左右互搏——老顽童

来源: BlogBus 原始链接: http://id-1388.blogbus.com:80/logs/2003/06/ 存档链接: https://web.archive.org/web/20060217054453id_/http://id-1388.blogbus.com:80/logs/2003/06/

左右互搏——老顽童 关于人生、社会、世界的思考。尤其是组合数学、数学教育、思考问题的方法的讨论。 首页 最后更新 最新评论 存档 我的链接 分页 成全 - 2003-06-30 13:15 成全　刘若英 ——电视剧《粉红女郎》插曲 看着你和她走到我面前 微笑地对我说声好久不见 如果当初没有我的成全 是不是今天还在原地盘旋 不为了勉强可笑的尊严 所有的悲伤丢在分手那天 未必永远才算爱得完全 一个人的成全 好过三个人的纠结 我对你付出的青春这么多年 换来了一句谢谢你的成全 成全了你的潇洒与冒险 成全了我的碧海蓝天 她许你的海誓山盟蜜语甜言 我只有一句不后悔的成全 成全了你的今天与明天 成全了我的下个夏天 C&O 发表于 13:15 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 新不了情 - 2003-06-30 13:07 新不了情　万芳 ——电视剧《粉红女郎》插曲 心若倦了　　泪也干了 这份深情　　难舍难了 曾经拥有　　天荒地老 已不见你　　暮暮与朝朝 这一份情　　永远难了 愿来世还能再度拥抱 爱你的人如何死守到老 怎样面对一切我不知道 回忆过去　　痛苦的相思忘不了 为何你还来　拨动我心跳 爱你怎么能了今夜的你应该明了 愿难了　　　情难了 回忆过去　　痛苦的相思忘不了 为何你还来　拨动我心跳 爱你怎么能了今夜的你应该明了 愿难了　　　情难了 C&O 发表于 13:07 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 一辈子的孤单 - 2003-06-30 12:58 一辈子的孤单　刘若英 ——电视剧《粉红女郎》片尾曲 我想我会一直孤单　这一辈子都这么孤单 我想我会一直孤单　这样孤单一辈子 天空越蔚蓝　　　　越怕抬头看 电影越圆满　　　　就越觉得伤感 有越多的时间　　　就越觉得不安 因为我总是孤单　　过着孤单的日子 喜欢的人不出现　　出现的人不喜欢 有的爱犹豫不决　　还在想他就离开 想过要将就一点　　却发现将就更难 于是我学着乐观　　过着孤单的日子 当孤单已经变成一种习惯 习惯到我已经不再去想该怎么办 就算心烦意乱　　　就算没有人作伴 自由和落寞之间怎么换算 我独自走在街上看着天空 找不到答案　　　　我没有答案 当孤单已经变成一种习惯 习惯到我已经不再去想该怎么办 就算心烦意乱　　　就算没有人作伴 自由和落寞之间怎么换算 我独自走在街上看着天空 找不到答案　　　　我没有答案 天空已蔚蓝　　　　我会抬头看 电影越圆满　　　　就越珍惜伤感 有越多的时间　　　就越习惯不安 因为我总会孤单　　过着孤单的日子 我想我会一直孤单 C&O 发表于 12:58 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——秀逗前年6月1日 - 2003-06-30 12:55 沙僧日记　林长治 秀逗前年6月1日 今天是儿童节，我们走进了一个集市。集市上人山人海，孩子们像小鸟一样，穿着花衣服，快乐地飞到花园里，飞到草地上。看到他们我想起了我的童年…… 正当我想的入神，突然，两个小朋友跑过来，指着二师兄大叫：“谁家的猪跑出来了！谁家的猪跑出来了！”二师兄正欲辩解，又跑过来一个小孩，伸手就把二师兄的长鼻子抓住，叫道：“假的，假的！不是猪，是野猪超人！我在漫画上看过！”二师兄又疼又气，赶着孩子们到处乱跑。 入夜。大家坐在一起说自己的童年。 师傅：“我儿时记得最深的一件事是：那时我才5岁，我跟邻居家的小孩打架，没打过他。于是，傍晚我偷偷溜进他家厨房，见锅里煮着稀饭，就扒出一大块煤球扔进稀饭里搅了搅，然后若无其事地跑回家了。哈，哈，哈……” 大师兄：“这算什么！记得我5岁的时候，就喜欢玩爆竹。当见到有人上茅房时，就点着爆竹往茅坑里扔。‘轰’地一声，炸那人一屁股屎！嘿！” 二师兄：“无聊的孩子！我五岁那年到县里去领全县十佳天真儿童奖的途中，见一青年落水，不加思索就奋不顾身跳入塘中，硬是把他给拽了上来！他上来后对我大嚷：‘你拽我干吗？这是游泳池！’” 我想：“他们的童年也太灰暗了吧！我小时候最多也就是放些毛毛虫在女生的文具盒里罢了。” C&O 发表于 12:55 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 此间的少年——郭靖（Ｉ）：自行车的事故 - 2003-06-30 12:48 此间的少年　江南 郭靖（Ｉ）：自行车的事故 郭靖正踩着他的二八老破驴赶往教室，这辆破驴是丘处机年轻时候骑的，他骑不动了，就转手送给了郭靖。在郭靖手上，这辆老破驴焕发了新的活力，比如前面带着段誉后面带着杨康和令狐冲这种高难度动作郭靖都做过。不过有一次杨康的跑车坏了，借郭靖的破驴回家的时候，骑到半路杨康硬是下车推着破驴回家了。 “我骑它到家，还不如它骑我到家呢！”杨康后来恶狠狠地对郭靖说，“累散我了。” 不过在活力四射的郭靖手上，老破驴还是跑得有声有色……颜色是黯淡了一点，上下都响是大家都曾听见的。 那天秋雨绵绵，冰冷的雨丝敲打在汴大后面的树丛里，两边都是古老的建筑，雕檐画栋中有清澈的水滴一一打落。一路上落满了细碎的小黄花。一切的一切都在无边雨意中显得朦胧和不真实。 而萧萧寒风中，郭靖猛蹬破驴，姿势英武矫健一如蒙古骑兵。 作为这个故事注定的女主角，黄蓉却已经有大半年没有再见到郭靖了，不过好在她和穆念慈同屋，所以关于郭靖的消息还不时传入她的耳朵。 郭靖这种活力四射的人是从来不缺女生在床头会上帮他传颂的。