什么叫科学思维呢？ 其中一个必要的因素（但不是充分）是要学会在事实上刨根究底，而不是想当然。分析语言得先搞清楚基本语法概念。 什么叫量词？ 中文中说“一个人”， “个” 是量词；”一本书”，这个“本”是量词； “三头猪”，这个“头”也是量词。 英文中没有量词。对于可数名词，你直接在前面加数量词即可。比如说“a book", "three books", “a pig"，"three pigs"，中间没有必要加一个所谓“量词”。但中文在可数名词的情况下其实也是类似的，可以省略中间的量词，说“一人”，“一书”，“三猪”，在语法上是可以的，听者也不会不懂。 英语中如果是不可数名词，那就必须加一个可数名词才能量化。比如说，“三滴雨”不能说成 “three rains", 而只能说 ”three drops of rain"。但其实这个中文也相同，你不能说“三雨”表示三滴雨。类似的，中英文在涉及度量的情况下中间必须有一个单位的名词，中文说“一斤米”，英语说"one pound of rice"，完全一致。 英语中有下列表达 a pride of lions ， a swarm of bees ， a herd of cattle 等。但这个“pride","swarm", "herd" 与中文的量词是两个概念。 这些词在英语中称为 collective noun , 维基百科是这么说的： 【 a large number of collective nouns in the tradition of terms of venery ... arose in the Late Middle Ages at least partly from the Book of Saint Albans of 1486. Although originally considered whimsical and humorous , many of these terms have become part of the modern-day lexicon.】也就是说这些词原本不过是 后中世纪出现的古怪好玩的群体名词 。 Book of Saint Albans中的词汇包括【a "diligence of messengers", a "melody of harpers", a "blast of hunters", "a subtlety of sergeants", and a "superfluity of nuns"】 之类。这些很多属于 怪搞笑的集群名称 根本不是基于希腊文明的西方传统用语，只是少部分用得多了成了英语日常用语。 维基百科上的单子巨长，以猴子为例，包括”a barrel of monkeys", "a cartload of monkeys", "a tribe of monkeys", "a troop of monkeys"; 蜜蜂的群体名词不仅有swarm，还有drift, erst, grist。当然大部分这些词都已经不常用了。 那些 不求甚解、把任何中西差异都看成中国文明落后的特征的思维 ，其实还是受分析能力的限制。 近代西方文明的飞速发展与优势源于什么？ 简单一个词：数学化！简单地说，少耍嘴皮子，多来硬功夫。牛顿一个 F = ma 就搞定天文地理，之后的西方文明才突飞猛进。到今天如果没有一定的数学、科学基础，可能很多好莱坞电影都看不懂。 附： 具体某个词的来源可以查字典。 Pride： http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pride : 7. (Zoology) a group (of lions) 。再查发现这个词根源不是很清楚，为傲然之意，最初用于一群狮子是在15世纪，显然是指狮行走时的傲然之状。 Swarm： 可能源自 PIE 词根 “swer- (2) "to buzz, whisper" (see susurration) on notion of humming sound”，也可能是 "agitated, confused, or deflected motion." 也就是说这个词或者描述嗡嗡的声音或者是紊乱的运动。 herd : 描述一群大动物，愿意是“a row"，排成一队。 Pack (of wolves)： 最初是描述 "set of persons" (usually of a low character) 也就是一群下品的人，后来才被用于描述一群猎食的动物。 school (of fish): 源自荷兰语 schole，"group of fish or other animals," 源自PIE*(s)kel- (1) "to cut, divide" 。这与 school的学校的含义不同，学校意义的school 源自拉丁语schola， PIE root *segh- "。 troop ： 1540年代指一群士兵，1580年代后才开始指一群动物。
网上辩论，难免有点火药味，大家悠着点看，哈哈。 lawandorder：【 简单指点: 我没有看到你的导读，而且认为也没有必要看。你的文章是自成一体的，所有的论点了论述都写在那里。我没有想到在读你文章是还要读你的导读。 你的文章中问题很 （比如文章标题），我只集中讲你对Grutter 先例的核心判案的不充分理解，或者对高院解读宪法的普通法理的缺陷。我也不是专业搞宪法学的，但SCA5牵扯到的问题很简单, 既，strict scrutiny所要求的强迫性的政府利益 ("compelling interest") 和细微设计出的实现手段(narrowly tailored means to promote that interest).你的文章对这两点是否符合宪法的核心要求只字没有探讨和论证，对Hernandez 的立法历史和目的没有进行一对一的驳斥。请看你文章的三个主题： I.Equal Protection is an Individual Right II.The Hernandez Problems, Their Causes and Race Neutral Solutions III.The Hernandez Proposition Violates Equal Protection, is Detrimental to Latinos and Dangerous to All Californians 非常关键的，既然Hernandez 引述的Grutter 和Fisher, 正常的法理思维就是要研究这两个先例是否能够支持SCA5的立法意图和精神。文章里只字没提。在我看来（个人观点），凭以上两点，文章也就失去了它应有的说服力，从逻辑推进角度看你已经走题了。 你的努力是应数据来反驳Hernandez 认为西籍under-represented，我认为这是你文章中非常有说服力的一点，并作出结论"These figures match quite well to the population ratios of the two races"(page 3). 但是如果你紧跟Grutter，你就应该知道这是个non-issue (无关紧要的论点）。 Grutter 多数法官(the majority opinion) 的判案中明确指出 ： To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system—it cannot “insulat each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants.” Bakke, supra , at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.). 