ted演讲范文第1篇
假如你要知道自己的人生该怎么走，不妨在你年轻的时候就给自己写一份讣告。这是只身划船横渡大西洋的罗兹·萨维其(Roz Savage)的做法。
Roz在还年轻的时候是在英国当管理咨询顾问，但她一直感到那不是她一生要追求的东西，因为她更喜欢当一位探险家。当她过了35岁之后，有一天给自己写了两份讣告。一份是按照自己希望过的生活形态来写的，另外一份是按照现有的生活规律来写的。写完后，Roz认真读了两份讣告，她感到假如自己是按照现有的生活方式生活下去的话，无疑会像第二份讣告里所描述的那样度过自己未来的五年、十年，乃至余生。这样的生活也很如意，但就是缺了点什么。Roz觉得第一份讣告所记述的人生才是她所认同的人生。她说，那天我看着这两份讣告，我在想，天啊，我现在走的是完全错误的道路啊。后来，她辞掉了工作，又经过一番挣扎，最后决定跳出常规思维的局限，并下决心要坐一只小船，拿着双桨划行大西洋。
也许经常看探险片的人马上会想到粗胡子大汉独自一人闯荡大海的影像。但是，Roz是一个普普通通的女子，她也不是职业探险家，更不曾有过特别的经历。但是，她还是决定试一试。
2005年，Roz出发了。非常不幸的是，她选的时间刚好是大西洋上气旋特别活跃的时期，小船出行甚为困难。另外，她所准备的4对船桨都相继折断，在茫茫的大海中，没有人能帮到她，Roz唯一能做的，就是用船上的工具把船桨修补好，继续前行。
在大海上的划行给Roz带来了巨大的心理和生理挑战，她甚至在想，以每个小时2英里的速度来划行，要到哪个牛年马月才能完成3000英里的征途?但她没有办法，只能一步一步的前进。经过103天的努力，Roz终于顺利到达彼岸。在岸上，她得到了现场诸多粉丝的热烈欢迎，她说，那种感觉就像是当上了电影明星。同时也印证了一个讲法，险阻越大，克服困难后最终得到的成果也越大。 从大西洋回来后，Roz又开始计划她的太平洋划行之旅。现在，她已经完成了太平洋旅程(约9000至10000英里)的三分之二。她回头反思，总结出大海划行给她带来的一些启示：
首先，我们给自己讲述的故事会影响我们的态度。开始时，Roz也认为只有那些粗胡子的大汉才有能力划行大海。但事实并非如此。同样道理，我们一直认为石油是比不可少的。但实际上，除了石油之外是有很多其他可持续的选择的，我们也有这样的自由意志去作出恰当的选择。
其次，是关于一点一滴的个体行动本身。我们会以外单独的个体就是大海中的一滴水，无足轻重。但正是很多人的坏决定之累计使得我们所有人走向灾难之边缘。而假如我们可以换个角度去思考，可以试想，假如每个人都能做出智慧的抉择，我们就有可能走向更可持续的未来。并且我们将会是与很多人一道来做这样的事
情，假如我们都开始做智慧的抉择，那么也许未来到超市购物使用塑料袋就会被大众认为是愚蠢的抉择。而这也仅仅是其中一个例子。
最后，整个过程都是关乎承担责任的。Roz曾一直以为只有当她有了好房子、好车、好男人之后，快乐就会自然降临到她身上。但当她写完了那两份讣告之后，她似乎懂得了一点什么。她知道自己不能被动的去等待。另一方面，即使能够活到90岁，但是，生活在一个有饥荒和干旱的地球而祈求获得快乐也是非常困难的事情，更不能指望在这样的环境下生活会让人健康长寿了。于是，Roz决定发起一个叫EcoHeroes的倡导活动，帮助人们记录生活中的环境友好行为。也许单纯换一个灯泡不能带来太多改变，但这样的精神却是拯救地球所必须的一种态度。
ted演讲范文第2篇
genius. would he need the same language as a lawyer, for example? well, i don’t think so. we english teachers reject them all the time. we put a stop sign, and we stop them in their tracks.they can’t pursue their dream any longer, till they get english. now let me put it this way, if i met a monolingual dutch speakerwho had the cure for cancer, would i stop him from entering my british university? i don’t think so. but indeed, that is exactly what we do. we english teachers are the gatekeepers. and you have to satisfy us first that your english is good enough. now it can be dangerous to give too much power, to a narrow segment of society. maybe the barrier would be too university. okay. “but,” i hear you say, “what about the research? it’s all in english.” so the books are in english, the journals are done in english, but that is self-fulfilling prophecy. it deeds the english requirement. and so it goes on. i ask you, what happened to translation? if you think about the islamic golden age, there was lots of translation then. they translate from latin and greek into arabic, into persian, and then it was translated on into the germanic languages of europe and the romance languages. and so light shone upon the dark ages of europe. now don’t get me wrong. i am not against teaching english, all you english teachers out there. i love thatwe have a global language. we need one today more than ever. but i am against using it as a barrier. do we really want to end up with 600 languages and the main one being english and chinese? we need more than that. where do we draw the line? this system equates intelligence with a knowledge of english which is quite arbitrary. and i want to remind you that the giant upon whose shoulders today’s intelligentsia stand did not have to have english, they didn’t have to pass an english test. case in point, einstein. he, by the way, was considered remedial at school because he was, in fact, dyslexic. but fortunately for the world, he did not have to pass an english test. because they didn’t start until 1964 with toefl, the americantest of english. now it’s exploded. there are lots and lots of tests of english. and millions and millions of students take these tests every year. now you might think, you and me, those fees aren’t