1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by kulewy531（为了未来，为了永恒）

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Beauty(节选）

By Scott Russell Sanders
生词

重点词句

好词
好句
Judging from the scientists I know, including Eva and Ruth, and those whom I've read about, you can't pursue the laws of nature very long without bumping into beauty. "I don't know if it's the same beauty you see in the sunset," a friend tells me, "but it feels the same." This friend is a physicist, who has spent a long career deciphering what must be happening in the interior of stars. He recalls for me his thrill on grasping for the first time Dirac's equations describing quantum mechanics, or those of Einstein describing relativity. "They're so beautiful," he says, "you can see immediately they have to be true, or at least on the way toward truth." I ask him what makes a theory beautiful, and he replies, "Simplicity, symmetry, elegance, and power."

Why nature should conform to theories we find beautiful is far from obvious. The most incomprehensible thing about the universe, as Einstein said, is that it's comprehensible. How unlikely, that a short-lived biped on a two-bit（trivial） planet should be able to gauge the speed of light, lay bare the structure of an atom, or calculate the gravitational tug of a black hole. We're a long way from understanding everything, but we do understand a great deal about how nature behaves. Generation after generation, we puzzle out（苦苦思索） formulas, test them, and find, to an astonishing degree, that nature agrees. An architect draws designs on flimsy paper, and her buildings stand up through earthquakes. We launch a satellite into orbit and use it to bounce messages from continent to continent. The machine on which I write these words embodies hundreds of insights（insight可数） into the workings of the material world, insights that are confirmed by every burst of letters on the screen, and I stare at that screen through lenses that obey the laws of optics first worked out in detail by Isaac Newton.

By discerning patterns in the universe, Newton believed, he was tracing the hand of God. Scientists in our day have largely abandoned the notion of a Creator as an unnecessary hypothesis, or at least an untestable one. While they share Newton's faith that the universe is ruled everywhere by a coherent set of rules, they cannot say, as scientists, how these particular rules came to govern things. You can do science without believing in a divine Legislator, but not without believing in laws.

I spent my teenage years scrambling up the mountain of mathematics. Midway up the slope, however, I staggered to a halt, gasping in the rarefied air, well before I reached the heights where the equations of Einstein and Dirac would have made sense. Nowadays I add, subtract, multiply, and do long division when no calculator is handy, and I can do algebra and geometry and even trigonometry in a pinch, but that is about all that I've kept from the language of numbers. Still, I remember glimpsing patterns in mathematics that seemed as bold and beautiful as a skyful of stars.

I'm never more aware of the limitations of language than when I try to describe beauty. Language can create its own loveliness, of course, but it cannot deliver to us the radiance we apprehend in the world, any more than a photograph can capture the stunning swiftness of a hawk or the withering power of a supernova. Eva's wedding album holds only a faint glimmer of the wedding itself. All that pictures or words can do is gesture beyond themselves toward the fleeting glory that stirs our hearts. So I keep gesturing.

"All nature is meant to make us think of paradise," Thomas Merton observed. Because the Creation puts on a nonstop show, beauty is free and inexhaustible, but we need training in order to perceive more than the most obvious kinds. Even fifteen billion years or so after the Big Bang, echoes of that event still linger in the form of background radiation, only a few degrees above absolute zero. Just so, I believe, the experience of beauty is an echo of the order and power that permeate the universe. To measure background radiation, we need subtle instruments; to measure beauty, we need alert intelligence and our five keen senses.

Anyone with eyes can take delight in a face or a flower. You need training, however, to perceive the beauty in mathematics or physics or chess, in the architecture of a tree, the design of a bird's wing, or the shiver of breath through a flute. For most of human history, the training has come from elders who taught the young how to pay attention. By paying attention, we learn to savor all sorts of patterns, from quantum mechanics to patchwork quilts.

This predilection（preference） brings with it a clear evolutionary advantage, for the ability to recognize patterns helped our ancestors to select mates, find food, avoid predators. But the same advantage would apply to all species, and yet we alone compose symphonies and crossword puzzles, carve stone into statues, map time and space. Have we merely carried our animal need for shrewd perceptions to an absurd extreme? Or have we stumbled ontoa deep congruence between the structure of our minds and the structure of the universe?

I am persuaded the latter is true. I am convinced there's more to beauty than biology, more than cultural convention. It flows around and through us in such abundance, and in such myriad forms, as to exceed by a wide margin any mere evolutionary need. Which is not to say that beauty has nothing to do with survival: I think it has everything to do with survival. Beauty feeds us from the same source that created us. It reminds us of the shaping power that reaches through the flower stem and through our own hands. It restores our faith in the generosity of nature. By giving us a taste of the kinship between our own small minds and the great Mind of the Cosmos, beauty reassures us that we are exactly and wonderfully made for life on this glorious planet, in this magnificent universe. I find in that affinity a profound source of meaning and hope. A universe so prodigal of beauty may actually need us to notice and respond, may need our sharp eyes and brimming（满溢的）
hearts and teeming minds, in order to close the circuit of Creation

Comments:
In the excerption, Russell discusses a philosophical issue of nature and human’s perceptive ability, rather than explains what beauty means to him.
Beauty, as a creation of human, vividly illustrates human’s ability to exceed the limitation of nature. Distinguished from other animals, men never failed the attempt to pursuit beauty, whatever the circumstances.
As a philosopher and scientist, Russell asserts the unique ability dose not stem from evolution, since beauty has no material use, which is beyond the field of the application of the evolution theory. Then, he concludes this ability will lead us to close the circuit of Creation.
Russell’s claim is glorious, but, of equal probability, what if beauty is just the result of a chance mutation of gene, and finally leads us to the end.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Thanks！