】 我的回应： 我证明了半天，根本不是LAO所理解的” 来反驳Hernandez 认为西籍under-represented ”。而是证明“ Hernandez is demanding State imposed racial balancing .” 然后证明这一企图违宪。这当然不是一个non-issue。 以下引自 我的文章 ： 【 Latinos represent 19.2% of the U.C. student body and 35% of the CSU student mass. Overall, Latinos represent over 31.4% of California public higher education. At every level, there is no question that diversity and quot;critical massquot; have been attained by the Latinos. For Hernandez, the problem is that these percentages, and the U.C. ratio in particular, are lower than the 37.6% Latino population ratio in California. In other words, Hernandez is demanding State imposed racial balancing. " utright racial balancing... is patently unconstitutional ". Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 US 306, 330 (2003). 】 另外，上面的一段话用31%与19.2%的数据证明 “diversity"与”critical mass"已经具备，这一点也是重要的，预先去掉了已经被最高法认可不违宪的一种compelling state interest. 所以光从这一点，这些数据也不是non-issue. 另外，LAO认为 “ 第14修正案并不保护 under-representedness ” 属于基本逻辑错误。第14th修正案的句型是“ No state shall...”。 这个修正案不是保护，而是禁止。 稍微有点逻辑就知道 根本不能使用14th是否保护 under-representedness 的说法，而只能说某项法案或规则是否违背14th。搞清negative与positive的区别是该宪法辩论的关键。 至于lawandorder引用那段JUSTICE POWELL的话在目前的情况基本不靠谱。因为现在加州还根本没有制订具体录取的规则，只是要废除宪法中不准歧视的条款，具体规则估计到时可能是学校制订。 而且HERNANDEZ明确说了不会搞QUOTA，因此 引用POWELL那段针对具体大学录取规则的话，属于无的放矢。 所以，我请LAO虚心点，我费了这么多劲，写了份中文导读正是考虑读者英语程度限制，应该好好看看。英语不是你的native language，看起来吃力，完全正常也可以理解。那种对我的中文导读不屑一读的态度是固步自封。 http://zhenzhubay.com/home.php?mod=spaceuid=2do=blogid=22573 我的补充： Diversity与critical mass（在这个场合）是定性概念。以critical mass为例，是指一个群体的人不感到孤立，这个概念甚至不需要与其他族群进行比较，不需要量化。而under-representation是一个定量的相对比较结果。你你得有比例的比较才能确定是under，还是equal或者over。与追求equal-representation类同的词是balancing。Balance你去查查字典。 最高法院认为diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，但追求 balancing就是违宪。 我的论文是证明（1）diversity已经实现了，不需要再追求；（2）Hernandez想搞的是balancing。 我文中这些都写得清清楚楚，但是看来读者如果一开始出现概念错误，就没招了。 lawandorder 2014-3-4 02:07 AM 这就是你最好的反驳？ 花了很多时间研究，值得让我在给你一点新的指点，然后再努力研究。在我看来，你不是草包，也不是饭桶，你是个笑话。 （另外你的网站除了刚成立是有人让我去观看之后，我再没有去过，你现在的挑战也不会让我过去。） 你在文章中用了整个12个段落在揭示为什么Hernandez 所主张的Latino under-representedness 在事实上不成立。第2-3页， Point II (1), 1.Latinos occupy over 31% of the seats in California public college (拜托，句子后面放个句号，即使在法律文书的论点标题上也要。） Since 2004, ... With the California Constitution being the obstacle for race based laws, ... Hernandez’s Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (“SCA 5”) initially called to apply race preferences in public postsecondary education only, ... “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature ... The basis Hernandez proffered for his odious proposition is that Latinos are under-represented in California public colleges.Latinos have grown to 37.6% of the state population, and Hernandez alleges that his race is not getting commensurate dose of higher education. We are not bound to accept Hernandez’s assertions, and shall embark on independent fact checking. California State University (“CSU”) data shows that ... These figures match quite well to the population of the two races. It’s hard to see how Mr. Hernandez can demonstrate gross under-representation of Latinos with a 35% Latino ratio at the CSU or the 31.4% ratio enrollment in all public colleges.... As of Fall 2012, the U.S. enrolled 217,835 domestic