狗耳朵日报 (dogear) 8

最后60天，如何提高考研英语写作档次 SmileEva • 10/31 07:00 编辑点评：距离2015考研还有60余天的时间，沪江小编建议大家这一阶段要抓紧时间准备大、小作文。从备考难度上来看，短时间内提分效果最显著的便是作文，这也是一个抢分的地方哦。

[查看图片] 距离2015考研还有60余天的时间，沪江考研建议大家这一阶段要抓紧时间准备大、小作文。一方面，从备考难度上来看，短时间内提分效果最显著的便是作文，认真复习即可熟悉掌握一套属于自己的写作思路和框架；另一方面，足足30分的分值在总分中占比仅次于阅读。在最后的这一阶段，沪江考研提醒大家大家要有意识地把精力稍稍偏移到作文的准备工作中来，确保作文分数在总分中的贡献量。

学会内化 使用作文模板的初级层次是背，但不是让你背熟了到考场上生搬硬套，要学会灵活运用，将自己背熟的多篇模板、范文打散，然后重新组合，打破千篇一律的瓶颈，写出自己的特色作文。

模板要有闪光点 当下各大考研资料中充斥的作文模板就是那么几个，经历了多届考生以后已经用滥了，阅卷老师也对其产生了视觉疲劳，同时，自己亲手整理的模板也无非是在前人的基础上拼凑的，并不能让阅卷老师眼前一亮。这时候就需要你为自己的模板增光添彩，这技巧不难，建议大家采用真题中的好句子，好词语，套用进来就能提升你的语言的地道性。建议每篇文章用4到7个，这时候再看你的文章就能感觉到它的光芒。

拿着自己的模板，动手练习 所谓练习写作，就一定要动手写，写那些你认为或者一些书上很热的话题，如果写完后还能找到别人替你批改，那最好不过。新东方在线道长考研英语写作白金单项班中针对作文有专门的冲刺练习，提供知识堂答疑服务，这样便能有的放矢地迅速弥补写作中的不足，提高自己的写作技巧，提高文章的写作档次。

写作中，正、负面效应的表达方法 一、【正面效应表达句8条】 1、XXX can broaden our horizon, enlarge our scope of knowledge and enrich our spiritual civilization. 译文：XXX能拓宽我们的视野，扩大我们的知识面，丰富我们的精神文明。

适合范围：网络，文化，读书等积极向上的行动。

2、XXX provide(s) us with convenience. 译文：XXX能给我们提供方便 适用范围：大多数文明创新的事物。

3、XXX meet(s) such kind of need in physical and psychological aspects. 译文：XXX满足我们的身心健康 适用范围：积极向上的精神状态，健康的学习，生活，工作状态，有益的活动等 4、Of all the ingredients of success, XXX seem(s) to be the first within our control. 译文：在成功的所有元素中，XXX 看似是我们最能把握的。

适用范围：抽象类词汇，比如个人意志、学习时间、学习状态等 5、XXX win(s) the appreciation of the public. 译文：XXX 赢得了公众的共识，有重要的用处 适用范围：环境治理、文化融合、弘扬传统文化等正面事件。

6、XXX is a kind of lubricant for interpersonal relationships. 译文：XXX 是一种人际关系的润滑剂。

适用范围：文化交流，沟通等多种题材。

7、XXX can stimulate one’s interest and tap one’s potential. 译文：XXX能刺激我们的兴趣，激发我们的潜能。

适用范围：具有正面价值的新生事物。

8、Nothing, except XXX, can play a more indispensable role in the cultivation of one’s personality. 译文：除却XXX，没有任何事物可以在人的个性培养过程中发挥更不可或缺的作用。

适用范围：毅力、诚实教育、健康的家庭环境等正面行为。

二、【负面效应表达句8条】 1、The goal of achieving a harmonious society may fall through under the negative influence of XXX. 译文：在XXX的负面影响下，和谐社会目标的实现，将受到威胁。

适用范围：环境污染，网络问题，温室花朵，过分捕鱼，交通拥挤等消极的事物。

2、XXX bring(s) great loss to both the individual and the whole society. 译文：XXX 对个人和社会带来损失。

适用范围：所有负面现象。

3、XXX kill(s) a great mass of time. 译文：XXX 浪费大量的时间 适用范围：打网游、网购、大学生恋爱或结婚等话题。

4、It is an epitome of the disharmonious relation between the society and human beings in a specific aspect of XXX 译文：这是一个人类和社会在XXX 方面不和谐的缩影。