kulewy531UID: 2603031

U.S. Had Early Signals of a Terror Plot, Officials Say
生词

重点词句

好词
好句

President Obama, speaking on Tuesday at a Marine Corps base near Honolulu, said he would “insist on accountability at every level” for failures in security.
The president was told during a private briefing on Tuesday morning while vacationing here in Hawaii that the government had a variety of information in its possession before the thwarted（被阻挠的） bombing that would have been a clear warning sign had it been shared among agencies, a senior official said.
Two officials said the government had intelligence from Yemen before Friday that leaders of a branch of Al Qaeda（基地组织） there were talking about “a Nigerian” being prepared for a terrorist attack. While the information did not include a name, officials said it would have been evident had it been compared with information about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit on Christmas Day.
The government also had more information about where Mr. Abdulmutallab had been and what some of his plans were.
Some of the information was partial or incomplete, and it was not obvious that it was connected, the official said, but in retrospect it now appears clear that had it all been examined together it would have pointed to the pending attack. The official said the administration was “increasingly confident” that Al Qaeda had a role in the attack, as the group’s Yemeni branch has publicly claimed.
Shortly after being briefed, Mr. Obama addressed reporters in his second public statement on the matter in two days, announcing that a review already had revealed a breakdown in the intelligence system that did not properly identify the suspect as a dangerous extremist who should have been prevented from flying to the United States.
“A systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable,” Mr. Obama said. He said he had ordered government agencies to give him a preliminary report on Thursday about what happened and added that he would “insist on accountability at every level,” although he did not elaborate.
Mr. Obama alluded to the intelligence in his statement. “Had this critical information been shared, it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged,” the president said. “The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America.”
The president’s withering（negative） assessment of the government’s performance could reshape the intensifying political debate over the thwarted terrorist attack. Instead of defending the system, Mr. Obama sided with critics who complained that it did not work and positioned himself as a reformer who will fix it. At the same time, the decision to speak a second time after remaining out of sight for three days underscores the administration’s concern over being outflanked on national security.
The aftermath of the attempted bombing has been marked by an increasingly fierce partisan exchange over culpability heading into a midterm election year. With Republicans on the attack against the administration as not taking terrorism seriously enough, Democrats returned fire by accusing the opposition of standing in the way of needed personnel and money while exploiting public fears.
The debate has escalated since Mr. Obama’s secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, said Sunday that “the system worked” after officials said the suspect tried to ignite explosive chemicals aboard a Northwest Airlines flight approaching Detroit. Ms. Napolitano made clear the next day that she had meant the system worked in its response to the attempted bombing, not before it happened.
Mr. Obama appeared to be trying to contain the damage on Tuesday, offering “systemic failure” as a substitute diagnosis for “system worked.” He framed Ms. Napolitano’s statement by saying she was right that “once the suspect attempted to take down Flight 253, after his attempt, it’s clear that passengers and crew, our homeland security systems and our aviation security took all appropriate actions.”
The president praised the professionalism of the nation’s intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security and law enforcement officials. But he spared little in his sharp judgment about how a known extremist could be allowed to board a flight bound for the United States after his own father had warned that he had become radical.
“There was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the Marine Corps base at Kaneohe Bay outside Honolulu, near his vacation home in Kailua. “We need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix the flaws in our system because our security is at stake and lives are at stake.”
Mr. Obama suggested that he would overhaul the watch-list system. “We’ve achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks,” he said. “But it’s becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.”
Mr. Abdulmutallab, who has been linked to the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda, came to the attention of the American authorities when his father went to the embassy last month to report that his son had expressed radical views before disappearing. The father, a respected retired banker, did not say his son planned to attack Americans but sought help locating him and bringing him home, United States officials said.
After Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father asked the embassy in Nigeria for help, embassy officials from several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, met to discuss the case, officials said.
Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that was the first time the agency had heard of the young Nigerian. “We did not have his name before then,” he said.
The embassy sent a cable to Washington, which resulted in Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name being entered in a database of 550,000 people with possible ties to terrorism. But he was not put on the much smaller no-fly list of 4,000 people or on a list of 14,000 people who are required to undergo additional screening before flying, nor was his multiple-entry visa to the United States revoked.
“It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect’s name on a no-fly list,” Mr. Obama said of the father’s warning. “There appears to be other deficiencies as well. Even without this one report, there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together.”
Mr. Obama’s appearance came after another day of Republican criticism. On Tuesday, the National Republican Congressional Committee sought to inject the bombing attempt into next year’s midterm races. In a series of news releases, the committee sought to press vulnerable Democrats on whether they agreed with Ms. Napolitano’s initial assessment.
“All year long, we’ve asked the question: What is the administration’s overarching strategy to confront the terrorist threat and keep America safe?” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said in a statement Tuesday. “We haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer, and the secretary’s ‘the system worked’ response doesn’t inspire confidence.”
Democrats countered that Republicans had shown disregard for any terrorism risk by blocking the president’s nominee(被任命者) for head of the Transportation Security Administration and by voting this year against a measure providing $44 billion for Department of Homeland Security operations.
“They have essentially voted against and delayed providing the tools that are necessary to prevent these kinds of actions,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
They also criticized Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the senior Republican on the intelligence committee and a leading critic of the White House, for tying the thwarted bombing to an appeal for money for his race for governor. In a letter first reported by The Grand Rapids Press, Mr. Hoekstra sought donations to help counter Democratic “efforts to weaken our security.”
A spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra’s campaign said the letter was appropriate and sought to inform potential donors of his leadership on national security issues.
Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said on Tuesday that once the Senate returned on Jan. 19, he would move quickly to overcome Republicans’ objections to the nomination of Erroll G. Southers, a former F.B.I. agent, to lead the security agency.
Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, has blocked the appointment, saying he was worried Mr. Southers might allow T.S.A. workers to join labor unions. “Republicans have decided to play politics with this nomination by blocking final confirmation,” Mr. Reid said.
Mr. DeMint said he was seeking an opportunity to debate the nomination rather than have it approved without discussion, and he accused Mr. Reid of grandstanding. “Senator Reid completely ignored this nominee until the recent terror attempt,” Mr. DeMint said, “and now he’s trying to show concern for airport security.”

Comment:
It is said that the security administration had already had enough message on the attack, but because of lack of communication between different departments, it failed to foresee it. This case exposes the weakness in the managing system. This kind of negligence is surely to be the ignorance of the leader.
Republicans had proposed their objections to the president’s nominee. Though they might be in the interest of their own party, but their voice served as an objective one in fact. This reflects the advantage of the political system.
However, considering the political background, the position may probably be occupied by another democrat.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

The World in 2010
The Americas
Canada's northern goal
Nov 13th 2009
From The World in 2010 print edition
By Jeffrey Simpson, OTTAWA
生词

重点词句

好词
好句

The Arctic is no longer the forgotten frontier
Canada is a northern nation. “O Canada”, the national anthem, speaks of “true north, strong and free”. But for most Canadians, 80% of whom live within 200km (124 miles) of the United States border, the Far North (Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut) is a vast area never visited, largely unknown, usually forgotten and populated only by aboriginal peoples with quaint customs. All that will start to change in 2010.

