十个人物瞬间

 有一种辛酸叫自食其力!

有一种观望叫冷漠!
 

 

有一种笑容叫无邪!

有一种感动叫分享!

有一种距离叫年龄

有一种等待叫希望!

有一种“亲吻”叫拯救

有一种飘泊叫家园!

有一种背影叫凄凉!

有一种牵手叫挚爱!
 

Advertisements

Talk at Bellcore, 7 March 1986

Richard Hamming
 
 
The title of my talk is, "You and Your Research.” It is not about managing research, it is about how you individually do your research. I could give a talk on the other subject– but it’s not, it’s about you. I’m not talking about ordinary run-of-the-mill research; I’m talking about great research. And for the sake of describing great research I’ll occasionally say Nobel-Prize type of work. It doesn’t have to gain the Nobel Prize, but I mean those kinds of things which we perceive are significant things. Relativity, if you want, Shannon’s information theory, any number of outstanding theories– that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
 
Now, how did I come to do this study? At Los Alamos I was brought in to run the computing machines which other people had got going, so those scientists and physicists could get back to business. I saw I was a stooge. I saw that although physically I was the same, they were different. And to put the thing bluntly, I was envious. I wanted to know why they were so different from me. I saw Feynman up close. I saw Fermi and Teller. I saw Oppenheimer. I saw Hans Bethe: he was my boss. I saw quite a few very capable people. I became very interested in the difference between those who do and those who might have done.
 
When I came to Bell Labs, I came into a very productive department. Bode was the department head at the time; Shannon was there, and there were other people. I continued examining the questions, “Why?” and “What is the difference?” I continued subsequently by reading biographies, autobiographies, asking people questions such as: “How did you come to do this?” I tried to find out what are the differences. And that’s what this talk is about.
 
Now, why is this talk important? I think it is important because, as far as I know, each of you has one life to live. Even if you believe in reincarnation it doesn’t do you any good from one life to the next! Why shouldn’t you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I’m not going to define it – you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I’ve been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science.
 
In order to get at you individually, I must talk in the first person. I have to get you to drop modesty and say to yourself, “Yes, I would like to do first-class work.” Our society frowns on people who set out to do really good work. You’re not supposed to; luck is supposed to descend on you and you do great things by chance. Well, that’s a kind of dumb thing to say. I say, why shouldn’t you set out to do something significant. You don’t have to tell other people, but shouldn’t you say to yourself, “Yes, I would like to do something significant.”
 
In order to get to the second stage, I have to drop modesty and talk in the first person about what I’ve seen, what I’ve done, and what I’ve heard. I’m going to talk about people, some of whom you know, and I trust that when we leave, you won’t quote me as saying some of the things I said.
 
Let me start not logically, but psychologically. I find that the major objection is that people think great science is done by luck. It’s all a matter of luck. Well, consider Einstein. Note how many different things he did that were good. Was it all luck? Wasn’t it a little too repetitive? Consider Shannon. He didn’t do just information theory. Several years before, he did some other good things and some which are still locked up in the security of cryptography. He did many good things.
 
You see again and again, that it is more than one thing from a good person. Once in a while a person does only one thing in his whole life, and we’ll talk about that later, but a lot of times there is repetition. I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, “Luck favors the prepared mind.” And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn’t. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not.
 
For example, when I came to Bell Labs, I shared an office for a while with Shannon. At the same time he was doing information theory, I was doing coding theory. It is suspicious that the two of us did it at the same place and at the same time – it was in the atmosphere. And you can say, “Yes, it was luck.” On the other hand you can say, “But why of all the people in Bell Labs then were those the two who did it?” Yes, it is partly luck, and partly it is the prepared mind; but `partly’ is the other thing I’m going to talk about. So, although I’ll come back several more times to luck, I want to dispose of this matter of luck as being the sole criterion whether you do great work or not. I claim you have some, but not total, control over it. And I will quote, finally, Newton on the matter. Newton said, “If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results.”
 
One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them. For example, Einstein, somewhere around 12 or 14, asked himself the question, “What would a light wave look like if I went with the velocity of light to look at it?” Now he knew that electromagnetic theory says you cannot have a stationary local maximum. But if he moved along with the velocity of light, he would see a local maximum. He could see a contradiction at the age of 12, 14, or somewhere around there, that everything was not right and that the velocity of light had something peculiar. Is it luck that he finally created special relativity? Early on, he had laid down some of the pieces by thinking of the fragments. Now that’s the necessary but not sufficient condition. All of these items I will talk about are both luck and not luck.
 
How about having lots of `brains?’ It sounds good. Most of you in this room probably have more than enough brains to do first-class work. But great work is something else than mere brains. Brains are measured in various ways. In mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, typically brains correlates to a great extent with the ability to manipulate symbols. And so the typical IQ test is apt to score them fairly high. On the other hand, in other fields it is something different. For example, Bill Pfann, the fellow who did zone melting, came into my office one day. He had this idea dimly in his mind about what he wanted and he had some equations. It was pretty clear to me that this man didn’t know much mathematics and he wasn’t really articulate. His problem seemed interesting so I took it home and did a little work. I finally showed him how to run computers so he could compute his own answers. I gave him the power to compute. He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department, but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field. Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways. Certainly he became much more articulate.
 
And I can cite another person in the same way. I trust he isn’t in the audience, i.e. a fellow named Clogston. I met him when I was working on a problem with John Pierce’s group and I didn’t think he had much. I asked my friends who had been with him at school, “Was he like that in graduate school?” “Yes,” they replied. Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage.
One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can’t, almost surely you are not going to. Courage is one of the things that Shannon had supremely. You have only to think of his major theorem. He wants to create a method of coding, but he doesn’t know what to do so he makes a random code. Then he is stuck. And then he asks the impossible question, “What would the average random code do?” He then proves that the average code is arbitrarily good, and that therefore there must be at least one good code. Who but a man of infinite courage could have dared to think those thoughts? That is the characteristic of great scientists; they have courage. They will go forward under incredible circumstances; they think and continue to think.
 
Age is another factor which the physicists particularly worry about. They always are saying that you have got to do it when you are young or you will never do it. Einstein did things very early, and all the quantum mechanic fellows were disgustingly young when they did their best work. Most mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and astrophysicists do what we consider their best work when they are young. It is not that they don’t do good work in their old age but what we value most is often what they did early. On the other hand, in music, politics and literature, often what we consider their best work was done late. I don’t know how whatever field you are in fits this scale, but age has some effect.
 
But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, “I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.” Well I said to myself, “That is nice.” But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems.
 
When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn’t the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren’t good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
 
This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks – they did some of the best physics ever.
 
I give you a story from my own private life. Early on it became evident to me that Bell Laboratories was not going to give me the conventional acre of programming people to program computing machines in absolute binary. It was clear they weren’t going to. But that was the way everybody did it. I could go to the West Coast and get a job with the airplane companies without any trouble, but the exciting people were at Bell Labs and the fellows out there in the airplane companies were not. I thought for a long while about, “Did I want to go or not?” and I wondered how I could get the best of two possible worlds. I finally said to myself, “Hamming, you think the machines can do practically everything. Why can’t you make them write programs?” What appeared at first to me as a defect forced me into automatic programming very early. What appears to be a fault, often, by a change of viewpoint, turns out to be one of the greatest assets you can have. But you are not likely to think that when you first look the thing and say, “Gee, I’m never going to get enough programmers, so how can I ever do any great programming?”
 
And there are many other stories of the same kind; Grace Hopper has similar ones. I think that if you look carefully you will see that often the great scientists, by turning the problem around a bit, changed a defect to an asset. For example, many scientists when they found they couldn’t do a problem finally began to study why not. They then turned it around the other way and said, “But of course, this is what it is” and got an important result. So ideal working conditions are very strange. The ones you want aren’t always the best ones for you.
 
Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode’s office and said, “How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?” He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, “You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.” I simply slunk out of the office!
 
What Bode was saying was this: “Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.” Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity – it is very much like compound interest. I don’t want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode’s remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don’t like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There’s no question about this.
 
On this matter of drive Edison says, “Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.” He may have been exaggerating, but the idea is that solid work, steadily applied, gets you surprisingly far. The steady application of effort with a little bit more work, intelligently applied is what does it. That’s the trouble; drive, misapplied, doesn’t get you anywhere. I’ve often wondered why so many of my good friends at Bell Labs who worked as hard or harder than I did, didn’t have so much to show for it. The misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough – it must be applied sensibly.
 
There’s another trait on the side which I want to talk about; that trait is ambiguity. It took me a while to discover its importance. Most people like to believe something is or is not true. Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you’ll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won’t get started. It requires a lovely balance. But most great scientists are well aware of why their theories are true and they are also well aware of some slight misfits which don’t quite fit and they don’t forget it. Darwin writes in his autobiography that he found it necessary to write down every piece of evidence which appeared to contradict his beliefs because otherwise they would disappear from his mind. When you find apparent flaws you’ve got to be sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep an eye out for how they can be explained or how the theory can be changed to fit them. Those are often the great contributions. Great contributions are rarely done by adding another decimal place. It comes down to an emotional commitment. Most great scientists are completely committed to their problem. Those who don’t become committed seldom produce outstanding, first-class work.
 
Now again, emotional commitment is not enough. It is a necessary condition apparently. And I think I can tell you the reason why. Everybody who has studied creativity is driven finally to saying, “creativity comes out of your subconscious.” Somehow, suddenly, there it is. It just appears. Well, we know very little about the subconscious; but one thing you are pretty well aware of is that your dreams also come out of your subconscious. And you’re aware your dreams are, to a fair extent, a reworking of the experiences of the day. If you are deeply immersed and committed to a topic, day after day after day, your subconscious has nothing to do but work on your problem. And so you wake up one morning, or on some afternoon, and there’s the answer. For those who don’t get committed to their current problem, the subconscious goofs off on other things and doesn’t produce the big result. So the way to manage yourself is that when you have a real important problem you don’t let anything else get the center of your attention – you keep your thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious starved so it has to work on your problem, so you can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the morning, free.
 
Now Alan Chynoweth mentioned that I used to eat at the physics table. I had been eating with the mathematicians and I found out that I already knew a fair amount of mathematics; in fact, I wasn’t learning much. The physics table was, as he said, an exciting place, but I think he exaggerated on how much I contributed. It was very interesting to listen to Shockley, Brattain, Bardeen, J. B. Johnson, Ken McKay and other people, and I was learning a lot. But unfortunately a Nobel Prize came, and a promotion came, and what was left was the dregs. Nobody wanted what was left. Well, there was no use eating with them!
Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, “Do you mind if I join you?” They can’t say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, “What are the important problems of your field?” And after a week or so, “What important problems are you working on?” And after some more time I came in one day and said, “If what you are doing is not important, and if you don’t think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?” I wasn’t welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring.
 