郭靖是班里的头，女生让他帮着扛书他去，男生喝醉了帮着扛回来他也干，出去玩组织收钱核算是他的，在学校里应付大大小小的活动还是他的。 日子久了，黄蓉觉得郭靖就像一个大力水手，一个只需要菠菜就可以提供无穷活力的西域卡通角色。不过黄蓉当然不是奥利弗，大力水手也从来不是她心目中的理想男朋友。(作者按：大力水手是一部卡通的男主角，特点是只要吃一罐菠菜就暂时力大无穷，作者的大学同学曾考证他是在菠菜罐头里藏了固酮类兴奋剂……奥利弗是大力水手的女朋友。)如她这样学过长笛书法空手道的女孩，理应有一个留长发的会诗词的非常感性的帅哥骑着白马出现在她的生活里，这样才比较搭配。至于郭靖，如果不再遇见那个蒙古来的傻大个子，那么黄蓉并不介意这段故事就如此结束。 不过那年黄蓉十六岁，不懂得爱情，也仅仅在漫画里见过那种所谓帅哥。 黄蓉是物理系的，物理系八大美女之首。促成这个名声的一个重要理由是当年的物理系只有八个女生。其实即使在法专那样美人辈出的地方，黄蓉也是不难崭露头角的。不过现在她只得屈居物理八金花之首，并且应付一堆一堆表示好感的师兄。不过他们都不留长发也不会诗词，所以黄蓉很失望。 后来黄蓉十七岁了，整天翘课出去吃冰淇淋溜冰和蹦迪，然后一个人很无聊地从外面回来，过着一种属于坏小孩的百无聊赖的生活。 郭靖的破驴带着一声嘶叫，艰难地想煞在黄蓉面前。 这时候刚好是黄蓉翘了课从校外吃杭州小笼包子回来，她忽然看见了路边一朵不知名的花被雨水打得凌乱而狼狈。黄蓉怔怔地站在雨里看花零落，伤春悲秋的小资情绪忽然间一发不可收拾。十七岁的黄蓉觉得自己和周围的人格格不入，那个坏老爹还非常的像暴君，所以一连三个星期黄药师让司机拿车来接她她都不回家。最重要的是难道十七岁了还是一条女光棍么？何其的悲痛！ 黄蓉觉得自己的未来一片灰色，就像这朵正在风雨中独自凋谢的小花。 这时候，郭靖如一个黑驴王子一样风驰电掣地正式闯入了黄蓉的生活。他那辆老破驴在雨水中终于没有煞住，当场把痴痴看花的黄蓉撞了个四脚朝天。 其实四脚朝天这个词确实影响了当时的场面，而那场面其实是浪漫而壮观的。 设想，烟雨迷朦，白衣少女静静地在花圃前看花，清澈忧伤的眼神。而周围更是葱葱碧色，被秋天的寒雨染上了一层朦胧。雕檐画栋中的林荫小路，雨丝细细地响。 忽然，黑色夹克的蒙古汉子纵驴而来。 驴鸣！ 身影交错！ 静！ “同学，同学，”郭靖吓得手脚发麻，“你没事吧？” 听着穆念慈说起郭靖的时候，黄蓉偶尔也会想自己会不会再见到郭靖，不过她做梦也想不到英雄美人经年再见是以这样的形式，郭靖不仅将自己撞得如此狼狈，而且张着大嘴把吐沫星子直接喷到了自己的脸上。 如果不是脚腕太痛了，黄蓉真的很想打人…… 黄蓉当时穿着一件米白色的束腰长裙，很典雅地偏着腿坐在湿漉漉的地下，黑发中夹杂着几缕金色悠悠地垂下。因为没有反应过来，她还很文静地面对郭靖丝毫不懂审美的一双眼睛。本来这一幕如欧阳克等见到必然心脏如受重击而爱念有如泉涌。不过郭靖惟一担心的是他这个月的伙食费要彻底泡汤了，因为他看见黄蓉捂着脚腕，知道她脚扭了。 慢慢地，黄蓉就哭了，因为她脚腕很痛。 我们说过黄蓉其实只是一个被宠爱得有点过头的小女孩，所以虽然她很聪明还有点叛逆，不过痛了就哭是很正常的。她又不好去打郭靖那张很老实的脸，如果哭一下都不可以，那黄蓉真的只好去自杀了。 不过对于郭靖，他宁愿黄蓉狠狠揍他的脸，反正他觉得黄蓉的小粉拳也打不痛。 郭靖慌慌张张地把黄蓉扶到他的老破驴后面坐好，小心地推车往校医院去了。 可是要去校医院必然要经过最热闹的三角地，黄蓉侧身坐在破驴后面，前面是五大三粗的郭靖在推车，这个情景很容易让人联想到一个牵驴送老婆回娘家的农村汉子。无数好奇的眼光聚集过来，连刚刚在商店里买口香糖的杨康也不由自主地愣在门口看热闹。 郭靖有点心虚地站在丁字路口中间，面对着周围闪烁的目光。 “左边。”黄蓉压低了声音在车后面对他说。 “哦哦。” “真笨。”黄蓉悄悄地骂。 C&O 发表于 12:48 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 简明经济学教程 - 2003-06-15 02:30 简明经济学教程　（转贴） 为了排解寂寞你决定上网找人聊聊，这叫创业初期； 上来一看，靠！MM还真不少，这叫市场潜力大； 可是GG也不少，这叫竞争激烈； 于是你决定想个办法让各位MM注意你，这叫定位； 因此你说你又帅又有钱，这叫前期炒作； 旁边一男的看不惯，说你其实又丑又穷又色眯眯，这叫恶性竞争； 你向网管告状，网管把他踢了出去，这叫规范市场。 一老哥们证明说：“其实你是谢停疯第二”，这叫竟合炒做； 你问：“这里有美女吗？”，这叫市场调查； 有２０个人同时回答：“我是美女”，这叫泡沫经济； 你说：“谁想和我聊天？”，这叫发布广告； 两美女说见过你，这叫老客户； 你飞快的记下两个美女的联系方式，这叫客户关系管理； 你厚着脸皮问两个美女你是不是很帅，这叫代言人公关； 这两个美女说你的确很帅，这叫联合炒作； 你继续厚着脸皮让他们介绍几个熟人认识，这叫关系营销； 然后不再理她们，这叫开拓新市场； 居然２０个美女都表示要和你聊天，这叫市场垄断； 要问为什么会有那么多美女找你，那是因为这年头顾客忠诚度低； 你高兴的说：“这些美女都是我的”，这叫划分势力范围； 你如果说：“凡北京的美女都是我的”，这叫划分可行的势力范围； 如果你又说：“恐龙别来找我”，这叫市场细分； 旁边一男的说：“我才是帅哥”，这叫正面竞争； 旁边又男的说：“有河南的MM吗？“这叫侧面竞争； 旁边又一男的说：“谁和我聊我给钱谁”，这叫价格战； 旁边又一男的说：“我是版主，不许你强占这么多MM”，这叫政府行为； 你说：“那我介绍两个跟你聊”，这叫政府公关； 你说：“谁给我钱我和谁聊”，这叫心理战； 结果２０个美女都抢着向你表达倾慕之情，这叫卖方市场； 当然，你还遣散了两个去应付版主，这叫寡头市场； 可你打字速度太慢，不能同时和２０个人聊天，这叫市场承接力有限； 你又说：“我看谁顺眼才和谁聊”，这叫精品策略； 有一美女说：“还认识很多靓女，问你要不要介绍？”