issue17 『勇往直前小组』第十一次作业linshao

linshaoUID：2338229

ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
有两种法律：公正的和不公正的。每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，但是更重要的是，更应该不遵守和反抗不公正的法律。

What is the criteria to distinct the unjust and just for laws? To different country, different culture, and different people, the criteria will not be the same.
We can take the democratic country-United States as an example. The US Constitution was built up for more than 200 years, however, it remains without any change. Only 27 was approved from more than 3000 Amendments, and only one was repealed- Volstead Act. Is it unjust? Maybe not, but it is unavailable, and causing many other illegal actions which is hard to manage. In retrospect of our human history, we cannot find a similar code as US Constitution. The magic power of it is justice for everyone. It was enacted for people's most foundational benefit-the freedom, the pursuit of happiness and the security. For the basic right of our human, the unjust law must be overturned. Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and Homestead Act, and then the 13th amendment was approved for the basic human right of Negro. And the Congress which represented the mind of citizens in the US enacted 19th Amendment for giving the suffrage to women. But if there is no Lincoln, no Martin Luther King and no feminists, the Negro will still is segregation and the women will still face the discrimination. Therefore to the laws which violate the foundational right of human, we have the responsibility to resist them for keeping the basic right and equality of us.
On the other hand, other laws may not the case like the law of some states. These laws might be controversial to different groups. From the fact that only 27 amendments were approved from 3000, we can find that even in a same country people's opinions to just and unjust is variety. That is because different groups always have conflict on the benefit. For instance, in the process of producing of some businesses, it is inevitable to cause some pollutions and other negative effect on citizens lives. So the law is made to restrict them, to citizens, the law maybe just, but to businesses, they may claim that it is too strict to impact their profits seriously, and to the people who are both employees and citizens, their attitude may be ambiguous. Thus such law is a compromise, a mediation made for the both side.
Moreover, for different country, their viewpoints to just or unjust are largely distinct. We can take the flag-burning ban as an example. Almost every country include my country has its law for banning the action insulting the things which are the symbolization the country as flag. In these countries, flag-burning is an unbearable action to every its citizens. But in the US, may people regard the ban to be a violation of freedom of action which is written down in the First Amendment. Writing so many words, my object is to illustrate that the just and unjust of the laws, which is sophisticated than the basic requirement, is hard to be distinguished. Before our action for resistance, we'd better to think more from others perspective, and making more negotiation is better for both sides.
In sum, to any unjust law which violating the foundational right of our human, we must take every measure to resist it, we can even do some violent movement to gain our freedom from the unjust government. As the law which is enacted for compromise, for mediate, we should be more rational, and we need to think in others perspectives. Even the law is obviously incline to one side, all we have to do is to take the peaceful measure, and don't let our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence as Martin Luther King once said.

提纲：
ISSUE119 - "When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"
当研究的重点被置于科学、教育或者其他领域中时，最重要的问题就是要考虑如果研究获得成功会有多少人的生活得以改善。
1．  能够解决现在最urgent 社会问题的学科理所当然的应该给予优先权。如：通信，经济，商科，法律、医学。哪些人会受益。实际证明这些学科也是最兴旺发达的。最优秀的学生通常都去了这些地方。
2．  有一些看起来没什么用的长期看会很有用。哲学、文学、历史、数学、物理（其它科的基础）。
3．  在研究成果没有出来之前，我们很难判断哪些是能给最多人带来利益的。因此，让其平衡发展。按照经济学的观点，那些已经兴旺发达的学科，政府不需给予太多关注，否则几年后供大于求；而那些现在默默无闻的学科今后可能是很有用的学科，需要给予扶持。
ISSUE80 - "All students should be required to take courses in the sciences, even if they have no interest in science."
所有的学生都应该被要求去学习科学课程，即使他们对科学毫无兴趣。
1．理科非常的重要，是我们了解世界的桥梁。我们学习数学知道基本的计算问题，学习物理知道世界的基本规律，学习化学知道了周围世界的组成，基本框架。而且理科可以让我们学会reasoning ，训练我们的逻辑，让我们学习用分析的眼光看待一些事物时。学习理科知识让我们变的更加理智。
2．基础的理科学习应该上大学之前的教育中完成，上大学后，应该根据学生自己的兴趣选择自己的课程。（大学之前的基础教育就是让学生广泛接触各个学科，一方面是使学生成为一个掌握全面知识的人，一方面是为了让学生找到自己的兴趣，然后根据自己的兴趣，选择自己大学的专业。大学里面的课程更加专业化，要么为将来职业服务，要么就是为了追求更高层的学位准备的，需要学生的兴趣，才能学习的下去，如果文科学生实在对理科不感兴趣，可以不用参加课程，因为他在高中接受的知识足够了。
3．如果在大学中，让所有的学生都参加理科课程的学习，会对学生有很大负面影响的。（比如艺术的学生，对数字之类根本不感兴趣，一定让他们参加微积分calculus 的学习。她们根本听不懂这门课程，考试多半不及格，她们不仅没学会，而且浪费了他们很多时间。一个学艺术的学生，只要掌握了生活中基本的运算就可以了，学习微积分无法帮助他们提升他们的艺术敏感，也无法给他们灵感，只是打击他们自信心。因为大学的理科课程通常比较生僻，没有兴趣根本学不会，所以没有兴趣的学生，特别是人文学科和艺术类的学生，根本没有必要学）
ISSUE195 - "The goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal, but rather the search for common ground and reasonable consensus."
政治的目的不应该是追求一种理想，而是寻求共同点和合理的一致。
1．寻找共同点和合理的共识是政治的重要目标之一：首先，只有找到共同切入点才能够让政策和法规为大多数人接受，否则没意义；其次，通过共同点解决问题才还是维护社会繁荣的前提。
2．但是，寻找共同点不过是政治的一个特点之一。追求既定的伟大目标同样是政治的重要作用。
3．政治作为整个社会的基础，政治的发展很大程度上决定了社会的发展，因此从长期来说，政治应当一个不断是追求高水平的社会的过程。
4．此外，许多人把追求政治作为实现自己实现伟大目标的重要途径，这也成为社会发展的动力。
ISSUE241 - "An individual's greatness cannot be judged objectively by his or her contemporaries; the most objective evaluators of a person's greatness are people who belong to a later time."
一个人的伟大是无法为他的同代人所客观判定的，而是应该由后人来评判。
1．我的观点是很多人的伟大在他的那个时代即被认可，而不是题中所认为的只能被后人认可；
2．很多伟大的人在活着的时候就已经声名显赫了，他们的问答得到了contemporaries的认可；牛顿（Newton）达芬奇（Da Vinci）比尔盖茨（Bill Gates）
3．另一些人是在死后才被后人认可的。哥白尼(Copernicus)梵高 (Van Gogh)；
4．他们的不同命运在于contemporaries的局限性，不如世界观，宗教认知等，他们在一定程度上不能给与客观评价。

