It's just about 20 years ago,

一個晶片、一位詩人、一位男孩。

June 1994, when Intel announced

大約二十年前，

that there was a flaw

1994 年六月英特爾宣佈

at the core of their Pentium chip.

他們的奔騰晶片核心有瑕疵，

Deep in the code of the SRT algorithm

在計算中間商數

to calculate intermediate quotients necessary

必需進行疊代浮點除法的

for iterative floating points of divisions --

SRT 演算法程式碼內。

I don't know what that means, but it's what it says on Wikipedia —

我不知道那什麼意思， 反正維基百科這樣寫。

there was a flaw and an error

有瑕疵或錯誤，

that meant that there was a certain probability

代表計算的結果

that the result of the calculation would be an error,

有可能會出現錯誤，

and the probability was one out of every

而這可能性是

360 billion calculations.

3,600 億分之一。

So Intel said your average spreadsheet

所以英特爾說試算表平均

would be flawed once every 27,000 years.

27,000 年會出現一次錯誤。

They didn't think it was significant,

他們不認為這數字很大，

but there was an outrage in the community.

但這引起科技社群一片嘩然。

The community, the techies, said, this flaw

科技社群說，這個瑕疵

has to be addressed.

必須要改進。

They were not going to stand by quietly

他們不會坐視不管，

as Intel gave them these chips.

讓英特爾繼續販售這些晶片。

So there was a revolution across the world.

所以在全世界掀起革命。

People marched to demand --

大家都站上街頭要求...

okay, not really exactly like that —

好吧，其實沒有這麼誇張

but they rose up and they demanded

但他們站出來要求

that Intel fix the flaw.

英特爾修復這個瑕疵。

And Intel set aside 475 million dollars

英特爾也投入 4.75 億美元

to fund the replacement of millions of chips

來回收、更換上千萬張的晶片

to fix the flaw.

以及修復瑕疵。

So billions of dollars in our society

所以我們花了上億元

was spent to address a problem

處理一個

which would come once out of every 360 billion

每 3,600 億才會出現一次的問題。

calculations.

第二個故事關於一位詩人，

Number two, a poet.

馬丁．尼莫拉。

This is Martin Niemöller.

你們應該對讀過他的詩。

You're familiar with his poetry.

在納粹盛行的時期，

Around the height of the Nazi period,

他開始重覆這段詩句：

he started repeating the verse,

「起初他們追殺共產主義者，

"First they came for the communists,

我袖手旁觀，

and I did nothing,

我不吭聲是因為我不是共產主義者。

did not speak out because I was not a communist.

接著他們追殺社會主義者；

Then they came for the socialists.

後來他們追殺工會成員；

Then they came for the trade unions.

再來他們追殺猶太人；

Then they came for the Jews.

最後他們來追殺我。

And then they came for me.

但那時已沒有人能替我站出來發聲了。」

But there was no one left to speak for me."

尼莫拉提出了一種見解。

Now, Niemöller is offering a certain kind of insight.

這是智慧核心的見解。

This is an insight at the core of intelligence.

我們可以稱之為先見之明 (cluefulness)。

We could call it cluefulness.

這是某種測試：

It's a certain kind of test:

你能否辨別出

Can you recognize

潛在的威脅並作出反應？

an underlying threat and respond?

你能否拯救自己或同類？

Can you save yourself or save your kind?

螞蟻對這很擅長，

Turns out ants are pretty good at this.

牛就不一樣了。

Cows, not so much.

你能看出規則嗎？

So can you see the pattern?

你能夠看出、辨別規則模式

Can you see a pattern and then recognize

並以行動來應對？這是第二個故事。

and do something about it? Number two.

第三個故事，一個男孩。

Number three, a boy.

這是我的朋友亞倫．史華滋。

This is my friend Aaron Swartz.

他是提姆的朋友。

He's Tim's friend.

在座很多人許多人也認識他。

He's friends of many of you in this audience,

七年前，

and seven years ago,

亞倫問了我一個問題。

Aaron came to me with a question.

當時我正要來 TED 發表第一個演講。

It was just before I was going to give my first TED Talk.

我當時感到很驕傲， 並告訴他我要講的內容：

I was so proud. I was telling him about my talk,

「法律如何箝制創造力」。

"Laws that choke creativity."