适用范围：环境、网络、交通等造成的不利方面。

5、Never before in history has the issue of XXX been more evident than now . 译文：历史上，XXX的问题从来没有比现在更加突出。

适用范围：人口过剩、环境污染等的消极类的话题。

6、There is a growing worldwide awareness of the need for XXX . 译文：世界上越来越多的人认识到XXX的必要性 适用范围：大多数消极问题的负面影响都可以受到人们的关注。

7、Greed and a total lack of social consciousness have been cited as major reasons for XXX. 译文：人们认为贪婪和社会意识的彻底缺乏是造成XXX的主要原因。

适用范围：大多数负面问题。

8、Rapid economic growth may lead to an overextension of resources and lead to an eventual catastrophic meltdown . 译文：XXX 增长可能导致过度使用资源，并引起最终巨大的灾难。

适用范围：经济过度增长、能源过度消耗，交通问题增多等消极类问题。

还有60多天的时间，沪江考研提醒大家冲刺期要注意身体，劳逸结合。随着毕业、就业的临近，很多同学出现心理波动，而且越是接近11月份就越容易产生不自信心理，容易放弃。但请大家相信自己，尽快扭转这些消极的心理状态，封杀一切后路，专心致志地做好当下考研的事情，一切以考上研究生为目标，朝着胜利前进。