students, Latino students totaled 41,810, or 19.2% of the domestic U.C. student body.Since 19.2 is substantially smaller than 37.6%, this must be a problem for Hernandez. The data also shows that the number of degrees Latinos received in 2010 was only 22.38% of the total , while Asians took 15.48% of the degrees awarded.Thus, although Latinos occupied 31.4% of seats in college lecturer halls, they were only getting 22.38% of the degrees.This must be another problem for Hernandez, as 22.38% is quite a bit less than 37.6%. A closer exanimation of the data further reveals another anomaly in the gender composition of Latino U.S. student body.... Latino men are indeed getting substantially less college education than Latino women on average.... Now that we understand why Hernandez wants racial and gender preferences in public education, we will perform an independent analysis of the causes of and explore race neutral solutions to the Hernandez problems. 用了12个段落来驳斥Hernandez under-representedness 的问题，用了12个段落来证明Latinos 并不是under-represented.但是，高院从来没有认为under-representedness 本身就构成政府的compelling interest, 所以你的努力来证明Hernandez “problems” 本身就显示出你对Grutter 和高院解读宪法问题的不充分和不准确的理解和运用。 你反复列举你的第六页， 论点III (1) ，以及你引用Grutter的“ utright racial balancing... is patently unconstitutional”并不能说明你对Grutter 的正确理解。只要Hernandez 能提出种族和录取上有任何一点利益关联，就不是outright racial balancing，因此你的引用完全没有任何意义。Grutter 案例4个法官认为密西根大学法学院的录取政策违反宪法，5个法官认为没有。你的文章没有体现出首席法官Rehnquist执笔的反对意见 (“I agree with the Court that, ‘in the limited circumstance when drawing racial distinctions is permissible,’ the government must ensure that its means are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.”), 也只字没提为什么密大法学院的录取政策没有违宪。你所主张论证的race neutral solution (论点II, 小点3 “Race neutral alternatives exist to improve Latino performance” 被Grutter 多数法官明确驳斥，所以你的努力在法律上也是徒劳。（”The Court rejects the argument that the Law School should have used other race-neutral means to obtain the educational benefits of student body diversity, e.g., a lottery system or decreasing the emphasis on GPA and LSAT scores. Narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative or mandate that a university choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence or fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups.”) 你其他的几点评论不值得我浪费时间，你再下点功夫。 岳东晓 2014-3-4 02:48 AM 我只能说你不但缺乏理解力，而且不诚实--- 也就是你不能诚实地面对问题。 你列举了12段，都只是列出数据，精确定位并且在每一处都与37.6%对比。没有在任何地方否定under-representation。这对有点脑子的人来说都是明白着的，每一个比例都under 37.6%。而且，我在每一处低于37.6%的地方进行了评估。在一开始，我就说的非常清楚，这是在identify这位议员的问题所在，根本不是否定他的问题。 然后才是结论：（1）diversity 与 critical mass 具备；（2）Hernandez需要的是racial balancing。 至于你的其他论点，我已经驳斥，完全七窍通了六窍。把这个关键的issue当成non-issue。以你的这种智力水平要在我面前称大，你得转基因才行。靠你这种三脚猫功夫，可能还不如海明，真上法院遇上高手你一招就会斩于马下。 另外，Go back school and learn English. For your free education, I point you to the dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/data lawandorder 2014-3-4 02:59 AM 对你的胡搅蛮缠再浪费一点时间。 “你列举了12段，都只是列出数据，精确定位并且在每一处都与37.6%对比。没有在任何地方否定under-representation。” 那你把你这几句话吞回去吧： “Overall, Latinos represent over 31.4% of California public higher education.At every level, there is no question that racial diversity and ‘critical mass’ have been attained by the Latinos.” 在提醒你一次，对我的人身攻击掩盖不了你的文章的缺陷，poisoning the well 已经让你失去我对你以前所有的尊重。Bring it on. For your arrogance, you have no idea what legal writing is. 