然後亞倫看著我，

And Aaron looked at me

有點不耐煩地說：

and was a little impatient, and he said,

「所以你到底有沒有

"So how are you ever

要解決你所要探討的問題？」

going to solve the problems you're talking about?

著作權政策、網路政策，

Copyright policy, Internet policy,

你有要正視、解決這些

how are you ever going to address those problems

政府運作系統中最基本的腐敗問題？

so long as there's this fundamental corruption

我好像被澆了冷水，

in the way our government works?"

因為他並沒有跟我共享喜悅。

So I was a little put off by this.

我告訴他：「你知道嗎，亞倫，

He wasn't sharing in my celebration.

這不是我的領域、非我能力範圍。」

And I said to him, "You know, Aaron,

他說：「不是你的領域？ 你意思是說，因為你是學者嗎？」

it's not my field, not my field."

我答：「對，身為一位學者， 這不是我的領域。」

He said, "You mean as an academic, it's not your field?"

他接著說：「那身為一位公民呢？

I said, "Yeah, as an academic, it's not my field."

身為一位公民。」

He said, "What about as a citizen?

這就是亞倫。

As a citizen."

他不會告訴別人該怎麼做，他只問問題。

Now, this is the way Aaron was.

但他的問題有如當頭棒喝

He didn't tell. He asked questions.

跟我四歲孩子的擁抱一樣清晰。

But his questions spoke as clearly

他就像在告訴我，

as my four-year-old's hug.

「你要知道該怎麼做阿。

He was saying to me,

你要知道怎麼解決，

"You've got to get a clue.

因為這個民主社會的 運作系統核心中有瑕疵。

You have got to get a clue, because there is

而這不是每 3,600 億次的民主決定 才出現一次的瑕疵，

a flaw at the core of the operating system

而是每次做決定都會出錯。

of this democracy,

每次、每個重要議題時都會出錯。

and it's not a flaw every one out of 360 billion times

我們必須終結這政治系統下 像牛一般的遲鈍愚昧。

our democracy tries to make a decision.

我們必須要改以

It is every time,

螞蟻的運作模式 (fourmi-formatic) 及態度 ——

every single important issue.

這也是網路上查到的字 ——

We've got to end the bovinity of this political society.

要以螞蟻有洞察力的態度

We've got to adopt, it turns out,

讓我們辨別出這個瑕疵，

the word is fourmi-formatic attitude --

拯救我們的同胞以及民主。

that's what the Internet tells me the word is --

如果你認識亞倫．史華滋

the ant's appreciative attitude

就會知道

that gets us to recognize this flaw,

我們約一年前失去了這位良友。

save our kind and save our demos.

大概是我 TED 演講的前六星期時的事。

Now if you know Aaron Swartz,

我當時很感謝克里斯

you know that we lost him

邀請我發表 TED 演講，

just over a year ago.

不只因為我有機會與各位交流，

It was about six weeks

這當然是很棒的機會，

before I gave my TED Talk,

但還將我從絕望憂鬱中拉了出來。

and I was so grateful to Chris

我無法形容這種心碎難過。

that he asked me to give this TED Talk,

因為我必須專心。

not because I had the chance to talk to you,

我必須專心思考要跟各位說些什麼。

although that was great,

而這拯救了我。

but because it pulled me out of an extraordinary depression.

在所有的興奮過後，

I couldn't begin to describe the sadness.

我感受到這社群所帶來的力量，

Because I had to focus.

但我開始希望以比較有用、

I had to focus on, what was I going to say to you?

以非學術的方式解決這些

It saved me.

我所探討的問題。

But after the buzz, the excitement,

我們把重心放在新罕布夏州，

the power that comes from this community,

作為這次政治運動的目標，

I began to yearn for a less sterile,

因為新罕布夏州的初選

less academic way to address these issues,

至關重要。

the issues that I was talking about.

當地有個組織叫新罕布夏州反抗軍

We'd begun to focus on New Hampshire

當時開始討論我們能夠如何

as a target for this political movement,

把這種腐敗問題提升為 2016 年的重心。

because the primary in New Hampshire

除外，我還注意到一個人，

is so incredibly important.

