issue70 『勇往直前小组』第七次作业linshao

linshaoUID：2338229

写这篇I用了好多时间啊！险些崩溃了！

ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
在任何领域，商业、政治、教育、政府，掌权者都应该在5年任期后下台。对任何事业而言，取得成功最保险的途径就是聘用新生力量担当领导。

The speaker asserts that, for any field, the surest path to success is changing the leadership every five years. I admit that new leadership is full of energy, to some extent, will revitalize the enterprise. However, the conclusion should vary in different domain and cases.

Firstly, let's come to the realm of political, changing leaders after a certain period such as five years is necessary. People's desire is inexhaustible and always expands with their power and authority. If the leader stays in that position too long, autarchy is inescapability. In addition, the leader must be very tired, after several years, he must be exhausted. So in most democratic countries, the leader has an immovable term which is settled in the constitution. There also are exceptions, for example, F.D Roosevelt had been served as the president of US for four terms continuously, which breached the constitution in which every president can be reappointed no more than two terms. But we didn’t condemn him, in contrast, he was regarded as one of the greatest president of US. Because fixedness of the government is the most important when the country faces adversity.

However, the constitution has some special provision. For instance, the term of chief justice of the US Supreme Court is for life in order to keep the independence of justice and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board can be instated for many terms to maintain the consistency of economic policy, though every term is four years,

Secondly, in commercial area, the regular change of leadership is not necessary, but also very important. If the leader in an enterprise can not improve the benefits and profits, he will be replaced. Carleton Fiorina, the former CEO of HP company who was only in charge of the company for around six years, was fired because of her failure in creating profits. In contrast, Bill Gates has been the top leader of Microsoft for about 20 years before he retired from the throne. The reason is that Gates kept creating more wealth and profits for his enterprise. If he was replaced just after five years after he established the company, maybe we will never see the birth of Windows. Therefore, to set a certain period for leaders in commercial area is inappropriate.

Besides, In education field, it is also unfavorable to set such a rigid term for leaders, especially for academic authorities, because such experience and knowledge need to be accumulated in a much longer  period than just five years. If we simply replace the leaders after only five years, then the new ones should spend a long time to gain those academic experiences. Therefore, it will be too hasty or even cruel to change the leaders in the academic area after a certain short time.

Finally, in religion domain, change the leader in a certain period will bring bale. Because religion leaders are always regarded as the emissary of the god, their supersede may causes belief confusion, even war.

To sum up, the change of leadership in a stated term may be not always successful, in some realm, even harmful. The conclusion should be varied according to different fields and different condition.

提纲：
ISSUE173 - "Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways."
独创性不是指想人们从未想过的东西；而是指以新的方式、角度组织已有的观点。
1．独创性是相对的，独创和继承已有的观点并不矛盾；
2．创意是以已有知识体系为基础，对旧的理论的发展创新，所谓的旧瓶装新酒；
3．在有些时候，独创性有时也是全新的开发，比如艺术创作，科学领域的新发现；
ISSUE180 - "Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated."
现代社会的许多问题是法律和司法系统不能解决的，因为道德行为是无法用法律约束的。
1．道德更关注与人本性，内心的善良，而法律则是从行为上控制人们，对错事进行惩罚。
2．法律已经解决了很多社会问题。人们都照法律来行事是社会和谐、稳定的前提。
3．还有一些道德问题确实没有得到解决。
4．社会要和谐发展，只能是将法律和道德结合。
ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
一个伟大国家的最可靠的标示不是其统治者、艺术家或者科学家的成就，而是其全体人民的总体生活水平。
1．全民的生活水平的确是象征国家富强的强有力标志。只有当一个国家的政府解决了他的国民的基本问题，使全体任命可以幸福的生活，这个国家才被认为是个好国家。相反，如果一个国家不能像那样保证人们有健康正常的生活，无论在政治科学艺术上多么强大，也不行。
2．我们也不能忽视政治艺术科学的影响，他们的确为福利做出了贡献。政治家引领着正确的前进方向，同时科学家推动着整个国家生产力水平的发展，艺术家使文化繁荣，丰富人民的精神生活。
3．真正伟大的国家是应该这两个条件都具备。
ISSUE210 - "Most people choose a career on the basis of such pragmatic considerations as the needs of the economy, the relative ease of finding a job, and the salary they can expect to make. Hardly anyone is free to choose a career based on his or her natural talents or interest in a particular kind of work."
大多数人选择职业是基于实用性的考虑，诸如经济需求、较易找到工作，希望拿到的薪水。很少有人是自由地根据自己在某一类工作领域的才能和兴趣去选择职业。
1．不可否认，在技术飞速发展的今天，人们更加注重实用的东西；
2．现实的因素很大程度上决定了人们的职业选择，比如薪水待遇等等，对人都有很大吸引力；
3．在现在劳动力过剩的情况下，更多的情况的是，人们没有选择工作的机会；
4．但是实际上，根据自己才能和兴趣选择的职业才能够发挥最大的潜力，生活在更有意义；