岳东晓 2014-3-4 03:05 AM 难道你以为 与 是相同的概念？ 需要我解释他们的不同吗？ 唉，我都写得这么清楚，你还如此冥顽不化，真是没招。 另外，网上辩论，双方言语都有刺激之处，你又何必小姑娘似地叫屈？ lawandorder 2014-3-4 03:19 AM 你是谁，你凭什么在我面前称大？就因为你是物理博士？ ”难道你以为 与 是相同的概念？ 需要我解释他们的不同吗？“-- 这就是你最好的反驳？如果不是那你为什么用巨大的篇幅论证Hernandez 的under-represented理论？ 如果不是，那你的quot; Overall, Latinos represent over 31.4% of California public higher education.At every level, there is no question that racial diversity and ‘critical mass’ have been attained by the Latinos.” 的数据事实是什么？ “另外，网上辩论，双方言语都有刺激之处，你又何必小姑娘似地叫屈？”是你跑道我们这里撒野叫屈，反而倒打一耙。就这本事？ 岳东晓 2014-3-4 03:23 AM 法律也是科学，需要理科思维。文科思维是不行的。 Diversity与critical mass（至少在这个场合）是定性概念。以critical mass为例，是指一个群体的人不感到孤立，这个概念甚至不需要与其他族群进行比较，不需要量化。而under-representation是一个定量的相对比较结果。你你得有比例的比较才能确定是under，还是equal或者over。与追求equal-representation类同的词是balancing。Balance你去查查字典。 最高法院认为追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，但追求 balancing就是违宪。 我的论文是证明（1）diversity已经实现了，不需要再追求；（2）Hernandez想搞的是balancing。 我文中这些都写得清清楚楚，但是看来读者如果一开始出现概念错误，就没招了。 lawandorder 2014-3-4 09:00 AM 我下午看到的这个贴停在“查查字典”之前，之后的内容不记得当时有看到。 由于“查查字典”之后的东西对我来说非常重要，因此只有补充这个评论。 （友好和尊重不能影响法律问题准确性的探讨。） “最高法院认为追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，但追求 balancing就是违宪。”-- 这个陈述并不准确。Grutter案例没有认为“追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，” 而是 通过diversity 所带来的“educational benefits.”（ Diversity vs.the educational benefits of diversity， 种族多元化 vs. 种族多元化所带来的教育利益。） (见Grutter, “But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes.”； 见2013 Fisher 案例最高法院对Grutter 的判决的陈述： “Narrow tailoring also requires a reviewing court to verify that it is ‘necessary’ for the university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.’”； 见我在这里2014-3-2 01:40 PM 发表的评论 （“相反，法学院的论点是通过学生整体性的多元化所产生的教育利益。 “)) “我的论文是证明（1）diversity已经实现了，不需要再追求；（2）Hernandez想搞的是balancing.” -- 两点都没有紧跟Grutter 和Fisher： (1) 不是diversity， 而是diversity 带给教育的利益。(2)我没有看到你diversity 和balancing 论述的区别，事实上，你对balancing 没有论证，只是个结论。（摘自你的导读： “（1）大学里西裔已经够多了，不存在需要特殊种族扶贫“ 如果这就是你论证的Hernandez 的balancing, 在我看来也是diversity. ） 岳东晓 2014-3-4 09:21 AM 我们先确定三点；（1）你是否承认lack of diversity与under-representation是两回事？（2）我的原文是否是试图证明diversity已经达到，而不是反驳Hernandez的under-representation 观点 (3) 相关比例问题是不是你所说的non-issue? 先敲定这三个遗留问题，让盘观者看个明白。我再来针对你的新论点，看到底谁看懂了相关案例。 但我可以把Grutter的holding拷贝如下 “today we endorse Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” Grutter at 235. 请注意，这句话是以句号结束。 lawandorder 2014-3-4 10:13 AM 你的候补能力很强，如果你在写文章是能够如此理解Grutter 和Fisher 案例，你的文章就不会如此结构如此推进。你是在我指出你的法律运用错误之后进行改善，而且不停地改善。 “We are not bound to accept Hernandez’s assertions, and shall embark on independent fact checking.“ 这句话里的”assertions” 是Hernandez 的”under-represented” 问题，和diversity 完全不相关。另外你引述的Grutter 故意忽略了“for the reasons set out below“ 这个限定，充分说明你非专业性理解案例的缺陷。这个限定就是我给你指出的”the educational benefits of diversity” 而不是绝对的”diversity.”还有，2013年最高法院对Grutter的陈述也是”educational benefits of diversity” 而不是绝对的diversity. 这个理解并不难，因为按照Justice O’Connor 的陈述,即使如此有educational benefits 的diversity也只是25年的寿命。你慢慢地吹吧。另外无论如何我也不会涉足你的网站。 我对ＬＡＷＡＮＤＯＲＤＥＲ的最后回应： 自始至终，我都不过是引用我早已发表的英文论文 ，而且我多次复制文中的关键段落，对他进行阅读理解的启发。而他面对自己一次又一次的谬误，不但不感谢本人的帮助（包括免费英语教学），不愿承认自己的错误，一味回避关键问题，胡搅蛮缠或者转移主题，在一个个问题都被驳倒之后，玩王顾左右而言他的把戏，反而说我在“后补”。这种行为完全不是诚实的做法，如果是律师，可谓缺乏基本的素质，估计也是像海明一样吃 rule 11 sanction的主。 至于Grutter的holding， 在我论文中根本未引用，只是在网上讨论中随便写了句“ 最高法院认为追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求”。 但 最高法院判决非常清楚 “ student body diversity is a compelling state interest”。 我虽然只匆匆读了一边，都看清楚了。至于LAO提到什么25年，也基本不靠谱。我当然也看到了。但稍微有点脑子就应该想到，现在离2003年才10年，你扯出25年来，要说明什么？而我的文章论证的是HERNANDEZ要搞racial balancing，这一点违宪是定论。 除非LAWANDORDER能够就我前面提出的三个问题作出诚实的回答，再与之辩论毫无意义。读者可阅读上面的对话经过，自行结论。
