| |
- 美国街道名称分类及其简称（上）
- 洗腦的激勵課程
- 王力雄<我无法对中国的未来不悲观>英译：On China's Future
- 民营企业家政治身份扩张路线图
- 寿光绿色蔬菜调查
- 大馬選舉：網民起義
- 香港是谁
- 在美华人遭遇监控内幕
- 教育不公划分“权贵学生阶层”：最难上小学排行榜
- 苏联病人：俄罗斯20年经济转轨之路
- THE T-CELL ARMY-Can the body's immune response help treat cancer?
- 制度竞争|中国梦07
- 马景涛 是因为真诚
- 小红猪抢稿第87期：THE T-CELL ARMY-Can the body's immune response help treat cancer?
- 『摄影奖项』ICP Infinity Award 2013
- 工人的五一 ‧ 系列遊行小訪
- 台政府搜刮民脂新招 關廠工人絕食抗爭
- 『摄影奖项』ICP Infinity Award 2013
- [转载]从未忘记的理想和人生
- [小红猪]时间旅行不是梦——哥德尔旋转宇宙
| Posted: 03 May 2013 01:25 PM PDT 不久前笔者曾经谈过美国高速道路的名称，介绍了Highway、Parkway和Turnpike，还有Interstate、Toll Road等，听起来有点复杂，但是比起城镇的街道名称来，那可是太简单了。就好像走南闯北的中国人每到一个新的地区，往往要一段时间才能习惯当地的街名一样，中国人到美国来，把那些大街小巷的英文名字闹明白，也得花点功夫才行。下面我们就来介绍一下美国的街名类别，它们的来历，以及地图和路牌上的简写。 美国的大小城镇往往有一条Main Street，也有不少地方把这样的一条街叫做Market Street，直译过来当然就是"主街"或"市场街"，但是前一个不大符合汉语对街道命名的习惯，后一个则现在那里不一定能看到像模像样的市场。其实，这条街一定是那个市镇初创时期的第一条通衢大道，商家店铺排列左右，这两种叫法就再自然不过了。英译汉历来有意译和直译之争，如果坚持意译的话，那么汉语的城关大道可能最为贴切。例如West Main Street可以译为西关大街或西大街。 一般而言，Street（街）指的是一边或两边有人行道的通道，路面铺设了砖石或沥青水泥，便于车辆通行。在中世纪的西方，Road或Way（路、道）仅仅指可以通行的道路，只有人工铺设过的才能够叫Street，所以直到现在它仍然只用在城镇，乡间道路鲜有这么叫的。西方的市民社会成熟之后，这个字衍生出许多其他意思，例如the people in the street指的是普通市民阶层，常用在政治领域例如竞选活动的支持者等。其他像man in the street表示普通人，street people为无家可归的流浪汉，而street smarts则用来形容一个人喜欢耍小聪明或精于人情世故。 Street 在美国城镇的街道路牌上一般都简写为ST或St。 上面提到了Road和Way，这两个词也是美国常用的街名类别。Road通常翻译为汉语的路，从词源上来说，它是从riding即骑乘演变而来，所以城镇、市郊以及乡村道路都可以用，而且通常不会用作特别狭窄的街名。 需要注意的是，英语Road的复数，Roads有时是roadstead的缩写，是海港锚地的意思。弗吉尼亚州东南部的Hampton Roads（汉普顿锚地）就是以美国海军诺福克基地为代表的一块地方，包括了弗吉尼亚海滩、诺福克与纽波特纽斯等地的一大片土地及水域。 Road不仅用在街道名称上，在日常生活中也常常碰到它，例如"road test"指的是驾照考试的路考，"road hug"是那些在路上开车横冲直撞的家伙，"road trip"专指体育运动特别是几大球俱乐部的客场比赛，而"road map"除了公路图的原意外，现代常常用来指重大国际政治问题的解决路径或方案。 Road的路牌缩写为RD或Rd。 Way这个词在古英语里拼作weg，是从古日耳曼语的wegaz演变而来，意思是道路、路径和旅途。今天在美国除了作为高速道路称谓的后缀，如Highway、Freeway等之外，如果用来作为街道名称的话，常常是城镇特别是郊县社区的短小街道。但是有一个例外，就是纽约大名鼎鼎的百老汇大街。百老汇英文叫Broadway，是一条纵贯曼哈顿全岛的街道，从南端可以遥望自由女神的炮台公园起始，往北穿越以著名的铜牛和华尔街为代表的金融区，然后是小意大利、中国城、时代广场、百老汇剧院区、林肯中心一直到哈莱姆，还有和它擦肩而过的格林威治村，多种文化在那里交流冲撞，汉语把它译为百老汇大街，堪称翻译界的神来之笔。 Way这个词在美国英语里也有不少转义而来的其他用法，例如That's the way to go是"就该这么做"，而There's long way to go是说 "路还长着呢"，至于美国国会的Committee on Ways and Means（拨款委员会），里面用到的ways and means指的是可以自行支配的资金或资源，它和道路的原意就离得稍微远了一点。 Way这个字本身就不长，所以街道路牌上用不着缩写。 美国街名类别还有很多，例如Avenue，Boulevard，Alley，Court，Place等，请待下回分解。
| ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 09:48 AM PDT 除左國民教育之外, 香港其實一直仔都存在住洗腦教育，讀依D課程嘅人唔洗用幾年時間去潛移默化，幾個月就成個人變左，有D人會覺得自己萬能，有D會無端端大聲听，成日叫人入會, 精神崩潰，破產，女的給人攪大肚， 不過有D人覺得課程對人際關係有所改善，至於課程是否有用真的不敢恭維。 依D課程有好多名稱，例如激勵課程/潛能訓練/領袖訓練課程等等，大概90年代未在香港出現，當中有life dynamics，Asia Work 等甚為出名，參與課程者更不乏有學識人士，我自己都識人讀過，有D當時好入迷，但係幾年以後大部分人都覺被騙。 以下文章是為了揭示止類課程真面目，希望大家在報讀前再三考慮，錢損失了還是算了吧，如果令到精神出現問題就真的不好了。 內容的大概 ''內容的分析'' 第一步"動搖" (Break Down) -> 第二步"植入" -> 第三步"強化" 第一步 "動搖 (Break Down)" 第二步"植入" 第三步驟為"強化" 到高級程到他們就會不斷給壓力要學員壓低去"Enroll" 人地入會, 其實就是去"Sell"人地入會, 不過用另一字眼 去掩飾, 如果"Sell"不到人入會, 其實係有暗示要kick out你 小結: 來源:金錢師 http://gn00116743.pixnet.net/blog/post/27599434-%E6%BF%80%E5%8B%B5%E6%B4... | ||
| 王力雄<我无法对中国的未来不悲观>英译：On China's Future Posted: 03 May 2013 09:40 AM PDT 住在纽约的藏人学者和作家茨仁朗杰（Tsering Namgyal），将这篇文章翻译为英文，并做了相应的编辑，发表于Asia Sentinel，在此转发。
On China's Future Written by Wang Lixiong WEDNESDAY, 17 APRIL 2013 Chinese writer on the impossibility of being optimistic Wang Lixiong is a Chinese writer and scholar best known for his political novel, China Tidal Wave, which was ranked 41st in the 100 Most Influential Chinese Novels of the 20th Century by Asia Weekly. It has gained widespread popularity in China and worldwide media attention while Wang is regarded as one of China's most outspoken dissidents and reformers. This was translated for Asia Sentinel by Tsering Namgyal, a Tibetan scholar and writer. In my 1991 novel China Tidal WaveI wrote about the collapse of China and the resulting mass migration of millions of Chinese into the world, thereby triggering various conflicts. As of today, more than 20 years later, it continues to sell. On the surface this might seem surprising, but actually it is not. As long as the future of China remains uncertain, the collapse of China cannot be ruled out entirely. Perhaps this is why China Tidal Wave Peril continues to attract its share of readers. Yet over the past 20 years, the scenarios in the book did not come true. The direction China is taking is also very different from the one foretold in the novel. But I often think that China, far from averting the apocalypse portrayed in the book, continues to inch closer toward disaster. China, they say, has gone through many crises such as the Warlord Era (in the early 1900s), the Opium War, the Japanese invasion, the Cultural Revolution and the Tianamen Square massacre, all of which it survived relatively unscathed. Thus critics say that predictions of China's collapse are overly pessimistic. In this regard, first we should discuss not China's crisis but its stability. In fact, it is precisely under stability that we often see China?s biggest crises. A truly stable country should have many ways of regulating society: political stability is just one of them. Others institutions, such as civic and religious organizations and political parties should all play a role in helping ease pressures. Culture and tradition, religion and faith, morality and ethics all help stabilize society, and so does the legal system, the invisible hand of the market and an army that follows the constitution. In China, however, there is only one force regulating society ‑ the government. The role of stabilizing society has become the monopoly of the government and political power belongs solely to the Communist Party. Anything that threatens the party is suppressed or banished. As a result, the party relies on its administrative network and the police force to rule 1.3 billion people. As a result, the party itself has become China's greatest risk. As soon as the party collapses, the whole country would lose its balance. In this sense, the CCP holds he all of China hostage: as soon as the CCP faces the end, China will meet with the same fate. The officials and businessmen, who hail the "Golden Era of China," know what would happen if China collapsed. The fact that they are gradually siphoning their wealth offshore is a sign of the looming crisis. Of course, because people are unable to find an oppositional force strong enough to challenge the government, many people believe China will not change and there will be no collapse. A major transformation, however, will not necessarily come from a big power or a big event that would be the last straw. Such changes more often than not occur unexpectedly. The classic example is the fall of the Soviet Union, an event that few Soviet experts were able to predict. During Mao Zedong's era, millions of people died of starvation but it had little effect on political stability because politics and economics were separate then. Politics was above everything else while economics was just a part of the equation. Therefore, economic crisis did not impact political stability. However, Deng Xiaoping put economics above politics, and economic growth was considered a panacea for all social ills. In other words, it is like spending money to buy stability and trading people's consent for material benefit. This closely linked public approval with public interest. Now, any economic problem is simultaneously a political problem. If the public continues to enjoy benefits, there is widespread calm; if they have no benefit, there will be discontent. Stability is contingent upon economic benefit. Since there is a fine line between the two situations, such a society can change at a moment's notice. Under this circumstance, political and administrative units have to keep the economic engine running. Economic development, however, does not occur in a linear progression; it is cyclical and it has its ups and downs. There is not a single major economy in the world that has not suffered a crisis. The Chinese economy is no exception. Stability will be put to a test not during good times but during difficult ones. The Chinese economy has many potential dangers, and there are impending crises on the horizon. They could take many forms such as the traditional crisis of overcapacity, or a modern financial crisis or a global economic crisis as a result of disruptions in the supply chain. In a society that puts economics above everything else, people no longer believe in ideology. Totalitarian regimes, therefore, can no longer rely on ideology to