[查看图片] 源地址 http://www.hjenglish.com/new/p703839/

Is the Chinese People's Liberation Army a Paper Tiger? Kyle Murao • 10/29 22:45 This is a very interesting question; if any Quorans could figure out the truth, there is probably a nice job with their name on it at the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. So here is how I'd think about it.Before I get to the meat of the answer though, let's first briefly consider the perspective articulated in Diplomat article the question cites. I consider The Diplomat to be an interesting online source of defense-, trade- and politics-related commentary on the Asian Pacific region, and I read it pretty frequently. I would also suggest that on the China-outlook scale ranging from "Sycophantic adoration" through "Benign embrace" to "Paranoid Sinophobia", The Diplomat's editorial positions frequently fall somewhere between the latter two. Its writers are very smart, very thoughtful, and very well-informed; but on the whole, its product tends to take a mistrusting view both of China's strategic intentions and ability to restrain its jingoistic military. As a result, you very typically end up with articles that conclude as this one does--crudely speaking, that China's military is a source of potential geopolitical instability because the PLA is led by lambs who think they're lions. The asker seems to be a little skeptical of this underlying premise, and I think they are right to be. Here's why. Perhaps the most common-sense place to start is with a quick comparison of China against other major military powers on the basis of some simple metrics. It's a cursory glance at these, allegeThe Diplomat and others, which misleads many observers into thinking that China is far stronger than it appears. So just what are these observers on about when they warn of China's military power? Getting hold of this data is, thanks to the Greatest Invention Since the Cotton Gin a.k.a. Wikipedia, pretty simple; compiling it and formatting it nicely is an MS Excel exercise I could do in my sleep.Economic & demographic metrics [view image] The table above summarizes some key metrics for the world's most powerful militaries. The first two rows are somewhat stale statistics, perhaps more relevant during the days of the Industrial Revolution, when sheer manpower numbers mattered much more, than they do in today's tech-heavy battlefields. (For a good discussion about this, see:Dan Holliday's answer to Who would win in this war: the USA, the U.K, Japan, and South Korea vs Russia, China, and North Korea?) The next two rows describe the sizes of each country's respective trained armed forces, both regular and reserve. The last four are economic. GDP in dollar terms as well as purchasing power parity (PPP) describe how wealthy a country is, defense budget is an indicator of how much it spends on gear and people, and foreign exchange reserves (FX) is how much foreign hard currency and gold a country has. (Note that the US, which prints the world's reserve currency, does not need to hold much--it's good to be da king!) [1]China (PRC) is far larger than any other country bar India in terms of population, and produces more economic output than any other than the United States. It has the second-largest defense budget, and by far the largest number of men under arms. If we ignore the global powers and zero in on the Asia Pacific region, we find that China's advantages versus its local rivals are even more pronounced (this will come up again later): [view image] There are plenty of advanced economies in this list--Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore--but taken together, their combined defense budgets are still smaller than China's. It's difficult to see why on any of these metrics, China even remotely resembles a paper tiger. It has a robust economy, large manpower reserves, a highly sophisticated technology and manufacturing base to produce war materials, and plenty of foreign currency to fend off the capital flight problems that might result from a sudden outbreak of war. Its people and government have extremely low levels of debt and and the government's tight control over the media and institutions means that domestic pressures, while certainly existent, don't divide the country the same way that they do in other major powers in Europe and America.And to the extent that China is dependent for commerce on markets in America, Europe and elsewhere, which could easily be disrupted by conflict, it should also be said that many of China's critical trading partners are just as dependent for their livelihoods on it. Trade policy and economic development may not be directly tied to the People's Liberation Army itself  but clearly from a strategic point of view, it isn't a coincidence that these things are closely managed by the Communist Party, which also oversees the military. All this goes to saying that, whatever the capabilities of the PLA may be, China itself starts off any discussion from a position of undisputed strength. This contrasts pretty sharply with the Soviet Union, China's predecessor as holder of the "paper tiger" title, with the obvious difference that unlike China, the name was very appropriate; the USSR produced fine military equipment and excellent soldiers, but ultimately, its economy couldn't adapt to the pressures of globalization that were already starting to hurt in the 70's and 80's. China, on the other hand, seems to be handling its economy rather well.China's Aspirations vs. Reality [view image] So given that China is indisputably the second most powerful country on the face of the earth, we then have to ask ourselves if its strategic goals are somehow out of sync with its ability to achieve those goals. Or, to paraphrase the Gospel of Top Gun, Chapter 1, Verse 1:Is China's ego writing checks that its body can't cash? As I said above, the USSR became the classic paper tiger, with foreign policy and defense obligations far exceeding its capacity to meet its objectives. To defeat an anticipated invasion, the US military garrisoned Germany with the most powerful American armored force the world had ever seen, supported by whole air fleets of attack planes, fighters, strategic bombers and helicopters. Fearful of Soviet wolf packs disrupting its commercial and military sea lines of communication, the United States Navy became the mightiest ever, with more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, hundreds of advanced cruisers and destroyers, and a fleet of submarines that are still among the world's most sophisticated even 30 years after they were first built. The US built a nuclear arsenal comprising hundreds of bombers, dozens of ballistic missile submarines and hardened land-based missile silos scattered across thousands of square miles. Soviet operations in Central and South America, in the Caribbean, in Sub-Saharan Africa, in the Middle East, in Central and Southeast Asia, forced the US to deploy legions of soldiers and spooks everywhere across the globe in an effort to check those efforts. All this, the US was compelled to do right up until the day that, to everyone's apparent surprise (though warning signs had been there for years), the Soviet empire simply imploded.Yet it's quite clear that China has no such global presence, nor does it aspire to one. Chinese special forces aren't arming Cubans, Angolans, Syrians or Vietnamese and training them to fight Americans. Chinese tanks and attack helicopters aren't stationed right on the doorstep to Western Europe, threatening a land invasion. Chinese boats may be sailing around Japan in defiant nationalistic PR stunts, but they aren't patrolling around the Chesapeake or in the Gulf of Mexico. In the realm of diplomacy, China has openly pledged itself (and for the most part strictly adhered) to a policy of non-intervention in foreign countries' domestic affairs. Whether this is because it finds nothing objectionable about unsavory regimes in the Sudan, Angola or Pakistan, or simply because it lacks the capability to interfere effectively, the fact is that China has planted no stakes in the ground in farflung regions of the world where, if events took a turn for the worst, its words would need to be backed up with military force.Where