iMan/iLancet说： “副词不能修饰副词”。 实际上，副词修饰副词是 基本语法规则 。 英文：He did it very well. Very 副词修饰副词 well。 然后，你可以叠加，He did it very very well。 中文也是一样的。 例句：他可能连副词是什么都完全没有搞清楚。 上面“都”，“完全”，“没有”就是三个副词。 语言中副词修饰副词比比皆是，iMan应该完全没有搞清楚什么是副词才会出现“副词不能修饰副词”的误解。 教育程度低下所致。 b834b06.mp4
中国需要刘晓明这样具有明确的民族立场的人担任外交部长，王毅这种鼓吹日本国民、日本政治家参拜战犯灵位没有问题的“知日派”是无法令人放心的，80%的日本人支持安倍晋三参拜战犯，而王毅是日本人赏识的。 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10546442/Liu-Xiaoming-China-and-Britain-won-the-war-together.html By Liu Xiaoming 10:36PM GMT 01 Jan 2014 309 Comments In the Harry Potter story, the dark wizard Voldemort dies hard because the seven horcruxes, which contain parts of his soul, have been destroyed. If militarism is like the haunting Voldemort of Japan, the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is a kind of horcrux, representing the darkest parts of that nation’s soul. Last week, in flagrant disregard of the feelings of his Asian neighbors, Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, paid homage at the Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 Class A war criminals – defined as those who committed “crimes against peace” – are enshrined. They were among the 28 Japanese political and military leaders convicted by an international military tribunal after the Second World War. The Yasukuni Shrine was established more than 150 years ago, and Asian people know very well how it has since been used by Japanese militarists as a spiritual symbol to launch wars of aggression. In addition, it is deeply offensive to witness convicted war criminals being venerated. These were leaders found guilty of inflicting indescribable suffering on countless individuals during the war. Rightly, within hours of Mr Abe’s visit, there were strong condemnations from China, South Korea and across the international community. Visits to the shrine by Japanese leaders cannot simply be an internal affair for Japan, or a personal matter for any Japanese official. Nor does it concern only China-Japan and Korea-Japan relations. Deep down, paying this kind of homage reveals whether Japan is trustworthy. It raises serious questions about attitudes in Japan and its record of militarism, aggression and colonial rule. At stake is the credit of that country’s leaders in observing the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and upholding peace. It is a choice between aggression and non-aggression, between good and evil and between light and dark. Regrettably, what Mr Abe did has raised the spectre of militarism rising again in Japan. Mr Abe’s track record provides evidence. Since taking office in 2012, he has been talking enthusiastically about justice, democracy, peace and dialogue. But the reality is seen in his actions. He is unrepentant about Japan’s militarist past and makes no apologies for it. He has openly questioned whether his country should be defined as an “aggressor”, and did his utmost to beautify its history of militaristic aggression and colonial rule. In May 2013, Mr Abe caused great offence