[ 本帖最后由 linshao 于 2007-7-27 13:21 编辑 ]

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

issue70 『勇往直前小组』第七次作业linshao
写这篇I用了好多时间啊！险些崩溃了！

ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
在任何领域，商业、政治、教育、政府，掌权者都应该在5年任期后下台。对任何事业而言，取得成功最保险的途径就是聘用新生力量担当领导。

The speaker asserts that, for any field, the surest path to success is changing the leadership every five years. I admit that new leadership is full of energy, to some extent, will revitalize the enterprise. However, the conclusion should vary in different domain and cases.

Firstly, let's come to the realm of political, changing leaders after a certain period such as five years is necessary. People's desire is inexhaustible and always expands with their power and authority. If the leader stays in that position too long, autarchy is inescapability. In addition, the leader must be very tired, after several years, he must be exhausted. So in most democratic countries, the leader has an immovable term which is settled in the constitution. There also are exceptions, for example, F.D Roosevelt had been served as the president of US for four terms continuously, which breached the constitution in which every president can be reappointed no more than two terms. But we didn’t condemn him, in contrast, he was regarded as one of the greatest president of US. Because fixedness of the government is the most important when the country faces adversity. （正反一起说了 恩 这似乎和你前一篇的风格不一样）（政府要换）

However, the constitution has some special provision. For instance, the term of chief justice of the US Supreme Court is for life in order to keep the independence of justice and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board can be instated for many terms to maintain the consistency of economic policy, though every term is four years, (是说法院要换)（如果都是要换的话，however是用来表达什么意思的呢）

Secondly, in commercial area, the regular change of leadership is not necessary, but also very important. If the leader in an enterprise can not improve the benefits and profits, he will be replaced. Carleton Fiorina, the former CEO of HP company who was only in charge of the company for around six years, was fired because of her failure in creating profits. In contrast, Bill Gates has been the top leader of Microsoft for about 20 years before he retired from the throne. The reason is that Gates kept creating more wealth and profits for his enterprise. If he was replaced just after five years after he established the company, maybe we will never see the birth of Windows. Therefore, to set a certain period for leaders in commercial area is inappropriate. （商业领域不需要）

Besides, In education field, it is also unfavorable to set such a rigid term for leaders, especially for academic authorities, because such experience and knowledge need to be accumulated in a much longer  period than just five years. If we simply replace the leaders after only five years, then the new ones should spend a long time to gain those academic experiences. Therefore, it will be too hasty or even cruel to change the leaders in the academic area after a certain short time. （教育领域也不需要）

Finally, in religion domain, change the leader in a certain period will bring bale. Because religion leaders are always regarded as the emissary of the god, their supersede may causes belief confusion, even war.

To sum up, the change of leadership in a stated term may be not always successful, in some realm, even harmful. The conclusion should be varied according to different fields and different condition.
整体的机构比较的清晰，估计是因为这篇I很难写 ，你才列举了如此多的领域吧 呵呵

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

issue70 『勇往直前小组』第七次作业linshao
写这篇I用了好多时间啊！险些崩溃了！

ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
在任何领域，商业、政治、教育、政府，掌权者都应该在5年任期后下台。对任何事业而言，取得成功最保险的途径就是聘用新生力量担当领导。

The speaker asserts that, for any field, the surest path to success is changing the leadership every five years. I admit that new leadership is full of energy, to some extent, will revitalize the enterprise. However, the conclusion should vary in different domain and cases.