这叫销售代理； 又有一美女说：“发你张我的照片。”这叫电子商务； 又有一美女说：“谈的开心今晚可以来找我。”这叫发现目标用户； 你说：“那从此我只和你聊”，这叫大客户战略； 可是你当然不会只和她聊，这叫成功的大客户战略； 你说话会引用鲁迅席慕容海子周星星黑格尔罗丹斯皮尔伯格，这叫文化营销； 你说：“我能歌善舞会写诗”，这叫优势展示； 你又说：“我好象爱上你了”，这叫客户关怀； 她说：“呸，我才不信呢”，这叫客户的逆向反映； 你接着说：“真的，是真的”，这叫IBM； 或者你说：“不信我去你家把心掏给你”，这叫DELL； 或者你说：“不信我你还能信谁？”，这叫微软； 你还可以说：“我会慢慢让你相信的”，这叫通用； 如果她说：“得了吧”，这叫理性消费者； 如果她说：“那我暂且信你一会儿吧”，这叫阶段性成果； 这时你说：“XXXXXXXXXXX（省略2000字）”，这叫市场培育； 然后你说：“我越来越喜欢你了”，这叫合理诱导； 然后你又说：“我们见面吧”，这叫进入实质销售阶段； 她当然会习惯性的拒绝，这叫假性拒绝； 于是你说：“那你来找我吧”，这叫精通消费者心理学； 她问：“这不一样吗？”，这叫再次获得销售机会； 于是你又说：“当然不一样，我们可以去Sogo，然后在仙踪林喝茶”，这叫远景共享； 你又说：“我在那看见过一瓶香水我想一定适合你”，这叫促销； 她说：“我才不要香水呢”，这叫需求调查失误； 你只好说：“本来是想给你买衣服，可是不知道你的尺码，要不一起去看看吧”，这叫空头支票； 正好她确实想去买衣服，这叫真理瞬间； 可是她对你的建议有些过意不去：“你是我什么人就帮我买呀”，这叫售前交涉； 于是你就坡下驴：“那你买，我帮你把关”，这叫及时降低销售成本； 当然你要说明：“我请你吃饭，我帮你拎包，我开车送你”，这叫服务承诺； 于是你们决定在SOGO见面，这叫签单； 临关电脑前你揭穿了版主威胁你的丑恶嘴脸，这叫远华案； 在SOGO门口你们见面，这叫履行合同； 可是你发现该“美女”与收到的照片不符，这叫有中国特色的电子商务； 而且是只大恐龙，这叫货不对板； 恐龙还穿着晚礼服带着大耳环，这叫精包装； 好在还有一女伴陪同恐龙过来，这叫买一送一； 这女伴居然还很靓，这叫天大利好； 靓女穿着吊带裙，这叫简包装，其实你更希望散装。 你想请美女吃饭恐龙一定要跟着去，这叫捆绑销售； 你想了很多办法想把恐龙打发走，这叫策划； 你终于把恐龙灌醉，这叫公关； 你把恐龙塞进的士，这叫剥除不良资产； 通过恐龙，你终于和女拌走到了一起，这叫借壳上市； 而且女拌已经答应晚饭后跟你回家，这叫获得期权； 可是饭后女拌称病回自己家了，这叫纳斯达克； 你愤怒之余追到她家，将生米煮成熟饭，这叫鼠标加水泥； 之后你才发现她有很多男朋友，这叫多方控股； 而且她还在发展你的哥们，这叫配股； 要命的是她还傍大款，做二奶，这叫多次融资； 你在愤怒之余断绝了和她的往来，这叫美国在线； 痛定之后，你又来到网上寻找新的MM，这叫史玉柱。 C&O 发表于 02:30 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 男女关系33个经典比喻 - 2003-06-15 02:24 男女关系33个经典比喻　（转贴） 1．每个女人都有两个版本：精装本和平装本。前者是在职场、社交场合给别人看的，浓妆艳抹，光彩照人；后者是在家里给最爱的人看的，换上家常服、睡衣，诉苦。婚姻中的丈夫往往只能看到妻子的平装本和别的女人的精装本。这是婚外恋的动机之一。 2．漂亮是女人的通行证——一句老话而已，也算颠扑不破的真理。明明是糖衣炮弹，最后也不见得赢得美人归，但就是死心塌地讨好她。而那些缺乏视觉效果的女子尽管有的明明是良药，因为苦口，男人常常下不了决心娶她。 3．婚姻是一把伞。有了它，风雨烈日时自然舒适无比，但更多平平淡淡的天气里，多了一把伞难免是累赘。 4．女人问“你爱我吗？”男人答“我喜欢你”。男人问“你为什么不接受我？”女人答“你能找到比我更好的”。——看来男女之间喜欢用近义词，不过是香蕉外面多加了一层皮，或者棉花里面藏着一根针。 5．妻子如衣服——流行如此变幻，衣服的开销日渐昂贵；男人没有一个好东西——但它毕竟是女人最大的买方市场。 6．相爱时，男人把女人比作星辰、飞鸟、天使等等与天空有关的事物；恩断情绝时，男人把天空据为己有，把爱过的女人放回到地面上去。 7．老夫老妻越长越像。有人说因为他们相爱。但医生说，起因是朝夕相处，饮食结构相同、作息规律同步。同一棵树上的树叶也是越长越像的。 8．大龄未婚男女像是坐巴士坐过了站。有时是因为巴士上的座位太舒适了，简直不愿下车；有时是因为不认识自己该下的站台。终身不结婚的男女呢？他们是巴士司机。 9．从青梅竹马能一直顺利地走到花前月下，简直是奇迹。就像当初打算从北京走路去广州，一路上总有诱惑的声音：“上车吧”。你的脚很难再一往无前。 10．我很忙——听到这句话时，父母担心的是孩子的身体健康；朋友心想这哥们儿事业有成；妻子马上觉得自己家务的担子重了；女朋友流泪了，她开始意识到自己在他心目中的位置不一定有他的事业重要，甚至简直就是一个分手的信号或借口。 11．一群人在讨论现代做什么事最冒险？登山、滑翔、极限运动……说什么的都有。其实，感情才是最大的冒险，而且在任何时代都如此。因为种种冒险行为大不了一死，但感情的折磨却让人生不如死。 12．示爱者是动物，被爱者是植物。如果爱被拒绝，离开的当然是动物，因为植物是不会生出脚来跑路的。 13．许美静有一首歌叫《你抽的烟》，写一个痴情女子跑遍小镇去买他抽的烟。电影《人在黄昏》里，女鬼站在梁家辉的身后问小店员：有ERE香烟吗？还有“手指淡淡烟草味道，记忆中爱的味道”。——为什么总是烟、而不是别的更能唤起女人的缅怀？只有一种解释：男人对香烟牌子的专一对应了女人对爱情的专一。 14．某人向牧师忏悔，他在二次世界大战时把一个人藏在家里，并且收他的房租。牧师安慰说这并无过错。可是，此人问道，我该不该告诉他战争已经结束了呢？