寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 备考精彩专题 › [追星剑特训] Chapter1.7 Supreme 练习

查看: 18364|回复: 16

上一主题

下一主题

[追星剑特训] [追星剑特训] Chapter1.7 Supreme 练习 [复制链接]

imong
UID：140258

Rank: 16

声望: 266
寄托币: 22475
注册时间: 2003-7-14
精华: 88
帖子: 188

电梯直达

跳转到指定楼层

楼主

发表于 2004-7-6 17:29:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

追星剑特训 Chapter1.7 Supreme 练习

issue108. "In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings --- trials, debates, meetings, etc --- that are televised, the more society will benefit."

issue110. "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

issue114. "Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."

issue199. "Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals. When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone."

翻遍了244道题也就这4道，作为244的零头，能够啰嗦到这个程度——题干居然有3句话。可别看晕了。今天的题目叫做Supreme，就是说这几道题，超级长。

相比一句话或两句话题干的题目而言，逻辑关系增加，关键字增加，破解难度也增加——得想办法给捋顺了才行。

前面从Chapter1.1到Chapter1.6，已经讲了不少的实例和分析，希望大家这次，就都在这里实施一把，这也是为什么Supreme的对应叫做了“练习”。

今天的内容完全留给大家，自由发言，现在开始。

Rien de réel ne peut être menacé.
Rien d'irréel n'existe.

回应
0

使用道具举报

fenglinsheng
UID：163490

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 579
注册时间: 2004-5-5
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2004-7-6 17:35:24 |只看该作者

我第一个顶，虽然我不会分析^_^我的作文还没有看，不过快要开始了，都把您发的东西收藏下来了，以后慢慢研究！非常感谢您^_^

使用道具举报

真生
UID：161074

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 3495
注册时间: 2004-4-9
精华: 3
帖子: 8

板凳

发表于 2004-7-6 20:49:45 |只看该作者

supreme是题目超级长？晕

这四道题的另一个共同之处在于都涉及到程度:
issue108 The more...the more 110 more of...than
114 little, no better 199 tend to, more, most
不过除了108以外，觉得其他几道都不能把这作为主要突破口。

突然发现自己分不清哪句是既定事实，哪句可以进行批驳。都是陈述句，怎么区分？

因为我有希望，
人有了希望就可以安然而平淡地生活下去，
一千年，
一万年，
笑对时光的亡失和生死的渐变。

使用道具举报

KitKat
UID：164708

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 2163
注册时间: 2004-5-18
精华: 1
帖子: 11

地板

发表于 2004-7-6 21:35:05 |只看该作者

来来来小试一下猫爪~

纵观这几道题目
发觉当初猫入手的时候都是从题目的最后一个结论开始的
issue108 The more kinds of government proceedings --- trials, debates, meetings, etc --- that are televised, the more society will benefit.
issue110 All historians are storytellers.
issue114 Technology cannot change the condition of humanity.
issue199 Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone.
有理由相信这样的题目出成酱紫不是巧合了

拿108当个例子来剖析一下自己的判断

issue108. "In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings --- trials, debates, meetings, etc --- that are televised, the more society will benefit."

第一句话交代一个现实 "在许多国家电视实况转播处于工作状态的政府机构成为可能"
然后一个句号就搞定了我们都知道这种description和narration的句子是根本没有debate的理由和余地的
它出现的理由就是给你一个信息
恩那下面的跟TV和政府工作有关了
无他用尔
从立论的角度来说一句废话

第二句话这句还是一定程度上可以作为一个判断的 can help people understand...
好啦疑问开始为什么是help 除了help有没有别的什么弊端
当help和弊端同时出现的时候能不能功抵过
能help的理由是什么不能help的理由是什么
看到这句话就开始窃喜了~~~有戏~~~

最后到第三句
the more...the more...
这是个什么从句先不去管它
看到这个喜出望外
挖哈哈结论出来了
这个时候我们可以选择支持选择反对选择37开 55分成
都行
因为出题的目的已经浮出水面就看你的本事啦~~~
无论选择什么态度都是可以联系上面一句话的观点的
help与否的态度选择直接决定了到底是支持越多越好还是越少越好或者是维持现状就好

另外看上面四道题
在开头的一两句差不多都有很明显的narration标志的词语
比如when 比如in... 再比如最隐晦的一个 have taken
都是交代一下关键词的背景知识给你一个思考的角度
真正的突破点在后面展开的部分就比如108里的第二句
当然全文最debatable的地方还是在结论的部分
这点有点象中文的那种曲径通幽
最重要的是幽啊
千万别看题看呆了~~~~~~~~~~

猫猫第二次作业
待批中~~~~~~
谢谢各位脑袋老大~~~~~~~~~~~~ :D

Life is like a box of chocolate. You never know what you are gonna get.
But you have to do your best with what God gave you. Then you enjoy it and love it.