justify their rule and democratic means are also off limits. Therefore, it is left to rely on its "usefulness" to validate its rule. For the Chinese Communist Party, its "usefulness" lies in its ability to maintain continued economic growth. Yet as soon as there is an economic crisis, the government will lose its main claim to "usefulness" which could lead to political crisis, which, in turn, would trigger social crisis. China is a unique case in that tremendous instability at the local level (every year there are over 100,000 mass protest incidents) co-exists with extreme stability at the national level. The authoritarian regime can stop the local protests from joining together. The authorities can combine absolute control over arms, organizational networks, communication prowess and responsiveness to suppress resistance. Occurring at different times and in different places, no single local movement can fight the power of the regime. The only way to reverse the balance of power is for all the local protests to occur simultaneously so that it becomes a national protest. This would divert the regime's resources, weakening its otherwise advantageous position. It is not surprising at all that the government would see this as its biggest enemy. Most of repressive measures ? restrictions on political parties or organizations, bans on newspapers, and strict control over NGOs ? are all rooted in the goal of preventing protests from spreading. Methods of political rule, which have been in development over thousands of years, and advanced technology have given the communist regime an unprecedented ability to rule, making it perhaps the biggest beast of governance in history, and almost invincible. While authoritarian regimes might be able to stop people from connecting at the political level, they are unable to stop people from connecting in their daily social and economic activities. This is particularly impossible given that the essence of the market economy is its interconnectedness. In the current era of a closely integrated economic society, it is often stock market crashes, financial crisis or large-scale unemployment that would cause turmoil. Political repression often fails to avert such large-scale unrest. On the contrary, the more effective the government's repressive measures, the more likely for the society to manifest change through such large-scale protests. In my opinion, the transformation in China will come as a result of a mass uprising triggered by an economic crisis. The thesis that China would not collapse is based on the argument that nobody is actually willing to cause trouble. Yet we know from Game Theory (for instance with the case of the "Three Prisoners Paradox") that what might be a rational decision at the individual level often leads to a very irrational decision at the collective level. This is called "non-cooperative equilibrium." In non-cooperative equilibrium, individual interests are detrimental for the group as a whole. Such a conflict between individual and collective interest is far more common than suggested by the economist Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (where the market acts as a self-regulating force, creating an equilibrium which is in the interest of all). So the argument that China would not be chaotic because nobody is willing to rebel is not feasible. The thesis that few would choose to create problems is dependent upon rational decisions while whether China will be chaotic will depend upon collective behavior. Even though the situation in China Tidal Wave is quite tragic, some thoughtful readers believe that my assessment is quite sympathetic. Since I did not want to see too many people dying, I have created many miracles (for example a "pumpkin" that can could grow in a few days and mass migration of Chinese into the world in a fairly organized manner). All of this, however, is not likely and is not logical. Having said that, this is a novel. Let us say the probability of such a crisis happening is extremely small. However, if their dire predictions and concerns about China?s future eventually help avert such a crisis, then the pessimists -- though some might think they are lunatics -- would have achieved some purpose. Some believe that China will continue to enjoy 20 more years of fast-paced economic growth. As long as the economy is good, it should be able to deal with the worst things imaginable. If the economy continues to grow, pessimists will be blamed for crying wolf. I, however, believe that China's crisis will come sooner or later and the only question is when. Even if there are 20 more years left, that is not a long time in the sweep of history. (Wang Lixiong lives and works in Beijing. Tsering Namgyal, who lives in New York, is the author of a forthcoming biography of the 17th Karmapa Lama.) | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 09:26 AM PDT 《凤凰周刊》2011年32期 《凤凰周刊》 孙荣飞 [内容摘要]：行业协会、工商联、政协委员、人大代表、地方党政副职、全国党代表、中央候补委员，这个政治阶梯......>>点击查看新浪博客原文  青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 09:14 AM PDT 《凤凰周刊》2011年22期 《凤凰周刊》 杨桐 [内容摘要]：有机蔬菜、绿色蔬菜和无公害蔬菜，在大陆统称"绿色蔬菜"，是一个含混的的概念。即使是标注为......>>点击查看新浪博客原文 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 08:30 AM PDT  （Ah Lye 面書上一幅勉勵伙伴的圖） 前天柔佛南州有三個區不夠監票員，網友 Ah Lye 在面書發了一個呼籲，結果第二天有過百名義工，到選區報名做義工。 在面書上認識 Ah Lye 大概兩三年，記憶中是因為他回應我在獨媒一篇有關大馬淨選運動的文章，後來我透過面書跟他做訪問，每逢大馬發生甚麼大事件，我就會請教他，昨天終於跟他碰面了。 Ah Lye 從事 IT 行業，大學時並沒有參與學生運動，但頗關心社會事件。2007年，民聯為了準備2008的選舉，發起第一次淨選運動，Ah Lye 參加了遊行，開始較多地在面書討論政治，他希望從參加者的角度去評價社運，當運動組織者與社運的橋樑。 2011年7月9號，他參加了第二次的淨選遊行，並與其他3至4萬名參與者直面防暴部隊的顛壓，他一邊遊行，一邊把圖片放上網。因為主流媒體完全扭曲了當天的情怳，他回家後不斷的新增面書朋友，並呼籲關注事件。 大馬的政治活躍份子會把馬來西亞的反對運動追索到1969年的反對黨運動（因513種族暴動被壓下去）、1987年的社會組織（因茅草行動被鎮壓）、及1998年的烈火莫熄，Ah Lye 並沒有分享這歷史觀，對於他來說大馬的全民覺醒運動的轉淚點，就發生在709當天：「我們的問題，不是恐懼，而是政治冷感，大家只知道安頓自己的生活，不理政事。以前大家只會在面書風花雪月，但709後，大家開始 like 和 share 一些政治貼，評論也增加了。到2012年4月28日，第三次淨選遊行，已經有20到30萬人參加。」 Ah Lye 指出面書的影響力建基在其他網上獨立媒體之上。譬如說 Malaysiakini在1999年成立，而中文版在2005年建立，網站在華人圈發揮很大的影響力，成為主要的資訊來源：「現在大家還會看電視和買報紙，但主要是為了娛樂消費，社會政治新聞都在網上看。除了看以外，有一些網民更會利用 Page 的功能，搜集網上新聞，引述最重要的段落，配上醒目的標和圖像，在自己的社交圈傳遞。」 雖然面書裡有很多小圈圈，但他認為只要參與的人來自不同背景，圈圈之間會形成共鳴的效應，反而有助動員：「因為一開始大馬的面書社群都是同學、朋友和同事的社群，一點不政治，社交圈反而很多元，當面書政治化時，只要不同的圈圈有類似的政治觀點，那共鳴的效應就很大很廣，當看見自己的社交圈都有人站出來，自己走出來的動力也更大。」 除了針對網上的獨立媒體，執政黨也聘任了大量的網絡打手，去纏亂反對派的動員。Ah Lye 的對策是「慎交損友」，他在加朋友時會很小心，不會加一些匿名的用戶。而且，因為他不是政治與運動的核心人物，而是一個以自己的熱心去感染幾他人的義工，較少成為攻擊的對象：「我只是一個普通人，憑著自己的良心去做事。」 據 Ah Lye 觀察，目前在面書較積極的，都是城市的中產階級，年齡層大概是30到40多歲：「他們有一定的學識，要照顧家庭，又要交稅，經濟的壓力很重，也很不滿。而且，大家都明白到馬來西亞有很多天然資源，單就石油和棕櫚樹的收益，若分配得好，經濟會有很好的發展，但現在的情況是國家的資源被貪掉，而中產階級卻要承擔天文數字的國債。」 Ah Lye 也很留意香港的動態，相對香港的面書社群，大馬的網民比較團結，「雖然大馬有不同的族群，但因為安華作為馬來人，主動推動族群平等的政策，而大家又面對一個很強大的敵人，所以比較團結，雖然會有分歧，但最後還是會以大局為重。譬如說，在提名後，因為有一些反對派的個人以獨立候選人來參選，內部有些矛盾，但為了能成功換政府，選黨不選人成為大家的共識。」不過他估計，在選舉過後，若大馬能成功換政府，面書上的政治會開始分化。 過去兩天，Ah Lye 不斷在面書招務監票義工，「這次選舉的勝負，在於能否成功減少國陣的選舉舞弊，所以每一個票站都要有足夠的監票員。」 「五月五，換政府」的氣氛彌漫著大馬的互聯網。大馬有13,589,520萬面書用戶，滲透率達整體人口46.6%（2012），而整體的互聯網滲透率大概61%（2011數據），若網上的氣氛與現實一致，這次網民的起義將會和平推翻這個統治了大馬56年的專制政權。 Ah Lye 一邊在網上網下作衝線，一邊屏息著氣，等待這場起義的結果。 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 08:56 AM PDT 香港立法会今日通过对四川地震捐款案，但有近四成反对票。2012年香港国民教育遭遇抵制风波，2013年，香港限购奶粉风波。而上周，香港廉署邀内地官员喝茅台XO......>>点击查看新浪博客原文 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 08:44 AM PDT 《凤凰周刊》2012年27期 《凤凰周刊》 江田 [内容摘要]：2012年4月15日，美国国土安全部向国会提交的年度报告表明，中国大陆已成为除墨西哥以外对美输出移......>>点击查看新浪博客原文 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 08:20 AM PDT 《凤凰周刊》2012年1期 《凤凰周刊》 赵家鹏 [内容摘要]：北京的小学目前有1000多所，在多年的外部力量伸手下，形成大大的金字塔结构。为了升学，学生与家长......>>点击查看新浪博客原文 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 08:05 AM PDT 《凤凰周刊》2011年36期 《凤凰周刊》 周宇 街道繁华整洁光鲜，商场店铺里，来自世界各地的商品琳琅满目。苏联解体20年后，今日俄罗斯的大城市，外表......>>点击查看新浪博客原文 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| THE T-CELL ARMY-Can the body's immune response help treat cancer? Posted: 03 May 2013 06:55 AM PDT 本文作者：小红猪小分队 Source：http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_groopman?currentPage=all 【In recent years, researchers have looked at how to stimulate T-cells to combat tumors.】 