——当我们相信爱情还在，可它毕竟过去了，而我们不愿面对现实，好像蒙在鼓里。问题是：谁在收我们的“房租”呢？ 15．先有爱后有性，先有性后有爱，就像先有蛋后有鸡，先有鸡后有蛋一样，很难说哪种是真理，哪种比另一种更高尚。 16．男人最大的秘密往往告诉红颜知己，不是同性、家人或妻子。当红颜知己成了妻子，她的这部分权力马上被取消了。这叫做有得有失。 17．许多唱情歌的歌手从未爱过，这是最可笑的事，也是最合乎常理的事。爱过就不会唱得这么陶醉了。 18．关系越深入越长久，关心就越来越具体，从雅到俗，从精神到肉体。热恋时她问他“你的心情靓不靓？”，结婚后她问他“这条鱼6块钱一斤贵不贵？”或者“你的痔疮好了没有？” 19．婚姻是键盘，太多秩序和规则；爱情是鼠标，一点就通。男人自比主机，内存最重要；女人好似显示器，一切都看得出来。 20．好女人是男人的学校。好女人却希望这个好学生永远不要毕业。 21．一未婚女子感叹：为什么成熟的男人、好男人全成了人家的老公，没结婚的男人没一个像样的？有人提醒她：妻子们培养好丈夫都是自产自销，没有男人能自学成材。 22．还记不记得大学或公园草坪上和树阴下的爱情？如今草坪换成了进口草皮，树也越来越少了。 23．摇滚歌手何勇唱过：找个女朋友，还是养条狗？今天这话该由金丝鸟来说了：傍个男朋友，同时养条狗。 24．男人往往把工作上的拍档与生活中的伴侣分得很清楚，所以，他会喜欢与女强人合作同时爱上温柔的女子，跟前者喝酒跟后者饮茶，所以，《堕落天使》里，杀手黎明跟李嘉欣拍档多年了仍是生意关系而对街女莫文蔚一遇钟情。 25．我很丑，可是我很温柔——今天的男人和女人一起改编了赵传的版本：我不完美，可是我很真实。也就是说，我不漂亮，可是我很酷；我不富有，可是我很快乐；我不成功，可是我很自信；我不多情，可是我懂得珍惜。 26．生日是一个舞台，一次考验，一个机会。恋爱时，男人更会利用这一点；结婚后，女人更会利用这一点。 27．电台里常有人点歌，希望爱着的那个人可能听到。听到的可能性极小，但居然每每有奇迹发生。有人说爱情是一场高烧，但说爱情是奇迹才确切。人生中再也没有比爱情典型的奇迹了，它能使人由丑变美，使别的不可能的事变得可能。 28．张小娴说：浪子回头，不是因你，而是他心已倦。就像瞌睡碰到了枕头，出门遇上了晴天。但加上“因为有你”几个字，足以令她充满成就感。 29．年轻时候，拍下许多照片，一本本摆在客厅给别人看；等到老了，方才明白照片是拍给自己看的。厚厚的一生的镜头摆在眼前，连写回忆录都省下了。 30．小时候把一次吃上30个包子当作人生理想时，我很幸福；当月收入5000之后，我仍然感觉不到快乐。当事业、爱情、家庭、金钱什么都不缺的时候，人们经常还缺一样东西——饥饿感。保有底限的欲望是幸福的。 31．目前香港人趋向晚婚，平均结婚年龄男性为30.9岁，女性为27.7岁。再怎么晚，还是男大女小的主结构。女人一方面享受着被呵护的感觉，一方面希望自己比他老得更慢。 32．不结婚也可以有爱有性，就像不结果实也能有春夏秋冬四季。但是，不结婚就分不到福利房。 33．有了自己的房子，未婚女子就像是凭空小了几岁，又有耐心慢慢地挑选爱人了。一男向一女征询意见：我们先租房子住，结了婚攒了钱再买房子吧？女答：那我还不如先租丈夫呢。 C&O 发表于 02:24 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 博弈怪论：老警察和小警察的对话 - 2003-06-15 02:17 警察困境——老警察和小警察的对话 朱中卿 两歹徒合伙作案，后被抓。一刚参加工作不久的小警察负责审讯，这是他首次审案。该怎么审呢？小警察想起了囚徒困境和非合作博弈，于是照葫芦画瓢，将两歹徒分别关在不同的房间里让他们不能互通消息，然后分别告诉他们：如果他们两人一人招供，则招供者释放，不招供者判10年，并另罚不招供者1万元奖励招供者；如果两人都招供，则各判5年；两人都不招供，则都释放。不料两歹徒竟不为所动，拒不招供。小警察束手无策，心中暗想：我怎么这么倒霉，初次审案就碰上这么两个变态，连“囚徒困境”的招数都不管用，这可如何是好？得，请教一下老警察吧！下面是他们的对话： 小警察：我今儿碰着两变态，他们拒不招供！ 老警察：歹徒不招供很正常啊，怎么能说是变态呢？ 小警察：我不是说他们不招供变态，而是说我使出了必杀技对他们都不管用，实属变态！ 老警察：必杀技？说来听听。。。 小警察：（如此这般。。。） 老警察听得忍不住笑：是谁告诉你这样歹徒就会招供的？ 小警察：书上说的，学者说的呀！囚徒困境，非合作博弈嘛！怎么你不知道？ 老警察：切！你听他们的！学者说的管用，那母猪也会上树！还囚徒困境哩，结果变成了警察困境不是？你也不想想，学者都能发现的问题，那一般人不早八辈子就发现了？连解决办法都早八辈子拿出来了。噢，对了，这个问题的解决办法，书上怎么说的？ 小警察：继续博弈呀！采用一报还一报的策略最终使合作蔚然成风。继续博弈和一报还一报就是这样。。。。。（小警察滔滔不绝）。 老警察已经笑的直不起腰：行了行了，别再说了！非合作博弈的解决办法居然是继续博弈、自然演进形成自发秩序，学者们的脑筋真是不同凡响。我问你，如果你是歹徒，你能容忍这种非合作导致坐牢的事情再次发生吗？你会为了达成学者的“自发”理想而将自己有限的生命投入到无限的风险中去吗？就算你会，你有那么长的命活到自发秩序产生的那一天吗？既然不能，那形成自发秩序要求的足够次数的连续博弈过程就总是半途而废，那岂不是永远处于非合作博弈之中？你，还有你的贼子贼孙，能受的了吗？！ 小警察无言以对。 老警察接着说：所以呀，歹徒就开始想办法了。非合作博弈无法容忍，非得合作才行。而合作靠大家自发自觉又无法作到，于是必须采用强制手段，也就是歹徒通过黑社会组织订立帮规对背叛同伙的行为实施严厉报复，通常是杀人啦，以此造成不合作行为的成本远高于收益，这就形成“强制合作博弈”。这种强制合作博弈的结果你也看到了，就是警察困境！ 