in China and Korea when he was photographed posing in a military jet boldly marked with the number 731: this was the code of an infamous Japanese biological warfare research facility performing human experiments in China during the war. With these precedents, the world should be very alert. Mr Abe wishes to amend the post-war pacifist constitution, imposed on Japan by the USA. Close attention should be paid to his colleagues, such as Taro Aso, the deputy prime minister, who asserted that Japan could “learn” from Nazi Germany about revising constitutions. Mr Abe has worked hard to portray China as a threat, aiming to sow discord among Asia-Pacific nations, raising regional tensions and so creating a convenient excuse for the resurrection of Japanese militarism. Last year, I explained in a newspaper article the key principles concerning the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, and pointed out the severe consequences of Japan’s provocations. This time, I believe Mr Abe has continued his brinksmanship by visiting the Yasukuni Shrine; it has rekindled bitter memories of Japan’s past-war crimes. We know from history that a country that starts a war and ends up in defeat has two options. One is to face up squarely to its past, make sincere apologies and renounce militarism, as Germany did. The German approach has contributed to regional stability and world peace. It has earned respect and acclaim from the whole world. The other option is to deny past aggression, allow militarism to rise and raise the threat of war. Unfortunately, Mr Abe’s actions confirm that he favours the second option: he seems determined to lead Japan on to a perilous path. The international community should be on high alert. Next week, The Railway Man, a film based on a true story, will be released. It tells the tragic story of a British PoW tortured by the Japanese in the Second World War. The film is not only about the atrocities committed by his Japanese captors, but also how one of them is harrowed by his own past. His redemption is only effected through deep remorse and penitence. China and Britain were wartime allies. Our troops fought shoulder to shoulder against Japanese aggressors and made enormous sacrifices. Sixty-eight years have passed since that horrible war. Yet there are always some incorrigible people in Japan who show no signs of remorse for war crimes. Instead, they seek to reinterpret history. They pose a serious threat to global peace. The Chinese will not allow such attempts. I am sure British and all other peace-loving folk will not remain indifferent. China and Britain are both victors of the Second World War. We played a key role in establishing the post-war international order that has delivered great benefits for mankind. Our two countries have a common responsibility to work with the international community to oppose and condemn any words or actions aimed at invalidating the peaceful post-war consensus and challenging international order. We should join together both to uphold the UN Charter and to safeguard regional stability and world peace. Liu Xiaoming is the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom
最新科技:造处（1）--引子 编者按：下列几句话，英文是法庭记录，译成中文却有好几种译法（2,4,6,8句）。 权威何在？也许在于畅所欲言吧。 ...... 0......（还有什么财产要隐藏么）？ 1.THE WITNESS: No, your Honor 2. THE COURT: All right. Anything further, Mr. Southard? 3。 SOUTHARD: No, your Honor. I'd ask that the Court unwind the property, unwind the marriage, in a sense put each spouse in the possession they would have been at had there been no marriage. ....And based on those reasons, your, Honor, I'd ask that each party be put back into the position they would have been had there been no marriage. 4. THE COURT: Mr. Southard, is your position that there's any marital property at all? 5. MR. SOUTHARD: That's correct, your Honor. I would say that there is no marital property to distribute. 6. THE COURT : It is now -- do you have any other witnesses or any other documents to put into evidence? 7. MR. SOUTHARD: No, your Honor. 8. THE COURT: All right. You're resting, is that correct? 9. MR. SOUTHARD: That's correct, your Honor. 10. THE COURT: It is now 3:15. The defendant has failed to appear on this continued matrimonial trial, so the testimony is closed. The defendant has not testified, has not placed any documents into evidence. The Court notes thatpreviously the Court precluded the defendant from offering any financial information based upon his failure to comply with the Court's orders with respect to discovery. And even if the defendant had appeared today in court, he would be precluded from offering any financial information. I'm going to take a very brief recess and the Court will make it's ruling on the record 1. 证人（原告） : 没有（需要隐藏的）了，大人。 2.1 法院 : 好的。你,还有任何进一步的想法么 ,Southard 先生 ( 律师 ) ? 2.2 法院 : 好的,你,还想进一步地（隐藏）任何（财产）么 ,Southard 先生 ? 3. SOUTHARD: 不 , 阁下。 我要求你解除财产 , 解除婚姻 , 换句话说让每个配偶分别拥有本来就拥有的财产，就像没有婚姻一样。 ..... 根据这些原因 , 阁下 , 我要求你把每一方被放回他们没有婚姻的原来位置。 4.1 法院 : 先生 , 这是你的关于婚姻财产的立场 ? 4.2 你的 意思，还有婚姻 财产（没法隐藏） ? 5. SOUTHARD: 是的 , 阁下。我想说 , 没有夫妻共同财产可分配的。 6.1 法院 : 这 ...... 你（这家伙,竟然要我造处）,有没有任何其他证人或任何其它文件放进证据啊 ? 6.2 这......你 有任何其他证人或任何其它 文件可以放进证据吗？ 7. SOUTHARD: 没有的 , 阁下。 8 .1 法院 : 好的。你正要休息 , 对吧 ? 8.2 好的。你要休息一下 , 对吧 ? 8.3 好的。你正在休息 , 对吧 ? 9. SOUTHARD: 这是正确的 , 阁下。 10. 法院 : 现在 3:15 。被告未能出现在这继续婚姻的审判 , 所以举证结束。被告不出庭作证 , 没有放置任何文件到证据中。法院注意到，先前法院阻止被告提供任何财务信息，是基于他未能遵守法院关于 discovery 的命令 . 。即使被告出现在今天的法庭上 , 他也被排除提供任何财务信息。我要采取一个非常短暂的休息，法院將作裁决，把休息记录在案。
一首在全球華人圈子引起哄動的英文詩。詩相傳是出於紐約州立大學水牛城分校榮譽退休物理學教授 Duo-Liang Lin 手筆；這位學者表達的是整個中華民族的憤慨 … 以前國弱受欺凌，好不容易開始崛起又受敵視，中國人做甚麼都似乎不對，你們西方人究竟想我們怎樣生存？ 這首詩近期在網上熱傳，原因是它反映了華人的心態，抒發了華人長期以來的集體壓抑。詩以英文撰寫，又在華盛頓郵報刊登，是受到雙重標準困擾的海外華人向西方偏見射出的一箭。 西方某些人對中國的敵意與偏見，原因複雜，有中國人自己的缺失，也有種族歧視、有色眼鏡、利益衝突、以至害怕中國崛起等因素。互聯網是中西交往的重要橋樑，在這種情勢之下，如何促進溝通？這首詩實在值得中國人三讀，值得西方人三讀 。 The Poem..... What Do You Really Want from Us When we were the Sick Man of Asia , we were called The Yellow Peril . When we are billed to be the next Superpower , we are called The Threat. When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets. When we embrace Free Trade , You blame us for taking away your jobs. When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and wanted your fair share. When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again , Free Tibet you screamed, It was an Invasion! When tried Communism , you hated us for being Communist. When we embrace Capitalism , you hate us for being Capitalist. When we have a billion people , you said we were destroying the planet . When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights . When we were