In the summer of 1890, an adventurous seventeen-year-old from New Jersey named Elizabeth Dashiell travelled across the United States by train. During the journey, she caught her hand between the seats of a Pullman car. The hand became swollen and painful, and, when it didn't heal after she returned home, Dashiell consulted William Coley, a young surgeon in New York City. Unable to determine a diagnosis, he made a small incision below the bottom joint of her pinkie finger, where it connected to the back of her hand, to relieve the pressure, but only a few drops of pus drained out. During the following weeks, Coley saw Dashiell regularly. In the operating room, he scraped hard, gristly material off the bones of her hand. But the procedure gave only fleeting relief. Finally, Coley performed a biopsy that showed that Dashiell had sarcoma, a cancer of the connective tissue, which was unrelated to her initial injury. In a desperate attempt to stop the cancer's spread, Coley followed the practice of the time and amputated Dashiell's arm just below the elbow. But the sarcoma soon reappeared, as large masses in her neck and abdomen. In January, 1891, she died at home, with Coley at her bedside. After Dashiell's death, Coley was distraught, and searched through the records of New York Hospital for similar cases. He found one patient who stood out from the grim stories. Eleven years earlier, Fred Stein, a German immigrant who worked as a housepainter, had a rapidly growing sarcoma in his neck. After four operations and four recurrences of the cancer, a senior surgeon declared Stein's case "absolutely hopeless." Then an infection caused by streptococcal bacteria broke out in red patches across Stein's neck and face. There were no antibiotics at the time, so his immune system was left to fight off the infection unaided. Remarkably, as his white blood cells combatted the bacteria, the sarcoma shrank into a bland scar. Stein left the hospital with no infection and no discernible cancer. Coley concluded that something in Stein's own body had shrunk the cancer. Coley spent the next decade hoping to replicate Stein's extraordinary recovery. In "A Commotion in the Blood," published in 1997, Stephen S. Hall describes how Coley inoculated cancer patients, first with extracts of streptococcal abscesses, termed "laudable pus," and later with purer cultures of the microbes. He claimed several successes, but the medical establishment did not embrace his approach, because his results could not be reliably reproduced. His primary critic, the pathologist James Ewing, believed that the new technique of radiation was the only scientifically sound way to treat cancer. Coley's work was financially supported by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a classmate of Dashiell's brother who had considered Elizabeth his "adopted sister." But Rockefeller also donated to Ewing's research. While Coley told stories of miraculous recoveries, Ewing presented numbers that consistently demonstrated the power of radiation. Ultimately, Rockefeller chose Ewing as his scientific adviser. Rockefeller's support led to the creation of what is now the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the foremost institutions studying and treating malignancies. The idea that the body's immune system could play a crucial role in eradicating cancer was largely discarded. One doctor at the time called Coley's hypothesis "whispers of nature."  In the last hundred years, progress in the treatment of cancer has come mostly from radiation and chemotherapy. Previously fatal blood-cell cancers, such as childhood leukemia and Hodgkin's disease, are now curable. But solid tumors, which grow in the lungs, the colon, and the breast, have stubbornly resisted treatment once they spread beyond their initial site. In 1971, the Nixon Administration declared a "war on cancer," promising Americans that within ten years the disease would be beaten. At the time, many researchers believed that cancer was caused by a virus that speeded up a cell's metabolism, resulting in uncontrollable growth. After all, they had discovered some hundred viruses that caused cancer in amphibians, birds, and mammals. In the early seventies, interferon, a drug that had been developed from a protein released by white blood cells during a viral infection, was widely thought to be a possible cure for cancer; in 1980, it appeared on the cover ofTime. The tumors of mice shrank dramatically when treated with the drug. But in patients interferon failed to cure solid tumors, and melanoma responded only occasionally. Over the next decade, other proteins produced by the body as part of its immune response were made into drugs, most notably one called interleukin-2. In 1988, Armand Hammer, the ninety-year-old oil-company magnate who chaired Ronald Reagan's cancer panel, sought to raise a billion dollars, with the aim of curing cancer by his hundredth birthday. He touted interleukin-2 as an immune booster that could achieve the goal. But most solid tumors were impervious to it, too. In the past fifteen years, as tumors have been found to contain genetic mutations that cause them to grow unrestrained, the focus of research has shifted to cancer's genome. Targeted therapies, which are designed to disarm these mutations, are now at the forefront of care. The first successful targeted therapy was Gleevec, which caused rapid remissions in chronic myelogenous leukemia, with few and mild side effects. Herceptin, a targeted therapy that attacks HER-2, a protein that is found in some twenty to thirty per cent of breast-cancer cases, has also been effective. Advances such as these caused Coley's approach to fade into obscurity. Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and the director of the National Cancer Institute, told me that until very recently, "except for monoclonal antibodies, every therapy that exploited the immune system was pretty abysmal. There weren't any good ideas about why immune therapy failed." But now patients who did not respond to available therapies have shown dramatic and unexpected responses to a new series of treatments that unleash the immune system. Coley's theories are suddenly the basis for the most promising directions in cancer research. In March, 2011, the National Cancer Institute announced that it would fund a network of twenty-seven universities and cancer centers across North America to conduct trials of immune therapies. Mac Cheever, the director of the program, who is at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle, described it as a way to speed the practical work of developing treatments. "All of the components needed for effective immunotherapy have been invented," he said. Jim Allison, the director of the tumor-immunology program at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, began his career as a researcher at the University of Texas Cancer Center, in 1978. At the time, he was taken with the idea that the T-cell could be directed against cancers. T-cells are a potent type of white blood cell that destroy cells infected with microbes that they recognize as foreign. The immune system uses a variety of white blood cells to fight disease. Some, like neutrophils and macrophages, engulf and chew up microbes. In contrast, T-cells attack the microbe from the outside, with a fusillade of enzymes. Cancers disarm the immune system, producing proteins that cause T-cells to either quickly become exhausted and die or blithely overlook the tumor. Allison's research focussed on why T-cells failed either to recognize cancer as being aberrant or to attack it, as they do with microbes. Allison's mentors discouraged him from pursuing research on T-cells. "Tumor immunology had such a bad reputation," he told me when we met in December at his laboratory at Sloan-Kettering, which overlooks the East River. Allison, who is sixty-three years old, is a thickset man with a stubbly beard and a gravel voice. "Many people thought that the immune system didn't play any role in cancer." Treatments like interferon and interleukin-2 had led scientists on a roller coaster of hype followed by disappointment. Immune therapy was also tainted by popular claims that following a certain diet or reordering your mind could be natural immune-boosting ways to cause tumors to disappear, with none of the miserable side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. But Allison started looking at how the immune system fights disease, using mice as study models, and capitalized on a critical discovery: T-cells require two signals to attack a target effectively. The first signal, he said, was "like the ignition switch," and the second "like the gas pedal." When working against a microbe, both signals were operative. But, in the presence of cancer, "T-cells don't get those signals to attack," he explained. Allison