怪不得哩！小警察高兴起来，转而又疑惑道：那我们警察就这么束手无策啦？ 老警察：当然不啦，我们又不是死的！歹徒能想办法，我们也能啊！而且办法还好多呢！比如歹徒是通过严厉报复威胁背叛者，那么我们就可以订立法律用更严厉的报复威胁报复者，让他们不敢去报复背叛者，这样歹徒就又敢于背叛同伙了，套用你的博弈论的说法这就可以叫“强制非合作博弈”！ 小警察：还有比杀人更严厉的报复？ 老警察：杀人也有好多种杀法呢，比如剥皮。。。。 小警察：啊！这太残忍了！ 老警察：是啊，政界的大人物也这么说。在对歹徒的仁慈和对无辜人的仁慈之间，他们总是选择前者，所以这个更严厉报复的办法只是一个理论上的办法，在实务当中用不了。至于我们实务中用的办法呢，就有点见不了光了。。。。不外乎就是使劲殴打歹徒或者连续审问歹徒，让他们眼前难熬顾不上以后。。。 小警察：闹了半天敢情你的办法就是刑讯逼供呀！ 老警察：这也是没有办法呀，没有光明正大的办法自然就会用上这些见不得光的办法了。。。 小警察：呵呵。。这个办法到是个管用的办法，自古以来用这个办法没有要不到的口供的。 老警察：那倒也未必！我们殴打歹徒，对歹徒来说这是外在。歹徒改变不了外在，他还可以改变内在呀！如果歹徒是个基督徒，你打他左脸，他又主动把右脸伸过来给你打却不觉得苦；如果是个佛教徒，你使劲打他他倒觉得你是在给他消业。。。如果是一只勇敢的海燕，它还会大喊一声：让暴风雨来的更猛烈些吧。。。。。 小警察笑得咯咯的：靠！你这不是抬杠嘛！ 老警察：这可不是抬杠，因为确实有无论怎么刑讯逼供也不招的，只不过很少而已。这种人就是用内在精神力量改变人性，虽然很难作到，但确实有作到的，所以也算一种办法。此外还有一种办法，那就是诉诸法律禁止、惩罚我们的刑讯逼供行为，歹徒现在常用这种办法对付我们，搞得我们不能再那么痛快的揍他们了。。。。这两种办法又产生“强制强制合作博弈”。 小警察：有意思，你可真有一套！ 老警察：那当然！比你看的书上说的那是强多了！从非合作博弈到强制合作博弈再到强制非合作博弈再到强制强制合作博弈，一层一层的向上演进，这才是真实的非合作博弈演进呢！ 小警察：还别说，你还真是开创了一个强制合作博弈的理论呢！ 老警察：倒也用不着这么抬举我，说我开创了几个新名词还行，说我开创了一个新理论那就是贪冒前人之功了。象上面说的这个囚徒的博弈演进就是前人早就玩了几千年的了，还有更大规模的我们人类全体参与的非合作博弈演进呢！我们人类活动最初是无组织的非合作博弈，大家觉得不行，于是就有社会组织出现，颁布和执行法律，规范人们的行为，这就演进到强制合作博弈。但由于经济和社会运行的问题导致很多人眼前日子难熬，顾不得法律的制裁，就类似于警察刑讯逼供导致歹徒顾不得未来的报复而选择招供一样，出现强制非合作博弈。后来老子、孔子、佛祖、耶酥、穆罕默德等人相继创立宗教，使我们人类的博弈演进达到强制强制合作博弈的层次。。。 小警察：宗教出现原来是一种博弈演进？ 老警察：那当然！你看看宗教都是什么时候出现的，宗教无一例外都是出现在人类社会处在危机状态的时候，也就是人类处在强制非合作博弈状态的时候。在这种时候大家你偷我抢，你杀我砍，你压迫我反抗，整个处在一个非合作状态，大家都苦不堪言，于是就有人开始想办法啦，而这个办法别无选择，只能是强制合作，更有效的强制合作。怎么才能更有效的强制合作呢，或者说原来的强制合作为什么效果不够呢？原来的强制合作是通过法律，而法律终归是有漏洞的，有立法和执法不公，有执法不力，总之是有漏网之鱼，这种漏网之鱼的存在就给人们以犯罪的侥幸心理，对此，宗教就说啦：天网恢恢，疏而不漏，意思就是说你别以为从人网里漏出去了就没事了，天网还在后面等着你呢！这就是更大的强制！原来的强制合作无效还有一个更主要的原因就是法律只是解决了禁止人们互相伤害的问题，而仅仅不互相伤害对人类社会是远远不够的，必须要互相帮助才行，宗教看到了这个根本问题，于是就说：行善助人的会进天堂，天堂如何之好，人世间的幸福名利之类与天堂的幸福根本无法比，意思就是：你行善助人，看上去眼前受损失了，可以后的收获大大的。如果你不听他的，坚持认为眼前的金钱呐幸福呀比未来的天堂更重要，那你就是“贪嗔痴”，你的下场就是“六道轮回”之类。如果你不但不助人，还害人，那你就会下地狱，地狱的刑罚之痛苦是人世无法想象的。总之，宗教的教义就是以天堂地狱等更大的奖罚来进行外在的强制合作，以人性的改变如清心寡欲四大皆空破除贪嗔痴之类来进行内在的强制合作，因为宗教并不替代法律，所以在人类博弈演进的整体层次上属于强制强制合作博弈。 小警察：照你的意思，宗教的目的就是让大家合作，而不是让大家去敬拜神？ 老警察：那当然！平白无故的干吗要去拜神？ 小警察：可如果我们不拜神神就要惩罚我们。。。。 老警察：我不去拜神神就要来惩罚我，那神不就成恶霸了嘛！ 小警察：可基督教是这么说的，耶和华经常因为人类不敬拜他而惩罚人类！ 老警察：耶和华不但要人敬拜他，还要人遵从他的律法。基督教说耶和华很严厉，正是为了增强律法的强制力，要大家合作。要大家敬拜神的目的是让大家遵从神的律法，宗教宗教，有神有教，神是手段，教是目的。 小警察：那你认为神是不存在的了？ 老警察：我也不能肯定呀！要说有神吧，我又没见过；要说没有神吧，又有人说见过。。。搞不清楚呀！ 小警察：我还是信神的，圣经上说了：神会惩罚那些不信神的人！而且你刚才也说了，只有信神才能遵守神的律法，才能实现强制合作。 老警察：呵呵，以为信神就能逃避神的惩罚？这个信神还要看怎么个信法，本来宗教要大家信奉神是要大家互助互爱，结果这些人放着正事不干一股脑跑去巴结神，起教堂建寺庙；本来宗教给了大家改过的机会，允许大家忏悔祷告放下屠刀立地成佛，结果这些人刚忏悔完又去犯罪，刚放下屠刀又拣起屠刀，把神当成傻瓜蛋来糊弄；本来神要大家和平共处不要争执，结果这些人自己争执不算还要打着神的旗号争执，把神当成萝卜白菜比来比去，比谁的神大谁的神真。。。。。。你说如果你是神的话，一个是打着你的旗号去做坏事的，另一个是自己去做坏事的，你会先惩罚哪一个？