Pangnirtung, population 1,300, on the east coast of Baffin Island, a settlement mostly known for Inuit（因纽特人的） art and a nearby national park, will see construction start on a C$42m ($40.5m) harbour for the small Inuit fishing fleet. At Gjoa Haven, the only settlement on King William Island, cabins（小木屋） used by polar-bear researchers will be upgraded. At Eureka, on Ellesmere Island, an atmospheric laboratory will be overhauled（彻底检修）. At Iqaluit, capital of the Nunavut territory, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on badly needed housing, a research institute and a research vessel.

Add to that oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea（波弗特海，靠美国阿拉斯加州东北岸和加拿大西北岸）; C$100m for social housing; the same sum for geology research; another C$90m for economic-development projects; C$85m to improve Arctic research stations. The result is activity such as the Far North, from Alaska in the west to Baffin Bay in the east, has never before seen. And still to come—delayed by debilitating squabbles among Canada’s shipbuilders and the usual cost overruns of military projects—are three Arctic patrol ships and a polar icebreaker, plus the publication of plans for a deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the north coast of Baffin Island. Later in the year, if all goes according to plan, the federal government will select a community that will get a High Arctic Research Station.

During the cold war, Canada and the United States constructed a Distant Early-Warning detection system against any attack by Soviet bombers. Apart from this DEW line, Canada paid little heed militarily to the Far North. Soviet and American submarines roamed under the Arctic ice without Canada having any ability to monitor them. The Canadian government outfitted a few Inuit with baseball hats and rifles, called them Rangers, and forgot about the region.

Now, the rush is on to discover the Far North, quite literally in the sense of research into atmosphere, ice and animals; and more urgently to get ready for the widening of sea lanes caused by global warming. Higher temperatures mean less sea ice and more scope for mineral and fossil-fuel exploration, more foreign ships traversing the north, and potential conflicts with other Arctic states over the seabed, sea lanes, and sea and land borders.

The Arctic is full of unresolved border delineations. Canada and the United States disagree over the maritime boundary between Alaska and Yukon（育空）. Canada and Denmark have both planted flags on tiny Hans Island. Canada will continue working in 2010 to prepare its claim under a United Nations convention for underwater rights extending as far as the North Pole, a claim that will surely conflict with one already filed by Russia.

No country agrees with Canada’s contention that the Northwest Passage (there are actually two or three possible routes) belongs to Canada. The United States, Russia and the European Union all believe the passage constitutes an international strait. The trickiest decision for Canada is whether to consider the United States as friend or rival in the Far North, a decision that has to come soon. Do the two countries co-operate in managing the sea lanes? Do they sort out their maritime border dispute? Do they support each other against Russia, or go their own ways?

Canada’s belated interest in its Far North is somewhat ironic given that climate change has hit the Far North harder than any other part of the Earth, and yet Canada’s record in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions is the worst in the G8. In the Kyoto climate-change protocol, Canada pledged to reduce emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2008-12; instead, emissions have risen by 27% and will rise again in 2010, especially if development intensifies in the tar sands of Alberta.

No matter who governs Canada in 2010—the country’s fractured political system has thrown up a series of unstable governments—all parties agree that the rush to research, develop and protect the Far North has become a national priority. The Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, made the Far North one of his signature issues after being elected in 2006. That the other parties now agree with this priority, without giving him any credit of course, means that the days of benign neglect of the Far North are over.

Comments：

In Canada’s plan, scientific research and mineral exploration take a important role in the early stage. As I interpret it, these methods serve as a consequence of Canada’s little population and the fact that the northern area is far from the government’s control. Compared to China’s policies of developing the western district, which began with migrations of people and construction of communication, Canada’s movement is apparently more cautious. As a large country with few citizens, the available power to construction is limited. Moreover, the weather condition of the northern area is extremely perilous.

Another important reason of Canada’s cautious plan is that the country does not suffer from the pressure of over-population, as it is in China. Probably, protecting its territory rights is the only destination. Because of this, the distribution of its citizens might not change intensively.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Planet hunting
Looking in the shadowsJan 5th 2010
From Economist.com
The search for a second Earth gets serious


IN THE 19th century astronomers spent a lot of time seeking shadows crossing the sun. They were searching for Vulcan, a putative (Generally regarded as such) planet inside the orbit of Mercury, by looking for its transits. These are the moments when, viewed from Earth, the hypothetical planet would cross the solar disc. Sadly, there was no Vulcan to be found, but the method itself is sound, and it is the modus operandi (A method of operating or functioning.) of Kepler, an American spacecraft that has been trailing the Earth, in the same orbit, since March 2009.

Kepler is a telescope that looks simultaneously and continuously at more than 150,000 stars, recording the amount of light coming from them. It is seeking the tiny, periodic diminutions of illumination caused by planetary transits and, on January 4th, the team running it announced that five such patterns had shown up in the first six weeks of the probe’s operation.

The past 15 years have shown that planets are commonplace. More than 400 have been located around stars other than the sun, by looking for the wobbles (To tremble or quaver:) in parent stars that orbiting planets cause. A decent wobble, though, requires a massive planet, so the wobble method does not favour the discovery of Earth-sized objects. Kepler, however, can find such planets. The Earth itself, in transit, reduces the amount of light an observer would see from the sun by about 0.01%. That is well within Kepler’s range.

In fact, the planets found so far are significantly larger than Earth. Four are about the size of Jupiter and one about the size of Neptune. They also have much shorter orbits, ranging from 3.3 to 4.9 terrestrial days. Neither of these facts is surprising. Even using the transit method, big planets are easier to spot than small ones, and to be sure that a flicker in brightness is caused by a planet rather than some property of the star itself, it must occur at regular and predictable intervals. Hundreds of flickers that might have been caused by planets with longer orbits have been seen, but have not yet have been confirmed as transits.