Chinahas been very aggressive is in its own backyard: the East China Sea and the South China Sea. In this, it is aided by the fact that, whatever strength may lie on the farther shores of the Pacific, China's outweighs all of its local rivals combined. Japan, South Korea, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Australia, Malaysia and Taiwan do not have the manpower, equipment or industrial output to match China, and China also enjoys the advantage of the central position. [Cf.The central position] Just since Xi Jinping's ascendance as President in late 2012, China has: Landed troops on the Scarborough Shoal, a disputed outcropping also claimed by the Philippines Sent patrols both by the PLA Navy and civilian maritime law enforcement agencies to interdict "illegal" fishing activities by Viet Nam, the Philippines, Malaysia and others in the South China Sea More aggressively asserted its claim over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, much to Japan's consternation Vastly increased the frequency of its naval and air patrols over disputed territory both with Korea and Japan Ordered all aircraft within an air defense zone covering much of this disputed territory to identify themselves (the ADIZ) Harassed US Navy ships in what the US Navy claims are international waters [view image] I do not take a position on whether China's claims in all of these matters are legitimate or not.[2]Assuming China's perspective that they are, however, there is little doubt that Beijing takes them all very seriously, and that it intends steadily, if slowly, to back them up with concrete military force. The decision to begin rigorously asserting these claims is not borne out of some grand delusion about China's place in history or the world; it is, rather, a very logical conclusion based on the PLA's assessments of its capabilities. 18 years ago, China could do little more than stand by and then back down when the United States sent an aircraft carrier battle group to within a few hundred miles of the Chinese coast in a saber-rattling maneuver intended to warn off the mainland from America's strategic interests in Taiwan. A few years after that, a collision between a Chinese fighter (whose pilot was killed) and an American surveillance plane ended when China meekly returned the crew and the aircraft, without receiving much more than an apology for the intrusion.Today, however, the military muscle underlying the Chinese leadership's newfound assertiveness is a very different institution. For one thing, it is considerably smaller than it was when the Cold War ended, and has increased its training emphasis on professionalism and quality. Whereas prior to the 1990s the PLA was still very much a land-based force stuck in Mao Zedong's principles of insurgency and human-wave attacks (think frontal assaults by the Chinese on Marine and Army positions at the Chosin Reservoir), the Chinese military today has significantly modernized its equipment and adopted much more sophisticated ideas about how it should fight in the future.The Carrier-killer Missile [view image] Perhaps no element of this different thinking is more prominent or more important than the concept of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD, in the US Navy's shorthand); and no single weapon epitomizes the concept more than the DF-21 "carrier killer" ballistic missile which China has been developing and deploying at feverish pace (a Chinese news station helpfully created the image above to give Chinese and perhaps American viewers a visual idea of what it is supposed to do). The concept of A2/AD is perhaps best explained by experts, among whom, sadly, I cannot count myself: Anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) has become a focal point for China’s military since 1996, when the US sent two aircraft carrier groups as a show of support for Taiwan during Chinese missile tests designed to intimidate voters. The most obvious A2/AD program under development is the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), which has entered the initial operational capability stage. The missile is unique in that no other country has successfully developed a conventional ballistic missile capable of hitting a ship. There is a debate within the Western analytical community about whether this missile is capable of performing this task without the proper targeting satellites and electronic countermeasures.China’s A2/AD strategy is intended to force the US military to operate farther from the mainland and make it difficult for US strike missions to knock out China’s military eyes and ears. China’s massive complex of advanced underground facilities is part of the effort to impede the US from destroying command-and-control nodes during a war. Any attempt by the US to use its stealthy F-22 fighter jets and B-2 bombers to cripple underground facilities would face China’s ongoing attempts to defeat stealth technology. [3] To clear up any ambiguity, a ballistic missile, as distinct from a cruise missile or other type, is intended to be launched at very high speed out of the atmosphere into space, and then fall back to earth following a ballistic path, directed toward its target by some form of guidance system. The salient points about the DF-21 are that (1) it is believed capable of being aimed at a small moving target such as an aircraft carrier rather than large stationary one like a city, as nuclear missiles are, and (2) it re-enters the atmosphere and hits the target at Mach 10, many times faster than a rifle bullet, rather than Mach 1 or so for typical anti-ship missiles like the French Exocet or American Harpoon. Because it is so much faster, it is more difficult to shoot down or evade. To be sure, there continue to be doubts about just how accurate the missile is; whether China has the technical know-how to make the precise guidance systems to direct the weapon is unclear, as is whether or not it has the powerful radars and satellites that would be needed to find the target in the first place. And as if to underline that skepticism, China has continued to invest heavily in other arms of the A2/AD strategy as well--regular anti-ship missiles, large numbers of fighters and attack planes, and both conventional and nuclear attack submarines.For the purpose of responding to the original question, however, the technical details of the A2/AD strategy matter somewhat less than the goal it is intended to achieve: sealing off critical areas of the Western Pacific to allow the rest of the PLA to do its work. The DF-21 is a land-based weapon, and the Chinese intend to use it not to attack Hawaii or San Diego, but rather to keep America out of the South and East China Seas. The PLA high command seems to have judged that, in the event of conflict, America would be exceedingly cautious about deploying the precious aircraft carriers for fear of them being crippled or sunk hundreds of miles before they are themselves able to threaten the Chinese mainland. As I recently discussed elsewhere[ 4] this is sound thinking, given the expense in time, labor, resources and training that are required to build and man a carrier today, compared with the past. For example, the US produced hundreds of aircraft carriers in 4 years during the Second World War; today, construction of USSJohn F. Kennedy, the next supercarrier, was begun two years ago in 2011, and is not scheduled for completion until 2020. By developing and deploying a weapon like the DF-21 in huge numbers, then, the PLA has significantly increased the risk to the United States of losing critical assets such as aircraft carriers, and indeed made the calculus of war dramatically more difficult.Whether the DF-21 and the rest of China's A2/AD arsenal turned out to be as effective as hoped is a big question, obviously. But the same could be said of America's weapons, or for that matter Russia's, Japan's or Korea's. The truth is that all-out total war of the kind last seen in 1945 would be very different from what the world's biggest and best militaries have experienced in places like Iraq, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and so on. To criticize the PLA for pinning strategic success on a new missile and untested submarines may