In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, “Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven’t changed my research,” he says, “but I think it was well worthwhile.” And I said, “Thank you Dave,” and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, “What are the important problems in my field?”
 
If you do not work on an important problem, it’s unlikely you’ll do important work. It’s perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem’ must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn’t work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It’s not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don’t work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn’t believe that they will lead to important problems.
 
I spoke earlier about planting acorns so that oaks will grow. You can’t always know exactly where to be, but you can keep active in places where something might happen. And even if you believe that great science is a matter of luck, you can stand on a mountain top where lightning strikes; you don’t have to hide in the valley where you’re safe. But the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn’t produce much. It’s that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea.
 
Along those lines at some urging from John Tukey and others, I finally adopted what I called “Great Thoughts Time.” When I went to lunch Friday noon, I would only discuss great thoughts after that. By great thoughts I mean ones like: “What will be the role of computers in all of AT&T?”, “How will computers change science?” For example, I came up with the observation at that time that nine out of ten experiments were done in the lab and one in ten on the computer. I made a remark to the vice presidents one time, that it would be reversed, i.e. nine out of ten experiments would be done on the computer and one in ten in the lab. They knew I was a crazy mathematician and had no sense of reality. I knew they were wrong and they’ve been proved wrong while I have been proved right. They built laboratories when they didn’t need them. I saw that computers were transforming science because I spent a lot of time asking “What will be the impact of computers on science and how can I change it?” I asked myself, “How is it going to change Bell Labs?” I remarked one time, in the same address, that more than one-half of the people at Bell Labs will be interacting closely with computing machines before I leave. Well, you all have terminals now. I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things.
 
Most great scientists know many important problems. They have something between 10 and 20 important problems for which they are looking for an attack. And when they see a new idea come up, one hears them say “Well that bears on this problem.” They drop all the other things and get after it. Now I can tell you a horror story that was told to me but I can’t vouch for the truth of it. I was sitting in an airport talking to a friend of mine from Los Alamos about how it was lucky that the fission experiment occurred over in Europe when it did because that got us working on the atomic bomb here in the US. He said “No; at Berkeley we had gathered a bunch of data; we didn’t get around to reducing it because we were building some more equipment, but if we had reduced that data we would have found fission.” They had it in their hands and they didn’t pursue it. They came in second!
 
The great scientists, when an opportunity opens up, get after it and they pursue it. They drop all other things. They get rid of other things and they get after an idea because they had already thought the thing through. Their minds are prepared; they see the opportunity and they go after it. Now of course lots of times it doesn’t work out, but you don’t have to hit many of them to do some great science. It’s kind of easy. One of the chief tricks is to live a long time!
 
Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don’t know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, “The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.” I don’t know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing – not much, but enough that they miss fame.
 
I want to talk on another topic. It is based on the song which I think many of you know, “It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it.” I’ll start with an example of my own. I was conned into doing on a digital computer, in the absolute binary days, a problem which the best analog computers couldn’t do. And I was getting an answer. When I thought carefully and said to myself, “You know, Hamming, you’re going to have to file a report on this military job; after you spend a lot of money you’re going to have to account for it and every analog installation is going to want the report to see if they can’t find flaws in it.” I was doing the required integration by a rather crummy method, to say the least, but I was getting the answer. And I realized that in truth the problem was not just to get the answer; it was to demonstrate for the first time, and beyond question, that I could beat the analog computer on its own ground with a digital machine. I reworked the method of solution, created a theory which was nice and elegant, and changed the way we computed the answer; the results were no different. The published report had an elegant method which was later known for years as “Hamming’s Method of Integrating Differential Equations.” It is somewhat obsolete now, but for a while it was a very good method. By changing the problem slightly, I did important work rather than trivial work.
 
In the same way, when using the machine up in the attic in the early days, I was solving one problem after another after another; a fair number were successful and there were a few failures. I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn’t happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another. After quite a while of thinking I decided, “No, I should be in the mass production of a variable product. I should be concerned with all of next year’s problems, not just the one in front of my face.” By changing the question I still got the same kind of results or better, but I changed things and did important work. I attacked the major problem – How do I conquer machines and do all of next year’s problems when I don’t know what they are going to be? How do I prepare for it? How do I do this one so I’ll be on top of it? How do I obey Newton’s rule? He said, “If I have seen further than others, it is because I’ve stood on the shoulders of giants.” These days we stand on each other’s feet!
 
You should do your job in such a fashion that others can build on top of it, so they will indeed say, “Yes, I’ve stood on so and so’s shoulders and I saw further.” The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class.
 
Now if you are much of a mathematician you know that the effort to generalize often means that the solution is simple. Often by stopping and saying, “This is the problem he wants but this is characteristic of so and so. Yes, I can attack the whole class with a far superior method than the particular one because I was earlier embedded in needless detail.” The business of abstraction frequently makes things simple. Furthermore, I filed away the methods and prepared for the future problems.
 
To end this part, I’ll remind you, “It is a poor workman who blames his tools – the good man gets on with the job, given what he’s got, and gets the best answer he can.” And I suggest that by altering the problem, by looking at the thing differently, you can make a great deal of difference in your final productivity because you can either do it in such a fashion that people can indeed build on what you’ve done, or you can do it in such a fashion that the next person has to essentially duplicate again what you’ve done. It isn’t just a matter of the job, it’s the way you write the report, the way you write the paper, the whole attitude. It’s just as easy to do a broad, general job as one very special case. And it’s much more satisfying and rewarding!
 
I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. `Selling’ to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It’s very ugly; you shouldn’t have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you’ve done, read it, and come back and say, “Yes, that was good.” I suggest that when you open a journal, as you turn the pages, you ask why you read some articles and not others. You had better write your report so when it is published in the Physical Review, or wherever else you want it, as the readers are turning the pages they won’t just turn your pages but they will stop and read yours. If they don’t stop and read it, you won’t get credit.
 
There are three things you have to do in selling. You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks. We had a lot of so-called `back room scientists.’ In a conference, they would keep quiet. Three weeks later after a decision was made they filed a report saying why you should do so and so. Well, it was too late. They would not stand up right in the middle of a hot conference, in the middle of activity, and say, “We should do this for these reasons.” You need to master that form of communication as well as prepared speeches.
 
When I first started, I got practically physically ill while giving a speech, and I was very, very nervous. I realized I either had to learn to give speeches smoothly or I would essentially partially cripple my whole career. The first time IBM asked me to give a speech in New York one evening, I decided I was going to give a really good speech, a speech that was wanted, not a technical one but a broad one, and at the end if they liked it, I’d quietly say, “Any time you want one I’ll come in and give you one.” As a result, I got a great deal of practice giving speeches to a limited audience and I got over being afraid. Furthermore, I could also then study what methods were effective and what were ineffective.
 
While going to meetings I had already been studying why some papers are remembered and most are not. The technical person wants to give a highly limited technical talk. Most of the time the audience wants a broad general talk and wants much more survey and background than the speaker is willing to give. As a result, many talks are ineffective. The speaker names a topic and suddenly plunges into the details he’s solved. Few people in the audience may follow. You should paint a general picture to say why it’s important, and then slowly give a sketch of what was done. Then a larger number of people will say, “Yes, Joe has done that,” or “Mary has done that; I really see where it is; yes, Mary really gave a good talk; I understand what Mary has done.” The tendency is to give a highly restricted, safe talk; this is usually ineffective. Furthermore, many talks are filled with far too much information. So I say this idea of selling is obvious.
 
Let me summarize. You’ve got to work on important problems. I deny that it is all luck, but I admit there is a fair element of luck. I subscribe to Pasteur’s “Luck favors the prepared mind.” I favor heavily what I did. Friday afternoons for years – great thoughts only – means that I committed 10% of my time trying to understand the bigger problems in the field, i.e. what was and what was not important. I found in the early days I had believed `this’ and yet had spent all week marching in `that’ direction. It was kind of foolish. If I really believe the action is over there, why do I march in this direction? I either had to change my goal or change what I did. So I changed something I did and I marched in the direction I thought was important. It’s that easy.
 
Now you might tell me you haven’t got control over what you have to work on. Well, when you first begin, you may not. But once you’re moderately successful, there are more people asking for results than you can deliver and you have some power of choice, but not completely. I’ll tell you a story about that, and it bears on the subject of educating your boss. I had a boss named Schelkunoff; he was, and still is, a very good friend of mine. Some military person came to me and demanded some answers by Friday. Well, I had already dedicated my computing resources to reducing data on the fly for a group of scientists; I was knee deep in short, small, important problems. This military person wanted me to solve his problem by the end of the day on Friday. I said, “No, I’ll give it to you Monday. I can work on it over the weekend. I’m not going to do it now.” He goes down to my boss, Schelkunoff, and Schelkunoff says, “You must run this for him; he’s got to have it by Friday.” I tell him, “Why do I?”; he says, “You have to.” I said, “Fine, Sergei, but you’re sitting in your office Friday afternoon catching the late bus home to watch as this fellow walks out that door.” I gave the military person the answers late Friday afternoon. I then went to Schelkunoff’s office and sat down; as the man goes out I say, “You see Schelkunoff, this fellow has nothing under his arm; but I gave him the answers.” On Monday morning Schelkunoff called him up and said, “Did you come in to work over the weekend?” I could hear, as it were, a pause as the fellow ran through his mind of what was going to happen; but he knew he would have had to sign in, and he’d better not say he had when he hadn’t, so he said he hadn’t. Ever after that Schelkunoff said, “You set your deadlines; you can change them.”
 
One lesson was sufficient to educate my boss as to why I didn’t want to do big jobs that displaced exploratory research and why I was justified in not doing crash jobs which absorb all the research computing facilities. I wanted instead to use the facilities to compute a large number of small problems. Again, in the early days, I was limited in computing capacity and it was clear, in my area, that a “mathematician had no use for machines.” But I needed more machine capacity. Every time I had to tell some scientist in some other area, “No I can’t; I haven’t the machine capacity,” he complained. I said “Go tell your Vice President that Hamming needs more computing capacity.” After a while I could see what was happening up there at the top; many people said to my Vice President, “Your man needs more computing capacity.” I got it!
 
I also did a second thing. When I loaned what little programming power we had to help in the early days of computing, I said, “We are not getting the recognition for our programmers that they deserve. When you publish a paper you will thank that programmer or you aren’t getting any more help from me. That programmer is going to be thanked by name; she’s worked hard.” I waited a couple of years. I then went through a year of BSTJ articles and counted what fraction thanked some programmer. I took it into the boss and said, “That’s the central role computing is playing in Bell Labs; if the BSTJ is important, that’s how important computing is.” He had to give in. You can educate your bosses. It’s a hard job. In this talk I’m only viewing from the bottom up; I’m not viewing from the top down. But I am telling you how you can get what you want in spite of top management. You have to sell your ideas there also.
 