What this does mean, though, is that the planets in question are much closer to their stars than Earth is, and thus much hotter (1200-1650ºC), as well as being larger. But they are not as hot as the most peculiar discoveries Kepler has made. These are two planet-sized objects that are far hotter (at 12,000ºC) than their distances from their parent stars suggest they should be. That means they are giving out energy of their own, yet they are too small to be stars. One theory is that they are youngsters, giving off heat as they collapse inwards due to the pull of their own gravity, but nobody knows for sure.

None of these discoveries favours the underlying reason why planet-hunting is such a popular sport—the hope that, one day, a life-bearing planet will turn up. For that, more numbers will have to be crunched, and planetary atmospheres analysed for signs of oxygen. The hunt, however, is on in earnest. If Earth-sized planets are out there, they will soon be found.

词义辨析：
Wobble： impiles an unsteadiness that reveal itself In tottering or in a quivering characteristic of a mass of soft flesh or soft jelly.

Comments：
The search for other live-bearing planet has been carried on for many years, but has not got much progress. Telescopes like Kepler cost lots of money which could have been used in other fields concerned with the everyday lives of most citizens like education and health care. As is known to all, even in American, the poor has great difficulty making a living, leaving those who live in Africa unsaid. However, on the other hand, those telescopes have little to do with promoting the living condition of most people.

Even if we found a planet which is almost the same as earth, how to get there were surely to be a insurmountable barrier. The nearest nebula is hundreds of light years away and we still have challenges in setting men to the Mars. Maybe the Americans are afraid of invasions from the outer space, but, at present, AI Qaeda is far from defeated.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

更新下日志！周一开始考试周，加油！

kulewy531UID: 2603031

考试悲剧

kulewy531UID: 2603031

The role of the business school
Deans debate
Dec 1st 2009
From Economist.com
http://www.economist.com/business-education/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15006681

How do business schools remain relevant in today’s changing world? AS THE clamour grows for more regulation to address （deal with） the corporate failings that led the world into a two-year recession, business schools sense a chance to drive the agenda. By producing academic research that can inform the debates within Washington and Brussels, there is a chance to become relevant once again. But business is also changing its mind about it wants from MBA students. The super-confident, gung-ho（extremely enthusiastic） leader, that(应该用which) was once their calling card(名片), has fallen out of fashion. So can schools adapt to a changing world?
To find out, The Economist spoke to two prominent business deans from either side of the Atlantic: Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño, dean of Spain’s IE Business school, and Paul Danos, dean of Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business in America.

Has the role of the business school changed as a result of the economic crisis?
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: Actually management is very much demanded these days. Management is everywhere. All our universities are demanding programmes in management from many different quarters: for engineers, for doctors, for architects.
But some things have changed. The presence of the visible hand [of regulation] is now more explicit. This means that business schools may have a role in preparing members of governments and the administration. The collaboration between the public and private is becoming one of the fastest growing areas of business schools.
We also see more demand for entrepreneurship courses. In times of crisis managers need to reinvent their existing businesses, launch new products and diversify. But also there are many opportunities for the creation of new business—start-ups in fields like technologies, biotechnology, in energy, even in education.
Then we also see some things changing at business schools. We field the demand from the real world to develop research which can actually address the real problems of business. This will probably affect the profile（character） of professors. Not only must they be solid in terms of their research skills and teaching skills, they should also be able to interface with the top management.

Have you seen a change in what professors are researching over the last two years?
Paul Danos: Research grinds slowly. Let's take a marketing professor who's an expert on internet marketing. Well that hasn't changed because of this crisis. Some people say "everything has changed," well it's not true. Most of the courses that we teach MBAs have not changed because of the crisis.
I think the change has come at a higher level. It's the level of: can leaders be made to be both responsible and analytical enough to understand the complexity of the world? And why did the leaders, the regulators, the CEOs and the board members miss these risk factors? Well you can debate that but it doesn't change everything. It doesn’t even change everything in finance. Finance is primarily the same as it was before the crisis. When you get to a higher level though, when you start asking CEOs and board members(董事) to contemplate their responsibilities, then you have to think about it in a different way. So it's subtle, nuanced.
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: This brings me to another thing that many of our schools are currently contemplating: that all the areas evolve over time. So in finance, as Paul was saying, the golden rules are still valid. But the institutions, the concepts of risk, the ways of assessing risk have evolved in the past years. We need people to come back to school. Managers cannot just rely on what they learned 30 years ago in their MBA programmes. This is a clinical profession like medicine, like architecture, where you need to update your knowledge. So something that may come out from this crisis is the need of managers to come back to school and update their knowledge and validate what they do in the real world.
Paul Danos: I think one thing I've walked away from the crisis with is that no-one can know it all. You need the right kind of probing mindset when you attack problems of such complexity because no one could have ever seen the combination of factors before. So it's not the understanding of every eventuality—which is impossible—it's the right mindset.
So at Tuck we have instituted a whole series of small scale, deep courses where students are forced into that sceptical mindset of truly questioning the foundation of theories. Now that sounds esoteric, but it's really practical.
My main takeaway was not that it was an ethics problem, not that people were cheating overtly, it is that people were using the wrong mental attitude when they approached extremely complex problems that they hadn't seen before. Practice can hypnotise you into using old models and old ways of thinking. When you talk to people about the risk management systems in the big banks and at the Fed and at the regulators, it's amazing how they put together old models and old ways of thinking and tried to lay it on top of a new system.
So it proved that they weren't doing it right; they just didn't have the right mental attitude about the models and how they worked and how they hooked up. So we're trying to reinvestigate that.

Does that imply that schools have historically failed to inculcate that attitude in their students?
Paul Danos: The crisis was not caused by the broad 90% of our students who went into businesses. It was caused by the dynamics of the interplay between big banks and the regulators. Now you might say [that] those are business people too and they were trained at business schools. True, but ordinary corporations didn't do what banks did. I'm on boards of corporations and we weren't blinded, we weren't 40-to-1 leveraged. So this particular virus was in the banking system, and I think it can be analysed. I really think, at the end of the day, even though the banks themselves were irresponsible, the real irresponsibility was with the regulators because when everything else fails, the regulators are supposed to keep things safe and keep people from doing unsafe things and they didn't do it.

Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?
Paul Danos: I think so. We have a group at Tuck right now that is made up of several schools—finance professors and economists—and they are writing white papers on many aspects of regulation. So they, as an independent party, are trying to get their voice into Washington and into Europe about the future of regulation and the future regime. They are able to get into congressional and other hearings, but it's just one voice. You know how politics is: there are many voices and lobby groups trying to influence the future of regulation.

Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: My impression is that we still need to develop many new things in financial theory and the way we assess risk. Again, we are attending the early stages of these sciences. If you look at medicine 200 years ago and the remedies that were applied to some illnesses we get horrified now. So we will probably see some changes and here academics are actually paying the best possible service to society. Again, now we need good management. We need to recover the golden rules of what is good management, what is establishing the mission for a company. And from business schools I think we can train regulators because they need a very solid technical preparation that they lack. If you look at public administrations, people in both national, local and federal administrations, they need more preparation in finance, in management in order to take better decisions.
Paul Danos: For instance, we're doing a lot of work with healthcare delivery which is a big, important topic. If you talk to people who try to deliver healthcare, one of the biggest problems is that there's very little management education. I'm not talking about high-level finance, I'm talking about the basics of budgets, of cost containment, of deficiency. Very little of that is part of the medical-school training.
I think that in every aspect of society some amount of management education is necessary in order for those institutions to deliver the services that they intend to deliver at a reasonable cost.

Is the nature of leadership changing?
Paul Danos: If you looked at the top-level demand from executives for our programmes, it's almost all about leadership. And it's really interesting how it has evolved. So much is now focused on a teamwork-based leadership model that really emphasises self-awareness. It's a very humanistic philosophy. It's not the person that charges ahead and rallies the troops. It's more of a person that is sensitive to the situation and to themselves.
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: It is a different sort of leadership than the one which has grown in the past decade. It is not charismatic leadership, but teamwork. We will also see in the future many institutions getting rid of this spirit of elitism or arrogance which has contributed to create this atmosphere of overconfidence. They [believed that they] were actually beyond any controls or rules—that Nietzschean moral of the super-masters. We will get back to more controls, the golden rules, more supervision, getting rid of superficial things. History is very recurrent and we are attending again a move of the pendulum.
Comments:
The financial crisis has long been a hot topic; however, I had limited knowledge about that. According to the deans, the economical recession results from the regulators’ lack of updated training and right mindset towards the complexity of problems. The deans put it that, Generally speaking, the basic knowledge that the business schools taught is right, though it should be reformed at a higher level. So, the academies might provide a place for the reforming of the regulators.
I agree with the opinion that universities play an important role in helping contemplating the failings. But the universities itself are to be blame. It’s undeniable that the economical falling could be avoided if the universities have taught their students to keep aware of the risk, which was not impossible at that time.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Beyond Righteousness and Gain

by Zhou Guoping

"A virtuous man is concerned with righteousness while a mean man, with gain,” Confucius says. The "righteousness" and "gain" have long been a central theme in the Chinese philosophy of life. But, what if I am neither virtuous nor mean?

There was once a time when almost everyone claimed to be a gentleman and every word uttered was about righteousness. At that time, there might have been some truly virtuous men who were so righteous as to give up whatever was profitable. But, more likely, one might meet hypocrites who used righteousness as a fig leaf for their cupidity, or pedants（学究式人物）
believed in whatever passed for righteousness. Gone are the old days. The social trend has taken on a dramatic change unawares: the reputation of righteousness nosedived（暴跌）, truly virtuous men became extinct, hypocrites dropped the fig leaf and the scales fell from the eyes of the pedants. With- out exception, they all joined in the scramble for gains. It is believed that the philosophy of life has changed and a new interpretation of righteousness and gain looms large(显得突出): seeking material gains is not the exclusive patent of the mean, but a golden rule for all.

"Time is money" is a vogue word nowadays. Nothing is wrong when entrepreneurs apply it to boost productivity. But, when it is worshipped as a motto of life and commercialism takes the place of other wisdom of life, life is then turned into a corporation and, consequently, interpersonal relations into a market.

I used to mock at the cheap "human touch". But, nowadays even the cheap “touch” has become rare and costly. Can you, if I may ask, get a smile, a greeting, or a tiny bit of compassion for free?

Don’t be nostalgic, though. It is in fact of little help if you try to redeem the world or salvage the corrupt minds through preaching various brands of righteousness. Nevertheless, beyond righteousness and gain, I believe, there are other attitudes towards life; beyond virtue and meanness, there are other individualities. Allow me to coin a sentence in the Confucian style: "A perfect man is concerned with disposition."

Indeed, righteousness and gain, seemingly poles apart, have much essence in common. Righteousness calls for a devotion to the whole society while gain drives one to pursue material interests. In both cases, one’s disposition is over- looked and his true “self” concealed. "Righteousness" teaches one to give while "gain" induces one to take. The former turns one’s life into a process of fulfilling endless obligations while the latter breeds a life-long scramble for wealth and power. We must remember, however, the true value of life is beyond obligations and power. Both righteousness and gain are yoked by calculating minds. That’s why we often find ourselves in a tense interpersonal relationship whether Mr. Righteousness is commanding or Mr. Gain, controlling.

If "righteousness" stands for an ethical philosophy of life, and "gain," a utilitarian one, what I mean by "disposition" is an aesthetical philosophy of life, which advocates taking your disposition as the operational guidance for your fife, whereby everyone is allowed to keep his true "self". You do not live for the doctrines you believe in or the materials you possess. Instead, your true "self" makes you who you are. The true meaning of life lies not in giving or possessing, but in creating, which actively unfolds your true disposition, or, in other words, the emotional gratification you obtain through the exertion of your essential power. Different from giving, which is the performance of an external responsibility, creating is the realization of one’s true self. The difference between creating and possessing is more than crystal clear. Let’s take creative writing as an example: "Possessing" focuses on the fame or social status a piece of writing may bring, while "creating" highlights the plea- sure in the process of writing. A man of disposition seeks nothing but the communication of feelings while in company, and the cultivation of taste while possessing something. More valuably, in a time when most people are busy hunting for wealth and being hunted by it, a man of disposition is al- ways at ease in social intercourses. Here I' m not talking about the leisure of traditional Chinese scholar-officials, nor the complacency of conservative peasants, but about a peaceful mind coming from a non-materialistic attitude towards life. Using the writing example again, I’ve been wondering why a writer needs to be prolific. If he dreams of being enshrined, an immortal short poem is enough. Otherwise, he could be pretty much satisfied with a carefree life. In this sense, writing is merely a way for such a life.