她叫朵瑞絲．哈達克 (Doris Haddock)，

It was a group called the New Hampshire Rebellion

我們都叫她 D 奶奶 (Granny D)，

that was beginning to talk about, how would we make

十五年前， 1999 年一月一日，

this issue of this corruption central in 2016?

高齡 88 歲的 D 奶奶開始一場改革之行。

But it was another soul that caught my imagination,

她從洛杉磯出發

a woman named Doris Haddock, aka Granny D.

往華盛頓特區前進，

On January 1, 1999, 15 years ago,

身上掛著一個牌子，寫著：

at the age of 88, Granny D started a walk.

「財政改革運動」。

She started in Los Angeles

十八個月後，

and began to walk to Washington, D.C.

高齡九十歲的她

with a single sign on her chest that said,

抵達華盛頓，身後上百位跟隨者，

"campaign finance reform."

包括許多國會議員驅車前往

Eighteen months later,

然後把車停到一英哩外市郊

at the age of 90,

陪她走進市區。

she arrived in Washington with hundreds following her,

（笑聲）

including many congressmen who had gotten in a car

但是我沒有十三個月的時間

and driven out about a mile outside of the city

能走越美國。

to walk in with her.

我有三個討厭走路的小孩，

(Laughter)

以及我的太太

Now, I don't have 13 months

現在仍討厭我不陪在她身邊，

to walk across the country.

天曉得為什麼。

I've got three kids who hate to walk,

所以這對我來說不可行，

and a wife who, it turns out,

不過我想問

still hates when I'm not there

我們是否能稍微修改 D 奶奶的做法呢？

for mysterious reasons,

我們別走 3,200 英哩

so this was not an option,

而是走 185 英哩

but the question I asked,

於一月時橫跨新罕布夏州如何？

could we remix Granny D a bit?

一月十一日這天

What about a walk not of 3,200 miles

也是亞倫的忌日，

but of 185 miles across New Hampshire

我們開始一場遊行，直到一月二十四日，

in January?

這天是 D 奶奶生日。

So on January 11,

總共有 200 人加入這場改革之行，

the anniversary of Aaron's death,

我們從新罕布夏州最頂端走到最底端，

we began a walk that ended on January 24th,

共同討論這個問題。

the day that Granny D was born.

令我驚訝、

A total of 200 people joined us across this walk,

我沒料到的是

as we went from the very top to the very bottom of New Hampshire

大家的熱情與憤怒，

talking about this issue.

這是討論這個議題時眾人所展現出的。

And what was astonishing to me,

根據統計，我們發現 96% 的美國人

something I completely did not expect to find,

相信減少金錢在政治界的影響是很重要的。

was the passion and anger

政治家和政權人士會告訴你，

that there was among everyone that we talked to about this issue.

在這議題上我們無能為力，

We had found in a poll that 96 percent of Americans

而且美國人一點也不在乎。

believe it important to reduce the influence

不過他們會這麼說的原因

of money in politics.

是因為有 91% 的美國人

Now politicians and pundits tell you,

認為我們對此議題無能為力。

there's nothing we can do about this issue,

而 96% 與 91% 中間的隔閡

Americans don't care about it,

解釋了我們的政治冷感。

but the reason for that is

畢竟，至少 96% 的美國人

that 91 percent of Americans

希望我們可以跟超人一樣飛，

think there's nothing that can be done about this issue.

但因為至少 91% 的人覺得做不到，

And it's this gap between 96 and 91

所以當我們每當有飛越大樓的衝動時，

that explains our politics of resignation.

卻無法一展身手。

I mean, after all, at least 96 percent of us

因為我們接受了自己的能力限制，

wish we could fly like Superman,

而這改革也一樣。

but because at least 91 percent of us believe we can't,

但當你給人民希望時，

we don't leap off of tall buildings every time

便開始將不可能化為可能。

we have that urge.

就如哈維．米爾克 (Harvey Milk) 說的， 如果你給他們希望，

That's because we accept our limits,

就是給他們一種思考的機會，

and so too with this reform.

思考如何推動改變。

But when you give people the sense of hope,

希望。

you begin to thaw that absolute sense of impossibility.