Well I now come down to the topic, “Is the effort to be a great scientist worth it?” To answer this, you must ask people. When you get beyond their modesty, most people will say, “Yes, doing really first-class work, and knowing it, is as good as wine, women and song put together,” or if it’s a woman she says, “It is as good as wine, men and song put together.” And if you look at the bosses, they tend to come back or ask for reports, trying to participate in those moments of discovery. They’re always in the way. So evidently those who have done it, want to do it again. But it is a limited survey. I have never dared to go out and ask those who didn’t do great work how they felt about the matter. It’s a biased sample, but I still think it is worth the struggle. I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion.
 
I’ve told you how to do it. It is so easy, so why do so many people, with all their talents, fail? For example, my opinion, to this day, is that there are in the mathematics department at Bell Labs quite a few people far more able and far better endowed than I, but they didn’t produce as much. Some of them did produce more than I did; Shannon produced more than I did, and some others produced a lot, but I was highly productive against a lot of other fellows who were better equipped. Why is it so? What happened to them? Why do so many of the people who have great promise, fail?
 
Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don’t have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We’re talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition.
 
The second thing is, I think, the problem of personality defects. Now I’ll cite a fellow whom I met out in Irvine. He had been the head of a computing center and he was temporarily on assignment as a special assistant to the president of the university. It was obvious he had a job with a great future. He took me into his office one time and showed me his method of getting letters done and how he took care of his correspondence. He pointed out how inefficient the secretary was. He kept all his letters stacked around there; he knew where everything was. And he would, on his word processor, get the letter out. He was bragging how marvelous it was and how he could get so much more work done without the secretary’s interference. Well, behind his back, I talked to the secretary. The secretary said, “Of course I can’t help him; I don’t get his mail. He won’t give me the stuff to log in; I don’t know where he puts it on the floor. Of course I can’t help him.” So I went to him and said, “Look, if you adopt the present method and do what you can do single-handedly, you can go just that far and no farther than you can do single-handedly. If you will learn to work with the system, you can go as far as the system will support you.” And, he never went any further. He had his personality defect of wanting total control and was not willing to recognize that you need the support of the system.
 
You find this happening again and again; good scientists will fight the system rather than learn to work with the system and take advantage of all the system has to offer. It has a lot, if you learn how to use it. It takes patience, but you can learn how to use the system pretty well, and you can learn how to get around it. After all, if you want a decision `No’, you just go to your boss and get a `No’ easy. If you want to do something, don’t ask, do it. Present him with an accomplished fact. Don’t give him a chance to tell you `No’. But if you want a `No’, it’s easy to get a `No’.
 
Another personality defect is ego assertion and I’ll speak in this case of my own experience. I came from Los Alamos and in the early days I was using a machine in New York at 590 Madison Avenue where we merely rented time. I was still dressing in western clothes, big slash pockets, a bolo and all those things. I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to myself, “Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad time’. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this. When a slot appears, they’ll rush to find someone to slip in, but they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven’t mistreated them.” Answer, I wasn’t dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that – I wasn’t dressing properly. I had to make the decision – was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get better service than other people.
You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about. An enormous number of scientists feel they must assert their ego and do their thing their way. They have got to be able to do this, that, or the other thing, and they pay a steady price.
 
John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen. For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It’s wasted effort! I didn’t say you should conform; I said “The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.” If you chose to assert your ego in any number of ways, “I am going to do it my way,” you pay a small steady price throughout the whole of your professional career. And this, over a whole lifetime, adds up to an enormous amount of needless trouble.
 
By taking the trouble to tell jokes to the secretaries and being a little friendly, I got superb secretarial help. For instance, one time for some idiot reason all the reproducing services at Murray Hill were tied up. Don’t ask me how, but they were. I wanted something done. My secretary called up somebody at Holmdel, hopped the company car, made the hour-long trip down and got it reproduced, and then came back. It was a payoff for the times I had made an effort to cheer her up, tell her jokes and be friendly; it was that little extra work that later paid off for me. By realizing you have to use the system and studying how to get the system to do your work, you learn how to adapt the system to your desires. Or you can fight it steadily, as a small undeclared war, for the whole of your life.
 
And I think John Tukey paid a terrible price needlessly. He was a genius anyhow, but I think it would have been far better, and far simpler, had he been willing to conform a little bit instead of ego asserting. He is going to dress the way he wants all of the time. It applies not only to dress but to a thousand other things; people will continue to fight the system. Not that you shouldn’t occasionally!
 
When they moved the library from the middle of Murray Hill to the far end, a friend of mine put in a request for a bicycle. Well, the organization was not dumb. They waited awhile and sent back a map of the grounds saying, “Will you please indicate on this map what paths you are going to take so we can get an insurance policy covering you.” A few more weeks went by. They then asked, “Where are you going to store the bicycle and how will it be locked so we can do so and so.” He finally realized that of course he was going to be red-taped to death so he gave in. He rose to be the President of Bell Laboratories.
 
Barney Oliver was a good man. He wrote a letter one time to the IEEE. At that time the official shelf space at Bell Labs was so much and the height of the IEEE Proceedings at that time was larger; and since you couldn’t change the size of the official shelf space he wrote this letter to the IEEE Publication person saying, “Since so many IEEE members were at Bell Labs and since the official space was so high the journal size should be changed.” He sent it for his boss’s signature. Back came a carbon with his signature, but he still doesn’t know whether the original was sent or not. I am not saying you shouldn’t make gestures of reform. I am saying that my study of able people is that they don’t get themselves committed to that kind of warfare. They play it a little bit and drop it and get on with their work.
 
Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody’s has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist.
 
On the other hand, we can’t always give in. There are times when a certain amount of rebellion is sensible. I have observed almost all scientists enjoy a certain amount of twitting the system for the sheer love of it. What it comes down to basically is that you cannot be original in one area without having originality in others. Originality is being different. You can’t be an original scientist without having some other original characteristics. But many a scientist has let his quirks in other places make him pay a far higher price than is necessary for the ego satisfaction he or she gets. I’m not against all ego assertion; I’m against some.
Another fault is anger. Often a scientist becomes angry, and this is no way to handle things. Amusement, yes, anger, no. Anger is misdirected. You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time.
 
Another thing you should look for is the positive side of things instead of the negative. I have already given you several examples, and there are many, many more; how, given the situation, by changing the way I looked at it, I converted what was apparently a defect to an asset. I’ll give you another example. I am an egotistical person; there is no doubt about it. I knew that most people who took a sabbatical to write a book, didn’t finish it on time. So before I left, I told all my friends that when I come back, that book was going to be done! Yes, I would have it done – I’d have been ashamed to come back without it! I used my ego to make myself behave the way I wanted to. I bragged about something so I’d have to perform. I found out many times, like a cornered rat in a real trap, I was surprisingly capable. I have found that it paid to say, “Oh yes, I’ll get the answer for you Tuesday,” not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday. I often put my pride on the line and sometimes I failed, but as I said, like a cornered rat I’m surprised how often I did a good job. I think you need to learn to use yourself. I think you need to know how to convert a situation from one view to another which would increase the chance of success.
 
Now self-delusion in humans is very, very common. There are enumerable ways of you changing a thing and kidding yourself and making it look some other way. When you ask, “Why didn’t you do such and such,” the person has a thousand alibis. If you look at the history of science, usually these days there are 10 people right there ready, and we pay off for the person who is there first. The other nine fellows say, “Well, I had the idea but I didn’t do it and so on and so on.” There are so many alibis. Why weren’t you first? Why didn’t you do it right? Don’t try an alibi. Don’t try and kid yourself. You can tell other people all the alibis you want. I don’t mind. But to yourself try to be honest.
 
If you really want to be a first-class scientist you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults, like my egotism. How can you convert a fault to an asset? How can you convert a situation where you haven’t got enough manpower to move into a direction when that’s exactly what you need to do? I say again that I have seen, as I studied the history, the successful scientist changed the viewpoint and what was a defect became an asset.
 
In summary, I claim that some of the reasons why so many people who have greatness within their grasp don’t succeed are: they don’t work on important problems, they don’t become emotionally involved, they don’t try and change what is difficult to some other situation which is easily done but is still important, and they keep giving themselves alibis why they don’t. They keep saying that it is a matter of luck. I’ve told you how easy it is; furthermore I’ve told you how to reform. Therefore, go forth and become great scientists!
 

MSN Spaces PowerToy

 

Quote  MSN Spaces PowerToy

 

2005年8月 MSN Spaces 有重大新功能發布囉…

在MSN Spaces Lead PM – Mike 的網誌裡公布MSN Spaces的新模組…

要開啟這些新功能,需要在網址列的網址後方加上 “&powertoy=tweakomatic”、“&powertoy=sandbox”、“&powertoy=musicvideo”

功能依序為:
“MSN Spaces 介面設定”、“自訂HTML模組”、“Windows Media Player 多媒體模組”
網址加入後按下Enter重新讀取網頁,就可以在自定新增這些新模組….

 

有什麼好處?

  1. (Windows Media Player 多媒體模組)
    有官方的允許,可以正大光明的放自己喜歡的背景音樂囉…
     
  2. (Windows Media Player 多媒體模組)
    背景音樂有緩衝功能,可放大檔,且有控制按鈕,重要的是不受網誌的限制,所以換音樂不需要再改網誌了。
       
  3. (自訂HTML模組)
    可以把計數器、公告…等 放在這,不用放在網誌裡了,可以當做真正的至頂公告,只不過限制512個字元。
      
  4. (MSN Spaces 介面設定)
    可以自定字體顏色、框框樣式、背景顏色、透明度等..(不能自訂背景圖片…可惜)
The Space Craft有官方的英文介紹…
Easy Start To The Day有詳細的中文介紹可以參考一下…^^

 

人性善恶论对社会的影响

 
 人性是什么,不外四种看法:第一,人性本善。第二,人性本恶。第三,人性即善又恶。第四,人性非善非恶。其中,第四个观点是对人性及人性问题讨论的否定,它可以和第三个观点划为一类,因为都认为人的善恶不是内在的,而是由外在环境所决定的。他们的最终结论是,人可以通过教育学习,达到至善之美的境界。而这一结论在客观上又与第一种观点殊途同归,不谋而合,他们对社会改造的实践也最终会走在一起,不知觉中,第三、第四种观点成了人性善的另两种说法和版本。因此,从社会实践的角度看,社会中对人性的看法大体上就两种:人性善和人性恶。

法家认为性本恶,主张实行严刑峻法,高压恐怖。结果是恶上加恶,恶性循环。秦皇执政12年,被处宫刑的人就多达70多万人……。秦亡,酷刑、文字狱、连坐、户口制度等恶的锁链代代相传,严重摧残了中国人的身心健康。法家的“人性恶”理论不彻底,他们认为皇帝是善的,这样一来,就陷入自相矛盾,“人性恶”理论就崩溃了。

儒教认为“人之初,性本善”(《三字经》)。“人性之善也,犹水之就下也。人无有不善,水无有不下”(《孟子•告子上》)。即:人一生下来是善的,随着年龄的增长,在社会的种种不良风气的影响下、诱惑下,才慢慢地学坏了,变恶了。因此,只要不断地学习,将沾染在自己身上的坏习气去除掉,人就能恢复他本来的纯洁面目——善。

儒教人性论的后果是:

1)复古主义与排外主义

仲尼祖述尧舜,宪章文武(中庸)。孔子认为最高典范就是远古的尧舜和周朝的文王武王了。他一味地怀古、恋古、思古、述古、信古、法古、玩古、学古、教古、吃古、卖古、忠古、孝古……凡是古的,就是好的,而且是绝对的好!为了使中华文化不致消沉堕落,只有一个办法:不许改革,不许创新。如果有人大胆改革创新呢?立刻打压!完全扑灭!