be valid. However, it is not proof that China's military is a paper tiger, just as the fact that the US military has not gone toe to toe against a truly top-notch professional army since the Wehrmacht is not proof somehow that it, too, is a paper tiger.Assassin's Mace [view image] So far, we've seen how (1) China's economy is capable of building and supporting the military that it would need to pursue almost any foreign policy or military objective, and (2) China's assertiveness on the world stage has grown in step with clear progress in making the PLA more modern and more deadly. On these two bases alone, it seems that the PLA is very much aware of its limitations and has made a determined effort to develop weapons that make up for its weaknesses. There is, beyond these things, an additional element that leads me away from the idea that the PLA is a paper tiger: cyber-warfare.It's beyond debate that the US military leads all other contenders in combat experience. American pilots fly more than their Chinese counterparts, American sailors sail more and farther and aboard better ships, American soldiers and Marines have fought and died and led and learned through trial by enemy fire where Chinese soldiers have mainly been used in rescue efforts and in quashing internal problems. In each of these dimensions, China's main rival has a significant edge over it due to this experience--but in cyber-warfare, China has been a potent and effective player for just as long as America has, since the 1990s.Because America's military is substantially more networked and dependent on electronic infrastructure like computers and satellites, it has that many more vulnerable places for PLA cyber-warriors to probe and attack or defeat. An article from a few years ago in Wired gives some idea of what sorts of advantages the PLA might seek: U.S. airpower depends on the ability to overcome surface-to-air missile defenses, and one of the key weapons for this role is the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-radiation Missile (HARM), which homes in on radar emissions... The defenders can either turn off their radar, thus blinding themselves, or have it destroyed. This is where a black box at a military trade show in Zhuhai in 2002 comes in:“…packed inside were several thousand microtransmitters and when you plugged the device in and turned it on, it broadcast signals – 10,000 of them – on the frequency of a SAM site. From the perspective of an American pilot – or , more precisely, the perspective of his HARM missile looking for a ‘lock’ on a SAM radar signal – this meant an air-to-ground picture that looked like 10,001 SAM signals, only one of which was real…” [5] No doubt the USAF and US Navy have spent considerable resources figuring out how to disable or circumvent such measures, and it may well be that this particular case is nothing to sweat over. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of a much more deeply thought-out and far-reaching Chinese concept that the West has (correctly or incorrectly) labeled the "Assassin's Mace". Fundamentally, Assassin's Mace refers to the set of tools that one would use to very quickly and very suddenly gain the initiative in a conflict with an opponent who is better-armed in terms of conventional weapons. Into this bucket of tools, we might imagine components like: Anti-satellite missiles to destroy the communications and navigation satellites upon which China's enemies would rely Sophisticated jamming efforts of the kind described in the article, intended to fool an opponent's smart weapons into going after dummy targets Communications hacking that could compromise troop movements, deployment schedules, etc. Viruses to attack critical infrastucture like power plants Theft of technical details on advanced weapons that would enable either the development of counter-measures or production of Chinese copies The latter of these is already known to have happened, China has tested anti-satellite missiles as well, and American intelligence figures openly express concern at the scope, sophistication and apparent success of the Chinese military's hacking campaigns against both the US government and private companies. The point in mentioning this is that, in the one area where the US does not have a clear edge both in terms of technology and experience, China poses very significant threat, whose potency is not an illusion at all.ConclusionIn order for me to agree with the statement that the PLA is a paper tiger, most of the following would have to be true: China's foreign policy claims are not matched by the power of its military to enforce those foreign policy claims China's military itself cannot be sustained at current levels in the future, given the strength of its economy and population China's military technology is intended to fight rivals' militaries on a one-for-one basis despite minimal battlefield experience on its part There exist no areas in which Chinese inexperience in combat could be compensated for (cyber-warfare, i.e.) Yet as I've tried to lay out here, all of the above are almost certainly false, or at best doubtful. I said in another answer[4] that China's armed forces are not, and have never been, intended to go blow-for-blow with the United States in the open ocean or in neutral skies; rather, the PLA's primary goal is to fight and win a contained conflict in the Western Pacific. While the PLA Navy's recent commissioning of its first aircraft carrier may carry symbolic propaganda value domestically, it is almost certainly not signaling of any desire to re-fight the battle of Midwaya la Chinoise--the critical elements of China's arsenal aren't aircraft carriers (if indeed they ever will be), but missiles, submarines and probably cyber-warfare. It would be extremely dangerous for any would-be opponent of China to gleefully ignore China's very real, lethal military capabilities, and dismiss Chinese foreign policy as no more than amateurish brinkmanship by people who don't know just how weak they are. On the contrary: China's entire military development in the last 30 years has been predicated on a very level-headed analysis of both its own weaknesses and those of its rivals.NOTES:[1]One thing worth note is the inclusion of nominal GDP, which is simply calculated by converting a country's gross domestic product from local currency into USD. Although perhaps less useful for measuring a country's well-being than PPP, I had a professor once explain why, in defense strategy, nominal GDP matters more: Anyone wishing to buy an AK-47 or a FN FAL can pay in diamonds, rupees, dirhams, camels or cocaine; but anyone wishing to buy a Patriot missile battery or a squadron of Eurofighter Typhoon jets is buying a good made in an advanced country (the US, Europe, Russia, etc) which either is priced in USD, or benchmarked to competitor products that are, by European or Russian manufacturers. The claim, which I find worthy, was that for anyone to fight a war with any hope of winning it these days, they must be able to pay for advanced weapons not in local currency, but in the currency of the advanced world--the US dollar. 'Murica.[2]I don't take one in this answer, nor do I really have one in private. To be perfectly frank, my philosophy when it comes to international affairs is "might makes right"; when it comes to war, my idea of a worthwhile fight is a fair fight, and my idea of a fair fight is clubbing a baby seal over the head.... Clearly, international politics wouldn't appeal to me as much if I wasn't American.[3] Wendell Minnick, "China Pursues Systems To Keep US Forces at Bay",Defense News, 17 Sep 2013. [China Pursues Systems To Keep US Forces at Bay][4]See:Kyle Murao's answer to Who would win in this war: the USA, the U.K, Japan, and South Korea vs Russia, China, and North Korea?.[5] David Hambling, "China Looks to Undermine U.S. Power, With 'Assassin's Mace'",Wired, 2 Jul 2009.Read other related questions onQuora: What is it like to be in the People's Liberation Army (PLA)? Is Vladimir Putin a paper tiger? How many people have served in the People's Liberation Army? Read more answers on Quora. 源地址 http://www.quora.com/China-in-2014/Is-the-Chinese-Peoples-Liberation-Army-a-Paper-Tiger/answer/Kyle-Murao