所以呀，我宁愿选择无神论，如果真的有神而神又要惩罚人类的话，肯定是先惩罚那些假信徒真叛徒，然后才轮到非信徒，而且非信徒还有一次放下屠刀立地成佛的机会。。。 小警察：哈哈，歪论歪论！不过听起来也有点道理。。 老警察：所以呀，也正是因为宗教的后续发展走了样，偏离了宗教设立者的本来目的，所以宗教出现最终没有实现人类的强制强制合作博弈。就象上面说的，宗教的强制力在于神，而对于神，有很多不信的，还有很多半信半疑的，信的里面还有很多不怕的，这个强制力就有限了！天堂地狱大家也没见过，耳听为虚眼见为实，不确定的利益得失的诱惑力敌不过确定的利益得失；天堂地狱属于来世，离我们太远，远水解不了近渴，未来的利益得失的诱惑力敌不过眼前的利益得失；改变人性、禁止欲望难度很大，修道如牛毛，成道如牛角，破除贪嗔痴的极少，仍然贪嗔痴的极多。。。总之宗教提供的强制力还满足不了实现合作博弈的需要。 小警察：那除了宗教我们还有别的办法实现强制强制合作博弈吗？ 老警察：有哇！宗教本质上是一套奖善惩恶的制度，只不过他是以神力为强制力的，这就可以启发我们建立以人力为强制力的类似制度。比如宗教是以天网来网住罪恶，到底网住了没有我们不知道，所以影响强制力，所以我们就可以完善修补人网，修补以后罪恶没那么容易漏网了，这就可以增强强制力；宗教所说的天堂地狱大家没见到，这影响吸引人们行善制止人们作恶的力度，所以我们就可以人造天堂和地狱，让行善者得到崇高的荣誉和地位，让作恶者受到严厉的惩罚，把没见到的变成见到，把不确定的变成确定，把来世的变成今世，这就增强强制力；至于宗教制度设计中的改变人性的部分，我们也可以通过教育达到类似效果。改变人性无法作到，适当克制还是可以作到的嘛！禁欲无法作到，不要纵欲还是可以作到的嘛！通过这样的设计，我们人类完全有可能达到强制强制合作博弈的状态，而且也只有通过人力才能达到这样的状态。要改变人的行为，其实只要人类自身的力量就够了，并不需要神力，而且神力也不一定管用。。太阳虽大，却无法把你提到空中，而两个人就可以把你抬起来了。。。。。再说了，上帝也需要休息呀，所以我们人类的问题还是要首先自己解决，不要过分依赖上帝，因为我们不知道他是不是在睡觉！ 小警察：哈哈！I服了U！ C&O 发表于 02:17 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——秀逗前年5月25日 - 2003-06-15 02:16 沙僧日记　林长治 秀逗前年5月25日 天，越来越热了。大家都还穿着长袍大褂，特别是大师兄，他一身的毛毛，看了都叫人起痱痱！师傅叫我把大家的衣服都改一改，改凉快一点。 于是，我把师傅的袈裟改成了沙滩装；把大师兄的虎皮裙改成了今夏流行的韩国露脐装；把二师兄的大褂改成了吊带装。 于是，大家走在路上都沉默…… C&O 发表于 02:16 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——郭靖（Ｉ）：宿舍成员 - 2003-06-15 02:10 此间的少年　江南 郭靖（Ｉ）：宿舍成员 “杨康，杨康，”郭靖在下铺敲上铺的床板，“起床起床，老丘的物化课。” 杨康在生物学院下的生物技术系，可是修化学的课程。 “靠！”杨康昏昏沉沉地骂了一声，他昨天晚上租了一本《射雕英雄传》，打了应急灯看到深夜，现在给他个枕头他随便在哪里都能睡。 “郭靖帮我答到，”杨康说，“我请你一只学五的鸡腿。” “可是……”郭靖犹豫着，“没准今天小测验，老丘上次说的。” 受杨康的影响，郭靖也开始管丘处机叫老丘。 “你帮我写一份不就完了么？”杨康挥挥手，“而且老丘就喜欢吓唬人，别听他逗你。” “好。”郭靖已经不穿蒙古袍子了，把一件黑夹克胡乱套在身上，慌慌张张跑了出去。 “喂，”杨康在上铺喊，“告诉他们，你一个人帮我写条子就可以了，别他妈的四五个杨康，老丘不是傻子。” 杨康人缘不错，丘处机以前的一次小测验里有六七个人冒充杨康帮他写了条子。丘处机一看六七个不同笔迹的杨康摆在自己面前，当天晚上就给完颜洪烈打了电话，杨康一个周末都被他老爹旁征博引地训斥。 现在有必要介绍一下杨康郭靖他们的宿舍成员。宿舍编号202，三张双层床一只书柜一只衣柜一张大桌子，此外就是六口活人。 老大是郭靖，所以一周七天打水郭靖要打两天，卫生检查郭靖是打扫的主力，连杨康的袜子有的时候都是郭靖收的——杨康老是忘记收，郭靖玩游戏的时候袜子就在他头顶上扫来扫去。 老二是令狐冲。因为杨康违反规定帮两个女生在男生宿舍的拿号窗口拿号，所以最终黄蓉和穆念慈一起被塞进了有空铺的女生宿舍，而后来拿号的令狐冲则被填进了郭靖他们屋。 老三是欧阳克，而老四是杨康。 老五是段誉。段誉从云南来的，读历史，人老实，追随郭靖打扫卫生最勤快的就是他。段誉的缺点，或者是特点，是有点花痴，经常从食堂打饭回来满嘴乐呵呵地说又在卖酱牛肉那边看见了好看的女生，上次在图书馆遇见的也是她云云。 老小则是林平之，林平之福建来的，也是化学系的。一大早就出去跑步锻炼身体了，“林平之看着也忒刻苦了！”杨康这么评价林平之。除了欧阳克，杨康也有点看不上林平之。 一大早除了林平之早就出了门，郭靖又炮弹一样射向了老化学楼的教室，剩下的四个都还懒在床上。 令狐冲在看报，《参考消息》。 “靠————”令狐冲拖着长长的尾音，“你们看报纸了么，政府就这个样子！” “靠！”杨康恶狠狠地骂道，“命苦不能怨政府，点背不要怪社会。包子皮厚和政府无关，早上睡觉莫谈国事。”令狐冲在广东长大的，老是把“报纸”和“包子”念混。 “为什么要给金国赔款？打就打，怕什么，不灭金国几次他还以为我们大宋没种呢……不过看政府这样，确实他妈的没种！哼！”令狐冲自说自话，“起床！” 说完他一个翻身爬起来，端着脸盆往水房去了。 段誉昨天晚上就着杨康的应急灯看张爱玲，也是困的时候，翻了个身又睡了。 欧阳克一早起来就坐在床上不知道和哪个女生打电话，声音柔软：“明天不行，明天我们英语四级模考，周末吧，周末我看我能不能找辆车，我们去王屋山，好像新开发了景点……哎呀，别生气，我是真的有事……好好说好好说，今天晚上我陪你去必胜客？