孟子“道性善,言必称尧舜”。又曰:尧舜既殁,圣人道衰,暴君代作(孟子滕文公下)。意为:尧舜以后,圣人之道就衰落了,所出的都是暴君了。这样搞下去,国家还有希望吗?

孟子说:要想国家大治吗?有办法!恢复古制,用周文王的典章文物和制度,五、七年的功夫就可大治了。至于个人,则要尽量返回到本性中去,把先天就已具有的善性给发掘出来。“人皆可以为尧舜”,“万物皆备于我矣”;哪需要向外学习?满足于现有成就。视外国人为野蛮民族。以为自己都是好的,外国的都是坏的,而停滞自误 。

 
 
 2)导致了等级特权和虚伪败德

儒家认为人在善恶上有等差格局之分,性善说导致人自高自大,以圣贤、君子、好人自居。少数人被定为圣人君子,被豁免了作恶的可能性,从而置身于法律和众人之上;因此,自由、平等、博爱观念无法产生。

由于性善论,中国人认为通过努力学习就能成为至善、完美的范例;于是“学而优则仕”的官僚们自然便是善的典范;而不学习、不识字或学而不优的的平民百姓自然成了恶的刁民;于是善良的大人君子们对小人刁民们进行人治就是天经地义;官僚们拥有“刑不上大夫”的特权,不需要监督制约,结果是善良的官僚们在缺乏监督的状态下,干尽了坏事。

为了维护官僚们的“善”的形象,儒生们使出了看家本领——造假:编造尧、舜、禹等假人物、假事迹,并为掩盖历史真相而删削诗经、篡改春秋;孔丘是造假的鼻祖,儒生成为最早的造假集团;使得中国人说假话、办假事、造假货源远流长,泛滥成灾。

美国有一项科学测试发现:现代社会中的成年男性平均每24分钟就会想到性。这意味着当种种高尚的奋斗动机、理想由于种种原因遭你抛弃后,性欲,将最终成为你奋斗的唯一一个不体面、但最强有力的动机。或者说高尚动机、理想仅仅只是幌子;幌子下面,你正在作为性欲的奴隶,自觉不自觉地在受着性欲的驱使。不让上帝做你的主,情欲必做你的主。

由于儒家的性善论,使得中国人对“性”不敢正视,将“性”掩着、盖着、藏着、掖着;使得中国人迫害女性;使得中国人拥有表面仁义道德,背后男盗女娼的虚伪。

事实上,人从娘胎里一出生,就具有抢夺、妒忌、贪婪等自私自利的天性,只不过程度轻微罢了。儒生们硬说那是孩子的恶作剧,视为可爱,那就是自欺欺人的虚伪。

中国的俗语是:手心手被都是肉,儿是娘身上掉下的一块肉。许多中国人只有肉体,没有灵魂,没有精神,眼里只有钱;中国人心中没有神信仰与监督,所以时常偏离正道。譬如:吐痰、闯红灯等……只追求肉体快乐——吃喝玩乐、房中术、……导致了无数的犯罪。

 
 3)不存在一个独立的个人自治领域,政府可深入社会生活的所有领域。它的人性基础是:上智下愚。上等的“圣人之性”先天就善,不需要教育;“中民之性”和 “斗筲之性”需要教化、改造,方可臻于完善。因此,“内圣外王”的统治者以“修齐治平”、“化民成俗”为己任,强制改造人性。政府对个人生活无孔不入的干涉,剥夺了个人的隐私和良心自由。譬如:给女人裹小脚;康有为认为“民智未开”,主张开明专制,用皇权教化人民;民国时期呼唤救世主和好人政府的运动;毛通过洗脑运动来塑造社会主义“新人”等。

4) “性善论”必然导致对人治即贤人政治的重视;对法律、法治的忽视。孟子说:“君仁莫不仁,君义莫不义,君正莫不正,一正君而国定矣”。孔子倡导“德主刑辅”,对良民以仁政、对刁民诉诸刑罚。这导致了对多数人的蔑视和虐待。在儒看来,法律仅意味着:驭民的工具,而掌权者自身是超乎法律之上的。法律的目标是维护统治秩序而非个人自由权利。突出公民服从义务和牺牲精神,保障人权的民法,进不了儒家的视野;因此刑法最为发达。

英国的享利•梅因说:一个国家文化的高低,看它的民法和刑法的比例就能知道。大凡半开化的国家,民法少而刑法多;进化的国家,民法多而刑法少。他这几句话被西方的学者奉为至理名言。日本有的法学家据此发挥说,中国古代只有刑法而没有民法,是一个半开化的、文化低落的国家。在我国,也有少数学者对此持赞同态度。

 
 5)从人性至善进而相信人的理性能力,相信人类能掌握规律,相信存在一个完善的社会状态,并笃信为实现这个完善的社会而存在一个至善的万能政府,从而加强了社会政治和意识形成的一元化管理趋势。自戊戌变法以来,儒教的人性善与西方舶来的理性主义结合,更加坚信人力无边、人定胜天、人应该宰制万物、征服自然。既然人的理性具有如此至上性,对天、对神的敬畏就不复存在,所谓用自然法来约束世间的权力就更无能为力了。

这些人自诩掌握了唯一正确的规律并宣称人类有驾驶自然的能力,而一旦拥有了足够的力量(或曰暴力),他们会把人间变为“美好社会”的试验场,从而也有了正当的理由来镇压不同政见者。长期受科学万能教育的中国人,很难认识到人的有限性。

6)对人性的错误认识,必然会得出错误的结论:正如柏拉图幻想哲学王的统治,中国的儒家性善论者一直盼望明君的出现,并没有致力于建构限制罪人的政治和法律架构。

儒教人性的至善性使制度设计者相信“人好一切都好”,关注权力的归属而轻权力的运行监控。中国的意识形态一直强调“克己复礼”,注重的只是“太子”个人内在的修行,并不注重社会制度的建构;并把无限的权力赋予某个人[王]或组织,这是罪人的狂妄之举。

儒教早把掌权者假设为以天下为公的圣贤了,对最高权力的控制就没有想过了。因此,自西汉到晚清二千年间未曾产生过实质性的分权制衡机制,无独立的司法审查制度(行政司法合一)、无类似于英国古老的“自然公正原则”的程序制度。百年宪政建设的焦点始终停留在“谁掌握了权力”以及掌权者如何通过宪法去巩固“胜利果实”这个层面上,因此创造了不到80年而颁布14部宪法典(草案)的世界奇迹。

 
 
 
 基督教认为人性恶,一无良善。亚当和夏娃经不住诱惑而偷食了禁果,这是人第一次违背上帝的命令,因而犯下了必须世代救赎的罪孽。

1) “原罪面前,人人平等”!《圣经》里有个故事:有妇人犯通奸罪,依摩西的法律当乱石砸死。法利赛人把这案子交给耶稣。耶稣说,你们中间谁是没有罪的,谁就可以拿石头砸她。人们听了这话,从老到少一个一个都离去了。结果,没有一个人敢把手中的石头砸向这妇人,耶稣放了她。假如那人群中掺杂着一个中国人,这妇人就遭殃了,准有一块石头击中她的命门,叫她一命呜呼。

中国人不承认人人有罪,只承认“个别人是没有罪的”[人非圣贤,孰能无过,即圣贤无罪过,这是中国谎言文化的根源]。为证明自己没罪,最直接的办法就是诬陷别人。仇恨、争斗就难以避免。愈窝里斗,愈发罪孽深重。最终有一个人会让天下人知道他是最清白、最高尚的,此人就是皇帝。自古皇帝加尊号,可以用十几个最好的词藻,九五至尊以造假自我神化为乐。此等教化下,普通百姓也无自我反省之心。一块石头,在《圣经》里是检验人皆有罪的试金石,在中国却进入了一个很不光彩的成语:“落井下石”。

正如马丁.路德所言:“罪人不愿承认自己是罪人,这就是罪的最终形式。”

西方的圣人使徒保罗虽是基督教最伟大的神学家,他说:“在罪人中我是个罪魁”(提摩太前书第一章十五节)。不但自认是罪人,而且是最大的罪人。彼得被公认是耶稣的大门徒,他也说:“主啊,我是个罪人”(路加福音5:18)!