started to wonder what it would take to reliably activate the immune system against cancer. In 1987, researchers in France discovered a protein called cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, or CTLA-4, which protruded from the T-cell's surface. "There was a real race among a number of labs to figure out its function," Allison recalled. A scientist at Bristol-Myers Squibb, using results from his lab, contended that CTLA-4 increased the activity of T-cells and the immune system. But Allison and Jeffrey Bluestone, an immunologist, obtained results from independent experiments that contradicted that conclusion. Allison and Bluestone believed that CTLA-4 actually acted as a brake on the T-cells, and Allison thought that it might be keeping the immune system from attacking tumors. "Jeff and I were kind of in the wilderness for a while," Allison said. "Before this, people just thought that T-cells died on their own." He speculated that treatments designed to activate the immune system might have failed because the treatments were actually stimulating CTLA-4. As Allison put it, "We ought to free the immune system, so it can attack tumor cells." Allison's postdoctoral researchers implanted cancer cells under the skin of mice, some of which were then treated with an antibody that blocked CTLA-4. After several weeks, the cancers disappeared. One of the researchers showed Allison the data in early December, 1995. Allison was astounded. The lab was about to go on Christmas break, but he wanted to repeat the experiment immediately. "I told the researcher that he should inject the tumors into a new group of mice, and have a control group that didn't get the antibody. And I'd measure the tumors myself," Allison recalled. "So it was really a blinded experiment, because I didn't know what was what." A week later, Allison measured the cancers. "The tumors were still growing, and I'm starting to despair. And then, in half of the mice, the tumors just seemed to stop, but in the other half of the group they kept going. And then the ones in which it stopped, the cancer started disappearing and just went away." Allison added, "It immediately confirmed our original assumption that this could be good for any kind of cancer." For two years, as Allison continued his experiments on mice, he approached pharmaceutical and biotech companies for help in developing the treatment for patients, but he was repeatedly turned away: "People were skeptical of immunology and immune therapy. They would say, 'Oh, anybody can treat cancer in mice.' Sometimes they'd say, 'You think you can treat cancer by just removing this negative signal on a T-cell?' " Allison also learned that Bristol-Myers Squibb had filed for a patent asserting that CTLA-4 stimulated T-cell growth. "If that was the case, you would never, ever think about injecting an antibody that blocked CTLA-4 into a cancer patient, because it would make things worse," he said. "People were scared of putting that into a patient." But Allison persisted, telling industry executives that Bristol-Myers Squibb was wrong. Finally, he persuaded a small company called Medarex to invest in the approach. Among its first trials on humans, in 2001, Medarex included patients with malignant melanoma, because it was one of the few cancers that had occasionally responded to immune-based treatments like interferon or interleukin-2. In pilot studies, patients were treated with the antibody to CTLA-4, and, as in mice, the cancers continued to grow for some weeks, before a few of the tumors shrank. In 2004, Bristol-Myers Squibb formed a partnership with Medarex to collaborate on the drug. A subsequent trial showed scant impact after twelve weeks. Many of the tumors got bigger, and in some patients new lesions appeared. Pfizer was also testing an antibody to CTLA-4, and concluded that it was a failure; the trial was stopped early. Months after the end of the Bristol-Myers Squibb study, however, several of the clinicians involved, including Jedd Wolchok, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and Stephen Hodi, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, realized that the tumors had either stopped growing or begun to shrink. Wolchok and his colleagues prevailed upon Bristol-Myers Squibb to include over-all survival rates of patients after several years. (Because the established criteria for judging the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs are based on the first months of treatment, the trial had been considered a failure.) "It was pretty courageous," Allison said, "because it would take a long time to finish the study." In June, 2010, the results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Although the drug had extended the patients' lives a median of only four months, nearly a quarter of the patients were alive two years into the trial. Their predicted survival had been seven months. "This is a drug unlike any other drug you know," Allison said. "You are not treating the cancer—you are treating the immune system. And it was the first drug of any type to show a survival benefit in advanced-melanoma patients in a randomized trial." Allison's results astounded cancer specialists. Nature published a review in December, 2011, and noted that the antibody to CTLA-4 "provides realistic hope for melanoma patients, particularly those with late stage disease who otherwise had little chance of survival. More broadly, it provides clear clinical validation for cancer immunotherapy in general." I asked Harold Varmus why Allison had had success where other researchers in immunotherapy had failed. "We need to understand what we do," he said. "Jim made things understandable." "You've got to be careful about using the word 'cured,' because some patients have residual tumors," Allison said. "But it doesn't matter, because their cancers are not growing. And, in others, tumors just pop up and then go away. So it's become something of a chronic condition," rather than a death sentence. Allison moved to Sloan-Kettering to be closer to the clinical trials conducted by Wolchok and others. "I just wanted to be the advocate who is keeping it in everybody's face," he said. In the fall of 2003, Sharon Belvin was a twenty-two-year-old student teacher with plans to marry the following June. She ran between four and five miles a day, and began to notice that her chest hurt after her morning workout. The student health service thought that she might have viral bronchitis, picked up from the children in her class. But her symptoms did not improve, and she was given other diagnoses, including asthma and pneumonia. Before long, she found it uncomfortable even to walk. On a visit to her mother, Belvin saw the family physician, who found a lump on her clavicle. A biopsy showed that she had metastatic melanoma. "It shocked me," Belvin told me. "I was never a sunbather. And I never had any lesions on my skin." A week before her wedding, she completed her evaluation. A body scan "lit up like a Christmas tree," she recalled. "I ended up having chemotherapy on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and got married on Saturday." During four months of therapy, the tumors shrank a bit. Then they began to grow again. An MRI showed that the melanoma had spread to her brain. Belvin went to Sloan-Kettering, where the brain tumor was treated with radiation. After recovering from the procedure, she received interleukin-2, to stimulate her T-cells. The therapy caused such a severe reaction that "my skin peeled off over my body," Belvin said. "I was so violently ill, I don't remember half of what happened." Worse yet, the treatment failed to stop the cancer's growth. "The doctor told me, 'If you are going to take a vacation, you'd better do it now.' " Belvin and her husband went on a Caribbean cruise. When she got back, Belvin returned to the hospital and had twelve litres of fluid drained from her chest. Then Wolchok offered Belvin treatment with the antibody to CTLA-4, which was still an experimental therapy. "By that point, I had told my husband, 'If this doesn't work, I don't know how much more I can take,' " she recalled. Wolchok gave her an informed-consent release that listed all the possible side effects. "It was pages and pages of this could happen to you and that could happen to you. I didn't read one page. I just signed at the bottom and said, 'Give it to me.' " The antibody