而希望是身為亞倫朋友的我們

As Harvey Milk said, if you give 'em hope,

沒有給他的，因為我們讓他

you give 'em a chance, a way to think

失去了希望。

about how this change is possible.

我視如己出的愛他，

Hope.

但我們讓他失望了。

And hope is the one thing that we, Aaron's friends,

我也愛我的國家，

failed him with, because we let him

而這次我不會失敗。

lose that sense of hope.

我不會失敗。

I loved that boy like I love my son.

我們將心存這種希望，

But we failed him.

並為其奮鬥，

And I love my country,

不管這場戰役看起來有多不可能。

and I'm not going to fail that.

那接下來呢？

I'm not going to fail that.

我們的遊行原本有 200 人加入，

That sense of hope, we're going to hold,

明年將會有一千人

and we're going to fight for,

走不同的路線，

however impossible this battle looks.

在一月時遊行

What's next?

並在康科德齊聚一堂，為改革而走。

Well, we started with this march with 200 people,

然後在 2016 年初選前，

and next year, there will be 1,000

還會有一萬人跨越新罕布夏州，

on different routes

並在康科德齊聚一堂，為改革而走。

that march in the month of January

當我們遊行時，其他州有許多人

and meet in Concord to celebrate this cause,

開始也問：「我們能不能在自己的州也進行？」

and then in 2016, before the primary,

我們開始建立一個叫 G.D. Walkers 的平台，

there will be 10,000 who march across that state,

表示 D 奶奶的追隨者，

meeting in Concord to celebrate this cause.

而全美的 D 奶奶追隨者

And as we have marched, people around the country

將會為改革而走。這是第一點。

have begun to say, "Can we do the same thing

第二點，這場遊行中，

in our state?"

Thunderclap 的其中一位創始人大衛．卡辛諾

So we've started a platform called G.D. Walkers,

也加入我們，

that is, Granny D walkers,

他問：「我們能做些什麼？」

and Granny D walkers across the country

所以他們開發了一個平台，

will be marching for this reform. Number one.

今天也宣告上線，

Number two, on this march,

能讓我們將關心改革的選民集結在一起。

one of the founders of Thunderclap, David Cascino,

不管你在哪裡，

was with us,

在新罕布夏州也好，在其他州也罷，

and he said, "Well what can we do?"

你可以註冊並可直接得知

And so they developed a platform,

在這議題上，不同候選人的立場為何，

which we are announcing today,

便能決定要投給誰。

that allows us to pull together voters

這功能可以

who are committed to this idea of reform.

讓可能化為真實。

Regardless of where you are,

最後第三點，也是最難的一點。

in New Hampshire or outside of New Hampshire,

我們現處在 超級政治行動委員會 (Super PACs) 的時代。

you can sign up and directly be informed

甚至在昨天梅里亞姆 (Merriam) 宣布

where the candidates are on this issue

韋氏詞典將把 "Super PAC" 納為字典中。

so you can decide who to vote for

現在正式成為字典中的字了。

as a function of which is going

五月一號是五朔節， 英文也有求救的意思，

to make this possibility real.

我們要做個試驗。

And then finally number three, the hardest.

我們要試著推行

We're in the age of the Super PAC.

一個終結所有 Super PAC 的 Super PAC。

Indeed yesterday, Merriam announced

簡單說明如下：

that Merriam-Webster will have Super PAC as a word.

去年，我們開始與

It is now an official word in the dictionary.

分析師及政治界專家合作，

So on May 1, aka May Day,

計算要花多少錢

we're going to try an experiment.

才能在美國議會中贏得足夠選票

We're going to try a launching

以實現徹底改革。

of what we can think of as a Super PAC

要多少錢？五億？十億？

to end all Super PACs.

到底是多少錢？

And the basic way this works is this.

不管金額多少，

For the last year, we have been working

我們都將開始集資

with analysts and political experts

但不能使用 KickStarter 集資網站作為政治用途，

to calculate, how much would it cost

但我們開始集資

to win enough votes in the United States Congress

從下往上的

to make fundamental reform possible?

向民眾募集小額資金

What is that number? Half a billion? A billion?

慢慢累積到可觀的目標，

What is that number?

這些目標達成後