Ted Talks

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_shargaa_please_please_people_let_s_put_the_awe_back_in_awesome
http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_rees_can_we_prevent_the_end_of_the_world#t-147579

                The first Ted Talk I viewed was “Can we prevent the end of the world?” Martin Rees was the speaker, and he discussed exactly what the title illustrated. Martin started with a few jokes and then the talk became serious and thought-evoking at the same time. He presented facts about are advances in technology (which had great advantages, but also had possible disasters.) The total talk was under seven minutes, but he got his message through and didn’t deviate from what the title was supposed to entail. Martin didn’t move really at all, so it felt as if the ted talk was a lecture, but it was quick and to the point. Although it is an opinion, I personally liked at the end of Martin’s talk was a quote. I believe that quotes that pertain to the subject can inspire the audience to think beyond the Ted Talk session.

                The next Ted Talk was “Let’s put the ‘awe’ back in ‘awesome’”. Jill Shargaa was the speaker and she was quite the “comedian.” She started with a few jokes, then gave the Webster’s dictionary definition of it. To sum it up, it’s basically an adjective describing something that causes fear and amazement. Jill made a few snarky comments about how the picture of one’s sandwich is not awesome. She then proceeded to give examples of actual awesome things, but there were a few that didn’t fit the Webster’s definition that she promptly used. For example, she used the wheel. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great invention, but it didn’t pertain to the definition she used. However, I did enjoy the fact that she moved around and made the talk less tense.

                All in all, both topics were interesting to me and I believe it would be interesting to the majority of people. The seriousness of Martin’s talk and the casual movement of Jill’s talk could make an attractive presentation. As stated above, Jill’s talk was more like a comedy sketch and she deviated from her own (Webster’s, but she provided it) definition, which, in a way, strayed away from her own topic. Martin’s body language seemed like a professor (which he probably was or still is) giving a lesson.

Bruh

Scott Mendelson essentially said that the women who had their nude pictures leaked were violated and they shouldn't have to take extra steps to keep people from hacking into their phone."Outlets as mainstream as People and CNN are referring to the photo leak as a “scandal.” All due respect, it’s not a scandal." 

I agree completely because it's their PERSONAL phone, not a public cell phone. They shouldn't have to put the nude files on a flash drive that's locked in a Swiss bank. Some may argue that they shouldn't have "inappropriate" pictures of themselves, but that's a personal opinion. It'd be inappropriate to display the pictures in a grade school class room, but as i said before, it's their personal phone. What they intend to do with the pictures is up to them.
Mendelson had pointed out that the victims shouldn't have to apologize, which i agree, but i understand why they did it. Public relations is a bitch to control, especially when individuals suddenly become prudes when a sexual "scandal" pops up. Our society hypes up "Today's" hot stories and everyone becomes a critic, as if they had been fighting against the "issue" at hand since birth. The female celebrities apologized so that those whom were actually offended get the apology the believe they deserve.
In conclusion, the celebrities had been wronged, but it wasn't as big of a controversy as it should be (thanks to public opinion though...) If people want to have nude files, that's fine. If they want to make them public, put them in a correct area (ie. porn sites or something along those lines.)