Bernard Shaw once said, “There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart’s desire. The other is to get it." With it I couldn’t agree more. I did admire him for his easy and humorous way in describing the quandary of life. However, a deep ponder over it has brought home to me that Shaw’s standpoint is no other than "possessing", which keeps us stranded in a double dosage tragedy of life: it' s a pain not to possess your heart' s desire, and a tedium, to have possessed it. However, if we shift the standpoint from "possessing" to "creating", and look at life with an esthetic eye, we can interpret Shaw’s words the other way round: there are two comedies in life. One is not to get your heart’s desire, so you still have the opportunity to seek or create it. The other is to get your heart’s desire, and then you are able to enjoy tasting or experiencing it--Of course, life can never be free from pains, and a wealth hunter cannot dream of the sadness of a man who places a premium on his true disposition. However, to be free from the mania for pos- session may at least save you many petty worries and pains, and let you enjoy a graceful life. 1 have no intention to prescribe the esthetic viewpoint as the cure for a corrupt world. I just want to express a belief: there is a life more worth living than the one haunted by righteousness and gain. And, this belief will help me sail through the unpredictable waters of my future life.

Comments:

In the article, Mr. Zhou preaches an attitude towards life called “creation”, which he says to be supreme over “righteous” or “gain”. But, in fact, it is not practical at all, since one will never avoid the choice between “egoism” and “altruism”, if he lives with others. I agree that “creation” is an significant object for everyone to pursuit, but it cannot guide them how to deal with the relationships with others. For a poet, if he only pursuits an immortal short poem, he will possibility not survive. For a poor farmer, if he only aims at creation, he won’t do his work well.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Floating in the Digital Experience By MANOHLA DARGIS Published: December 30, 2009 HOW much our world of moving-image entertainment has changed in the past decade! We now live in a world of the 24-Hour Movie, one that plays anytime and anywhere you want (and sometimes whether you want it to or not). It’s a movie we can access at home by pressing a few buttons on the remote (and agreeing to pay more for it than you might at the local video store) or with a few clicks of the mouse. The 24-Hour Movie now streams instead of unspools, filling our screens with images that, more and more, have been created algorithmically rather than photographically. And yet how little our world of moving-image entertainment has changed! On April 14, 1896, The New York Times ran an article with the exciting of cryptic headline “Edison’s Latest Triumph.” The triumph was the Vitascope(老式放映机), a machine that “projects upon a large area of canvas groups that appear to stand forth from the canvas, and move with great facility and agility, as though actuated by separate impulses.” A proprietor(所有者) of the music hall where the Vitascope was shown off said this machine would reproduce “scenes from various successful plays and operas of the season, and well-known statesmen and celebrities,” adding, “No other manager in this city will have the right to exhibit the Vitascope.” Today, even when digital, our movies are still filled with celebrities and scenes from successful plays (and books and comics), and the owners of image technologies continue to hold on to their exclusive rights ferociously(野蛮地). Edison didn’t invent the Vitascope, but that’s another story. The story I want to tell here does involve him. But first I want to fast-forward to a recent night when, at a movie theater rigged for 3-D projection, I saw James Cameron’s “Avatar” with an audience that watched the screen with the kind of fixed attention that has become rare at the movies. True, everyone was wearing 3-D glasses, which makes it difficult to check your cellphone obsessively, but they also seemed captivated. When it was over, people broke into enthusiastic applause and, unusually, many stayed to watch the credits, as if to linger in the movie. Although much has been made of the technologies used in “Avatar,” its beauty and nominal politics, it is the social experience of the movie — as an event that needs to be enjoyed with other people for maximum impact — which is more interesting. That’s particularly true after a decade when watching movies became an increasingly solitary affair, something between you and your laptop. “Avatar” affirms the deep pleasures of the communal, and it does so by exploiting a technology (3-D), which appears to invite you into the movie even as it also forces you to remain attentively in your seat. “Avatar” serves as a nice jumping-off point to revisit how movies and our experience of them have changed. For starters, when a critic calls a new release “a film” these days, there’s a chance that what she (and you) are looking at wasn’t made with film processes but was created, from pre-visualization to final credits, with digital technologies. Yet, unless a director or distributor calls attention to the technologies used — as do techno-fetishists(物神崇拜者) like Michael Mann and David Fincher, who used bleeding-edge digital cameras to make “Collateral” (2004) and “Zodiac” (2007) — it’s also probable that most reviewers won’t mention if a movie was even shot in digital, because they haven’t noticed or don’t care. This seems like a strange state of affairs. Film is profoundly changing — or, if you believe some theorists and historians, is already dead — something that most moviegoers(常看电影的人) don’t know. Yet, because the visible evidence of this changeover has become literally hard to see, and because the implications are difficult to grasp, it is also understandable why the shift to digital has not attracted more intense analysis outside film and media studies. Bluntly put, something is happening before our eyes. We might see an occasional digital artifact (usually, a bit of unintentional data) when a director shoots digital in bright light — look for a pattern of squares or a yellowish tint — but we’re usually too busy with the story to pay much mind. Should you care? I honestly don’t know, because I’m not sure what to think about this brave new image world we have entered. I love the luxurious look and warmth of film, and I fervently hope it never disappears. And yet many of us who grew up watching movies in the predigital era have rarely experienced the ones in, and shown on, film in all their visual glory: battered prints and bad projection have helped thwart(阻止…的发生) the ideal experience. Theater 80 St. Marks, a downtown Manhattan repertory house where I spent a lot of time in the 1970s, showed threadbare(俗套的) prints of classic and not-so-classic movies in rear projection, which meant they often looked worse on screen than they did on my television back home. It is because the movies and our experience of them has changed so radically in recent years — we can pull a movie out of our pocket now, much as earlier generations pulled out a paperback — that makes it difficult to grasp what is happening. In 1996, Susan Sontag set off a storm in cine-circles with an essay, “The Decay of Cinema,” which could have been titled the death of specialized cinephilia, one centered on art-house film (“quintessentially modern”), from Dziga Vertov to Jean-Luc Godard, and experienced inside a movie theater, “ideally the third-row center.” Sontag’s essay inspired a spate of similarly themed if often less vigorous examinations: Google the words “death of cinema,” and you get more than 2.5 million hits. In one sense the beginning of the end of cinema as we tend to understand it can be traced to 1933, the year that a feature-length film — a 1932 detective tale called “The Crooked Circle” — was first shown on television. Few Americans owned sets in the 1930s, but the genie was already out of the bottle, or, rather, the movies were out of the theater. As televisions began to fill postwar American homes — from an estimated 20,000 in 1946 to 30.5 million in 1955 — so did the movies, which, despite Hollywood’s initial anxiety, became a crucial television staple. (The studios soon learned that television was a revenue source.) Generations of cinephiles fell in love with the object of their obsession while flopped on the floor, basking in the glow of the family television. In “The Virtual Life of Film,” an elegant 2007 inquiry into the past, present and future of film, the theorist D. N. Rodowick writes, “All that was chemical and photographic is disappearing into the electronic and digital.” Film captures moments in time, preserving them spatially in images we can root around in, get lost in. Digital delivers data, zeroes and ones that are transformed into images, and this is a difference to contemplate. The truth is that the film object has already changed, from preproduction to projection. And the traditional theatrical experience that shaped how viewers looked at film and, by extension, the world, has been mutating for some time. The new types of image consumption and digital technologies have complicated our understanding of cinema. And yet we still watch movies. And if it looks like a duck (in widescreen) and quacks like a duck (in stereo), nothing has changed, right? It has and it hasn’t, as we will only understand as film continues to disappear. These days instead of falling in love with the movies at home in front of the television, new generations fall in love with movies they watch on hand-held devices that, however small, play images that are larger than those Edison showed to customers before the invention of the Vitascope. A teenager watching a movie on her iPhone might not be looking at an actual film. But she is enjoying something like it, something that because of its narrative strategies and visual style carries the deep imprint of cinema. It’s also a good bet that this teenager also watches movies in theaters. If she goes to “Avatar,” she will see a movie that, despite its exotic beauty, seems familiar, even in 3-D. Narrative cinema employs devices, from camera placement to editing, that direct your attention and, if the movie is successful and you fall under its sway, lock you into the story. Mr. Cameron might be a visionary of a type, but he’s an old-fashioned (and canny) storyteller and he locks you in tightly. The 3-D images are often spectacular, and his characters, like the figures in that 1896 Edison film, “appear to stand forth from the canvas, and move with great facility and agility, as though actuated by separate impulses.” You can get lost in a movie, or so it seems, and melt into its world. But even when seated third row center and occupying two mental spaces, you understand that you and the movie inhabit separate realms. When I watched “The Dark Knight” in Imax, I felt that I was at the very edge of the screen. “Avatar,” in 3-D, by contrast, blurs that edge, closing the space between you and the screen even more. Like a video game designer, Mr. Cameron seems to want to invite you into the digital world he has created even if, like a film director, he wants to determine your route. Perched between film and digital, “Avatar” shows us a future in which movies will invite us further into them and perhaps even allow us to choose not just the hero’s journey through the story, but also our own. 链接：http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/movies/03dargis.html?8dpc Comments: Though “Avatar” seems to be the most successful film in history, I have not seen it yet. But I get to know it more or less from my friends. In this movie, the director Cameron, who is renowned for his strict standards for stuff and the large profits he has made by each of his movies, creates a totally imaginative world like Star War. To fulfill it, the most advanced 3D technologies are put into use which opens up a new area of movie-making. Through this movie, we may possibly predict that the entire movie would be made totally digitally in the future and probably there would be no need for actors.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