bad, they’re okay, but they are prohibitive to so many millions of poor people. so immediately, we’re rejecting them. it brings to mind a headline i saw recently: “education: the great divide.” now i get it, i understand why people would focus on english. they want to give their children the best chance in the life. and to do that, they need a western education. because, of course, the best jobs go to people out of the western universities, that i put on earlier. it’s a circular thing. peoplewho have no light, whether it’s physical or metaphorical, cannot pass our exam, and we can never know what they know. let us not keep them and ourselves in the dark. let us celebrate diversity. mind your language. use it to spread great ideas.篇二：你不必沉迷英语 ted演讲稿
我知道你们在想什么，你们觉得我迷路了，马上就会有人走上台温和地把我带回我的座位上。(掌声)。我在迪拜总会遇上这种事。“来这里度假的吗，亲爱的?”(笑声)“来探望孩子的吗?这次要待多久呢?
恩，事实上，我希望能再待久一点。我在波斯湾这边生活和教书已经超过30年了。(掌声)这段时间里，我看到了很多变化。现在这份数据是挺吓人的，而我今天要和你们说的是有关语言的消失和英语的全球化。我想和你们谈谈我的朋友，她在阿布达比教成人英语。在一个晴朗的日子里，她决定带她的学生到花园去教他们一些大自然的词汇。但最后却变成是她在学习所有当地植物在阿拉伯语中是怎么说的。还有这些植物是如何被用作药材，化妆品，烹饪，香草。这些学生是怎么得到这些知识的呢?当然是从他们的祖父母，甚至曾祖父母那里得来的。不需要我来告诉你们能够跨代沟通是多么重要。
but sadly, today, languages are dying at an unprecedented rate. a language dies every 14 days. now, at the same time, english is the undisputed global language. could there be a connection? well i dont know. but i do know that ive seen a lot of changes. when i first came out to the gulf, i came to kuwait in the days when it was still a hardship post. actually, not that long ago. that is a little bit too early. but nevertheless, i was recruited by the british council along with about 25 other teachers. and we were the first non-muslims to teach in the state schools there in kuwait. we were brought to teach english because the government wanted to modernize the country and empower the citizens through education. and of course, the u.k. benefited from some of that lovely oil wealth. 但遗憾的是，今天很多语言正在以前所未有的速度消失。每14天就有一种语言消失，而与此同时，英语却无庸置疑地成为全球性的语言。这其中有关联吗?我不知道。但我知道的是，我见证过许多改变。初次来到海湾地区时，我去了科威特。当时教英文仍然是个困难的工作。其实，没有那么久啦，这有点太久以前了。总之，我和其他25位老师一起被英国文化协会聘用。我们是第一批非穆斯林的老师，在科威特的国立学校任教。我们被派到那里教英语，是因为当地政府希望国家可以现代化并透过教育提升公民的水平。当然，英国也能得到些好处，产油国可是很有钱的。 okay. now this is the major change that ive seen -- how teaching english has morphed from being a mutually english-speaking nation on earth. and why not? after all, the best education -- according to the latest world university rankings -- is to be found in the universities of the u.k. and the u.s. so everybody wants to have an english education, naturally. but if youre not a native speaker, you have to pass a test. 言归正传，我见过最大的改变，就是英语教学的蜕变如何从一个互惠互利的行为变成今天这种大规模的国际产业。英语不再是学校课程里的外语学科，也不再只是英国的专利。英语(教学)已经成为所有英语系国家追逐的潮流。何乐而不为呢?毕竟，最好的教育来自于最好的大学，而根据最新的世界大学排名，那些名列前茅的都是英国和美国的大学。所以自然每个人都想接受英语教育，但如果你不是以英文为母语，你就要通过考试。 now can it be right to reject a student on linguistic ability well, i dont think so. we english teachers reject them all the time. we put a stop sign, and we stop them in their tracks. they cant pursue their dream any longer, till they get english. now let me put it this way, if i met a dutch speaker who had the cure for cancer, would i stop him from entering my british university? i dont think so. but indeed, that is exactly what we do. we english teachers are the gatekeepers. and you have to satisfy us first that your english is good enough. now it can be dangerous to give too much power to a narrow segment of society. maybe the barrier would be too universal. 但仅凭语言能力就拒绝学生这样对吗?譬如如果你碰到一位天才计算机科学家，但他会需要有和律师一样的语言能力吗?我不这么认为。但身为英语老师的我们，却总是拒绝他们。我们处处设限，将学生挡在路上，使他们无法再追求自己的梦想，直到他们通过考试。现在容我换一个方式说，如果我遇到了一位只会说荷兰话的人，而这个人能治愈癌症，我会阻止他进入我的英国大学吗?我想不会。但事实上，我们的确在做这种事。我们这些英语老师就是把关的。你必须先让我们满意，使我们认定你的英文够好。但这可能是危险的。把太多的权力交由这么小的一群人把持，也许会令这种障碍太过普及。