使用道具举报

jiongbey
UID：164729

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 254
注册时间: 2004-5-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2004-7-7 00:35:06 |只看该作者

issue108. "In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings --- trials, debates, meetings, etc --- that are televised, the more society will benefit."
我们提倡政务公开，但并不是公开信息的越多，对社会越有利。
1、首先，提高行政透明度是遏制腐败的好方法，让公民更多地了解政府，可以提高他们对政府的信任度。所以我们提倡政务公开。
2、然而，并不是越公开越好。其一，对于任何一项行政决策，太多的人参与，很难达成共识并且效率低下；其二，公民对政府工作的具体内容缺乏了解，他们的意见是非专业性的，并且易受大众传媒的影响。
3、对于行政人员来说，被他人监视下，会使他们在工作的时候时刻处于一种紧张的状态，而不利于他们自由自在的施展自己的才能。也是对其隐私权的剥夺。

issue110. "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

不应绝对的认为所有的历史学家都在讲故事。分两种情况来讨论，研究古代史和近代史的史学家就有所不同。
  对于研究古代史的史学家，他们更像讲故事的人。因为，古代很少有对历史事件的详细记录，或者记录难以保存至今，所以需要史学家施展自己的创造力和想象力去完成历史故事。
  对于研究近代史的史学家，他们的资料更加确切可信，并且保存得相对完整。这些史料是对历史的客观纪录，不需要史学家通过各种遗迹去推断历史。
  所以不应一概而论。

issue114. "Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."

humanity is the quality and state of being humane.
技术进步不能改变人性。
1、人性是属于精神道德层面的概念，而技术创新是物质层面的概念，互相之间没有必然联系。
2、事实证明技术的创新不能改变人性本身。反而在现代社会，人性中的黑暗面越发显露出来。
3、人性的改变只有在人类的道德，思想，和智慧发展的时候才会随之改变。

issue199. "Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals. When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone."
绝大多数创造性的想法来自个人。
1、首先，创造是一个很个人化的东西，创造性本身就是一种个性化，所以它必须是来自于个人的。
2、其次，对于一个创造性的想法，太多他人意见的加入，会使其失去创造性，除非他人的意见同时也是具有创造性的，而这种情况毕竟是少数。
3、他人的意见也许具有启发作用，但最后想出创造性点子的还是某一个人，而非一群人。

如果窗外有风
我就有了飞的理由

使用道具举报

ion
UID：169170

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 180
注册时间: 2004-7-8
精华: 0
帖子: 0

6楼

发表于 2004-7-8 01:01:10 |只看该作者

问题不常见或是比较复杂一言两语说不清楚，题目自然长一点。
108&114第一句只是告诉一个背景。110&199的第一句是概括,然后详细阐述。
这四个题目的后两句话都是因果型，按照chapter1.3的方法应该可以。
总的看来就是总分总，题目的长短不是一个新问题。

使用道具举报

lakeqian
UID：157560

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 0
寄托币: 11412
注册时间: 2004-3-7
精华: 4
帖子: 19

7楼

发表于 2004-7-22 17:39:53 |只看该作者

个人觉得issue110应该考虑一下否定原论点的false dilemma.
interpreting evidence，进行合理推断不等于storytelling
回五楼的：你的提纲不错，只是issue119提纲第三点中提到“最后想出创造性点子的还是某一个人”是否unfairly假设了最后想出创造性点子的人才是创造者？应该认为相互启发可以算是集体创造？
如同踢足球时，进球是全队的功劳而不仅仅是射手的。
记得听小学老师讲过一个例子。一个学者（忘了学什么的）听了朋友一句话后有了灵感于是就作了开拓性研究并取得成果。最后这个成果应该partly attribute to只说了一句话的朋友虽然他没做研究但他的这一句话仍然是必不可少的。
你同意吗？
be teamwork

使用道具举报

lakeqian
UID：157560

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 0
寄托币: 11412
注册时间: 2004-3-7
精华: 4
帖子: 19