poor, you thought we were dogs. When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts. When we build our industries, you call us Polluters. When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming . When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide. When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation. When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law. When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights . When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech. When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobes. “Why do you hate us so much ﹖ ”we asked. “No,”you answered, “we don't hate you.” We don't hate you either, but, do you understand us? “Of course we do,” you said, “We have AFP, CNN and BBC's ······” What do you really want from us? Think hard first, then answer ······ because you only get so many chances. Enough is Enough , Enough Hypocrisy for This One World. We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth . This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us. 給西方的詩 〈你究竟要我們怎樣生存？〉 我們是東亞病夫時，我們被說是黃禍； 我們被預言是下一個超級大國了，我們被指是主要威脅。 那時我們閉關自守，你走私鴉片來強開門戶； 我們擁抱自由貿易了，你責罵我們搶走你的飯碗。 那時我們風雨飄搖，你鐵蹄犯境要求機會均等； 我們要整合破碎的山河，你說我們「入侵」 ······ 叫喊「給西藏自由」。 我們試行馬列救國，你痛恨我們成為共黨分子； 我們擁抱資本主義了，你又恨我們當了資本家。 當我們的人口到達十億，你說我們在摧毀地球； 我們要限制人口了，你說我們踐踏人權。 那時我們一貧如洗，你視我們賤如狗； 我們有鈔票借給你了，你怨我們令你國債纍纍。 我們發展工業了，你說我們是污染者； 我們有貨品賣給你了，你說我們是地球暖化的因由。 我們購買石油，你說我們搾取兼滅族； 你們為石油開戰，你說是為了解救生靈。 那時我們動亂無序，你說我們沒有法治； 現在我們要依法平暴，你說我們違反人權。 我們靜默無聲時，你說我們欠缺言論自由； 我們不再緘默了，你說我們是被洗了腦的仇外暴民。 為甚麼你這樣憎恨 我們？我們想知道。 「不」，你說，「我不恨你們。」 我們也不恨你；只是，你了解我們嗎？ 「當然了解」，你說。「我們消息多的是，有 AFP 、 CNN 、還有 BBC······ 」 其實你究竟要我們怎樣生存？ 回答之前，請仔細的想一想 ······ 因為你的機會不是無限的。 已經夠多了 ······ 這個世界容不下更多的偽善了。 我們要的是同一個世界，同一個夢想，靖世太平。 這個寬廣、遼闊的藍地球 , 容得下你們，容得下我們。
FOX NEWS ： China's next goals include another manned mission to the module originally scheduled for later this year but which may be delayed depending on an evaluation of the Shenzhou 9 mission and the condition of the Tiangong 1. China has been extremely cautious and methodical in its manned missions, with more than three years passing since the previous one, and all four have been relatively problem-free. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/29/chinese-astronauts-return-to-earth-after-13-day-mission-to-module/#ixzz1zA04res3 BBC NEWS A Chinese space capsule carrying three crew members has returned to Earth following a 13-day mission. Images of the capsule landing in Inner Mongolia at 10:05 local time (02:05 GMT) were shown live on television. The astronauts, including China's first woman in space, carried out a successful manual docking with the Tiangong-1 laboratory module. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18636819 CNN NEWS After Shenzhou-9, China's new age of discovery ... and self-discovery http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/28/world/asia/china-space-discovery-stout/ 华盛顿邮报 “Tiangong 1, our home in space, was comfortable and pleasant. We’re very proud of our nation,” Liu Yang told national broadcaster CCTV. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-space-capsule-with-3-astronauts-aboard-returns-from-mission-to-orbiting-module/2012/06/28/gJQAcptIAW_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop ................................
标签: 英文