okay. but, i hear you say, what about the research? its all in english. so the books are in english, the journals are done in english, but that is a self-fulfilling . it feeds the english requirement. and so it goes on. i ask you, what happened to translation? if you think about the islamic golden age, there was lots of translation then. they translated from latin and greek into arabic, into persian, and then it was translated on into the germanic languages of europe and the romance languages. and so light shone upon the dark ages of europe. now dont get me wrong; i am not against teaching english, all you english teachers out there. i love it that we have a global language. we need one today more than ever. but i am against using it as a barrier. do we really want to end up with 600 languages and the main one being english, or chinese? we need more than that. where do we draw the line? this system equates intelligence with a knowledge of english which is quite . 于是，我听到你们问但是研究呢?研究报告都要用英文。”的确，研究论著和期刊都要用英文发表，但这只是一种理所当然的现象。有英语要求，自然就有英语供给，然后就这么循环下去。我倒想问问大家，为什么不用翻译呢?想想伊斯兰的黄金时代，当时翻译盛行，人们把拉丁文和希腊文翻译成阿拉伯文或波斯文，然后再由拉伯文或波斯文翻译为欧洲的日耳曼语言以及罗曼语言。于是文明照亮了欧洲的黑暗时代。但不要误会我的意思，我不是反对英语教学或是在座所有的英语老师。我很高兴我们有一个全球性的语言，这在今日尤为重要。但我反对用英语设立障碍。难道我们真希望世界上只剩下600种语言，其中又以英文或中文为主流吗?我们需要的不只如此。那么我们该如何拿捏呢?这个体制把智能和英语能力画上等号这是相当武断的。
and i want to remind you that the giants upon whose shoulders todays stand did not have to have english, they didnt have to pass an english test. case in point, einstein. he, by the way, was considered remedial at school because he was, in fact, dyslexic. but fortunately for the world, he did not have to pass an english test. because they didnt start until 1964 with toefl, the american test of english. now its exploded. there are lots and lots of tests of english. and millions and millions of students take these tests every year. now you might think, you and me, those fees arent bad, theyre okay, but they are prohibitive to so many millions of poor people. so immediately, were rejecting them. 我想要提醒你们，扶持当代知识分子的这些“巨人肩膀不必非得具有英文能力，他们不需要通过英语考试。爱因斯坦就是典型的例子。顺便说一下，他在学校还曾被认为需要课外补习，因为他其实有阅读障碍。但对整个世界来说,很幸运的当时他不需要通过英语考试，因为他们直到1964年才开始使用托福。现在英语测验太泛滥了，有太多太多的英语测验，以及成千上万的学生每年都在参加这些考试。现在你会认为，你和我都这么想，这些费用不贵，价钱满合理的。但是对数百万的穷人来说，这些费用高不可攀。所以，当下我们又拒绝了他们。 it brings to mind a headline i saw recently: education: the great divide. now i get it, i understand why people would focus on english. they want to give their children the best chance in life. and to do that, they need a western education. because, of course, the best jobs go to people out of the western universities, that i put on earlier. its a circular thing. 这使我想起最近看到的一个新闻标题：“教育：大鸿沟”现在我懂了。我了解为什么大家都重视英语，因为他们希望给孩子最好的人生机会。为了达成这目的，他们需要西方教育。毕竟，不可否认，最好的工作都留给那些西方大学毕业出来的人。就像我之前说的，这是一种循环。
okay. let me tell you a story about two scientists, two english scientists. they were doing an experiment to do with genetics and the forelimbs and the hind limbs of animals. but they couldnt get the results they wanted. they really didnt know what to do, until along came a german scientist who realized that they were using two words for forelimb and hind limb, whereas genetics does not differentiate and neither does german. so bingo, problem solved. if you cant think a thought, you are stuck. but if another language can think that thought, then, by cooperating, we can achieve and learn so much more. 好，我跟你们说一个关于两位科学家的故事：有两位英国科学家在做一项实验，是关于遗传学的，以及动物的前、后肢。但他们无法得到他们想要的结果。他们真的不知道该怎么办，直到来了一位德国的科学家。他发现在英文里前肢和后肢是不同的二个字，但在遗传学上没有区别。在德语也是同一个字。所以，叮!问题解决了。如果你不能想到一个念头，你会卡在那里。但如果另一个语言能想到那念头，然后通过合作我们可以达成目的，也学到更多。
ted演讲范文第3篇
Ihave spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advance
–
computers,
IT,
communications, telecommunications, the internet.
Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaged their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams.