8楼

发表于 2004-7-22 18:03:24 |只看该作者

再补一点。现实生活，尤其是科学领域，中经常简单的把某创造归于一个人。
每个科学家都有助手，他们当然是有作用的（要不科学家为什么不fire他们），但每个助手都没有得到应得的荣誉（相对于科学家）。
呵呵，类似于一将功成万骨枯的道理。
这种不合理的现象也许基于人们的贡献是无法被分割的。因此，我们只能把创造性归于功劳最大获最有名的一个人。这就是我们看到的现象。sigh
想到了保险学上的一个霸王条款：如果近因中有可保风险也有不可保风险，且二者造成的损失不能被清楚分开则近因按不可保风险算，保险公司一分钱不赔。

使用道具举报

zhang1982002
UID：153658

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 156
注册时间: 2004-1-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

9楼

发表于 2004-7-24 09:32:15 |只看该作者

issue108. "In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings --- trials, debates, meetings, etc --- that are televised, the more society will benefit."
t :) he conclusion the public should cersor more on the gorverment by the means of televise them is conducted step by step on the basis of the facts which to be dicussed  below.
The possibility to view the government exist with the development of the technology. The perspective that the public should try to limit the power of the goverment is the faith in morden politilcal science. Naturely the hehavior of televiseing the route affair could be comprehened .
However, the cersoring a person's lift is volance to a person's freedom and diginity. furthermore there are more effective methord to prevent the gorverner undure using the public resource to benefit their individual interests, such as annual financial check. In addition, the tolerance the public take would satisfy the governers' internal world as human being.
控制可以更有效,但不必这么做.
倾向性论题,个人认为可以分析提出的建议与策论,如果觉的可以接受的话,可以去完善前面的推导过程, 如果不可接受就得从推理入手了, 我想,这类倾向性问题关系的一些西方政治的基础理论,如权利限制,个人自由,教育作用,以及独立思考,宽容的态度,

issue110. "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

The conclusion that all historians are storytells is conducted by a series facts which are sound to be non fata flaws.
Indeed the man who study the history could not tell the accurat things which happened before. But the trend of the historians is not creat the history by the means of their imagination but to conduct the events in the accurat level they could do utilizing the technology and expertise in other fields.
论点关键在最后的倾向认识上.因此区别两种人storytellers and historian 就是寻找其差异点,而不是用题目给出的表面上的相似. 当然,这几点可以用Adimittedly做掉.

issue114. "Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."

In my view this issue must be with serverly() personal perspective .
技术层面与人性本来就无太大关系. 有的话也是通过科学来mutual influent .有一篇相关文章我发在这帖后面.是关于humanity

issue199. "Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals. When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone."

反对这样的事实存在. (事实存在型)  The issue emphisize the negative effect in the the teamwork regarded as the obstacle of the original thought.

使用道具举报

zhang1982002
UID：153658

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 156
注册时间: 2004-1-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

10楼

发表于 2004-7-24 10:26:18 |只看该作者

有关上楼的资料Science and Humanity

Science and Humanity in the Twenty-First Century
by Sir Joseph Rotblat
1995 Nobel Laureate in Peace