was infused through one of Belvin's veins, and she had a drastic reaction: her body shook and she experienced drenching sweats, as well as an immune attack on her thyroid gland. "I thought I was dying, the rigors were so bad," she recalled. After four treatments given every three weeks, Belvin went for a set of scans. "I remember how Dr. Wolchok came in with this huge smile on his face, and he was like, 'This is great!' He was just floored." The massive tumors in her lungs had shrunk significantly. Wolchok did not want to raise Belvin's hopes too much. But "every single scan that I had after that time, the tumors kept shrinking," she said. Eight years after her diagnosis, she still has no signs of the cancer. Belvin's case is remarkable, but it contradicts the popular notion that boosting the immune system is a "natural" way to treat cancer, free of the harsh side effects associated with chemotherapy or radiation. The results of immunotherapy can include an attack on the skin, intestines, lungs, liver, thyroid, pituitary gland, kidneys, and pancreas. When T-cells are stimulated to an intensity that destroys cancer cells, they can also cause collateral damage to normal tissue. Wolchok told me, "You may need to cross the line to toxicity for the immune system to be effective against a cancer. It's not a free ride." Because Belvin's thyroid gland was destroyed by the therapy, she now requires replacement hormones. Steven Rosenberg, the chief of surgery at the National Cancer Institute, who played a key role in developing interleukin-2, also conducted some of the early studies with the antibody to CTLA-4. He noted that the bowel often became severely inflamed with the treatment: "You have, like, eight litres of diarrhea a day. The colitis is atrocious, and would be lethal in almost everybody. If you don't put those patients on corticosteroids immediately, they'll die." "In the field of oncology, the bar is set so low," Rosenberg told me. He welcomes the outcomes for patients like Belvin, but is cautious about the long-term benefits of similar treatments. "I believe that the antibody to CTLA-4 will cure some patients with melanoma, although the follow-up is short." But unless all detectable cancer disappears, he said, "the tumors are going to grow back eventually." Rosenberg has pioneered a different strategy, called "adoptive cell transfer," in which T-cells are taken from a patient's tumor and given immune stimulants such as interleukin-2, which cause them to replicate. Then they are put back into the body. In the latest of three trials of patients with melanoma who underwent adoptive cell transfer at the National Cancer Institute, nine of twenty-five patients have been in complete remission for more than five years. Across all three trials, five patients who had received earlier, unsuccessful treatment with the antibody to CTLA-4 are in remission. Sam Breidenbach, who runs a construction company in Wisconsin, was one of those five. In September, 1999, his wife noticed a small mole on his back. He went to the hospital at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, and was told that he had melanoma. It was caught early, and the doctors, after removing it, said that the cancer did not appear to have spread. But three years later, while playing volleyball, he lunged to spike the ball, and felt a pull at his left flank. "It was this roly-poly little nodule on my left hip, at the top of the bone"—a metastasis from the original melanoma. "A local oncologist just basically said, 'You'll be lucky to live five years,' " Breidenbach recalled. He returned to the hospital in Madison, where he was given high doses of interferon. "For the first month, I was just totally dead. I couldn't do anything." The treatment was ineffective. Within months, the melanoma had appeared in the lymph nodes of his left groin. Breidenbach found out about Rosenberg through his daughter, who was in a violin class with a girl whose father had been treated for melanoma at the National Cancer Institute. Breidenbach contacted Rosenberg, who treated him with an experimental melanoma vaccine. Breidenbach did not respond to the treatment, and the melanoma spread to his liver and lungs. In the summer of 2003, after being treated with the antibody to CTLA-4, he developed excruciating pain in his abdomen—pancreatitis, caused by the toxicity of the immune response. "It was so brutal that they had to stop the treatment," Breidenbach said. "They were basically out of any other ammunition to throw at me." His doctor at the University of Wisconsin told him that he couldn't expect to live more than four to six months. One oncologist suggested chemotherapy, but "I knew the numbers, and my wife and I said, 'If this is really the remaining time I have on the planet, why make it miserable?' " Over the week of Thanksgiving, Rosenberg called and told him that his research team had studied his T-cells in the laboratory. "Your cells are jumping out of the petri dish," Rosenberg said. He explained that Breidenbach's T-cells could be stimulated to recognize and attack melanoma. "Dr. Rosenberg basically told me to get on the plane on Monday and expect to be here for three weeks." Breidenbach's T-cells had been removed and manipulated in Rosenberg's lab. Upon his arrival at the N.I.H., they were returned to his body through a catheter entering the vein to his heart. "All the doctors were grinning in the operating room," he told me. "I felt like it was 'Dr. Strangelove.' " Breidenbach developed a fever of a hundred and four degrees, and his skin erupted in a rash. He went home on Christmas Eve, barely able to walk, but within a month the numerous metastases had started to shrink. Today, none of the melanoma remains. "My T-cells, they were fiery," Breidenbach concluded. But there was one permanent side effect of the treatment. Along with the cancer, the manipulated T-cells attacked the normal cells with melanin, causing vitiligo, in which skin loses its pigment, and his hair to turn white. Rosenberg believes that melanoma has a unique relationship with the immune system: there are so many mutations in the tumors that T-cells have an easier time recognizing them as foreign. This characteristic makes developing immune therapies easier. "An intense natural immune response just doesn't exist for other kinds of cancers," he said. But Rosenberg thinks that he has the key to a more wide-ranging approach. "With six hundred thousand Americans dying every year with cancer, we need something for the common cancers," he said. He acknowledges that targeted drugs, such as Gleevec, can be effective, but he points out that most targeted therapies quickly wane in their efficacy. A recently developed therapy for melanoma dramatically shrank more than half of tumors, but nearly all patients relapsed within a year. A study published in March suggested that as a cancer spreads in the body—from the kidney to the liver and the lungs—the mutations occur in non-uniform ways, so that DNA in liver deposits may differ from DNA in tumors in the lung. This protean progression means that a drug targeted to one mutation may not work against cancer cells throughout the body. In Rosenberg's view, with adoptive cell transfer, these malignancies would all appear equally foreign to the immune system. He is refining the treatment for other cancers by skimming patients' blood and then inserting a gene into their T-cells that targets a different protein, called NY-ESO. The protein, which was identified at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, is normally absent in tissues after fetal development, except in the testis, but it reappears in about a third of all common cancers. "I think adoptive cell transfer is going to be the secret to applying immune therapy to the treatment of many human cancers," Rosenberg said. "When T-cells are genetically engineered to target NY-ESO, there is no difference between melanoma and breast cancer or prostate cancer, or colon cancer, ovarian cancer, sarcoma, and so on." Varmus agrees that this approach might make a wider array of tumors susceptible to therapy, and in early trials Rosenberg's strategy has been promising. In 2008, Anita Robertson, a sixty-three-year-old accountant from Long Beach, California, had a large sarcoma growing in her hip, a type of tumor similar to the one that killed Elizabeth Dashiell. In July, 2010, after treatment