At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars.
The hard—structure, processes, systems. The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality. And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is – and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete. Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes,
systems,
KPIs,
scorecards,
committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization. Let’s take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Propertise. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges? Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive.That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact. Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connection, the interaction, the synapse. It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem.
When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage. When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams. We need – when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital. Who will pay for that? Shareholder? Customers? No, they will refuse. So who is left? The employees, who have tocompensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage. How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation?
The hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office.
What happens one years later? Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton. The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally worng. It even counterproductive.
Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration.
Definitely, these approaches are obsolete. To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: understand what others do. What is their real work? We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reinforce integrators. Integrators are not middle office, they are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate. How can you reinforce your managers as integrators? By removing layers. When there are too many layers people are too far from the action. Therefore they need KPIs, metrics, they need poor proxies for reality. They don’t understand reality and they add the complicatedness of metrics, KPIs. By removing rules—the bigger we are, the more we need integrators, therefore the less rules we must have, to give discretionary power to managers. And we do the opposite – the bigger we are, the more rules we create. And we end up with the Encyclopedia Britannica of rules. You need to increase the quanitity of power so that you can empower everybody to use their judgment, their intelligence. You must give more cards to people so that they have the critical mass of cards to take the risk to cooperate, to move out of insulation. Otherwise, they will withdraw. They will disengage. These rules, they come from game theory and organizational sociology. You can increase the shadow of the future. Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions. This is what the automotive company did when they saw that Mr. Repairability had no impact. They said the design engineers: now, in the three years, when the new car is launched on the market, you will move to the after sales network, and become in charge of the warranty budget, and if the warranty budget explodes, it will explode in your face. Much more powerful than 0.8 percent variable compensation. You need also to increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient. When you remove these buffers, you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear. We will cooperate. Remove the second TV. There are many second TVs at work that don’t create value, they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency.