What Happens After Eat, Pray, Love? Fret, Mull, MarryBy MARY POLS Wednesday, Jan. 06, 2010

Once upon a time in the annals(recodrs) of women's stories, getting married was the fairy-tale ending. These days, marital ambivalence rules the literary scene. December brought Julie Powell's new memoir, Cleaving: A Story of Marriage, Meat and Obsession (Little, Brown; 307 pages), in which the Julie & Julia author tells the sad, sordid tale of the recent years she spent butchering pigs, cows and her husband's heart. Meanwhile, in a New York Times Magazine story, writer Elizabeth Weil detailed her efforts to subject her "perfect union" to every kind of therapeutic scrutiny available in Northern California. Her goal of complete marital introspection — needed or otherwise — inspired heated holiday-party conversations and terror at the thought of the memoir to follow, as well as giving single women everywhere a new appreciation of their unburdened ring fingers. (See the 100 best novels of all time.)

Elizabeth Gilbert does these reluctant wives one better. The author of Eat, Pray, Love returns with Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage (Viking; 285 pages), in which she is a vehemently wary second-time bride, due to be dragged down the aisle by Uncle Sam's immigration henchmen, who will otherwise toss her beloved, Brazilian-born "Felipe," as she calls the older man she met in the last section of EPL, out of the U.S. for good. They hadn't planned to marry. Like Gilbert, Felipe had endured a hard divorce, and they were content to be "lifers" together. But a helpful Homeland Security officer prescribes marriage as the only certain way out of Felipe's immigration dilemma, and the couple agree that they love each other enough to do it. (See a Q&A with Elizabeth Gilbert.)

Gilbert cites statistics, scientific studies and her painful experience with her first marriage — the impetus for the worldwide spiritual ramble of EPL — as her reasons for not wanting to tie the knot. She demonstrates how the institution threatens her independence and the well-being of many women. Her fears hold up even when she's considering union with a man who loves her, excuses her memoirist tendencies and has been known to tell her that the curves of her body "look like sand dunes."