The twentieth century saw more momentous change than any previous century: change for better, change for worse; change that brought enormous benefits to human beings, change that threatens the very existence of the human species. Many factors contributed to this change but - in my opinion - the most important factor was the progress in science.
Academic research in the physical and biological sciences has vastly broadened our horizons; it has given us a deep insight into the structure of matter and of the universe; it has brought better understanding of the nature of life and of its continuous evolution. Technology - the application of science - has made fantastic advances that have affected us beneficially in nearly every aspect of life: better health, more wealth, less drudgery, greater access to information.
The continuation of such activities in the twenty-first century will result in an even greater boon to humanity: in pure science - a wider and deeper knowledge in all spheres of learning; in applied science - a more equitable distribution of material benefits, and better protection of the environment.
Sadly, however, there is another side to the picture. The creativity of science has been employed to the detriment of mankind. The application of science and technology to the development and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction has created a real threat to the continued existence of the human race on this planet. We have seen this happen in the case of nuclear weapons. Although their actual use in combat has so far occurred only in 1945 - when two Japanese cities were destroyed - during the four decades of the Cold War, obscenely huge arsenals of nuclear weapons were accumulated and made ready for use. The arsenals were so large that if the weapons had actually been detonated the result could have been the complete extinction of the human species, as well as of many animal species.
To a large extent the nuclear arms race was driven by scientists. They kept on designing new types of weapons, not because of any credible requirement - arsenals a hundred times smaller would have sufficed for any conceivable deterrence purpose - but mainly to satisfy their inflated egos, or for the intense exhilaration experienced in exploring new technical concepts.
This is a complete perversion of the lofty ideals of science. It is a severe, but justified, indictment of members of a highly respected group in society.
William Shakespeare said: "The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together." The above brief review of the application of only one strand of human activities - science - seems to bear out this adage. But does it have to be so? Must ill always accompany good deeds? Are we biologically programmed for aggression and war?
I am not an authority in genetics, but from my readings and life-long observation I do not see any evidence that we are genetically condemned to commit evil. On the contrary, on very general grounds I would say that genetically we are destined to do things that are of benefit to the human species, and that the negative aspects are mistakes, transient errors in the process of evolution. In other words, I believe in the inherent goodness of Man.
The human species is the outcome of a continuous, natural process of evolution, involving an infinite number of transformations; an inexorable process that has been going on since the formation of the Earth, about 4.5 billion years ago. This process of evolution has led, through random mutations, and influenced by environmental factors, to the emergence of systems of ever better adaptation, thus securing their continuity. In animals, this has led to the evolution of species with increasing intelligence, climaxing in the human species, which has acquired the ability of original thinking. I believe that this marks a very important phase in evolution, the first time that a species has been able to take charge of its own destiny.
The acquisition of the power of original thinking has greatly accelerated the process of natural evolution. It has resulted in huge strides in all aspects of civilization, in the arts, in literature, in medicine, in technology, above all, in science, which is at the forefront of the expansion of the human intellect. However, these very advances in science have led to the acquisition of the capacity for self-destruction, to the development of the means to destroy the human species itself.
I have already shown that this has already happened in one area - the development of nuclear weapons. Other means of wholesale destruction, perhaps more easily manufactured, may result from further scientific research, if it is allowed to proceed completely unrestricted.
We are thus faced with a daunting dilemma. As a process of natural evolution, science should be allowed to develop freely, without restrictions. But can we afford the luxury of uninhibited research in the natural sciences, with its awesome potential of total destruction, in a world in which war is still a recognized social institution?
The preservation of the human species, and its continuing enhancement, demand that we learn to live with one another in peace and harmony. But this learning process has been slow and arduous, and is not yet complete. Due to the harsh conditions under which primitive Man lived, he often had to fight with other human beings for survival. Individual killing and, later, collective killing - war - thus began to be seen as a natural phenomenon. But with the improvement of standards of living resulting from science and technology, wars have become less and less necessary. We are gradually coming to appreciate the futility of war; we are slowly learning how to resolve conflicts without resorting to military confrontation.
We are not there yet. We are still not organized for a war-free world. But in the meantime, the human species may be brought to an end by the use of the tools of destruction, themselves the product of science and technology.
In my opinion, the problem has to a large extent arisen from the uneven rate of advance in the different areas of human activities, in particular, between the progress in the natural sciences - which include the physical and biological disciplines, and the various social sciences - economics, sociology, politics (with psychology perhaps at the interface between the two major groups). Undoubtedly, there has been much faster progress in the natural sciences than in the social ones.