You need to reward those who cooperate and blame those who don’t cooperate. The CEO of The Lego Group, JK, has a great way to use it. He say, blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help. It changes everything. Suddenly it becomes in my interest to be transparent on my real weakness, my real forecast, because I know I will not be blamed if I fail, but if I fail to help or ask for help. When you do this, it has a lot of implications on organizational design. You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines; you look at their interplay.
ted演讲范文第4篇
小计划帮你实现大目标
——Google工程师Matt Cutts在TED的励志演讲稿
A few years ago, I felt like I was stuck in a rut, so I decided to follow in the footsteps of the great American philosopher, Morgan Spurlock, and try something new for 30 days. The idea is actually pretty simple. Think about something you’ve always wanted to add to your life and try it for the next 30 days. It turns out, 30 days is just about the right amount of time to add a new habit or subtract a habit — like watching the news — from your life.
几年前， 我感觉对老一套感到枯燥乏味， 所以我决定追随伟大的美国哲学家摩根·斯普尔洛克的脚步，尝试做新事情30天。这个想法的确是非常简单。考虑下，你常想在你生命中做的一些事情 接下来30天尝试做这些。 这就是，30天刚好是这么一段合适的时间 去养成一个新的习惯或者改掉一个习惯——例如看新闻——在你生活中。
There’s a few things I learned while doing these 30-day challenges. The first was, instead of the months flying by, forgotten, the time was much more memorable. This was part of a challenge I did to take a picture everyday for a month. And I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing that day. I also noticed that as I started to do more and harder 30-day challenges, my self-confidence grew. I went from desk-dwelling computer nerd to the kind of guy who bikes to work — for fun. Even last year, I ended up hiking up Mt. Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa. I would never have been that adventurous before I started my 30-day challenges.
当我在30天做这些挑战性事情时，我学到以下一些事。第一件事是，取代了飞逝而过易被遗忘的岁月的是 这段时间非常的更加令人难忘。挑战的一部分是要一个月内每天我要去拍摄一张照片。我清楚地记得那一天我所处的位置我都在干什么。我也注意到随着我开始做更多的，更难的30天里具有挑战性的事时，我自信心也增强了。我从一个台式计算机宅男极客变成了一个爱骑自行车去工作的人——为了玩乐。甚至去年，我完成了在非洲最高山峰乞力马扎罗山的远足。在我开始这30天做挑战性的事之前我从来没有这样热爱冒险过。
I also figured out that if you really want something badly enough, you can do anything for 30 days. Have you ever wanted to write a novel? Every November, tens of thousands of people try to write their own 50,000 word novel from scratch in 30 days. It turns out, all you have to do is write 1,667 words a day for a month. So I did. By the way, the secret is not to go to sleep until you’ve written your words for the day. You might be sleep-deprived, but you’ll finish your novel. Now is my book the next great American novel? No. I wrote it in a month. It’s awful. But for the rest of my life, if I meet John Hodgman at a TED party, I don’t have to say, “I’m a computer scientist.” No, no, if I want to I can say, “I’m a novelist.”
我也认识到如果你真想一些槽糕透顶的事，你可以在30天里做这些事。你曾想写小说吗?每年11月，数以万计的人们在30天里，从零起点尝试写他们自己的5万字小说。这结果就是，你所要去做的事就是每天写1667个字要写一个月。所以我做到了。顺便说一下，秘密在于除非在一天里你已经写完了1667个字，要不你就甭想睡觉。你可能被剥夺睡眠，但你将会完成你的小说。那么我写的书会是下一部伟大的美国小说吗?不是的。我在一个月内写完它。它看上去太可怕了。但在我的余生，如果我在一个TED聚会上遇见约翰·霍奇曼，我不必开口说，“我是一个电脑科学家。”不，不会的，如果我愿意我可以说，“我是一个小说家。”
So here’s one last thing I’d like to mention. I learned that when I made small, sustainable changes, things I could keep doing, they were more likely to stick. There’s nothing wrong with big, crazy challenges. In fact, they’re a ton of fun. But they’re less likely to stick. When I gave up sugar for 30 days, day 31 looked like this.
