trend continues, “China will be driven even faster to construct a navy that can dominate the oceans.” Really? That seems counter-intuitive.

And of course Helprin ignores the issue of cost, except to conclude that, “A technological nation with a GDP of $14 trillion can afford to build a fleet worthy of its past...” Hasn’t he read the news lately? The GDP is large, but we’re running the largest deficit of any nation in history, with enormous, unfunded liabilities looming. How do we afford a shiny new navy?

As a taxpayer I'd much rather see my tax dollars spent on modern warfare such as cyber capabilities. Deploying a cyberworm that undoubtedly cost less than 0.001% of the cost of operating (let alone buying) a single battleship for one year, the US and Israel (allegedly) disabled Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility for three years, and did so without loss of life on either side. By pursuing military objectives using immensely cheaper cyber assets, we can allocate some of that whopping GDP to restore some of our healthcare and education.

The second essay that day was In Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which objects to President Obama's recent decision to stop enforcing the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. This Act somehow aimed to revoke the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution when it comes to gay marriage so that the gay marriages are not recognized by the federal government or any states that don't license same sex unions.

According to the essay's authors, the Full Faith and Credit Clause shouldn't apply because "marriage is unlike any other government benefit. License to marry carries with it far more than mere permission...marriage is an affirmative statement of societal approval." And since "large majorities of Americans [sic] still oppose recognition of same-sex marriages," Congress decided that federal law should "clearly establish a preference for traditional marriage."

What a stunning, hateful argument. By their logic, mixed-race marriages should also be subject to each state's "societal approval."

But don't get the wrong idea -- the authors deny that they are ignorant, homophobic rednecks; they merely insist that Presidents must enforce all laws passed by Congress, no matter how disgusting or obviously unconstitutional.

Funny, though: the Wall Street Journal never published opinion pieces condemning President Bush Sr for declining to enforce affirmative action for broadcast licensing, or President Reagan for declining to enforce the independent counsel law and the law permitting one-house legislative vetoes of executive actions.

And get this -- the co-authors of this opinion piece, Rivkin and Casey, served as attorneys in both the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations. Hey guys, why didn't you complain back then?