with genetically altered T-cells, Robertson was discharged from the N.I.H. hospital. A CAT scan in September showed that the sarcoma had begun to shrink; it is now more than fifty per cent smaller. Once immobile and in pain from the cancer, she now can drive, shop, and attend church. Using a similar approach, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have eradicated chronic lymphocytic leukemia in three patients who were no longer responding to other therapies. This month, Rosenberg reported remissions in eight of nine patients with advanced lymphoma, and in three of those patients the cancer disappeared completely. "We've got much, much better now with adoptive cell transfer," Rosenberg told me, "but it's not widely available." The treatment has to be individually designed for each patient, which makes it enormously expensive, and so less valuable to pharmaceutical companies. "They want a drug, and they don't care if you spend five hundred million dollars developing the first vial, as long as they can produce the second vial for a dollar," Rosenberg said. Because his work is experimental, it has been supported by federal funds. Eventually, however, these therapies will be priced by calculating how much they offset the costs of conventional treatments. Although the new procedures could run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, they might still prove less costly than the money spent on chemotherapy, hospitalization, and hospice care for the many patients who currently cannot be cured. Jedd Wolchok, however, argues that common cancers may not require adoptive cell therapy. He talks about the "three 'E's" in immune therapy: elimination, equilibrium, and escape. Therapy should aim for total elimination of the cancer, but "we need to think about immune-system equilibrium," in which the cancer, though present, does not grow or spread. After decades of frustration and failure in the clinic, most scientists are wary of predicting whether immune therapy will be able to completely cure the majority of cancer patients. Tumors have mutated to escape the effects of radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted agents; the body's immune responses may not be unique. Though CTLA-4 is still the focus of much research, scientists have now identified at least five other inhibitors on T-cells. Initial studies show that treatments directed at these inhibitors can shrink some of the most deadly tumors, including those of the lung and the colon. Mario Sznol, an oncologist at Yale, has conducted clinical trials with an antibody directed against one of the inhibitors, a protein called PD-1. "I believe that in the future we can customize immune therapy to the individual patient," he said. Doctors will examine the specific characteristics of a tumor, and then treat patients with the appropriate antibody. Allison's laboratory is an open space that occupies a large part of the fifteenth floor of the Zuckerman Research Building, at Sloan-Kettering. The day I visited, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students were analyzing data on their computers from recent experiments. In a corner was an intravital microscope, which can show cells and tissues in a living animal. Allison demonstrated how an anesthetized mouse is injected with the antibody to CTLA-4. Previously, the T-cells of the mouse had been labelled with a fluorescein dye and sensitized to a protein from a tumor. Using the intravital microscope, "you can actually watch the T-cells move into the lymph node," Allison said. They appeared as bright-green circles coursing through thin gray vessels. "And then the T-cells jump—they leave the lymph node and attack the tumor." In another part of the lab, a postdoctoral fellow had arranged a series of mice that had been inoculated with melanoma. Some served as controls, and black masses an inch or more grew on their flanks. Others had received the antibody to CTLA-4, or to PD-1, or a combination. "The most dramatic regression is seen with the combination," Allison said, pointing to the flanks of mice where the tumors had shrunk to small black dots. Clinical trials in patients have begun with combining one antibody against CTLA-4 and another against PD-1, in order to remove two distinct brakes on the T-cell. Last year, the antibody to CTLA-4, marketed under the name Yervoy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat melanoma. It was a vindication for immune therapy, and an important step in the treatment of cancer. Yet this branch of research has also uncovered how far we have to go to understand the mutations that make cancer the most protean of diseases. "The future is about thoughtful combinations, different antibodies, perhaps with targeted therapies," Wolchok told me. "There won't be a single silver bullet for everyone." | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 05:51 AM PDT 制度竞争|中国梦07 李华芳 【一定有朋友会奇怪，怎么一下子没有06，就到07了，这是因为众所周知的原因，06出不来】所以才需要【寻找1111位读者，进行中】
阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊在《国家为什么失败？》中讨论了地理决定论、文化背景论和领导能力论对"国富国穷"的解释，结果发现都未能很好的解释为什么地理相近、文化也差不多、领导人也知道如何发展经济的两个国家之间的发展差异。
例如《国家为什么失败？》一书中就以南北诺嘉乐（Nogales）地区的差异为例，来挑战地理、文化和领导力决定经济增长的理论。诺嘉乐是个有意思的地方，北面那一半属于美国亚利桑那州，实行的当然是亚利桑那州（Arizona）的制度。而南面的那一半属于索诺拉（Sonora）州，却是墨西哥的领地，实行墨西哥制度。除此之外，地理接壤、文化相近、领导也不无知，那么何以北方比南方发展得更好呢？两位作者的答案是"制度使然"：榨取型制度扼杀增长，而包容性制度推动增长。
这种简单的抽象当然有好处，符合一般的想象，而且也有很强的政策含义。但这种抽象当然会导致很多问题。我的朋友徐轶青最近在《文景》杂志发表的对此书的评论，就指出阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊上述论述中存在的缺陷。
第一个问题是阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊所用的数据质量存疑，并且在案例选择上轻视或忽略了不利于自身结论的案例。比如民主与增长之间的关系复杂，正反两方面都找到了一些证据，但总体而言，学界并不是一股脑儿赞成民主会推动经济发展，而且经济发展会带来民主化的说法也同样可疑。
第二个问题是，表面上看起来政治制度对经济增长的作用，实际上背后是人力资本的作用，而这个人力资本可以从教育程度提高获得解释。也就是说，实际上是教育水平提高促进了经济增长，也同时改善了政治制度。所以并非什么制度的不同，而是教育水平的差异。而有意思的是，有不少国家是在威权统治的时期答复提高了教育水平的。专制统治者也并不把提高教育水平当作是一种威胁，因为这可能是出自洗脑教育的需要，虽然客观上教育的巨大外部性对经济增长有利，也可能促成政治转型。
针对第一个问题，我在之前已经提到可以借用阿玛蒂亚·森"以自有看待发展"的视角来衡量制度，而不仅仅是从功利主义的视角来看一个制度是否有利于经济增长。在此类讨论中，应该有更高的价值和更广的视角，而不应该局限在功利主义的计较上。否则就很容易陷入一种误区，即将经济增长这一实现人类自由的手段，当成了唯一的目的。
针对第二个问题，相对来说更加实际一些的做法是，不管在民主制度还是威权政体中，都细化讨论教育的作用。是否需要义务教育，要不要补贴高等教育等等，这些问题的讨论比宽泛定义"包容性制度"或许更有价值。
这就引出一个关于制度竞争的细化问题。政治结构有无权利制衡的设计，以及有没有选举当然非常重要。但即便是同一种制度之下，依旧存在不同地区之间的差异，例如城乡差别。即便在地理位置接近、文化风土相似、地方领导人水平也差不多的情况下，两个城市的发达程度也会非常不同。也就是说，如果按照阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊的观点，可能就很难解释一个国内内部不同地区之间的发展差异。因此我们需要细查制度的细节，同时也不得不承认在制度之外，其他的因素同样会对经济增长有影响，例如地方领导人毕竟不可能是一个模子印出来的，总是会有领导能力的差异，这就可能造成很大的不同。
正如经济学家保罗·罗默所言，国家太大，就制度而言，城市可能更加合适。这也是他关于"特许城市"的理论基础。我前面也提到城市之所以比农村更具有吸引力，不仅是因为地理与风土，更是因为城市允许人有更多的选择，从而提高了体面生活的标准。尽管可能在一个国家内部，整体的制度框架是一样的，但如果我们将制度细化，就会发现有诸多不同的细节。而将这些细节亮出来，将有助于我们讨论"城市化"的下一步。
比如按照上面的论述，"城市化"的其中有一条重要的理由是城市能提供高质量的教育。这恐怕是城市最重要的好处之一了。当然有人会例举出类似普林斯顿大学和高等研究院这样并非处于大城市的例子，但这是少数的例外。就中国而言，高质量的大学绝大部分聚集在城市，例如北京和上海。
这并非偶然的现象。好的大学在大城市的兴起和积聚，不仅仅只是政府或者初始捐赠人的投入，更是人才集聚的结果。今天在我们大量讨论智慧型城市或者创新城市的时候，关注高等教育的质量，相对而言就是一个更实际的话题。
哈佛大学的经济学家格莱泽在《城市的胜利》中提到工业城市与创新城市的区别。类似底特律这样曾经的大城市之所以衰落，有一个很重要的原因是高质量的经济活动不多。所谓高质量的经济活动，是指由创新和规模经济效应带来的边际收益递增，以及能够深化分工和拓展市场的经济活动。
举一个简单的例子来说，同样是理发，在农村就便宜，而在城市可能就很贵，概因城市的经济活动质量高，能够动员起其他的相关产业，由此一来，水涨船高，不仅理发的收入高，而且理发的机会也多。但是要理发机会多、理发收入高，就离不开那些聪明的头脑的集聚，这恰是高质量经济活动的重要源头。
这种创新头脑集聚产生的外溢效应，在经济学上叫做"巴拉撒-萨缪尔森"效应。这也会使得服务业本身发生改善，例如理发的就不仅仅是理发，还包括护理保养等一系列提升品质的服务；再比如卖水果就会产生专卖有机水果。这样就增加了这些服务业从业人员的收入，并且扩展了他们从事工作的机会。
而吸引此类创新头脑集聚的一个重要因素，就是好的大学。所以农村人入城，除了工作外，最重要的考虑就是高质量的教育，尤其是大学要上一个好大学。中国人对高考近乎扭曲的重视程度，多少已经显示了家长的偏好。但对于一个城市来说，好的大学可不是一蹴而就的，如何建设好大学也是老生常谈。归根结底一点，就是要有钱，有了钱之后就可以聘请好的老师，从而吸引好生源。
那么钱从何来呢？政府拨款、私人尤其是校友捐赠等，其实都无所谓。关键是有了钱之后是不是用来吸引人。由于吸引人才或者培养人才，是一个相对长期的过程，面临短期行政考核的地方官往往短视，所以大学的发展在中国是一个巨大的难题。至于中国的许多城市将建设高品质大学理解成建大学城搞房地产，那完全是另一回事了。
钱的问题还要多说几句。不仅一开始吸引人来要钱，而且学生毕业乃至中途创业也需要钱，这就需要一个至少能方便支撑学生创业的金融体系。如果说中国的大城市在一开始吸引人才方面已有动作，那么在后续留住人才支持人才方面，显然还有很长的路要走。
继续【寻找1111位读者，进行中】欢迎转播。
转载必须包括此声明：【 遵循 署名-完整-非商业使用 原则 | 商业用途请联系 lihuafang@gmail.com 】 可以选择是否包含以下声明： 觉得文章有用？认为作者靠谱？立即 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 05:09 AM PDT 马景涛 是因为真诚 "人最看不清楚看不明白的就是自己，你必须用心去倾听，倾听心里的每一个颜色，倾听和感受内心那些声音……人生这样......>>点击查看新浪博客原文 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| 小红猪抢稿第87期：THE T-CELL ARMY-Can the body's immune response help treat cancer? Posted: 03 May 2013 07:00 AM PDT 本文作者：小红猪小分队 1890年夏天，新泽西女孩Elizabeth Dashiell顺利完成了环美旅行，但随后，她发现自己的双手变得肿胀疼痛，为此她求诊于年轻的外科医生William Coley。实施了一系列治疗手段后，William发现几乎毫无效果，却在一次切片检查中发现Elizabeth已经罹患癌症。次年一月，Elizabeth病逝于家中。William为此深受打击，查阅了当时纽约几乎所有医院的类似病例。发现一位名为Fred Stein的德国男子，在历经四次癌症复发，被医生宣判死刑后，却奇迹般的在一次感染后活了下来。Dashiell和Fred截然不同的故事背后究竟隐藏着怎样的秘密？ 本期抢稿：THE T-CELL ARMY-Can the body's immune response help treat cancer? 抢稿方法