China denies shutting foreign sites 10/30 21:55 30 October 2014 Last updated at 11:55 China's web regulator denies shutting foreign websites The director of China's internet regulator has admitted that some foreign websites cannot be visited but denied shutting them down. Lu Wei, who heads the State Internet Information Office, also said his department was planning to strengthen measures to "govern the internet". Twitter, Facebook and the New York Times are not accessible in China. The BBC's English-language website was blocked earlier this month, joining the BBC Chinese site. Mr Lu was responding to queries at a press conference on the forthcoming World Internet Conference due to be held in Zhejiang province. 'Specifying behaviour' Asked by a reporter why sites such as Facebook had been shut down, Mr Lu replied: "I have never used any of these websites so I don't know if they have been shut down. But as for situations where some sites become inaccessible, I think it is possible. "We have never shut down any foreign sites. Your website is on your home soil. How can I go over to your home and shut it down?" Mr Lu however added that while China was "hospitable", it could also "choose who can come to our home and be our guest". "I can't change who you are but I have the power to choose my friends," he said. "I wish that all who come to China will be our real friends." Mr Lu added that his department's measures were "meant to protect China's national security and China's consumers". "We are going to further strengthen our rule of law, our administration, governance and usage of the internet, and use the law to specify behaviour in the online space," he added. China keeps a tight grip on the internet. Posts about sensitive topics are routinely scrubbed from the popular micro-blogging service Weibo, as seen during the recent Hong Kong protests. State media said last year that the government employed more than two million people to monitor web activity. 源地址 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-29828982#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