我这儿想提的最后一件事。当我做些小的、持续性的变化，我可以不断尝试做的事时，我学到我可以把它们更容易地坚持做下来。这和又大又疯狂的具有挑战性的事情无关。事实上，它们的乐趣无穷。但是，它们就不太可能坚持做下来。当我在30天里拒绝吃糖果，31天后看上去就像这样。
So here’s my question to you: What are you waiting for? I guarantee you the next 30 days are going to pass whether you like it or not, so why not think about something you have always wanted to try and give it a shot for the next 30 days.
所以我给大家提的问题是：大家还在等什么呀?我保准大家在未来的30天定会经历你喜欢或者不喜欢的事，那么为什么不考虑一些你常想做的尝试并在未来30天里试试给自己一个机会。
Thanks. 谢谢。
Matt Cutts简介：
ted演讲范文第5篇
“Be Crazy about sneakers.”————Feedback Almost every basketball fan is dreaming about getting one pair of sneakers of famous brands, like Air Jordan series. Many of them are constantly dedicated to their collections of various sneakers.
But through the speaker’s ideas, a clear marketing network emerged, which was seemingly invisible before. All of us who are fond of collecting limited-edition shoes may not realize that we are part of the market itself, although it isn’t a market at all. This is incredible, but it really exists. Basketball fans are enthusiastic about their beloved stars, and the sneakers endorsed by stars are to support their craze, which means a brilliant commercial opportunity to shoes’ industry. And the brand Nike was one of the biggest owners of profits from its sneakers, it is still earning money from us, and it will be as long as the devotion to basketball stars don’t fade away. In short, the intangible beneficial network is a successful example for sports industry. But what if they improve their commercial system? There will be more profits. Anyway, we can learn a lot from this and utilize what we got.
ted演讲范文第6篇
杨澜陈述发言全文
主席先生，女士们，先生们，下午好。在向各位介绍我们的文化安排之前，我想先告诉大家，你们2008年将在北京渡过愉快的时光。我相信在座的许多人都曾为李安的奥斯卡获奖影片《卧虎藏龙》所吸引，这仅仅是我们文化的一小部分，还有众多的文化宝藏等待着你们去挖掘。北京是一座充满活力的现代都市，三千年的历史文化与都市的繁荣相呼应。除了紫禁城，天坛和万里长城这几个标志性的建筑，北京拥有无数的戏院、博物馆、各种各样的餐厅和歌舞场所，这一切的一切都会令您感到尽兴和高兴。除此之外，北京城里还有千千万万友善的人民，热爱与世界各地人民相处。无论是过去还是现在，北京历来是各个民族和各种文化的汇集地。北京人民相信，在北京举办2008年奥运会，将推动我们文化和全世界文化的交流，他将向您和您所领导的奥林匹克运动表达奥运会的感激之情。在我们的文化计划当中，教育和交流将是我们的希望，我们期待在全国尤其是数百万且青少年中，留下一笔精神财富，从2005年到2008年我们将每年定期举办文化活动，由全世界青少年和表演家参加的音乐会，这些文化活动同时在奥运村和全市范围内展开，以方便运动员的参加。
我们的开闭幕式将成为展现中国杰出作家导演作曲家参与的舞台，讴歌人类的共同理想和我们独特的奥林匹克运动。基于丝绸之路带来的灵感，我们的火炬接力将经过希腊、埃及、罗马、拜占庭、美索布达米亚、波斯印度和中国，以共享和平，共享奥运为主题。奥运永恒不息的火炬跨越世界最高峰珠穆朗玛峰，从而达到一个最高的高度，在中国奥运圣火将通过西藏、穿过长江和黄河、踏上长城、途经香港、澳门、台湾并在组成我们国家的56个民族中传递，通过这样的路线，我们保证比以往任何一次接力数量都多的人民目睹火炬。700年前有人问马可波罗，你有关中国的描述是真的吗?他说我只不过将我所见到的跟你们描述了一半而已，女士们，先生们，我相信北京和中国将向运动员、观众和全世界的电视观众证明，这是一块神奇的土地，谢谢主席先生，谢谢大家!