Why have the natural sciences, especially the physical sciences, advanced so much faster than the social sciences? It is not because physicists are wiser or cleverer than, say, economists. The explanation is simply that physics is easier to master than economics. Although the material world is a highly complex system, for practical purposes it can be described by a few general laws. The laws of physics are immutable, they apply everywhere, on this planet as well as everywhere else in the universe, and are not affected by human reactions and emotions, as the social sciences are.
Indeed, these very characteristics of the physical sciences have led to the "ivory tower" mentality of the natural scientists, to their assertions that science is neutral, that it has nothing to do with politics, and should be allowed to be undertaken for its own sake, without regard to the ways it may be applied. In its extreme form, it was this attitude that enabled the scientists in the military establishments on both sides of the iron curtain, in Los Alamos and Livermore, in Chelyabinsk-65 and Arzamas-16, to use their ingenuity to keep on inventing new, or improving old, instruments of destruction, during the Cold War. It is this frame of mind that currently enables scientists working in genetic engineering to propose experiments that could damage our genetic make up.
How can we tackle this unevenness in the rate of progress of different areas of science? Two ways come to mind: one, by accelerating the rate of progress in the social sciences; two, by slowing down the rate of advancement of the natural sciences in some areas, for example, by the imposition of ethical codes of conduct.
Clearly, the former is by far the preferable way. What we would like to see is faster progress in the social sciences, leading to the establishment of a social system which would make war not only unnecessary but unthinkable; a system in which the existence of old, or the invention of new, weapons of mass destruction, would not matter, because nobody would dream of using them; a system in which people will be able to say: "nuclear weapons: who cares?"
How long will it take to achieve this state? Considering that this would require an educational process to develop and nurture a feeling of loyalty to mankind, transcending national boundaries, it may be a long time in coming.
Meanwhile the threats now hanging over our heads may become a reality, should there be a major military conflict. We have therefore to consider, in addition, the other way, namely, imposing some restraint on research in the natural sciences.
At first this sounds unimaginable - a limitation on scientific research is almost a contradiction in terms. How can thinking be muzzled? How can one control the ideas that come into one's head? We still remember the political regimes that tried to do this, and nobody wants to bring them back. Moreover, scientific research is very likely to bring further benefits to all of us, and we should not do anything that may hinder such outcomes.
On the other hand, unlimited research may lead to grave dangers, as I have described. In my opinion, the prevention of these dangers should have priority, even if it means that, temporarily, science does not have a completely free run. After all, we do not need to do everything, we don't have to pursue every idea that comes into our heads. In exercising our intellectual powers we have to be responsible for the social impact of our work.
Responsibility for one's actions, is of course, a basic requirement of every citizen, not just of scientists. Each of us must be accountable for our deeds. But the need for such responsibility is particularly imperative for scientists, if only because scientists understand the technical problems better than the average citizen or politician. And knowledge brings responsibility.
In any case, scientists do not have a completely free hand. The general public, through elected governments, have the means to control science, either by withholding the purse, or by imposing restrictive regulations harmful to science. Clearly, it is far better that any control should be exercised by the scientists themselves, through a self-imposed code of conduct.
The establishment of an ethical code of conduct for scientists is an idea whose time has come.
An ethical code of conduct for physicians has been in existence for nearly two and a half millennia, since the days of Hippocrates. In those days - as still today - the life of the patient was literally in the hands of the medic, and it was essential to ensure that he would wield his power responsibly, the care of the patient being his foremost duty. Hence the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors when they qualify.
Nowadays, science can be said to have acquired a somewhat similar role in relation to humanity; the destiny of mankind lying in the hands of scientists. The time has thus come for some sort of Hippocratic Oath to be formulated for scientists. A solemn oath, or a pledge, taken when receiving the degree in science, would, at the least, have an important symbolic value, but it might also generate awareness and stimulate thoughts about the wider issues among young scientists.
We should also borrow from medicine another practice, of more recent origin: ethical committees to review research projects. In many countries, a research project that involves patients has to be approved by the ethical committee of the hospital, to ensure that the investigation will not put the patient's health and welfare at a significant risk. This practice should be extended to research work in general, but in the first instance, perhaps, to the area of research that has a direct impact on the health of the population, namely, genetic engineering.
I suggest that ethical committees, composed of eminent scientists from different specialities, should be set up for the task of examining potentially harmful long-term effects of proposed research projects. The ethical committees should work under the aegis of the national academy of sciences in the given country, but it is essential that the criteria used in the assessment of projects are agreed internationally by academies of sciences, so that the same standards are applied everywhere. This would entail a greater than hitherto involvement of academies of science in ethical matters, which is needed in any case.
The implementation of these proposals would go some way towards the prevention of harmful consequences of scientific research. It would enable the scientist's creativity to fulfil its proper function: enhance our cultural and intellectual heritage, and, at the same time, protect the environment and improve the material lot of human beings, thus helping the establishment of an equitable and peaceful world.