……”幸亏欧阳克用自己的手机而从来不动宿舍的电话，否则杨康一定会被他的面霜气味熏死。 杨康被吵得再也睡不着，念叨着他的口头禅“烦”，气哼哼地爬起来刷牙去了。 C&O 发表于 02:10 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 何帆：每一个女孩都是囚徒 - 2003-06-13 04:34 何帆：每一个女孩都是囚徒 夏天到了，街上的女孩花枝招展，娉娉婷婷。这是一个让人的心情最愉快的季节。不知道大家是否同意我的意见：街上的漂亮女孩越来越多了。为什么女孩会越来越漂亮？我提出了几个假说：第一，营养水平和饮食结构的改善对于女孩的容貌不无裨益，所以随着人民生活水平的提高，漂亮女孩会越来越多；第二，人口流动性的提高使得女孩纷纷到大中城市找工作，因为她们在这里能够找到更好的个人发展机会，所以一个地区经济繁荣的程度和街上女孩的漂亮程度正相关；第三，观念的改变一方面使得女孩更加勇敢地展示自己的美丽，另一方面使得人们更加大胆地欣赏女孩的美丽。据说美丽在于发现，所以审美能力越强的人在街上看见的漂亮女孩越多。 还有最后一点我想单独拿出来说说。那就是女孩越来越懂得美化自己了。美化自己的方式很多：穿上时髦的衣服、精心地化妆、甚至去做美容手术等等。在预算约束条件下，女孩子的最优化问题就是选择能够使得自己的收益最大化的资产组合。谚语说：“贫家净扫地，贫女净梳头”。只要投入一定的要素(包括资本和人力资本)，女孩总能够使自己的容貌变得更加妩媚动人。 不过，这说的是女孩的绝对收益，即她现在的容貌与过去的容貌相比更加出色。如果考虑到相对收益，情况就会稍有不同。假定女孩多少都会有些虚荣心，她们都希望自己能够压倒群芳。假定一群女孩的容貌差别不大，都是豆蔻年华，这时候，如果其他的女孩都没有化妆，只有一个女孩化妆，比如她染了红指甲，那么这个女孩马上就会引起大家的注意，大家都会觉得她好看。别的女孩不甘落后，自然群起效仿，结果所有的女孩都染了红指甲。这时候，如果有个女孩还想出人头地，就必须想出新的点子，比如她抹了口红，这会让她在第二天出尽风头，但是别的女孩又会很快效仿，结果所有的女孩都抹了口红。数个回合下来，我们会发现所有的女孩都染了红指甲，所有的女孩都抹了口红，所有的女孩都搽了胭脂，所有的女孩都穿了吊带背心，但是，从相对收益的角度来看，没有一个女孩能够做得比所有的女孩都不化妆的时候更好。而且，或许女孩们都忽然对这种“军备竞赛”感到厌烦，可是给定别的女孩都还化妆，那个拒绝化妆的女孩会显得像个丑八怪，于是所有的女孩都只得继续化妆。这正是博弈论里常说的“囚徒困境”，每一个女孩都成了囚徒。 其实每一个经济学家和女孩一样，也都是囚徒。我想说的是为什么经济学家用的数学工具越来越复杂。尽管赞成经济学数理化的理由很多，也很可能说得在理，但是我还是比较喜欢我的有点社会学的解释。每个经济学家都想表现得比别人更聪明，这时候，有一个经济学家发现在论文中使用别人都不懂的数学一下子把别人镇住了。尤其是编辑不敢轻易地枪毙自己看不懂的论文，因为他们生怕别人知道他们看不懂。可是在真正聪明的数学家看来，经济学家使用的数学工具都是唬人的小儿科。这也是为什么别的经济学家很快也就学会原来看似艰深的数学工具的原因。于是想冒尖的经济学家只得去寻找更艰深的数学工具，但是只要他们找得到，别的学者很快也就能学得会。最后，经济学家用的数学越来越多，门外汉越来越对经济学一头雾水，经济学解释世界的能力却很难说有非常大的提高。厌倦了这种无聊的游戏，想在自己的论文中不用数学？给定别的经济学家都还在咬着铅笔头算数学题，那个不用数学的家伙会显得格外愚蠢，论文写出来连发表的机会都没有。 女孩和经济学家的例子有什么不同呢？女孩的竞争带来了正的外部性，她们的美丽让她们自己更加自信，也让我们的心情变得更加愉快。所以我们要鼓励她们继续竞争，继续做美丽的囚徒。经济学家的竞争带来了负的外部性，他们让整个社会对经济学的理解更加生疏，对经济学家的态度更加不友好，所以我们要鼓励他们合作，从明天起所有的经济学家都只能用白话文写作。 C&O 发表于 04:34 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 王建：海湾停战与美元贬值 - 2003-06-13 03:18 王建：海湾停战与美元贬值 中国宏观经济学会　王建 内容提要：海湾停战后美元出现贬值，这两个事件间有直接关系。美国原打算用战争手段制止国际资本流向欧洲和美元贬值，但是战争中出现了德、法、俄三国联盟，是俄罗斯站出来以军事力量护卫欧洲，而英国参战是想打软欧元后加入欧元，提高在欧元区中的地位，与美国打垮欧元的目标不同，也不愿跟随美国走上与核心欧洲对抗的道路，最后迫使美国不得不停止战争，所以美元贬值就是海湾停战后美国不得不面对的前景。美国目前主要是想用减税、增加对资本市场的货币供应和打击股市卖空行为这三个办法，实现美国资本市场与美元的“软着陆”，但是这些办法可能都不会奏效，这将迫使美国在海湾重启战端，而在下次海湾战争中，美欧直接冲突的可能性更大了。因此，我们不能认为天下太平了，而是要密切关注美国资本市场与美元的走势，关注美欧关系走势，做好必要的应对准备。 海湾停战后，国际社会中最引人注目的事件，除了SARS就是美元贬值。乍看上去，海湾停战与美元贬值似乎没有什么关系，其实不然，因为美国进行海湾战争的目的，是要解决自己的经济问题，但是目的没有达到，所以只有退回来，重新试图用经济办法，来解决用战争手段所没有解决的经济问题。美国如果有好的经济办法解决本国的经济难题，就用不着打这场战争，现在重新回到经济解决道路，是因为使用军事手段遇到了巨大障碍，但是，部署在伊拉克的15万地面部队没有撤，是为了观察美元贬值的效果，如果不成功，海湾地区的硝烟又会重新燃起。下面，我们分别来看海湾停战和美元贬值这两个问题。 