 
 2)信靠上帝,向上提升。由于原罪,单靠自己是战胜不了人性中的恶的,必须依靠耶稣基督,用他的宝血与上帝重新立约,将自己的信心建立在流淌着基督宝血的十字架上,才能战胜人性中的恶,才能逐渐洗刷身上的罪恶,获得永生。

信徒们知道自己不行,所以谦卑地祈求上帝的拯救,并且天天追求长进,对罪恶敏感到极点、恨恶到极点,每时每刻依靠上帝的能力,才能战胜邪恶的私欲和外界的引诱。他们的榜样是绝对的完全的上帝,不是不完全的人。

人性是恶的,但自知丑陋,又去追求善。——这就是《圣经》告诉我们的人性真相。承认自己是罪人,藉着神的拯救,就可以达到完满成熟的地步;不断地吸收神性,使人性向神性发展。所以人性是向上发展的、是越来越好,最好的永远在将来(盼望新天新地和与神一样丰盛的生命)。于是西方人在这两种观念下,向外追求,带动了文明的迅速跃升。

3)人为什犯原罪?基督教认为:因为上帝造人时赋予了人自由意志,人有选择自由,但人受肉体支配后易偏离上帝的正道,就犯罪了。罪的肇端就是人的贪婪和对自由的滥用;亚当夏娃滥用了自由而犯罪。人的罪不能根除,堕落的趋势是无限的,随时可能发生。人可以得救,却永远不能变得象神那样完美无缺。因此,永远不能神化人。

基督教伦理本质上是一种罪恶──救赎的过程伦理,是容忍撒旦的伦理。基督教在宣布人性恶的时候,其实已承认并容忍了人性恶,承认了人的不完善性。中国人凭极容易把“罪恶“与“乱臣贼子”联系在一起,罪恶应严厉制裁。这样,“罪”、“恶”的合理性就被抹杀了。因为人性是而是应该是“善”的,所以罪与恶是无法让人接受的,所以,在这个“仁爱”的国度里,改道后的妓女依然受歧视(见电影《红尘》),有过污点的人很难翻身(见刘恒《黑的雪》)。人们害怕创新、害怕犯错误──犯了错误就成了污点难以抹去。

基督教认为,人是尊贵的,享有一系列不可剥夺的权利;人又是有罪的和有限的,绝不能放任其利欲的泛滥。我们心中时时刻刻要有神监督,就比较不容易犯罪。

 
 4)民主分权制恶。原罪暗示:人性不可靠,权力在人手中很容易“泛滥成灾”;所以应通过制度、组织机构建设来制恶。美国宪法之父,清教徒汉弥尔顿(Alexander Hamilton)曾告诉美国公民:“(在考虑联邦宪法的权力配置时)我们应该假定每个人都是会拆烂污的瘪三,他的每一个行为,除了私利,别无目的。”

正因为人的罪性,人人皆有犯罪作恶的可能,必须用制度来制约个人的权力,防止掌权者滥用权力。罪人若是拥有绝对的立法权,他的私欲就会上升为法律;罪人若是拥有绝对的司法权,他会判决世界都归他所有;罪人若是拥有绝对的行政权,他就会把全世界踩在脚下。所以对由一群罪人建立的政府(组织的权力)一定严加防范,不能信任;不管他们是由圣君贤臣,或者是由人民选举产生,都必须像防强盗一样的防范他们,把他们关在笼子里。政府必须由人民选举产生,做到三权分立,保护人民的自由。基督徒顺从的,是神不是人;所以,人们有反抗暴政的权利。

对美国人来说,“抵挡专制就是顺服神”。“顺服神不顺服人”,既高扬个体自由,更使人敬畏秩序。没有信仰,社会没有能力在自由和秩序之间获得均衡,能够制定善法并敬守之。顺应神的人或邦国将得荣耀,弃绝神的将被弃绝。基督信仰确立了人的自由和责任,并为人类指明了通向解放和永福的“反应”方式。

1992年1月美国副总统奎尔说:“世界历史上的专制暴政,并非人类不幸的根本原因。专制暴政有人类灵性上的根源,这就是不承认人的有限性,不承认人人都有原罪。哪里的人们把自己的命运和前途完全建立在对人的信赖之上,而没有超越个人、政党及其‘主义’之上的信仰作为文化的、心理的基础,哪里就难免滋生专制暴政。”对人的罪性和有限性不醒悟是专制的灵根;意识到人的罪性和有限性是民主的起源。

 
 

Could I Have This Kiss Forever

Enrique Iglesias & Whitney Houston
 
 
Over and over I look in your eyes
You are all I desire
You have captured me
I want to hold you
I want to be close to you
I never want to let go
I wish that this night would never end
I need to know
Could I hold you for a lifetime
Could I look into your eyes
Could I have this night to share this night together
Could I hold you close beside me
Could I hold you for all time
Could I could I have this kiss forever
Could I could I have this kiss forever, forever
 
Over and over I’ve dreamed of this night
Now you’re here by my side
You are next to me
I want to hold you and touch you and taste you
And make you want no one but me
I wish that this kiss could never end
Oh baby please
 
Could I hold you for a lifetime
Could I look into your eyes
Could I have this night to share this night together
Could I hold you close beside me
Could I hole you for all time
Could I could I have this kiss forever
Could I could I have this kiss forever, forever
 
I don’t want any night to go by
Without you by my side
I just want all my days
Spend being next to you
Lived for just loving you
And baby, oh by the way
 
Could I hold you for a lifetime
Could I look into your eyes
Could I have this night to share this night together
Could I hold you close beside me
Could I hold you for all time
Could I could I have this kiss forever
Could I could I have this kiss forever, forever

What’s a Healthy Family?

    The idea of what is a healthy family varied widely in different areas and periods.  For example, in the traditional Chinese culture, the healthy family is mostly probably a huge one.  An ideal family usually contains tens to hundreds of members, which made up of, at least, four generations.  But few modern people could suffer such healthy family.

    Despite of culture difference, we can find some common features from the healthy families.  To acknowledge why we human beings live in family units could be a good point to start of find those features.  Here are two basic reasons:
    The first is to survive.  The strength of an individual is too limited.  It’s not even sufficient for defending himself and getting enough foods.  But the family, as a group, is more powerful.  So, members in a healthy family must respect and help each other, and cooperate with each other towards a same goal.  Obviously, surviving is only the first step.  We will search for a better life then.  A healthy family provides us a comfortable environment for it. And with the help of other family members, we could archive more accomplishment.
    The second is to multiply.  Our parents bring us to this world, and breed us up.  We have enjoyed our rights, so we must take our responsibility.  And the responsibility is to bear and foster our offspring.  So a healthy family should have some kids.

    A healthy family is a harmonious, cozy and aggressive one.  Every member in the family feels happy.  But it is still not enough.  A healthy family must take its responsibilities to gain the respect.

 

相关文章:

    英语作文

 

编辑

李香兰

   《国产007》当年在中国大陆是被禁放映,影片中存有一个敏感的中日历史的政治话题。

  袁泳仪在片子饰演的李香琴是李香兰的女儿。而且星星还在片中大唱张学友的《李香兰》。熟知《李香兰》这首歌是翻唱1991年日本富士电视台30周年纪念电视剧《Sayonara!李香兰》的主题曲《Ikanaide不走》,由玉置浩二谱写演唱。

  就是这个名字,李香兰,一个在中国人眼中曾冒充中国人为日本的远东政策效力的女明星。

  李香兰原名山口淑子,她的“李香兰时代”,正值日本侵华时期。《李香兰》的作者之一藤原作弥说,“她在祖国日本和故国中国之间的夹缝中受到命运捉弄,度过了非常苦恼的青春岁月。”

  山口淑子的祖父山口博自幼酷爱汉学,仰慕古老的中国文化,所以在(1906年)从日本来到中国,她1920年2月12日出生于中国辽宁省奉天(今沈阳)。1932年,平顶山事件中,由于父亲因“通敌”受到拘留,事后山口淑子一家迁居沈阳。13岁时,山口淑子认了父亲的中国同学、当时的亲日派沈阳银行总裁李际春为养父,她也因此有了一个好听的名字———李香兰。

  从1931年,日本侵占东北,成立伪满州国后,为了粉饰太平,弄个 “大东亚共荣圈”的假象,特别开设了“满洲电影制片厂”,山口淑子就是当时伪满洲电影片厂的第一批女演员,而且还是当家花旦,拍些风花雪月的娱乐电影,来宣传被日军占领的“沦陷区”人民也有娱乐消遣,好在国际上制造假象来掩饰他们侵略的事实,在日本奉天广播电台新节目《满洲新歌曲》中演唱了《渔家女》、《昭君怨》、《孟姜女》等中国歌曲,更以一曲《夜来香》而声名大噪。于是,“歌星李香兰”就这样被推上前台,并且迅速在歌坛和影坛走红,成为家喻户晓的 “超级巨星”。大红大紫之后,李香兰还陆续演了一些替日军宣传,或者粉饰日本侵略战争的电影。

  1937年,由“满铁”公司出资的电影公司“满映”成立,李香兰被聘为专职演员。她主演的第一部电影《蜜月快车》奠定了她“懂日语的中国少女影星”的地位,后又演出了《支那之夜》、《热砂的誓言》和《白兰之歌》等侮辱中国的电影。到1942年李香兰已经是东亚共荣国的巨星。追忆往事,山口淑子说:“在那个战争年代,为了生存,我的确是拼足了力气学唱歌”。她称,对那些曾为军国主义服务、歧视中国人的电影而感到内疚。因受不了“李香兰”身份的重压,她在1944年从“满映”辞职,客居上海。

  1945年日本战败,“伪满洲国”灭亡,全国上下一时兴起了讨伐汉奸的行动。李香兰被军事法庭以“汉奸罪”嫌疑审讯(另一有名的案例就是川岛芳子),后因公布了属于山口家的日本户籍,证明自己的日本人身份得以幸免。被判无罪。

  1946年2月,她被释放回国。但是,李香兰的名字及她的音乐、电影,却被刻意的遗忘在许多文献里,唯有香港对于这位曾经“演过”中国人的李香兰,还抱着友善的态度,60年代尚被邀请至香港卲氏访问、拍片。日后李香兰的自传说到这段,李香兰自己说到:“当时我还只是个十几岁的少女,只是按照大人们要求的去扮演交给我的角色。”

  1974年到1992年期间,李香兰连续获选担任日本国会议员,以政治家的身份活跃于社会舞台。同时她还写作自传《在中国的日子——李香兰:我的前半生》。通过这本自传,她勇敢地揭露了日本军国主义侵华战争给中国人民带来的巨大灾难,表达了“日中不再战,我们同是黑发黑眼睛”的和平挚愿。作为政治的牺牲者和历史的见证人,她还教育日本青少年牢记:“这全都是事实呀!” 1989年,日本富士电视台推出了据此改编的电视剧《再见,李香兰》。

  她在自传中曾描述过面对这种自相矛盾的无能为力和无比痛苦:“中国人不知道我是日本人,我欺骗了中国人。一种罪恶感缠绕着我的心,仿佛走进了一条死胡同,陷入了绝境。”她自己也几次下决心公布自己是日本人的事实,但都没有勇气去做。尽管如此,由于从小生活在中国,她对中国的感情还是十分真实的。她是日本军国主义侵华战争的历史见证人。她经历了“九·一八事变”、“卢沟桥事变”,目睹了“平顶山事件”,在一些日本人矢口否认这段罪恶历史的时候,她敢于在日本右翼的重压下郑重而又沉痛地宣告:日本应该向中国人民谢罪!