What's it like to have a 150 IQ? Is life really super easy? 发送至：Pocket Tony Reno • 11/07 07:45 [view image] I have an IQ that has been measured above 150 on several occasions, and my experience has been very different than some others. My gut response was an immediate, "Of course it's far easier." But evidently that's just me.Still, I am qualified to weigh in, and I have to say that what people are equating with IQ, shouldn't be equated with IQ.I'm almost never bored. I have no trouble relating to people. I'm not bothered that they aren't as logical as I am, any more than I'm bothered that they aren't usually as strong as I am. I have no trouble making decisions. If there's enough information, I'll use either Bayes theorem, or Goldratt's theory of constraints. If there's not enough info, but a decision needs to be made, it won't bother me a bit to flip a coin and get started, knowing I can change my mind with new information.So none of the limitations that others have described in other posts seem to me to be a necessary limitation of a 150 IQ.But I do have a secret tool. And that's that I love to read. For me my IQ, combined with my love or reading made life far easier than it would have been without it.I had trouble relating to people until I read books with titles like "How to win friends and influence people," and ended up being popular as a teenager.I read books on basketball and followed the drills and made the varsity team.I've read books on starting businesses and I've started businesses.To me, I have seen very few downsides to a high IQ, and a huge number of up sides. People have, due to the question, focused on the down sides. But the upsides are enormous.Given the other responses, I'm going to amend my beliefs a bit. Here's my observations of who has easy lives (myself included)Life is easy if you have (a) long term, devoted capable mentor(s).Life is easy if you have a single driving motivation.Life is easy if you read books by people who know what they are talking about (because they've been there and done that) and then follow their advice. Actor Will Smith also swears by this in a you tube video, "Running and Reading".Life is easy if you see other people as people to love, help and enjoy, rather than people you are in competition with, or need to figure out. Heck, I get a kick out of their illogic-ness.Those 4 things make life easy.And if you have a high IQ, then the advantage of each of these 4 things seems to me to be magnified.I didn't have long term devoted capable mentors, and I don't have a single driving motivation, but I've seen those in other people, and their lives were far more accomplished, more solid than others (myself included) who lack that.But I do read books, and I do see other people as people to love, to help and to enjoy.  And I think my life has been much easier than most as a result. And for the most part it has been more accomplished than others who lack those things.Until I read what others had to say here, I thought it was mainly my high IQ that made my life so easy and accomplished.I was clearly wrong in believing that my IQ was the reason my life is so easy. But I have to say that others are wrong when they claim that their IQ is a reason their example lives (lived or witnessed) are so hard.But I do want to refocus the question away from easy, and on to accomplished. Life is easiest for people in a coma, for they've nothing to do. Who wants that, though?Here's another thing to think. There is always a gap between what you want and what you have. That gap is entirely internally generated. The higher your IQ, the easier it is to imagine wants that are far beyond what you have now.And in truth I want eternal youth, and a star ship of my own.I think a lot of what makes people feel dissatisfied with their lives is the size of the gap. People mistake the size of the gap for the size of their dissatisfaction. This is not reality though. The size of the gap is meaningless if you know how to also enjoy and appreciate what you already have.So life seems easy if you enjoy the things that are already there. And where there's a gap that is important to you, seek out books or mentors, like Will Smith described in the Running and Reading video.His advice about running is pretty good too!Read other related questions onQuora: What is the difference between people with IQ 150 and people with IQ 125? Can a really smart person have a fun, easy life by aiming for a job under their potential? How do I have an easy life? Read more answers on Quora. 源地址 http://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-have-a-150-IQ-Is-life-really-super-easy/answer/Tony-Reno-1