P.S. 要是哪个翻译魔人（仙人、狂人、牛人）直接在48小时内搞定全篇，哼哼，那你中标的机会就大大增加啦！ 抢稿须知
抢稿格式规范
| ||
| Posted: 02 May 2013 09:54 PM PDT  2013年 ICP Infinity Award 摄影奖评选结果刚刚正式公布，南非摄影师 David Goldblatt 获得今年的 Conell Capa 终身成就奖，美国女摄影师 Kitra Cahana 获得年轻摄影师奖，今年新设立的广告摄影奖（Applied/Fashion/Advertising）则由美国摄影师 Erik Madigan Heck 获得。摄影奖项：Cornell Capa 终身成就奖 获奖者：David Goldblatt，出生于1930年，南非摄影师，2其对种族隔离制度问题的拍摄是南非上世纪70年代最重要的摄影记录之一。 摄影奖项：Young Photographer 年轻摄影师奖 获奖者：Kitra Cahana，美国女摄影师，拍摄项目"Nomadic Teens"，"Kitra 将自己融入到被拍摄的流浪群体中，以被拍摄者的语言来记述故事"。 摄影奖项：Applied/Fashion/Advertising 获奖者：Erik Madigan Heck，纽约摄影师兼制片人，为一系列品牌及媒体拍摄商业广告，2012年被 Neiman Marcus 集团邀请拍摄"Art of Fashion"系列，成为该品牌 campaign 至今最年轻的拍摄者。 摄影奖项：报道摄影奖 获奖者：David Guttenfelder，唔，这是我们熟悉得不能再熟悉的一名依然活跃于全球报道摄影领域的摄影师，也是最早获得朝鲜官方允许进行拍摄的西方摄影师，获得过7次荷赛和2次OPCA。 『Leica中文摄影杂志』推荐使用Email的方式订阅，亦可通过Google Reader、QQ阅读等RSS工具阅读；在Apple Mac OS X下可获得最佳阅读体验  『iPhoto.ly』在苹果上阅读：iPhone版+iPad版，^_^ Tips： 关注我们： Twitter、饭否、微博 『小建议』如果你在Email里看到这篇文章，可以转发给你的朋友；如果你在Google Reader阅读器里看到这篇文章，可以共享给好友；如果你在豆瓣里看到这篇文章，不妨推荐给更多人；或者干脆Copy下这篇文章的链接，发给你MSN上最喜欢的人；我们永远相信，分享是一种美德，Great People Share Knowledge... Tags - 摄影奖项 , 报道摄影 , icp   | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 02:59 AM PDT 如欲點擊圖片放大閱讀，請步移至原文連結。 工人的五一 ‧ 系列遊行小訪‧第一 林先生，巴士司機，新世界第一巴士公司職工會(新巴工會)理事長 巴士司機的工時有長有短，我們每更九個小時，但公司一般安排到十至十一小時。以前最長甚至有十六小時工作，直到近年運輸署規定司機最多十四小時工作。 我們支持訂立標準工時，如果工資能與通漲掛鈎，八小時能夠負擔生活，那工人就可以多點時間陪伴家人﹑照顧屋企。你現在可以看到，好多工人由朝做到晚，除了白領，藍領工人多數超時工作，那如何照顧家人呢？例如小朋友讀書，你唔能夠話下下都畀錢去補習架嘛，邊黎咁多錢？ 碼頭工人站出來也是這個原因，二十四小時，點見屋企人呢？我們巴士司機都有同感，好似我，朝早四點幾起身返工，下午六點幾先收工，實質工作十一小時，還有往返工作地點的時間，我實際有多少時間休息？法例規定司機要有十小時休息，但我們怎可能有十小時休息？回到家吃完飯，我最多瞓四至五個鐘頭，跟碼頭工人的處境一樣，怎可能不支持他們？ 碼頭工人的行動，告訴所有打工仔女，這是一個警號，如果資方繼續壓迫工人，工人就會站起來，可惡的是那些工賊工會不斷出賣大家。 給碼頭工人的留言： 陸先生，教師，曾任浸大職工總會。 每年都會參加五一遊行陸老師，認為五一遊行是團體表達訴求的方法，需要出來表示支持。尤其今年的碼頭工運，令坊間的勞工權益意識提高，社會各方民間力量也大力支持這場工潮。 碼頭工潮令大家見到，外判制度的嚴重問題，例如清潔工一直忍氣吞聲，沒有機會表達聲音。以碼頭行業為例，由最大的控股和黃、管理碼頭的HIT、外判商，至到碼頭工人，整個外判制度、層級架構是如此的複雜，讓老闆可以逃避責任，話無關自己事，沒有人需要為工人受剝奪的工作環境、待遇、權益負責。嚴磊輝更講成碼頭工人的待遇是合情合理，機手就好似開長途客機的機師。不單不同情，更說風涼話，這才是令人最憤概的。 給碼頭工人的留言：「香港社會大眾一定會支持你們！撐到底！」 工人的五一‧系列遊行小訪 ‧ 第二 張同學，教院社工系學生。 這次是張同學第一次出來行五一遊行，目的是要爭取工人的集體談判權。當工人有訴求時，要有集體談判權才能保障他們能夠直接表達。她說，社工也是工人，現時政府行一筆過撥款，社工也要靠集體談判權才能令政府正視其聲音。97年曾經通過這項權利的條例，可惜幾個月之內就被臨時立法會廢除了。 這次碼頭工潮喚醒大家關注工人的保障、對外判制度的監管。而碼頭工人要走到罷工這一步逼使資方出來回應，是因為他們沒有集體談判權。如果有這項權利，當工人要談判時，資方就必需出來面對，這才是保障工人的方法。 給碼頭工人的留言： 「 爭取權益不是短時間可以達到的事情，但只要工人不放棄， 大家社會都會繼續支持你地！」 林同學，大學一年級學生，學民思潮成員。 五一走上街頭，是爲了撐工友。之前亦有到過碼頭和長江支持碼頭工人，知道碼頭工人的苦況。現在罷工已超過一個月，其實他們的訴求很簡單：加薪、改善工作環境，希望資方能儘快出來認真談判。 工友也許較難接觸學生，學民思潮希望除了遊行外，亦能透過網上宣傳，鼓勵之前反國教的學生也關注勞工議題，瞭解工人處境，明白到受剝削的不只工人，地產、商品霸權在生活各方面影響學生。在這次工潮中，學生和工人的連結非常緊密，左翼廿一、學聯一直主力參與。過往的運動只突出主體、受害者的角色，但這次由不同群體一起合作，發揮更大的力量。 給碼頭工人的留言：「學生還未體驗過要靠辛勞工作養妻活兒的辛酸，工友所付出的很厲害，我們會一直支持他們！」 工人的五一 ‧ 系列遊行小訪‧第三 GANIK，印尼家傭工人 你問我一星期工作多少天？我們一星期工作七天！就算放假的日子，朝早都要做野，返黎都要洗碗﹑拖地。我們每天工作十二至十六個小時，我六點鐘起身做早餐，到晚上十一點﹑十二點，等老闆睡了我們才可以睡。 我們每年都有參加五一遊行，我們要求印尼政府要去保護我們，而不是整天要拿我們的錢。 我們有護照﹑香港身份証件，但還需要額外向印尼政府做一個「移工証」，額外交四百五十元保險費，明明僱主已為我們買了保險。我們要求人工加至$4500元，一九九八年我們的人工是$3864，十五年過去，現在是$3920，每年加薪不足四元。而且法例規定，我們一旦結束合約，就必需要在十四日內找到新僱主，否則就要回國。這個特別針對我們的「十四日規定」，令我們的處境很惡劣。 我們要求香港政府不要歧視我們，最低工資不保障我們，亦規定我們必需與僱主同住，即使僱主可以提供一個另外的住處，我們也不能選擇，變相二十四小時工作，我們工資很低，工作環境很差，睡沙發﹑睡廁所的情況很普遍，法例規定僱主如沒有提供膳食，就需要給八百五十元的食物補貼金，但有些僱主只給隔夜飯﹑杯麪就算是膳食了。 碼頭工人也是十幾年沒加人工，工時也很長，其實所有工人都好慘，不論碼頭工人，我們家務工人，還是麥當勞﹑7-11 的工人，我們都一樣淒涼，那些大老闆令我們難以生存。 給碼頭工人的留言：「我地一直都有關注你地的情況，也一定會支持你地！加油！撐到底！加人工！你地唔好放棄，我們都是一家人，有咩事我地都會支持你！」 郭小姐，圖書館管理員，外判工。 我是外判工，工時不定，一時要返十個鐘，一時只有三個鐘， 之前都以為做圖書館好舒服，入去做才知道辛苦——比如公司要求你返十一點半，十二點半放飯，一點半開始要一個人在還書櫃位直踩到八點半，中間無人替位，連廁所都無得去。這八個小時，我都不敢飲水，真的好辛苦，可以話深深地感受到碼頭工人的苦處。 ——又比如公司聲稱勞工處規定「事假」要十四日前通知，當時我姐夫末期腸癌，想請事假探病，但公司不批準，最後唯有用錢睇醫生，請病假去探佢。我後來查證，才知道勞工法例根本沒有這條規定。 我最後迫於無奈辭職，因為太辛苦，比如我做過洗碗，一個人要做幾個人的野，不是不想做，而是根本做不了，捱不了下去。 在香港，我們很少聽到工會﹑集體談判權，我以前都不知道是什麼，直至到這次罷工，才發現原來自己和身邊的工友都不認識勞工法例﹑勞工權益。我們工人一直被外判商欺壓，簡直不把你當人。而即使被壓榨到沒有尊嚴地生活，也沒有機會去爭取權益，所以我們要爭取集體談判權，要出來發聲。 給碼頭工人的留言：「撐到底！撐到底！我地好多工友會一直撐住你地！」 原文連結：http://grassmediaction.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/201351/ | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 02:46 AM PDT 關廠工人抗爭，到本年4月28日進入絕食抗爭的狀態。四位關廠工人及四位聲援者，到台灣行政院勞委會前進行無限期絕食直至送醫。另外有其他聲援者接力進行24-48小時的絕食行動，目的要求勞委會進行協商，及要求修改勞動法第28條。 「關廠工人」的由來 可是，在1990年代，像香港一樣，台灣各地發生惡性關廠。老闆不知所縱。工人忽然失業，老闆走前亦未依照勞動法付給工人資遣費（即香港的遣散費）和退休金。同時，這些老闆，大都馬上把工廠廠房和所有機器拍賣套現，絕食的工人林延泉伯伯指，老闆們都把錢拿到國外投資 ;聲援者則指，老闆們都把工廠移到東南亞尋找更便宜的勞工，絕非真正無錢結業。 如此，社會上就出現大量忽然失業的工人，而且是薪水低微，工作幾十年沒領到資遣費或退休金的工人。 台灣政府搜刮民脂一法：「促進就業貸款」 林伯伯說:「假如當時是說要還的，像現在這樣講明的，誰敢借呀!?」 可是，十六年後的2012年， 勞委會無法追討當年違法的老闆，反而動用二千萬聘請律師，控告所有當時因工廠忽然倒閉而需向政府求助的受害者，要求他們連本帶利歸還當年政府「借」給他們 的「促進就業貸款」。十六年前, 當工廠陸續惡性倒閉, 工人們便組織起來，成立了「全國關廠工人連線」，進行連串的抗爭。最後，終於到了今年4月28日，工人們要在勞委會那個橫書「賺錢有數 生命要顧」八個大字的門前絕食抗爭。 明明在加班趕工 工廠為何會倒閉？ 曾在紙箱工廠工作的林延泉，有四節手指不見了。當時工傷，老闆也只賠了十六萬台幣，他便要繼續工作。林伯伯指，當時只想到有工作做便算，沒想到會忽然失了業。林伯伯又指，大家當時沒想講政府會「講騙話」，現在何來有錢還？ 現場看到的勞工們，大都年紀不小，可以說都是接近或直接是退休人士了，老來忽然被追債，實在是無法子還，是故現場的草帽上都綁著「拼老本」的布條，也有一個寫著「棺材本」的大箱子。 要求修改勞動基準法28條 原文連結：http://grassmediaction.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/taiwanclosingfactory/ | ||
| Posted: 02 May 2013 09:54 PM PDT 2013年 ICP Infinity Award 摄影奖评选结果刚刚正式公布，南非摄影师 David Goldblatt 获得今年的 Conell Capa 终身成就奖，美国女摄影师 Kitra Cahana 获得年轻摄影师奖，今年新设立的广告摄影奖（Applied/Fashion/Advertising）则由美国摄影师 Erik Madigan Heck 获得。摄影奖项：Cornell Capa 终身成就奖 获奖者：David Goldblatt，出生于1930年，南非摄影师，2其对种族隔离制度问题的拍摄是南非上世纪70年代最重要的摄影记录之一。 摄影奖项：Young Photographer 年轻摄影师奖 获奖者：Kitra Cahana，美国女摄影师，拍摄项目"Nomadic Teens"，"Kitra 将自己融入到被拍摄的流浪群体中，以被拍摄者的语言来记述故事"。 摄影奖项：Applied/Fashion/Advertising 获奖者：Erik Madigan Heck，纽约摄影师兼制片人，为一系列品牌及媒体拍摄商业广告，2012年被 Neiman Marcus 集团邀请拍摄"Art of Fashion"系列，成为该品牌 campaign 至今最年轻的拍摄者。 摄影奖项：报道摄影奖 获奖者：David Guttenfelder，唔，这是我们熟悉得不能再熟悉的一名依然活跃于全球报道摄影领域的摄影师，也是最早获得朝鲜官方允许进行拍摄的西方摄影师，获得过7次荷赛和2次OPCA。 『Leica中文摄影杂志』推荐使用Email的方式订阅，亦可通过Google Reader、QQ阅读等RSS工具阅读；在Apple Mac OS X下可获得最佳阅读体验 『iPhoto.ly』在苹果上阅读：iPhone版+iPad版，^_^ Tips： 关注我们： Twitter、饭否、微博 『小建议』如果你在Email里看到这篇文章，可以转发给你的朋友；如果你在Google Reader阅读器里看到这篇文章，可以共享给好友；如果你在豆瓣里看到这篇文章，不妨推荐给更多人；或者干脆Copy下这篇文章的链接，发给你MSN上最喜欢的人；我们永远相信，分享是一种美德，Great People Share Knowledge... Tags - 摄影奖项 , 报道摄影 , icp  | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 12:48 AM PDT 原文地址：从未忘记的理想和人生作者：越女 迷迷糊糊长到二十一岁，猛一回头望去，往事历历在目。一切了然于心。我依然是我，时光流转中，芸芸众生中，我一直在变，然而不改的，是初衷。 不是没有做错过事，年少的时候最爱犯错，把青春当做白纸，把读书看作儿戏，一场一场地，任性，自以为是，伤父母的心，把全世界都看作傻瓜。如今才知读书的好处。不过没关系，很多事情过去就是过去了，假使现在再给我一个机会，再重头来过一次，我还是会选择那样过活。我早说过，人各有志，想法各异，所以有人辞乡归故里，有人漏夜赶考场，各人的选择而已。最烦人家说后悔，好马不吃回头草，早知今日，何必当初？再说人生又有什么大不了的，值得你前怕狼后怕虎的一叠声的悔意？一句话，还不是输不起。所以我做事从不后悔，做了便是做了，谁又能把我怎么样，我的人生与过去同在，与经历自成一体。我就喜欢快意人生，有棱有角的活着。做人只要有自己的原则，大方向上把握得住压得住便行，若凡事都要三思而行都要权衡过才可做，这样的人生，我宁可不要。 似乎有些跑题，再回到题目上来。是的，过去的日子，也曾有过困惑，有过年少轻狂的时候，一时发昏，然而大方向上还是没错过。 想起从前念高中的时候老师同学家长以为我如何如何叛逆，不禁莞尔。呵呵，哪有那么夸张，我可从来不是不良少年。我只是太过倔强，太过坚持自己而已。 这么多年到现在我一直努力生活积极向上做个好人，是的，做个好人，这是我的底线，人生路上太多风风雨雨大起大落我无法控制，以后能闯出什么样我不得而知，但至少我会做个好人，至少我从来不是在混日子。 我仍然会坚持在公车地铁上给老人让座，仍然会坚持捡起垃圾对着垃圾箱自动分类，仍然有最天真单纯的愿望，仍然会为了理想而坚持而奋斗而徜徉，仍然有最积极的人生，仍然会做个好人。不犯罪，不堕落，珍惜每一寸阳光，珍惜身边的每一个人。爱家爱国爱惜粮食。每天每天，都，好好活着。我爱我的国家，我爱生我养我的父母，如果祖国有难，我会毫不犹豫地应声而起，哪怕是要我抛下一切、奔赴战场，如果父母有难，我会像一个男人一样负起自己的责任，把家庭的苦难荣辱兴衰扛在我肩上。我仍然拥有最积极的人生，最明郎的自己。从不绝望。永不放弃。不抛弃，不放弃，我比许三多更早了解这句话的含义。我说过我只想做我自己。 不过这么多年来还是叫我明白好多事，好比写作文，我原本就只是体制下复制出的样品，处处不留痕迹地带着体制的印记，尽管老师却时常以为我跳出体制，是令人困惑的异类。我也曾天真地以为我与人不同，并且骄傲过，呵呵，其实不然，纵使拿奖拿到手软那又怎样，同龄人中相信没有几个会比我更擅长抒情和比拟，可这算什么，小孩子的心理，好文章要的是思想，注意，是思想，不是手笔。内容本身永远比其他的一切要来得重要，这从来都是颠扑不破的真理。看看人家李杜，几千年前古人就知道这道理，可惜我辈却还蒙在鼓里。所以现在我发誓一旦拿起笔，就不再会有修饰这回事。还是亦舒说得好，青春固然可爱，但比青春更可爱的，是无知。呵呵。 小时候很多人都一度以为我想当个作家，只要我一捧起书。真真是好生奇怪，我只不过是单纯喜书而已，有谁能料得定我不是渴望日后做书商抑或是摇身变图书室管理员，有什么不好，偏生以为我要削尖了脑袋去做什么穷酸腐儒，我也喜欢去周游列国四处游历呐，只不过是有心无力没钱没渠道没人送我去而已。 在我，真想做个温和善良的书商，山中方一日，世上已万年，凡尘俗世从此皆与我无关，多好的时光，何况在我，新华书店原本就是全天下最好的地方，毋用花一文钱就能看尽天下书，不用担心会有小家子书店无良老板会扫我出门，这是何等快意的事情，做梦都会窃笑到醒。然而又是何等的不合适，用我妈的话来说就是不切实际，开书店事实上说穿了就是做生意，忙里忙外忙接待进货不算，小本生意最是输不起，以我的理财水平和经营头脑，忙活了一年下来又有几成胜算，简直想不入不敷出都难。何况每日为开支琐事生计发愁，哪还有那份心思静下心来看书？简直是做梦一般。真个是不切实际，离题万里。与初衷背道而驰的事，我从来不做。 此路不通，或者可以去一家小小的电台应聘当一名DJ，把自己对文字对世事的感悟和了解，把自己对音乐的领悟和了解，统统讲给我的听众听，在电波中与人相处，做黑暗中与人分享的一个声音，又何尝不是人生一大快事。我想给听众讲林夕的词李宗胜的曲张婉婷的意境，我想跟人说窦唯说李健说陈升丁薇说黄家驹说老狼说许巍，说王菲说林忆莲说许美静说梅艳芳说叶倩文，谈朋克说摇滚听崔健听滚石听水木听唐朝甚至是花儿乐队，还有歌里的生死，冷暖，和，爱情。可惜仍然不行，抛却专业不对口人家招聘单位不要我的诸多原因，更重要的是，我没有一个绕梁三月而不止的好声音。这实在是人生一大憾事，然而你总得考虑大众的心理承受度，这实在是靠声音吃饭的事，你不能指望大众洗耳倾听准备好好享受一番的时候，半路突然杀出一个程咬金。也罢。听听人家的就好了。这世上本就不是凡事都可亲力亲为。 而我其实就想当一名记者，真的，实实在在的想，很想很想，从小就想。我是从什么时候开始渴望做一名记者的呢，从我第一次看南方周末，从我第一次看到何三畏的名字，从我每一次看报纸看杂志看电视，这个情结就开始在心里生了根，时至今日，愈演愈烈。在我的理想道路上，对我产生过重大理想的是两个人。一个是何三畏，我没有看过他的照片，但我猜想他一定是个倔强而又不服老的老头子，时而沉稳老成干练大气，时而又带着少年的极不成熟的意气和顽皮。他应当是双面人，他应当是个矛盾体。他应当最不合时宜。他从不教我们小技巧，他只教我们大智慧，眼光，和境界。我是这样的爱看他的报道评论甚至总词，有着新闻记者最应当有的冷静、客观、还有克制和大气。他完全沉得住气，扛得住，也压得住，没有一丝一毫的小家子气。他自有他的一个归括和体系。他对时代特征和历史脉络的最合理把握和分切，对个体命运改革事实的切实的低姿态关注，还有对社会对家国对世界的承受力和责任感价值观对历史的尊重和归属感，则是他的性格里我最欣赏的部分。他现在是南方人物周刊的主笔，一如既往，初衷不改。从小到大，凡是有他的报纸杂志，我一直都看，哪怕是在我最穷困潦倒的时候。一个是吴虹飞，她是后起之秀。我在文章里提她已多次。清华大学出来的女孩子，双学士，硕士。是幸福大街乐队的主唱，爱做摇滚，也爱写诗，然而她也是南方的一名记者，我现在已经越来越关注她。有时有些犀利，有些不够冷静，但多时更聪明，更天真。绝对真实的一个女人，一个报人。 多希望能踏着前人的足迹前进下去，努力下去，生生不息，奋斗不止。但是事实上前面的顾虑都在。我的父母怀疑我在这方面的天分，所以填志愿的时候我没有填到新闻。然而我仍在努力中，并且会一直为之努力下去。我不是科班出生，那还有多少可能，这个我不在意，谁能凭一纸志愿书决定命运，我不信。更何况我正在积极转专业中。凭着对对这份理想的热爱和敬意，我一直留意媒体圈的只字片语，看得出这不是一份朝九晚五的好工作，很多人抱怨，很多人的辛酸和倦意一言难尽，据说现在女孩最不想的就是当记者。然而在我，人生最快意的事情不就是在最好的年纪做最想做的事情。不讲以后，至少此刻，我情愿。哪怕立刻遣我去珠峰采访我也情愿。心向往之，殚尽竭力，精诚所至。我要做的是工作，不只是谋生。当然，谋生是人生第一等大事。纵使日后我确实不能如愿也完全没关系，努力过是一回事，做不做得到又是一回事。我要的从来都只是这一股勇气。我自会在我的岗位上坚守，好好工作，克己奉工，无怨无悔。日落日出，哭过以后，梳梳洗洗，明早起来，太阳照常升起。我不会恨社会，社会从来没有对我不起。这一切都只是我的选择而已。别担心我日后后悔，你忘了，我从不后悔。 我只希望我能尽可能地再多读一些书，再多学一些有用的知识，再多去一些地方，再多多的与人接触相处共事，再多一些阅历再多一些历练多一分磨砺，不再怕痛，不再怕苦，也不再怕输。自爱，然后爱人。没有什么是真正输不起，跌倒了，就再爬起。我不会绝望，我会一直这样活下去，到三十岁四十岁到八十岁。无路可走，就往最绝处走，看看最绝处还有什么样的人生在等待着我。人生还有太多我不了解的事。我愿做最充分的准备和积蓄，迎接生命里将要接踵而来的一场又一场的挑战，下一场，再下一场。永不言悔。永无倦意。 忍耐是最后的坚持，向往是永恒的自己。我，还有那些从未忘记过的理想和人生，我们都不会忘记。积极人生，永不放弃。我想我可以。 有没有看过《亡命感应》？ 让我来告诉你，信仰，就是爱，和希望。了解那些生命中最重要的事，并为它而战。永不嫌迟。 青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密 | ||