But whereas in Eat, Pray, Love the journey was what mattered, the end of Committed is, as of page 18, a foregone conclusion. As Gilbert puts it, she and her lover are "sentenced to marry." This makes the book a supreme act of navel-gazing, even for a memoir. While the legal complexities are being worked out, the two kill time by traveling together. Along the way, Gilbert, ever the good journalist, gathers string on marriage and love from various sources, including the humble Hmong women of North Vietnam, seagulls, a humble frog-farming family in Laos and her humble 96-year-old Grandma Maude back in Minnesota. (Gilbert practices humility with vigor, even when sweetly patronizing Third World cultures.) Her process is exhaustive, and the results are exhausting, though some of her points are astute. This slog through one woman's relationship angst feels, in the end, like much ado about nothing.

Gilbert is a highly conversational writer — a blessing if you are in the memoir business. Four years after its publication, Eat, Pray, Love remains on the New York Times best-seller list, giving its author a chance, with the likely sales of this new book, to become the Malcolm Gladwell of soul-searching. Gilbert left her loyalists believing that a year of spiritual questing would end with peace, love and the address of the best pizzeria in Naples. There could be no doubt that her readers wanted more. She and Felipe had gone off into the sunset; could she now describe the rosy glow? (See the top 10 fiction books of 2009.)

But Committed — and to a certain extent, Powell's Cleaving — demonstrates the curse of the conversational writer. I confess to having found EPL tedious at times and to struggling with the fortuitous arrival of true love at the end of Gilbert's year of self-discovery. (In Committed, she pokes fun at herself, quoting her sister Catherine's response to her gushy e-mails from Bali: "Yeah, I was planning to go to a tropical island this weekend with my Brazilian lover, too ... but then there was all that traffic.") There was no denying, however, that she was a vibrant woman on a cool adventure, with stories to tell. The pressure to return to that fertile ground must have been enormous. Just as she was sentenced to marrying, she was sentenced to sequel writing. (See questions and answers about retirement.)

Committed gives us a woman trapped in a command performance she's too smart not to be dubious about. She seems self-conscious about the need to remain everyone's best friend, littering her prose with chirpy asides ("Listen, I want to make it clear here that I am not intrinsically against passion. Mercy, no!") and cutesy interjections ("Just a little free advice there, from your Auntie Liz"). Then there are the apologies for anything that might offend. Her eloquent defense of gay marriage, for instance, is diminished by this chatty advisory: "You see where I'm heading with this, right? Or rather, you see where history is heading with this? What I mean to say is, you won't be surprised, will you, if I now take a few minutes to discuss the subject of same-sex marriage?"

Gilbert also repeats, incessantly, information she's already conveyed, whether it be the vastness of the belly of a pregnant woman she's dining with or the details of a coat — wine-colored, with a fur collar — once owned by her grandmother. (We hear about its beauty four times in three pages.) There are useful insights into the dilemma of modern marriage here, but the overall effect of the heavily padded Committed is like that of being called, over and over, by a friend who wants to talk your ear off about her impending nuptials. Only instead of debating the floral arrangements, she's wondering, Should I really be taking the leap? Halfway through Committed, I wanted to put the phone down and walk away, leaving Gilbert to figure it out on her own.

How to Butcher a Marriage
It would be much harder to hang up on Powell. She makes no apologies and no effort to be likable in Cleaving, a ghastly work of revelation without enough self-reflection. Soon after wrapping up Julie & Julia, Powell began cheating on the kindly Eric, that husband who dutifully ate her butter-soaked Julia Child meals for a year. Her lover and S&M partner was Damian, a former college fling with "Mick Jagger lips, and a weak chin." I am saddened that I have a clearer vision of Damian's masturbatory methods than of his actual appeal, and sadder still at the mental images Powell provides of herself tied up, awaiting his next "R-owwr." (Since when is talking like Austin Powers sexy?) This recipe for marital disaster comes with scattered recipes you'd hesitate to trust, given the horrific disorder of Powell's upstairs kitchen. (See the top 10 nonfiction books of 2009.)

Cleaving is, however, a much livelier book than Committed, in the way that your narcissistic pal is more riveting than your earnest, loyal girlfriend. Powell's interest in butchery is genuine, and the passages set during her internship at Fleisher's, an upstate New York butcher shop, bristle with clarity. That's not to say the intended metaphor — that as she learns to butcher, she's also exploring the anatomy of her tumultuous love life — is clear or convincing, largely because her journey feels so incomplete.

What is fascinating is the impact of previous writing successes on these pages. In one heartbreakingly venal passage, Powell thrills at Damian's audacity in pretending to be Eric for an eager reader who recognizes her on the street. The honesty of the admission doesn't cleanse the implied disrespect for those — from the real Eric to her fans — who adore her. Powell was also sentenced to sequel, although her amply demonstrated lack of humility suggests she was happier to comply than Gilbert. But when she runs out of story — the Fleisher's internship complete — she copies earlier Gilbert, setting forth on a haphazard journey around the world. Her "Eat, Sulk, Stew" wraps up with a return to the husband she belittled and betrayed. Now here is a marriage to be debated. Maybe one of Weil's therapists could lend a hand.

Both books feel rushed into print. Cleaving begs for better boundaries and structure; the ladylike Committed is too confined to feel truly intimate. Gilbert over shares only in the department of exclamation points, and if you want to know what life postsunset is like, be advised: she takes us only to the altar. But these two writers share more than just marital ambivalence. It may be difficult to work up sympathy for best-selling authors who end up portrayed on the big screen by the likes of Amy Adams and Julia Roberts. (EPL the movie is scheduled for release this year.) Yet these women have been caged by the expectations of voracious publishers and readers. Their escape methods are different — Powell appears to be chewing her own leg off, Gilbert gently boring her captors into letting her go — but it's hard not to empathize with someone in a trap, even one built on success.

Comments:
Sincerely speaking, I cannot understand the writers of the books introduced by the article. Both book concerns about the marital dilemma, which is far from my daily life, so I can’t appreciate these books emotionally.
Instead, what I want to do is to analysis the marital ambivalence from another aspect—economical analysis. The reason why the elder confronts those nuptial problems lies in the change of the economical system.
In ancient times, people are almost financially independent from others. They only kept connections with their few neighbors and live in the same place all their lives. They spent most of their times with their spouses and consequently, their marriage stood firmly.
However, in modern times, people spent most of their time with different people and have little time with their family. And then, marital problems comes out.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

闻草版将要踢人，今晚熬夜做BS。后天还要考试，要硬着头皮上了！

kulewy531UID: 2603031

下午最后一门！