Firstly, let's come to the realm of political, changing leaders after a certain period such as five years is necessary. People's desire is inexhaustible and always expands with their power and authority. If the leader stays in that position too long, autarchy is inescapability. In addition, the leader must be very tired, after several years, he must be exhausted. So in most democratic countries, the leader has an immovable term which is settled in the constitution. There also are exceptions, for example, F.D Roosevelt had been served as the president of US for four terms continuously, which breached the constitution in which every president can be reappointed no more than two terms. But we didn’t condemn him, in contrast, he was regarded as one of the greatest president of US. Because fixedness of the government is the most important when the country faces adversity. （正反一起说了 恩 这似乎和你前一篇的风格不一样）（政府要换）

However, the constitution has some special provision. For instance, the term of chief justice of the US Supreme Court is for life in order to keep the independence of justice and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board can be instated for many terms to maintain the consistency of economic policy, though every term is four years, (是说法院要换)（如果都是要换的话，however是用来表达什么意思的呢）

Secondly, in commercial area, the regular change of leadership is not necessary, but also very important. If the leader in an enterprise can not improve the benefits and profits, he will be replaced. Carleton Fiorina, the former CEO of HP company who was only in charge of the company for around six years, was fired because of her failure in creating profits. In contrast, Bill Gates has been the top leader of Microsoft for about 20 years before he retired from the throne. The reason is that Gates kept creating more wealth and profits for his enterprise. If he was replaced just after five years after he established the company, maybe we will never see the birth of Windows. Therefore, to set a certain period for leaders in commercial area is inappropriate. （商业领域不需要）

Besides, In education field, it is also unfavorable to set such a rigid term for leaders, especially for academic authorities, because such experience and knowledge need to be accumulated in a much longer  period than just five years. If we simply replace the leaders after only five years, then the new ones should spend a long time to gain those academic experiences. Therefore, it will be too hasty or even cruel to change the leaders in the academic area after a certain short time. （教育领域也不需要）

Finally, in religion domain, change the leader in a certain period will bring bale. Because religion leaders are always regarded as the emissary of the god, their supersede may causes belief confusion, even war.

To sum up, the change of leadership in a stated term may be not always successful, in some realm, even harmful. The conclusion should be varied according to different fields and different condition.
整体的机构比较的清晰，估计是因为这篇I很难写 ，你才列举了如此多的领域吧 呵呵

zhangjing106UID：2157010

The speaker asserts that, for any field, the surest path to success is changing the leadership every five years. I admit that new leadership is full of energy, to some extent, will revitalize the enterprise. However, the conclusion should vary in different domain and cases.

Firstly, let's come to the realm of political, changing leaders after a certain period such as five years is necessary. People's desire is inexhaustible and always expands with their power and authority. If the leader stays in that position too long, autarchy is inescapability. In addition, the leader must be very tired, after several years, he must be exhausted. So in most democratic countries, the leader has an immovable term which is settled in the constitution. There also are exceptions, for example, F.D Roosevelt had been served as the president of US for four terms continuously, which breached the constitution in which every president can be reappointed no more than two terms. But we didn’t condemn him, in contrast, he was regarded as one of the greatest president of US. Because fixedness of the government is the most important when the country faces adversity.

However, the constitution has some special provision. For instance, the term of chief justice of the US Supreme Court is for life in order to keep the independence of justice and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board can be instated for many terms to maintain the consistency of economic policy, though every term is four years,

Secondly, in commercial area, the regular change of leadership is not necessary, but also very important. If the leader in an enterprise can not improve the benefits and profits, he will be replaced. Carleton Fiorina, the former CEO of HP company who was only in charge of the company for around six years, was fired because of her failure in creating profits. In contrast, Bill Gates has been the top leader of Microsoft for about 20 years before he retired from the throne. The reason is that Gates kept creating more wealth and profits for his enterprise. If he was replaced just after five years after he established the company, maybe we will never see the birth of Windows. Therefore, to set a certain period for leaders in commercial area is inappropriate.

Besides, In education field, it is also unfavorable to set such a rigid term for leaders, especially for academic authorities, because such experience and knowledge need to be accumulated in a much longer  period than just five years. If we simply replace the leaders after only five years, then the new ones should spend a long time to gain those academic experiences. Therefore, it will be too hasty or even cruel to change the leaders in the academic area after a certain short time.

Finally, in religion domain, change the leader in a certain period will bring bale. Because religion leaders are always regarded as the emissary of the god, their supersede may causes belief confusion, even war.

To sum up, the change of leadership in a stated term may be not always successful, in some realm, even harmful. The conclusion should be varied according to different fields and different condition.
内容还可以整合一下，例子用的很不错。把抽象题目具体化是个好办法。

linshaoUID：2338229

''However, the constitution has some special provision. For instance, the term of chief justice of the US Supreme Court is for life in order to keep the independence of justice and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board can be instated for many terms to maintain the consistency of economic policy, though every term is four years, (是说法院要换)（如果都是要换的话，however是用来表达什么意思的呢）''

这段讲的是美国联邦大法官是终生制的，是为了保持三权分立，独立于总统，而美联储主席通常由一个人连续担任啊，像格林斯潘就当了五届。