  追踪她的一生,人们难以理解为何她仅仅由于不自觉地唱歌和表演就险些被判处死刑。她本人单纯善良,希望中日友好,却被人利用、愚弄,成为日本侵华政策的工具,受到中国人民的仇视。由此看来,她不过是一个历史的牺牲者,后来的种种遭际,皆因时代所致。“一个被时代、被一种虚妄的政策所愚弄的人,如果噩梦醒来后,能够有机会对当时的行为反思,或者加以解释说明,也是幸福的。”她对伪满“宫廷挂”兼关东军参谋长吉岗中将说的这些话,也可以作为她对于自己前半生的说明。

 
 

Introduce My Hometown

    I lived in a small town in the northeast of Inner Mongolia province, named Jagedaqi (加格达奇), before I entered the elementary school.  It’s located at the foot of Xing’an Mountains.  Although I had lived in there so many years, I was too young to travel around.  I could hardly remember what the town looks like until one summer a couple years ago, when I got a chance to visit it again.
    When I was on the running train towards Jagedaqi, the only thing out of the window was the meadow.  Occasionally, I could find some boys riding on horses.  Only hundreds of meters away from me, they were running, shorting, pursuing each other to pursue pleasures.   I thought that it’s a perfect dream for every boy.  The feeling on a horseback must likes flying.  On the infinity meadow nothing can hold them back.  They can just enjoy the speed, the freedom on the horsebacks.  For the same reason, boys in the city like driving over speed.  But that’s not a good idea.  It’s too dangerous.

    Another wonderful sight on the meadow I have to mention is the river.  River on that plain never flows straight.  It always turns from one side to another again and again and marks its course by a winding silver line across the landscape.  Especially, when the sun was falling down to the skyline at dusk, millions of golden light spot will twinkled here and there on the meadow, just like the gorgeous starry sky.

    The scenes suddenly changed when the train was near to the mount area.  Small hills emerged.  I only saw the small hills even after I’d arrived the town, as I have said it just at the foot of Xing’an Mountains.  After I’ve climbed on the top of one hill.  I found the town basined by a round of small hills.  It’s just at the bottom of a basin.  But at the north direction, I saw some huge mountains.  They’re too far from me.  I though I had no chance to achieve them this time.

    Snows covered the Xing’an Mountains in about 7 months each year.  I like the elegant movements of the snowflakes when they are falling down all day long and all nigh long.  The world became extremely bright after snow.  It seemed only one color remained, white.  Every mountains and meadows were panted with white.  And every sound was muffled.  What a silence it was.  When you walk on snow-covered ground, the only sound you can hear is you own steps.

    Yes, the snow is beautiful, but the life in winter is really hard. 
    First of all, we always worried about what to eat.  There were few choices of food in winter.  We Chinese separate the food as staple and vegetables, meats, fishes.  Before I was a teenager, the main staple food was corn.  Then, rice and wheat began to instead of the corn.  In my memory, there was one period that our only food was corn.  Finally, I came to the end of my endurance.  So, I swore that I would never eat the corn again if I could leave that place.  I have some cousins in Wuxi.  They liked corn very much.  However I explained, they just couldn’t understand why I hate such a delicious food.
    All vegetables are stored in the autumn.  Only Chinese cabbage, potato and radish can be stored for such a long period.  Each fall, my family bought 300 to 500 pounds of Chinese cabbage and several pounds of potatoes and radishes and stored in the cellar.  Not only our human beings but also other creatures such as squirrels, ants and bees used the same way to survive from those freezing days.  But the conditions are much better now days.  Thanks for the developing of market economy and modern traffic method, more and more south agriculture products were sent to north in the winter.  We have much more choices now.
    Winter is also a trouble for traffic.  When snows covered the ground, the road surface would be too smooth for the vehicles.  The bus companies would suspend their business.  And if the wind was also too strong for us to ride bicycles, we would have to use our primal method, to walk to the schools or the offices.

    The snowstorms are dangerous.  Most peoples lived in Qiqihar can remember the day, April 29th, 1984, when a terrible snowstorm attacked us.  At the morning, lots of peoples lived in the signal-story house found that they just couldn’t open the door.  Then they found their houses had been surrounded by snows with had a deep of more than one meter.
    One of my friends once told me about his story in that horrible day.  He was an eight-year-old boy at that time.  When he finished hi class, he decided to walk home.  The snows on the rode were already quite thick.  They covered the dykes besides the rode.  Suddenly my friend fell into one dyke and his whole body was immerged in the snow.  However he struggled he just couldn’t climb out of the dyke.  There were few people staying out side, so no one noticed him.  When his father went to the school to pick him up, the teacher said that boy had already left.  The father was very scared of the teacher’s words, because he didn’t meet his son on the way he came.  So he and the teachers begin to search on the roads between his family and the school.  When they found my friend, he had already been numb with cold.  Fortunately, it was not too late.  And he finally recuperated.
    Not all peoples had been frightened by the storm.  One of my uncles was on the way home from another city by train.  At that morning, the train had to stop in a distance of tens of miles away from the downtown.  Most passengers chose to stay in the carriages and wait for the rescue.  But some strong young men and my uncle were very excited.  They thought that it was god-given opportunity to prove their strength and courage.  So they jumped out of the train and spend a whole day on walking home.

    All the stories about the storm were heard from other peoples.  I have totally forgotten it.  I had asked my father what I was doing in that day, why I couldn’t remember any thing about the storm.  Then, he said: “Oh, you were very happy that day.  Your classes were suspended because of the storm.  You were very glad to play at home with some neighbor boys.”  Aha, here is the conclusion: Peoples tend to remember the pains but forget the happiness.

相关文章:

    英语作文

 

编辑

人工荨麻疹

春季多发皮肤病。有的人皮肤不小心给指甲划一下或碰撞磨擦一下,就鼓起一道道的红印子来,还痒得不得了。如果用火柴棒在皮肤上“画画”或写“字”,5分钟后皮肤上就出现颜色鲜红的“图画”或“字”。医生指出,这种能给皮肤“画画”的“怪病”是皮肤划痕症,又叫“人工荨麻疹”,属于荨麻疹的一种特殊类型。
一、病因
1. 皮肤的过敏反应
常见的皮肤划痕症有两种。一种叫“单纯性皮肤划痕症”,即用指甲等物划皮肤后,出现一道道的风疹块,但患者并没有瘙痒的感觉和其它不适,这种风疹块常在10—15分钟后自行消退。这属于正常人生理性的体质异常反应,约5%正常人有此现象。另一种叫“症状性皮肤划痕症”,是由于皮肤受到外界物理性刺激后发生的过敏反应。当局部皮肤的细胞受钝物刺划或磨擦刺激后,人体的肥大细胞就释放出“组织胺”等活性物质,这些物质能引起皮肤的毛细血管扩张,血浆从血管中渗出到真皮,所以,出现皮肤发痒和风团块。也有一部分患者是由于免疫球蛋白E所介导而产生的,患这种皮肤划痕症的人经常无缘无故地觉得皮肤发痒,用指甲抓挠或用钝物擦划皮肤,就出现一条条红斑风团,紧接着风团水肿高出皮面,并在红斑风团的边缘部位出现红晕现象。

 

2. 同青霉素或细菌感染有关
症状性划痕症又分即刻型和延迟型两种,二者都由变态反应引起。前者常见的致病原为青霉素,这种过敏不一定先有药物反应,用青霉素治疗的病人中80%的病人皮肤划痕试验阳性,并且部分病人在停用青霉素后很久仍为阳性。除了青霉素外,如果病人近期有细菌感染(如急性扁桃腺炎、胆囊炎、阑尾炎等)、昆虫叮咬等也会引起即刻型症状性皮肤划痕症的发生。而延迟型症状性皮肤划痕症的发病与真菌过敏有关,抗原常为真菌产物,所以足癣患者易伴发延迟型症状性皮肤划痕症。
3. 儿童警惕食物过敏
皮肤划痕症可发生于任何年龄,儿童也不例外。儿童皮肤划痕症常常与荨麻疹同时发病,也可在各种感染性疾病、精神紧张及药物过敏时发生。
儿童皮肤划痕症或荨麻疹发病特点多是过敏反应所致,其常见多发的可疑病因首先是食物,其次是感染。因年龄不同,饮食种类不同引起发病原因各异,如婴儿以母乳、牛奶、奶制品喂养为主,当婴幼儿开始增加辅食,这时鸡蛋、肉松、鱼松、果汁、蔬菜、水果都可成为过敏的原因。学龄前期及学龄期儿童,往往喜欢吃零食,零食种类及正餐食品较多,因此食物过敏的机会增多,诸如果仁、鱼类、蟹、虾、花生、蛋、草莓、苹果、李子、柑橘、各种冷饮、饮料、巧克力等都有可能成为过敏原因。
2-7岁的小儿缺乏自理能力,到室外、野外、树丛及傍晚的路灯下,往往易被虫咬,或与花粉、粉尘、螨及宠物如猫和狗的皮毛等接触,它们均易成为过敏的原因。儿童期及幼儿期的小儿抵抗力偏低,容易患各种感染,因此化脓性扁桃腺炎、咽炎、肠炎、上呼吸道感染等疾病一年四季均可成为荨麻疹的诱发因素。年长儿、青少年开始对药物尤其对青霉素容易过敏引发荨麻疹。
儿童发病还同药物、冷、热、日晒、精神紧张等有关,从病程看,儿童多为急性荨麻疹,但是随着年龄增大,可逐渐由急性转变为慢性荨麻疹。儿童皮肤划痕症,一般持续2-4周,而成人则达数月或数年。
二、预防
1. 增强机体抵抗力
防止皮肤过敏首先应当保持充足的睡眠和适当的体育锻炼,以增强机体的抵抗力和适应能力。其次,由于春季是个容易发生过敏的季节,因此,无论是使用化妆品还是吃食物,尤其是海鲜,都应当根据自己的机体状况和肤质特性加以选择,以免加重皮肤的过敏程度。有条件的可以到医院去做过敏原测试,以便采取相应的预防措施。
2. 采用饮食调理法
过敏症患者要注意饮食营养的均衡,少食用油腻、甜食及刺激性食物、烟、酒等。某些食物也是致敏原,要注意加以辨别。多吃维生素丰富的食物可以增强机体免疫能力。根据营养学家的研究,洋葱和大蒜等含有抗炎化合物,可防过敏症的发病。另有多种蔬菜和水果亦可抵抗过敏症,其中椰菜和柑橘功效特别显著。过敏性体质者最好每天喝些豆浆。
3. 改变过敏性体质
对某些症状严重的患者采用脱敏治疗法,可有助改变过敏性体质。医生在这种疗法中要用化学方法改变患者血清,使其稀释。向皮下注射改变了的致敏原和乳类、花粉等物质制成的抗原浸液,并逐渐增加致敏原的浓度,以调整人体免疫系统,使过敏者体内产生对过敏物质的抵抗力,从而有效地防止过敏。
4. 正确选用护肤品
由于过敏性皮肤的症状因人而异,其表现也各不相同。因此,选择护肤品要十分慎重,购买时可遵循以下原则:
1、不选气味太芳香的产品,因其含香料太多,太复杂,容易引起过敏。
2、含酒精和果酸成分的产品也要慎用,因其对皮肤刺激大,对敏感性肌肤无疑雪上加霜。
3、不使用深层清洁的磨砂膏和去角质霜,这些都是加重过敏的产品。
4、购买时,应选标有“敏感肌肤用”,或有“低过敏”、“经皮肤科医生测试”等字样的产品。