| Posted: 03 May 2013 12:40 AM PDT 本文作者：Sheldon 神学世界观认为，世界和万物都有一个积极明确的意义。既然我们的世俗存在从本质上讲意义就不确定，由此可以直接得出，这只不过是走向另一种存在的手段。世界万物都有一个意义的想法类似于世界万物都有一个原因的理念，后者是所有科学理论的根基。 ——库尔特·哥德尔（1906～1978）[1] 爱因斯坦上了年纪以后力不从心，不再解决老问题，也不提出新问题了。他喜欢告诉人们说，他去办公室上班，"只是为了获得能和库尔特·哥德尔一起步行回家的荣幸"。哥德尔是20世纪最伟大的数学家之一，是自亚里士多德以来最重要的逻辑学家。1906年，他出生在奥匈帝国的布尔诺，也就是爱因斯坦发表他的狭义相对论、布朗运动和光电效应论文的下一年。1924年，哥德尔进入维也纳大学学习物理学，但很快又被数学吸引住了。哥德尔给他的教授留下了深刻印象，于是很快被邀请加入了鼎鼎大名的研讨小组"维也纳学派"（the Vienna Circle），他们在咖啡馆见面，讨论哲学、逻辑学和科学问题，其中经常出席的有路德维希·维特根斯坦、伯特兰·罗素和卡尔·波普尔。但哥德尔是其中的另类：他是唯一不相信经验是知识的唯一来源的人，也不相信数理逻辑是解决哲学问题的唯一工具。 哥德尔最出名的成就是证明算术的不完备定理。这个定理是说，任何一个允许定义自然数的逻辑体系，总是包含这样一些命题，既不能用系统内部的公理证明为真，也不能证明为假。这引起了数学家和哲学家的一片哗然。从这个定理会得到许多令人意想不到的推论，例如，没有一种电脑程序，能不通过篡改操作系统，就可以检测那些篡改操作系统的程序。因此，没有一种不干扰、不篡改操作系统的杀毒软件能找到你电脑上的所有病毒。 和爱因斯坦一样，为了逃避自己祖国日益猖獗的法西斯势力，哥德尔后来去了普林斯顿高等研究院。1933～1934年间，哥德尔第一次访问了这个研究院，但后来自从他患上某种精神障碍以后[2]，就再也没有来过。在大学外遭到了某些纳粹分子的袭击之后（很可能把他当作了犹太人），1939年秋天，哥德尔终于和妻子一起离开了维也纳。可是他选择了去普林斯顿最远的一条路，沿着横贯西伯利亚的铁路穿过亚洲，乘船从日本到旧金山，到时已经是1940年3月了，最后乘火车横穿美国到达普林斯顿。 1942年，哥德尔成了爱因斯坦的亲密伙伴。两个人都有相似的文化背景和对哲学的强烈兴趣，这跟他们周围的美国物理学家大不相同，而且他们都可以讲德语。 有好几次，哥德尔答应爱因斯坦把他研究相对论的心得记下来，但直到1947年，激动人心的事情才终于发生了。当时哥德尔在给他母亲的信中谈到，他已经加入到了相对论的研究工作中，到了1947年夏天的时候已经发现了一些不同寻常的东西。出乎所有人的意料，他一直在寻找新的爱因斯坦方程组的解。结果就连爱因斯坦都大吃一惊。 哥德尔的宇宙是一个不断旋转的宇宙（图5.5）。这种宇宙不膨胀，所有的物质都绕着一个对称轴匀速转动。其中也包含了爱因斯坦的宇宙学常数，但不同的是，这里的宇宙学常数小于零，因此产生的是引力，和物质的引力一起抵消了转动产生的离心力。这本身就够有趣的了，但哥德尔的宇宙还有一个完全令人无法想象的性质：它允许时间旅行。哥德尔证明，时空中的一些路径形成了闭合的回路。大多数人，包括爱因斯坦，都相信这种事情应该违背了其他的物理定律，并且会导致科幻电影里经常演到的逻辑悖论（例如，杀死婴儿时期的自己）。[3]但其实爱因斯坦的理论是允许时间旅行的，而且不与任何已知的自然法则相矛盾。物理学家弗里曼·戴森（Freeman Dyson）回忆起他第一次见到哥德尔时，所听到的关于时间旅行的点点滴滴。那是在1948年，当时他还是个刚到普林斯顿的年轻人。 那是在1948年9月。我是普林斯顿高等研究院的一名年轻的新成员。让我惊讶的是，我第一个见到的人竟然就是库尔特·哥德尔本人，更让我受宠若惊的是，他邀请我去他家。但不管怎样，我觉得自己好幸运啊。我发现他特别亲切，善于交际，不像我想的那么孤傲。而且身体还很健康！所以，他请我去他家，我们边走边聊一些物理问题。看起来他对物理学的了解很深入，而且这些研究都是他自己搞的。前几年他听从爱因斯坦的建议，研究了旋转宇宙模型，这就是他的科研工作。让我有点儿吃惊的是，一方面，他绝对是一个出类拔萃的数学家，着实撼动了数学大厦的基础……而这样的人要做的是……让人不解的是，他会做一些相对来讲微不足道的事情，比如证明旋转宇宙的存在。当然，在物理学中这都不是什么有趣的问题。对，他自己相当清楚，他并不是不懂物理学，他知道这确实不是物理学的主流。但无论如何，他就是这样。当然，后来我们继续见面。见面时，他经常会问我："他们发现了吗？他们知道宇宙在没在旋转了吗？"他认为这种事情是可以被观测检验的，于是我不得不说明，现在的观测水平离这个问题的要求还差十万八千里，他总是很失望。他给我打电话的时候，常常会问："他们发现了吗？"而我总是不得不告诉他还没呢。[4] 【图5.5 哥德尔的宇宙。物质沿着中心轴匀速转动，转动对光锥造成了影响。光锥表示每一点所发出的光线所经过的地方。[5]当我们离开中心时，光锥就开始倾斜，并扩大了开口，这是因为转动的线速度增大了。在距转动轴一定距离的地方，光锥完全翻倒，与空间相切，然后倒扣了起来，于是光线就沿着开口朝下（过去）运动。假设你的星球以前在p点，现在在q点。要想再次回到p点的话，你就要朝着临界圆外部的一个点加速运动，然后向过去运动到p点之前的某个地方，进入那时的临界圆，然后再向未来运动到p点。你总是在走向"你的"未来，但却回到了你的过去】 现在看来，哥德尔的发现[6]对我们的宇宙学研究特别重要。这个模型告诉我们，宇宙可能有一些特殊的总体性质，从局部是看不出来的。只是因为时间和空间在太阳系中看来很正常，并不代表它们不会在整个宇宙的尺寸上以奇怪的方式纠缠在一起。尽管哥德尔的宇宙并不像我们的宇宙那样在膨胀，但其表现出来的时间旅行的特性也有可能在其他的、像我们宇宙一样膨胀的旋转宇宙中出现。 【图5.6 爱因斯坦和哥德尔在普林斯顿】 起初，一些著名物理学家质疑哥德尔的宇宙允许时间旅行，但实际上他们是把这些时间旅行的历史的特性理解错了，最终哥德尔的推导被证明是正确的。在哥德尔的一些笔记中，他好像觉得用时间循环来证明永生的可能性是件相当有趣的事情——有一次，一位同事发现他在黑板上倒着写字，表演时间旅行。不巧的是，要想在哥德尔的宇宙中进行时间旅行，就必须接近光速，并且要求物质以一种不同寻常的方式分布其中。对太空漫游者来说，这不是个靠谱的提议。我们还得注意的是，哥德尔的宇宙并不能证明电影《回到未来》的情节可以实现。你不可能改变历史。就像诗人萨穆埃尔·巴特勒（Samuel Butler，1613～1680）所说的，即使是上帝也无法改变历史——只有历史学家才做得到。 假设我背会了莎士比亚的悲剧《麦克白》，穿越历史回到过去，见到了年轻的莎士比亚，他那时还没开始写剧本。我把《麦克白》的原文和情节给他详细地讲述一遍。莎士比亚记下了每一个字，把它写了出来，然后出版了《麦克白》。那么《麦克白》到底是怎么来的？我从莎士比亚那儿学来，而他又从我这儿学来。这其中没有开端，它只是存在着。 关于"如果我杀死了祖母"的逻辑悖论有各种各样的版本，关心时间旅行问题的哲学家把它们归纳为"祖母悖论"。[7]这种悖论推翻了各种时光旅行的假说。[8]自从1895年赫伯特·乔治·威尔斯（1866～1946）的经典科幻小说《时间机器》首次提出这个想法以来，时间旅行就成为了科幻小说的重要题材。 我们该不该承认，这些"改变历史"的例子说明时间旅行的想法存在某种根本缺陷？不。改变历史的想法中确实有一些自相矛盾的地方。历史就是过去的事。你不可能既改变了历史，又保留你现在的经历。不可能有两个历史。如果你能回到过去，设法阻止了自己的出生，那么就不可能有机会回到过去，阻止自己的出生。 通常我们认为时间的流逝像一条直线。在时间旅行之中，这条线闭合成一个圆（图5.7）。想象一条直线上，有人排队走过。谁在前，谁在后是很显然的事情。这就像线性的时间：你总可以毫不费力地分清一件事发生在过去，还是在将来。 现在，我们假设这条线上的人们绕成了一个圆。从局部看，有的人在前，有的人在后，但是总体上看，在整个圆上根本分不清"前面"和"后面"——每个人都既在其他人的前面，又在其他人的后面。所以就不能说谁在谁的前面，谁在谁的后面了，而应该说前后都在。[9] 【图5.7 路人沿着直线和圆一个接一个地排列。对于直线上的人来说，他要么在某个人的前面，要么在某个人的后面。对于圆上的人来说，他既在某个人的前面，又在某个人的后面 】 并且时间旅行也是这种情况。其中并没有绝对的过去与未来。循环的时间里分布着一系列逻辑自洽的事件。当下的就是当下，曾经的就是曾经。你可以成为过去的一部分，但你无法改变过去。如果你活得足够长，你会一遍又一遍地经历相同的事情，循环往复。 这里有一个自洽的时间旅行的历史的例子。想象一下，你回到过去，准备好要朝婴儿时的自己开枪。你决心要在宇宙中创造出一个悖论。你瞄准了你母亲怀抱中的自己。当你正要扣动扳机时，由于婴儿时期的自己从母亲的怀中摔了下来，你肩膀上形成的旧伤突然让你的胳膊发出一阵痉挛，结果导致你射偏了。然而，枪声足以吓到你的母亲，把小宝宝摔落在地上，摔伤了肩膀。历史自洽了，宇宙安全了，历史学家们放心了。 指引哥德尔发现旋转宇宙模型的是他的一个信念，他想证明时间的流逝并不是客观的：关于时间并没有绝对的标准。他的宇宙很古怪，因为从其中的每一点看，宇宙都是一样的（只有匀速转动，没有膨胀），但是没有额外的标准可用以衡量旋转的速率（因为他理论中的宇宙只有一个，不存在"宇宙外部"）。哥德尔小心地计算出，进行循环式时间旅行需要的速度大小，并花了许多时间用来收集天空中星系分布的数据，因为他相信宇宙在旋转。唉，可惜我们的宇宙不是哥德尔的宇宙。宇宙正在膨胀，如果它开始旋转的话，它的膨胀速度就会变得特别慢。这很容易验证，因为微波背景辐射从四面八方传来，其密度会随不同的方向而变化，幅度不超过十万分之一。[10]就像地球自转会导致形状变扁，宇宙的旋转也会扭曲微波背景辐射的温度谱形状，使得它沿着自转轴的方向最热，垂直于自转轴的方向最冷。 虽然哥德尔的发现实际上并不能描述我们的膨胀宇宙，但它给我们带来了一些期待，爱因斯坦的方程组中可能还隐藏了更多类似的奇妙事物。尽管局部性质完全正常，宇宙还是会有一些奇特的总体性质。哥德尔的宇宙表明，宇宙的旋转以一种极端的方式扭曲了空间，以至于把时间都闭合了。哥德尔证明，这样的宇宙满足爱因斯坦场方程，但不满足牛顿引力。 遗憾的是，后来哥德尔就再也没有发表宇宙学的研究工作了。他的注意力转向了逻辑学和哲学中最最艰涩的问题。宇宙学家们花了大量时间，想要了解他是如何找到这个解的，但哥德尔没有留下任何线索。真是个科学怪人。 参考资料[1] 见于1961年10月哥德尔写给他母亲的信。 [2] 他对许多东西都显得神经兮兮的，总觉得有人要毒害他，所以几乎什么都不吃。1978年，哥德尔去世时只有36公斤，而且死因跟饥饿有关。他的妻子阿黛勒既要当厨师，又要替他试吃，还要当保姆，于是1970年阿黛勒去世后，哥德尔的情况明显恶化。 [3] 早些时候，人们发现爱因斯坦方程组存在一个包含无压强物质的柱对称旋转解。由于高速的旋转导致时空强烈扭曲，在圆柱的某个范围之外，也允许时间旅行的发生。这个解是由卓越的匈牙利数学物理学家柯涅流斯·蓝佐斯（Cornelius Lanczos，1893～1974，曾在1928～1929年间做过爱因斯坦的助手）在1924年发现的，论文发表在Z. f. Physik 21, 73。后来这个解又在1937年被荷兰数学家威廉·范斯托克姆（Willem van Stockum，1910～1944）重新发现了，他发现了这种解包含闭合的时间线，论文发表在Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh A 57, 135上。范斯托克姆（他的爸爸是梵高的表兄弟）可是个风云人物。他以前是爱丁堡大学的研究生，1939年，他去了普林斯顿高等研究院，希望能成为爱因斯坦的学生。但由于"二战"爆发，范斯托克姆不得不收起他的雄心壮志，投身于反对希特勒的联盟中。他加入了加拿大空军，成为一名轰炸机飞行员。1944年，他又加入了荷兰流亡政府的空军。他是皇家空军轰炸机司令部制定的飞行任务里唯一的荷兰军官，曾多次驾驶哈利法克斯轰炸机去欧洲执行任务。他参加了诺曼底登陆战，任务是轰炸德军的火炮阵地。1944年6月10日，他在一次由400架飞机完成的轰炸任务中，由于座机被防空炮击中而壮烈牺牲，年仅33岁。更多关于斯托克姆的故事，参见：Erwin van Loo, 'Willem Jacob Van Stockum: A Scientist in Uniform', June 2004, 网上的英语版本可参见：http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/stockum/VliegendeHollander.html. [4] 采访的文字记录见：http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1807626.htm. [5] 任何物体的运动速度都不会超过光速。因此，图中每一时空点上的（未来）光锥代表彼时彼处的物体所能影响到的未来事物所处的时空区域。图中外侧的某个（未来）光锥的开口与中心处的光锥开口相反，可理解为前者的"未来"指向了后者的过去。——译者注 [6] K. Gödel, 'An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution of Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation', Reviews of Modern Physics 21, 447 (1949). [7] M. MacBeath, 'Who was Dr Who's Father?' Synthese 51, 397–430 (1982); G. Nerlich, 'Can Time be Finite?' Pacific Phil. Quart. 62, 227–239 (1981). [8] 相反，走向未来的时间旅行不成问题，而且经常能在物理实验中见到。这就是相对论中所谓的"孪生子佯谬"。双胞胎中的一个人乘坐高速宇宙飞船旅行，回来以后发现，他比待在家里的孪生兄弟更年轻；实际上，高速飞行也是一场时间旅行，他走进了待在家里的孪生兄弟的未来。 [9]美国哲学家大卫·麦拉曼特（David Malament）对"祖母悖论"的看法是："认为时间旅行……简直就是荒谬，会导致逻辑矛盾，其逻辑通常是这样的：如果允许时间旅行，可以让一个人的时间倒流，回到过去的状态，这会导致时空的某些点同时处于P和非P的状态。比如说，我可以回到过去，杀死婴儿时期的我，导致那时的我不可能长大以后变成现在的我。但我想说，这样的反对理由从来不能使我信服……这套逻辑的漏洞在于，它并不能得出它想要得出的结论。显然，如果我回到过去，杀死了婴儿时期的我，就会导致某种矛盾的产生。然而，我们唯一能够从中得出的结论应该是，如果我试着回到过去杀死婴儿时期的我，那么由于某种原因，我肯定办不到。或许在最后一分钟时，我摔了一跤。通常的反对理由并不能说明时间旅行不可能发生，而只是说明如果可以时间旅行的话，也无法实现这样的行动。"参见：Proc. Phil. Science Assoc. 2, 91 (1984)。已故的著名哲学家大卫·路易斯（David Lewis）曾不顾潮流，在"祖母悖论"面前为时间旅行的合理性进行辩护。1976年，他在一篇评论中说："时间旅行，在我始终认为是可能的。时间旅行的悖论很奇怪，但不是不可能。这些悖论只能说明，我想没有多少人会怀疑：一个允许时间旅行的世界是个非常奇怪的世界，在许多基本的层面上都与我们所理解的世界格格不入。"参见：'The Paradoxes of Time Travel', Amer. Phil. Quart. 13, 15 (1976). [10] 对宇宙的旋转施加的最强限制可参见：Roman Juszkiewicz, David Sonoda and J. D. Barrow, 'Universal Rotation: How Large Can It Be?', Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 213, 917 (1985). 关于本文约翰•D. 巴罗（John D. Barrow），生于1952年，是英国剑桥大学应用数学与理论物理学系教授，也是一位高产的科普作家。本文选自巴罗的新作《宇宙之书》，在这本书中，巴罗带我们领略了一座妙趣横生的宇宙陈列馆，其中藏有各式各样匪夷所思的宇宙，它们都是人类智慧的结晶。松鼠Sheldon为本书中文版译者。小红猪将节选部分章节刊载。 【《宇宙之书》中文版，译者：李剑龙（Sheldon），详情点击豆瓣页面】 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from "牛博山寨" via Zola in Google Reader To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