使用道具举报

黑森林
UID：141841

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 1
寄托币: 6316
注册时间: 2003-8-6
精华: 3
帖子: 12

11楼

发表于 2004-7-26 22:14:16 |只看该作者

楼上的好长啊，看到偶的头大
终于完成 Chapter 1 ，窃喜中。。。

The origin of intelligence!

使用道具举报

carrie_zhaoli
UID：159219

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 1537
注册时间: 2004-3-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

12楼

发表于 2004-7-29 16:19:10 |只看该作者

谢谢10楼的资料

考回去放大了看，谢谢了先。

走过去，前面是个天！
█◤☆◥◤☆◥█ 送星星千百颗...
█☆☆☆☆☆☆█
█◣☆☆☆☆◢█ 生命活的精彩灿烂.
██◣☆☆◢██
███◣◢███ 愿你快乐 ^_^
海内存知己，天涯若比邻

QQ：30391334
msn: zhaoli119@hotmail.com

使用道具举报

carrie_zhaoli
UID：159219

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 1537
注册时间: 2004-3-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

13楼

发表于 2004-7-29 16:30:20 |只看该作者

记得有一个很有用的马斯洛需要层次原理，Maslow's hierarchy ne
eds therory, 人的需要分为5种，physiological requirement, safety, love, esteem,
self-actualization. 前一层需要得到了满足的时候，后一层才会 conscious and func
tioning. 大体就这个意思吧，具体的理论我记得这个论坛上都有人说过，搜索一下可以找
到。科技发展改变人类的physiological requirement to some extent，人们才可能去追求更高层次的满足，可以说技术使得人们满足了基本的生活需要，生活水平提高了，但是人们的追求
就往更高层次的需要进发，因为需要得到社会的 rewards and esteem,然后需要self -actualize,技术的作用也就在于
能够提供更多的时间和机会给人们去追求更高层次的目标。这样深度不就上了一个台阶么，呵呵。还不一定要说技术，可以直接说社会进步带给人们的好处，比如说先说生活上物质条件好了，再说个人追求上层次进发。

只有这些更高层次的得到满足，才有可能在一定程度上改变人性。事实上从古自今人性是有变化的，题目论断说一点没变是片面的。至于进一步改变要看科技与人类需求满足之间的关系。

新手上路，多多指教啊

走过去，前面是个天！
█◤☆◥◤☆◥█ 送星星千百颗...
█☆☆☆☆☆☆█
█◣☆☆☆☆◢█ 生命活的精彩灿烂.
██◣☆☆◢██
███◣◢███ 愿你快乐 ^_^
海内存知己，天涯若比邻

QQ：30391334
msn: zhaoli119@hotmail.com

使用道具举报

carrie_zhaoli
UID：159219

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 1537
注册时间: 2004-3-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

14楼

发表于 2004-7-29 16:57:34 |只看该作者

5 楼的论点很出色啊。
最后一题我的论点如下：现实生活中经常给我们这样的错觉，创造仿佛来自一个人，特别是在科学领域（和8楼的很象啊），原因是贡献在很大程度上难以分割，而给予了老大。
事实上，我们忽略了团队合作的重要性，老大的思想来源于手下思想的结晶。
的确最后由老大做主，但是没有集体的参与会产生很多弊病：1。片面性，武断性，2 没有新意
比如在科学领域。。。在商业领域。。。
在一个open mined 的集体中，个人的可以吸取他人的思想的精华，更加完善完备，而不会出现
compromise 最后weaken.
当然不能否认的确存在nerrow mined 的集体，个人的创造只能委曲求全，但这样的集体不是主流。

（好象有些乱，不知道对否）

走过去，前面是个天！
█◤☆◥◤☆◥█ 送星星千百颗...
█☆☆☆☆☆☆█
█◣☆☆☆☆◢█ 生命活的精彩灿烂.
██◣☆☆◢██
███◣◢███ 愿你快乐 ^_^
海内存知己，天涯若比邻

QQ：30391334
msn: zhaoli119@hotmail.com

使用道具举报

hatty
UID：141246

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 3270
注册时间: 2003-7-26
精华: 1
帖子: 1