 

 

三、诊断
1. 皮肤划痕试验
皮肤划痕试验是皮肤科常用的物理检查方法,用于检查过敏性皮肤病如荨麻疹、药疹、异位性皮炎等。皮肤划痕试验的做法是:用钝器划前臂屈侧皮肤,1~2分钟后在钝器划过处产生风团,则为皮肤划痕征阳性。如怀疑皮肤对某种变应原过敏,也可做特异性皮肤划痕试验,做法是:选上臂外侧或背部皮肤,消毒皮肤后,用针尖在皮肤上划一0 5~1cm长的条痕,以不出血为度,将试验物滴于其上,轻擦之。同时用多种变应原作试验时,划痕间应有4~5 cm的距离。试验时必须有对照,通常在试验后20分钟观察结果,并将试验物擦去洗净,反应标准如下:
(-)  无红斑、风团。
(±) 水肿性红斑或风团,直径<0.5cm。
(+) 风团有红晕、直径等于0.5cm。
(++) 风团有明显红晕,直径0.5~1cm,无伪足。
(+++) 风团有明显红晕及伪足,直径>1cm。
皮肤划痕试验阳性的患者,经常在紧束的腰带、表带、袜带等处局部起风团瘙痒,由于搔抓而风团产生更多。一般理论上认为皮肤划痕现象是由于IgE抗体的参与而发生,同时与皮肤肥大细胞存在某种功能异常有关。

四、治疗
1. 尽可能找到并去除致病因
单纯性皮肤划痕症一般无需治疗。对于症状性皮肤划痕症,首先应尽可能找到并去除致病因素,如正用青霉素的病人应立即停用青霉素;伴有细菌感染者应抗感染治疗;伴有足癣等真菌感染者可抗真菌治疗等。
2. 西药治疗
可采用抗组胺类药物,如扑尔敏、安太乐等,有一定疗效。另外可辅助用些降低血管壁通透性的药物,如维生素 C、钙剂等。值得注意的是,有皮肤划痕症的患者患有其他感染性疾患时,不宜采用青霉素治疗。
皮肤划痕症,民间有用新鲜茶叶泡汤洗治的经验。如果和先天过敏体质有关,一般无法根治。经常复发者,应注意尽量避免皮肤受磨擦刺激,可口服赛庚啶、安太乐、多虑平,注射组织胺球蛋白等药物防治。但应在医生指导下,坚持较长时间治疗才能取得较好效果。
皮肤划痕症外用药物可选用止痒水、炉甘石洗剂等。慢性复发者使用抗组胺药物治疗,如病情严重,出现大风团水肿、呼吸困难时应立即到医院吸氧、皮下注射肾上腺素等。
3. 中药治疗
中医认为风邪也是人工荨麻疹的主要病因,根据病情选用小胡麻汤、麻黄连翘赤小豆汤、荆防三色四物汤等。
网络上收集到的一些配方,没有验证过,仅供参考。
处方1:当归10克,生地10克,川弓10克,白芍10克,黄芪15克,白术10克,防风10克,蝉衣5克,荆芥10克,甘草5克。水煎分两次服,每日一剂。
处方2:柴胡、白术、乌梅、苦参、防风、丝瓜络、五味子、当归、赤芍各10克,茯苓20克,白鲜皮30克,甘草5克。
处方3:益母草60克、生地30克、黑芝麻30克、水煎服用,水煎分两次服,每日一剂,连续7天。
处方4:蝉蜕150克、洗净风干、炒焦为末、炼蜜为丸,每粒9克,每日早晚各1丸,开水送下,以痊愈为度。一般150克即可。
相关文章:

Insects

    My favorite TV Channel is the Shanghai Documentary Channel, because I can always enjoy the graceful creatures on it.  I’ll intrude one kind of creatures today, insect. 

    First, let’s think about what is an insect?  Is the butterfly an insect?  Is the spider an insect?
    Insect is belonged Arthropoda (节肢动物门).  So, an insect must have all the characters of the Arthropoda.  An arthropod has the following features:  First, its body can be separated into several segments.  Second, it has legs, which can also be separated into several segments.  That’s why we call it 节肢动物.  Now we know neither the earthworm nor the snail is an Arthropod, because the have no legs.  Is our human being an Arthropod?  We have legs.  But no!  An arthropod has bones covered outside of its body, but our bones are inside of our bodies.  Ok, lets count how many arthropods we know.  The shrimps, the crabs, the spiders, the butterflies, the bees, the ants, all of them are arthropods.  But only some of them are insects. 

    An insect’s has three parts, the head, the breast, and the belly. 
The head is the sensor center.  The main sensors of an insect are a pair of feelers, and eyes.  Some insects have one or two pair of eyes; some others can have thousands of eyes.  Another task of head is taking food. 
    Breast is driver center of an insect.  All its three pairs of legs are growth on the breast.
    Belly takes charge of breed and metabolism.  Metabolism means to absorb food and excrete waste out of the body.
    Now we know, a spider is not an insect, because it has four pairs of legs.  But the butterflies, the bees, the ants, the dragonflies, and the mosquitoes are insects.  Have you ever observed the caterpillars?  Some of then have thousands of legs, some of them haven’t even one leg.  But they are also insects.  Why?  Because all these characters are describe an imago, a matured insect.  But the caterpillars are only larvae.  They will metamorphosis into butterflies finally.

    Do you know how many species of insects on the earth?  Someone believes that that there are more than 10 millions species of insects on the earth.  Let’s only consider the already discoed species.  Suggests all the species of creatures on the earth were in one pie, on the other word, about 1 million species.  Three fourth of the pie is occupied by the insects.  And one third of the insects are beetles.  One sixth of the insects are butterflies, one sixth is bees and ants, one sixth is flies and mosquitoes, and one sixth is other insects.

    You may curious that why there are so many kinds of insects.  I know some of the reasons. 
    First, in about hundreds of million years, insects are the only creatures on this earth that can fly until birds emerged.  They can easily migrate to some other habitat, or avoid their enemies with help of their wings.  Insects exploit every inch of plot once they come to the earth. 
    Second, the size of a single insect is usually tiny.  The biggest insect is just like an egg-size.  For smallest ones, 10 millions of them assumed tighter equals one egg.  That means an insect only need very limited foods to be feed.  For example, a cockroach can survive for two months without eating anything.  And, they can hide themselves anywhere.
    The third, almost everything can be the foods for insects.  A cockroach can live in a television set all its live by eating the wax on the board.
    Another reason is their incredible reproducing capability.  In average, an insect can lay sounds of eggs each time.  Some one can lay millions of eggs.
    The last one is more unbelievable.  The first insect appeared in 350 million years ago.  In such a long period the insects already adapted this world perfectly.  They evaluated various capabilities to protect themselves.  Some of the capabilities are even hard to image.  For examples, some insects can live in desert where’s temperature is higher than 50 Celsius degree.  Some other insects can live in –50 Celsius degree.  Some flies can live in pure salt or pure oil, even in pure CO2.

相关文章:

    英语作文

 

编辑

厚黑学

    ·李宗吾·   (1879 – 1944)

  我自读书识字以来,就想为英雄豪杰,求之四书五经,茫无所得,求之诸子百家,与夫廿四史,仍无所得,以为古之为英雄豪杰者,必有不传之秘,不过吾人生性愚鲁,寻他不出罢了。穷索冥搜,忘寝废食,如是者有年,一旦偶然想起三国时几个人物,不觉恍然大悟曰:得之矣,得之矣,古之为英雄豪杰者,不过面厚心黑而已。

  三国英雄,首推曹操,他的特长,全在心黑:他杀吕伯奢,杀孔融,杀杨修,杀董承伏完,又杀皇后皇子,悍然不顾,并且明目张胆地说:“宁我负人,毋人负我。”心子之黑,真是达于极点了。有了这样本事,当然称为一世之雄了。

  其次要算刘备,他的特长,全在于脸皮厚:他依曹操,依吕布,依刘表,依孙权,依袁绍,东窜西走,寄人篱下,恬不为耻,而且生平善哭,做三国演义的人,更把他写得维妙维肖,遇到不能解决的事情,对人痛哭一场,立即转败为功,所以俗语有云:“刘备的江山,是哭出来的。”这也是一个有本事的英雄。他和曹操,可称双绝;当著他们煮酒论英雄的时候,一个心子最黑,一个脸皮最厚,一堂晤对,你无奈我何,我无奈你何,环顾袁本初诸人,卑鄙不足道,所以曹操说:“天下英雄,惟使君与操耳。”

  此外还有一个孙权,他和刘备同盟,并且是郎舅之亲,忽然夺取荆州,把关羽杀了,心之黑,仿佛曹操,无奈黑不到底,跟著向蜀请和,其黑的程度,就要比曹操稍逊一点。他与曹操比肩称雄,抗不相下,忽然在曹丞驾下称臣,脸皮之厚,仿佛刘备,无奈厚不到底,跟著与魏绝交,其厚的程度也比刘备稍逊一点。他虽是黑不如操,厚不如备,却是二者兼备,也不能不算是一个英雄。他们三个人,把各人的本事施展开来,你不能征服我,我不能服你,那时候的天下,就不能不分而为三。

  后来曹操、刘备、孙权,相继死了,司马氏父子乘时崛起,他算是受了曹刘诸人的薰陶,集厚黑学之大成,他能欺人寡妇孤儿,心之黑与曹操一样;能够受巾帼之辱,脸皮之厚,还更甚于刘备;我读史见司马懿受辱巾帼这段事,不禁拍案大叫:“天下归司马氏矣!”所以得到了这个时候,天下就不得不统一,这都是“事有必至,理有固然”。

  诸葛武候,天下奇才,是三代下第一人,遇著司马懿还是没有办法,他下了“鞠躬尽瘁,死而后已”的决心,终不能取得中原尺寸之地,竟至呕血而死,可见王佐之才,也不是厚黑名家的敌手。