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
有两种法律：公正的和不公正的。每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，但是更重要的是，更应该不遵守和反抗不公正的法律。

What is the criteria to distinct the unjust and just for laws? To different country, different culture, and different people, the criteria will not be the same.
（我觉得这个题目要讨论的应该是法律的性质和人们相应态度的关系，看你的开头，觉得你吧重点放在公正不公正？这样我觉得不可取）
We can take the democratic country-United States as an example. The US Constitution was built up for more than 200 years, however, it remains without any change. Only 27 was approved from more than 3000 Amendments, and only one was repealed- Volstead Act. Is it unjust? Maybe not, but it is unavailable, and causing many other illegal actions which is hard to manage. In retrospect of our human history, we cannot find a similar code as US Constitution. The magic power of it is justice for everyone. It was enacted for people's most foundational benefit-the freedom, the pursuit of happiness and the security. For the basic right of our human, the unjust law must be overturned. Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and Homestead Act, and then the 13th amendment was approved for the basic human right of Negro. And the Congress which represented the mind of citizens in the US enacted 19th Amendment for giving the suffrage to women. But if there is no Lincoln, no Martin Luther King and no feminists, the Negro will still is segregation and the women will still face the discrimination. Therefore to the laws which violate the foundational right of human, we have the responsibility to resist them for keeping the basic right and equality of us.
On the other hand, other laws may not the case like the law of some states. These laws might be controversial to different groups. From the fact that only 27 amendments were approved from 3000, we can find that even in a same country people's opinions to just and unjust is variety. That is because different groups always have conflict on the benefit. For instance, in the process of producing of some businesses, it is inevitable to cause some pollutions and other negative effect on citizens lives. So the law is made to restrict them, to citizens, the law maybe just, but to businesses, they may claim that it is too strict to impact their profits seriously, and to the people who are both employees and citizens, their attitude may be ambiguous. Thus such law is a compromise, a mediation made for the both side.
Moreover, for different country, their viewpoints to just or unjust are largely distinct. We can take the flag-burning ban as an example. Almost every country include my country has its law for banning the action insulting the things which are the symbolization the country as flag. In these countries, flag-burning is an unbearable action to every its citizens. But in the US, may people regard the ban to be a violation of freedom of action which is written down in the First Amendment. Writing so many words, my object is to illustrate that the just and unjust of the laws, which is sophisticated than the basic requirement, is hard to be distinguished. Before our action for resistance, we'd better to think more from others perspective, and making more negotiation is better for both sides.
In sum, to any unjust law which violating the foundational right of our human, we must take every measure to resist it, we can even do some violent movement to gain our freedom from the unjust government. As the law which is enacted for compromise, for mediate, we should be more rational, and we need to think in others perspectives. Even the law is obviously incline to one side, all we have to do is to take the peaceful measure, and don't let our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence as Martin Luther King once said.
（整体来说 ，你的确是这样写了 ，恩 个人觉得偏离了主题一点点）

linshaoUID：2338229

谢谢nashing!确实是偏了一点！