15楼

发表于 2004-8-25 18:30:00 |只看该作者

现在。。。交作业还晚么？

快一个月了。。。

使用道具举报

问答

Offer

投票

面经

【问答】正常大签上面有学校名和专业吗？

有专业但没学校名称。

【问答】港科大广州分校的PHD如何？

据说没有留学认定，港中深和港科广好像都没有。

申请学校要求本科学校有博士点，怎么argue

想argue找找那些案例看看

【问答】cs也发nature吗？

也能发的。

Integrated design

其它 | 24Fall | Offer

Paris School of Economics

MA | 24Fall | 被拒

格拉斯哥大学

MSc | 24Fall | Offer

布里斯托大学

Computer Science

MSc | 24Fall | 被拒

NTU PE VS NUS EE

需求/目标：留服认证为电气工程，进南网相关央国企，比如：供电局、南网超高压、南网储能、核电站（不知道会不会因为留学不给进 NTU PE(Power Engineering) 优点：学费更便宜26w；没那么近市中心租房更便宜，且有一定概率抽到宿舍；课程更偏向电气强电，有利于进电网相关企业（不知道是不是这样）缺点：QS26，相对于NUS更低；扩招厉害，据说bar比较低 NUS EE (Electrical Engineering. 优点：QS8排名更高，据说课程教学质量更好，录取bai 也更高缺点：学费更贵30.9w；宿舍基本不可能有，且更近市中心，租房成本更贵（不知道一个月2000新够不够租房费+伙食费）；课程设置感觉强电课程很少，更偏向自动化弱电，我本科自动化，很多课程都学过两所学校学费差5w，加上租房费用差异，可能总费用相差8w。希望留服认证为电气工程，进南网相关央国企和核电站，选哪个offer好？还是说新二就业都一样，没差别?

硕士：莫那什大学it和昆士兰大学it怎么选

想真正学到东西。哪个学校课程设置，专业资源等更好呢

新国立NUS VS美国密歇根安娜堡（生物硕）

nus：新项目，隶属医学院，叫应用生物医学一年制，学校会安排进实验室。跟本科专业比较对口安娜堡：癌症化学生物，隶属于生物系，一年制，学校官网上讲成绩前几名可以直接转博士我一定会读博，且希望在硕士期间能够有一些文章产出，所以就想问一下，这两个学校哪个读博士比较容易？就是升博士比较顺利，害怕硕士毕业需要做一年ra。博士毕业后会直接回国，哪个学校会比较有知名度一点呢

415极限选校mscs pitt vs osu

很纠结，osu人多排名好，pitt邻近cmu可以选几门cmu的课，边上有Google。比较想进实验室，osu担心人太多难进，pitt人少很多，可能相对好进

The University of Hong Kong

1.why港大 2.why MIPA3.时政类问题

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

1.自我介绍2.你认为作为一个communicator需要有哪些特点？3.怎么知道这个项目的4.怎么看待ai...

Hanyang University

1.自我介绍2.入学后的学习计划3.为什么选择汉阳大4.韩语是怎么学习的

Glasgow School of Art

transformation design

1.自我介绍2.申请动机3.选择一个作品进行介绍4.作品相关问题5.毕业后想成为什么样的设计师总时长大概20多分...

最新

精华

【资讯】英国各院校list最新要求（2）

澳大利亚国立大学admissions信息相关

欧洲版实习斑竹野人前来报道！

【资讯】美国TOP30名校捡漏专业（2）

【资讯】澳洲留学雅思接受单项重考

欧洲版块版主申请

【资讯】美国TOP30名校捡漏专业（1）

香港大学东亚研究科研

避雷上海兮梦教育科技留学中介

【资讯】拉夫堡大学2025年1月春季开学的研究生课程已开放申请

避雷留学中介上海兮梦教育科技

欧洲DIY申请课程描述分享-适用于信息安全/网络安全/计算机科学等

关于滑铁卢下offer时间

【资讯】澳洲签证认可托福成绩

QS2025排名预测，猜中有大奖！

本科经济统计学申请硕士可以选什么方向

加拿大留学GIC办理指南：最新政策、流程及专属福利

港澳居住证+社保医保地税+银行卡改用回乡证登记

瑞典硕士DIY申请攻略之名校介绍——LU隆德大学/LTH隆德工学院

网上核实永居+walkin申请特区护照+walkin注销户口(广州)+申请回乡证

加硕coop指北

【干货】教你如何写MBA简历

新加坡MBA（NUS, NTU, SMU）申请心得及攻略

2023FALL申请总结兼日本CS SGU申请及劝退贴（东大京都东工大阪）

2023 Fall Business/Econ PhD混申感悟

23年2.7托福自学首考104经验分享

2023美国留学签证最新政策+详细流程

学签安全调查迷你百科

美国ny bar备考经验分享

香港经澳门回内地隔离攻略

香港永久居民的申请步骤和过程

22fall东京大学IME EEIS硕士项目申请经历

转发

转发该帖子

[追星剑特训] Chapter1.7 Supreme 练习

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-203950-1-1.html

复制链接

发送

报offer 祈福爆照

回顶部