  我把他几个人物的事,反复研究,就把这千古不传的秘诀,发现出来。一部二十四史,可一以贯之:“厚黑而己。”兹再举汉的事来证明一下。

  项羽拔山盖世之雄。咽鸣叱吒,千人皆废,为什么身死东城,为天下笑!他失败的原因,韩信所说:“妇人之仁,匹夫之勇”两句话,包括尽了。妇人之仁,是心有所不忍,其病根在心子不黑;匹夫之勇,是受不得气,其病根在脸皮不厚。鸿门之宴,项羽和刘邦,同坐一席,项庄已经把剑取出来了,只要在刘邦的颈上一划,“太高皇帝”的招牌,立刻可以挂出,他偏偏徘徊不忍,竟被刘邦逃走。垓下之败,如果渡过乌江,卷土重来,尚不知鹿死谁手?他偏偏又说:“籍与江东子弟八千人,渡江而西,今无一人还,纵江东父兄,怜我念我,我何面目见之。纵彼不言,籍独不愧于心乎?”这些话,真是大错特错!他一则曰:“无面见人”;再则曰:“有愧于心。”究竟高人的面,是如何长起得,高人的心,是如何生起得?也不略加考察,反说:“此天亡我,非战之罪”,恐怕上天不能任咎吧。

  我们又拿刘邦的本事研究一下,史记载:项羽问汉王曰:“天下匈匈数岁,徒以吾两人耳,愿与汉王挑战决雌雄。”汉王笑谢曰:“吾宁斗智不斗力。”请问笑谢二字从何生出?刘邦见郦生时,使两女子洗脚,郦生责他倨见长者,他立刻辍为之谢。还有自己的父亲,身在俎下,他要分一杯羹;亲生儿女,孝惠鲁元,楚兵追至,他能够推他下车;后来又杀韩信,杀彭越,“鸟尽弓藏;兔死狗烹”,请问刘邦的心子,是何状态,岂是那“妇人之仁,匹夫之勇”的项羽,所能梦见?太史公著本纪,只说刘邦隆准龙颜,项羽是重瞳子,独于二人的面皮厚薄,心之黑白,没有一字提及,未免有愧良史。

  刘邦的面,刘邦的心,比较别人特别不同,可称天纵之圣。黑之一字,真是“生和安行,从心所欲不逾矩”,至于厚字方面,还加了点学历,他的业师,就是三杰中的张良,张良的业师,是圮上老人,他们的衣钵真传,是彰彰可考的。圮上受书一事,老人种种作用,无非教张良脸皮厚罢了。这个道理,苏东坡的留候论,说得很明白。张良是有夙根的人,一经指点,言下顿悟,故老人以王者师期之。这种无上妙法,断非钝根的人所能了解,所以史记上说:“良为他人言,皆不省,独沛公善之,良曰,沛公殆天授也。”可见这种学问,全是关乎资质,明师固然难得,好徒弟也不容易寻找。韩信求封齐王的时候,刘邦几乎误会,全靠他的业师在旁指点,仿佛现在学校中,教师改正学生习题一般。以刘邦的天资,有时还有错误,这种学问的精深,就此可以想见了。

  刘邦天资既高,学历又深,把流俗所传君臣、父子、兄弟、夫妇、朋友五伦,一一打破,又把礼义廉耻,扫除净尽,所以能够平荡群雄,统一海内,一直经过了四百几十年,他那厚黑的余气,方才消灭,汉家的系统,于是乎才断绝了。

  楚汉的时候,有一个人,脸皮最厚,心不黑,终归失败,此人为谁?就是人人知道的韩信。胯下之辱,他能够忍受,厚的程度,不在刘邦之下。无奈对于黑字,欠了研究;他为齐王时,果能听蒯通的话当然贵不可言,他偏偏系念著刘邦解衣推食的恩惠,冒冒昧昧地说:“衣人之衣者,怀人之忧;食人之食者,死人之事。” 后来长乐钟室,身首异处,夷及九族。真是咎由自取,他讥诮项羽是妇人之仁,可见心子不黑,作事还要失败的,这个大原则,他本来也是知道的,但他自己也在这里失败,这也怪韩信不得。

  同时又有一个人,心最黑,脸皮不厚,也归失败,此人也是人人知道的,姓范名增。刘邦破咸阳,系子婴,还军坝上,秋毫不犯,范增千方百计,总想把他置之死地,心子之黑,也同刘邦仿佛;无奈脸皮不厚,受不得气,汉用陈平计,间疏楚君王,增大怒求去,归来至彭城,疽后背死,大凡做大事的人,那有动辄生气的道理?“增不去,项羽不亡”,他若能隐忍一下,刘邦的破绽很多。随便都可以攻进去。他忿然求去,把自己的老命,把项羽的江山,一齐送掉,因小不忍,坏了大事,苏东坡还称他为人杰,未免过誉?

  据上面的研究,厚黑学这种学问,法子很简单,用起来却很神妙,小用小效,大用大效,刘邦司马懿把它学完了,就统一天下;曹操刘备各得一偏,也能称孤道寡,割据争雄;韩信、范增,也是各得一偏,不幸生不逢时,偏偏与厚黑兼全的刘邦,并世而生,以致同归失败。但是他们在生的时候,凭其一得之长,博取王候将相,炫赫一时,身死之后,史传中也占了一席之地,后人谈到他们的事迹,大家都津津乐道,可见厚黑学终不负人。

  上天生人,给我们一张脸,而厚即在其中,给我们一颗心,而黑即在其中。从表面上看去,广不数寸,大不盈掬,好象了无奇异,但,若精密的考察,就知道它的厚是无限的,它的黑是无比的,凡人世的功名富贵、宫室妻妾、衣服车马,无一不从这区区之地出来,造物生人的奇妙,真是不可思议。钝根众生,身有至宝,弃而不用,可谓天下之大愚。

  厚黑学共分三步功夫,第一步是“厚如城墙,黑如煤炭”。起初的脸皮,好象一张纸,由分而寸,由尺而丈,就厚如城墙了。最初心的颜色,作乳白状,由乳色而炭色、而青蓝色,再进而就黑如煤炭了。到了这个境界,只能算初步功夫;因为城墙虽厚,轰以大炮,还是有攻破的可能;煤炭虽黑,但颜色讨厌,众人都不愿挨近它。所以只算是初步的功夫。

  第二步是“厚而硬,黑而亮”。深于厚学的人,任你如何攻打,他一点不动,刘备就是这类人,连曹操都拿他没办法。深于黑学的人,如退光漆招牌,越是黑,买主越多,曹操就是这类人,他是著名的黑心子,然而中原名流,倾心归服,真可谓“心子漆黑,招牌透亮”,能够到第二步,固然同第一步有天渊之别,但还露了迹象,有形有色,所以曹操的本事,我们一眼就看出来了。

  第三步是“厚而无形,黑而无色”。至厚至黑,天上后世,皆以为不厚不黑,这个境界,很不容易达到,只好在古之大圣大贤中去寻求。有人问:“这种学问,哪有这样精深?”我说:“儒家的中庸,要讲到‘无声无臭’方能终止;学佛的人,要讲到‘菩提无树,明镜非台’,才算正果;何况厚黑学是千古不传之秘,当然要做到‘无形无色’,才算止境”。

  总之,由三代以至于今,王候将相,豪杰圣贤,不可胜数,苟其事之有成,无一不出于此;书册俱在,事实难诬,读者倘能本我指示的途径,自去搜寻,自然左右逢源,头头是道。

MSN Spaces 更新的網誌編輯器

 

Quote MSN Spaces 更新網誌編輯器了..

從留言裡發現有人已經發現網誌編輯器已經更新了..沒錯..從開發著的Scott的Spaces裡的這一篇[Spaces releases a new rich text editor]就能知道…

PS. 除了修改編輯器功能外…從牛角村村長家還得知 表格<table>語法 已經可以使用了..可以不需要再用<div>去模擬囉…^^

以下範例

 

PS. 加上有底線的超連結也方便多了  ..

  1. 選取需要加入超連結(捷徑)的文字
  2. 按插入連結,輸入網址
  3. 加完之後直接按[加底線]的按鈕。

範例

MSN官方網站

 

PS. 水平分隔線可以很不一樣喔(IE only)

右→左淡化


左→右淡化


立體


 

PS. 感謝網友的提供與分享,MSN Spaces現在開放<iframe>內置框架(插入網頁)語法。

範例(插入Flash):

HTML:

<iframe src="http://mms.blog.xuite.net/90/14/11930690/blog_14746/dv/3473629/3473629.swf&quot; scrolling="no" align="absmiddle" border="0" width="379" height="262"></iframe>
 

 

 

别挡住我的阳光

      古希腊哲学家都爱晒太阳,第欧根尼也不例外。据说阳光能让人的理性清明,阳光与大海山峦的映象有助于揭示宇宙的本质。所以,面对太阳是哲学家思考问题的最佳角度。一天,第欧根尼正沉浸在这种难得的惬意之中,一位年轻人走到他的身边,怀着崇敬的心情俯下身去,诚恳地问道:

      “我能为您做些什么?”

      被打断了思路的哲学家很不高兴,他抬起眼皮看看这个讨厌鬼,认出他叫亚历山大,对,就是那个威震欧亚的马其顿国王亚历山大大帝。老第连动都没动,坦率而又不失礼貌地回答:

      “请别挡住我的阳光。”

      于是,亚里士多德的学生,开创了希腊化时代的亚历山大,谦和地含笑点头,转身而退,让出了自己身躯遮住的那片阳光。

     西方人给予这个故事的诠释是:思想者和政治权力的拥有者应各据其位。思想者的位置是直面阳光,权力拥有者的位置是让出阳光,保证思想活动能够独立而不受干扰地进行。在思想的辞典里,没有政治权力的特权,如果后者想获得尊重,只有一个选择,老老实实守着自己的位置,保证思想者的充分自由。用独立宣言的话说,就是:政治社会的目的是保证人的天生的神圣的不可动摇的权利,其中最重要的是思想的权利。

     挡住阳光的权力者是绝对的越位,应该给与黄牌警告,哪怕他是无意的。强迫思想者离位的权力者是暴徒,已经不具备占有权力高位的资格。轻易逃跑的思想者是懦夫,他们会被思想者的群体长久驱除。那么回避阳光的思想者呢,无疑是骗子,占着位置不工作,简直是犯了渎职罪。

     错位是危险的。政治权力垄断了思想的阳光,阳光就变成了令万物枯萎的恶魔,思想视保护政治权力为己任,二者对人类生活的价值都荡然无存。错位的人通常不会有好的结局。意大利人墨索里尼曾指着他的同胞戈兰西说,我要让你这个大脑20年不能思想。结果,仅仅过了12年,他自己的尸体就被高悬于米兰广场示众。

       当然,所有这一切,都建立在思想者和权力者对双方位置的共同认知的基础上,所以,第欧根尼和亚历山大并没什么了不起,他们只不过是遵守了一个公认的契约而已。所以,墨索里尼实在是运气不好,谁让他是古希腊人的现代邻居。如果一个社会压根存在着另一种默契,权力拥有者把思想当成权力的奴隶,思想者把思想当成待价以沽的工具,那么,这个故事就完全是痴人说梦。正所谓:井龟不可言于海,夏虫不可语于冰。