战略佯动失败是海湾停战的原因 从美英军队在战争开始后前3周的艰难进攻，到十几万精锐的伊拉克共和国卫队突然消失，这次海湾战争留给了人们太多的悬念。如果说乌姆盖茨尔的几百名三流伊军士兵，能够在二周内成功抵抗住几千名拥有现代化武器的英军第七装甲旅的进攻，谁都很难相信，战争会以美军在巴格达市内没有遭遇任何象样的抵抗而结束。从战争结束后不断传出的消息看，伊拉克放弃抵抗是因为内部大量高级官员的倒戈，而巴格达市内根本就没有构筑象样的防御工事则说明，伊拉克的高层领导从一开始就有放弃抵抗的打算，那么这是否说明，美军在战前就已经拥有兵不血刃而占领伊拉克的能力？这场战争是否更是一场表演？ 历史上的许多悬案最终都不会有答案，我们还是从宏观的角度来看为什么会停战。我在今年1月26日文章“海湾战争与朝鲜半岛核危机的原因与前景分析”（后来有人把它改名为“美伊战争后的世界大战”，在网上流传）中指出，美国进行倒萨战争的目的是为了打击欧元，为此必须把战争时间拉长，并会扩散到海湾其他产油国家。而欧盟国家由于油路受阻，经济和欧元面临崩溃，有可能与美国发生正面冲突。4月3日，我在“再论倒萨战争的目的是打击欧元”一文中，又对美军在战争开始后所采取的战术进行了分析，论证美军这种背离以往成功战术，首先使用陆军的打法，是为了实现其拖长战争时间，锁住欧洲油路的目的需要。从这场战争前后的过程看，“核心欧洲”的领导人（主要指德、法）对美国“倒萨战争意在欧洲”的企图是有明显察觉的，所以已不似上次的科索沃战争那样，跟随美国去攻打南联盟，而是在战前，在联合国内外，充分运用外交手段反战。 但是对美国来说，这是一场不得不进行的战争，而且拥德、法所远远难以抗衡的军事力量，美国要动武，欧盟国家谁也挡不住。对欧洲的统一货币来说，除了缺少统一的财政政策，实际上更缺少军事支柱，这是美国敢于不把核心欧洲的意见放在眼里，不断动用军事手段打击欧元的原因。所以战争开始后德国总理施罗德不无悲伤的说，“要增加德国在世界的话语权，还得拥有国防实力”。但是战争出现了新变数，俄罗斯站了出来，从战前的一般性反战，变成坚定地与德、法站在一起，强烈要求美国停战，这样就出现了德、法、俄三国联盟。如果从短期看，美国的海湾战争会导致油价上涨，这对俄罗斯本来是好事，因为俄罗斯去年的石油出口已经超过沙特，成为世界第一，正是由于近年来的国际油价大涨和俄的石油出口量大增，使俄罗斯的经济得以摆脱长期以来的财政经济困境，但是俄罗斯看的是长远利益，就是融入欧洲的目标。从冷战时代与美国的长期争霸到1991年被迫退出，俄罗斯已经深刻认识到，以俄一国的力量，已不可能独占世界霸权，必须走联盟的道路才能使俄罗斯再次崛起。俄的人口和经济70%集中在欧洲地区，其长远利益必然是与欧洲诸大国结盟，因此普京上台后多次说，俄罗斯是欧洲国家，要融入欧洲。但是以俄前超级大国的地位和广大的国土与人口，如果融入欧洲，必然在核心欧洲中占有重要地位。欧盟目前的主要问题，是解决东扩和寻求政治统一，即在质和量这两个方面完成既定的整合目标，在经济与政治的整合任务完成以前接纳俄罗斯，显然不在德、法等国考虑之内。但美国的目的是要以战争手段打垮欧元，破坏欧洲的整合，而欧洲又显然缺乏与之抗衡的军事力量，普京正是把握住了这个机会，以俄罗斯前超级大国的军事实力保护欧洲，以此换取加速融入欧洲的机会，由此形成德、法、俄迅速靠拢的动因。 俄罗斯的常规武器系统虽然逊于美国，但在战略核武器方面却足以和美国抗衡，3月29日，俄战略火箭部队进行了白杨三号导弹的试射，以此显示实力，威慑美国，给德、法以信心，同时宣布将在海湾地区进行空前规模的海军演习，更明确其演习目标是打击海湾地区的“敌方航母”，以及保护“乌姆盖茨尔的石油终端”，又在高加索山脉和两伊边界伊朗一侧频有军事动作。法国扬言“要到海湾地区保护那里的油田”，德国则暗示要向海湾地区派遣维和部队，三国领导人还不断举行高峰会谈，警告美国“不要把战争扩大到其他地区”。这些情况都说明，美国以倒萨战争打击欧元的战略佯动计划已经“穿帮”，美国如果继续进行战争，特别是在占领伊拉克后再把战火燃烧到其他海湾国家，必然会演变为一场欧美之间的直接军事对抗。 俄罗斯站出来支持欧洲，这个因素可能是美国在战前没有充分估计到的。如果没有俄罗斯武力护欧的因素加入，核心欧洲就是已经察觉了美国的战略意图也是白搭，因为没有足够的军事实力制止美国的战争行为，结果就是美国顺利实现其战争目的，最终迫使核心欧洲接受其重组国际货币与资本市场的计划，但是战争演变到出现了德、法、俄三国联盟，美欧军事对抗有可能一触即发，美国就必须考虑其后果了。在战争后期不断传出美国国防部与国务院的争论，表面看似乎是媒体所报道的战后伊拉克领导人选之争，实际上更大的可能是美国政府内部“主战”与“主和”两派不同观点的分歧。主战派当然是以防长拉姆斯菲尔德为代表，认为即使有俄罗斯的军事力量加入，美军也可以打赢欧洲，主和派则以国务卿鲍威尔为代表，认为战争的目的不是打击欧洲而是打击欧元，如果战争演变成必须直接打击欧洲，美国也不会得到好处，还不如退回来用经济办法解决美国的问题。 说到这里，我们必须对虚拟资本主义时代帝国主义战争的特点稍加讨论。当世界资本主义处在物质产品生产阶段的时候，帝国主义战争的目的，是为了争夺物质产品的生产资源和销售市场，与此相对应的战争形式，必然是敌对国家之间面对面的直接军事冲突例如二战时期德国法西斯对欧洲的侵略，日本对中国的侵略等。但是在当代，资本主义经济的主体已经转移到虚拟经济形态，主要资本主义国家之间的利益矛盾，也随之转移到金融与货币利益方面，军事作为保护国家利益的最主要手段，其目标也发生了根本性变化，从过去是为了控制物质产品流向，转变成是为了控制国际资本流向。1999年在欧元刚刚出现时美国所主导的科索沃战争，与这次美国所进行的海湾战争，美国的战争目的都是为了挽救濒临崩溃的美国资本市场与美元，用战争手段造成欧洲经济的不安全，以打击国际资本为逃避美国金融风险而流向欧洲的势头。 战争目标的变化必然导致战争形式的变化，这主要表现在两个方面。首先是战场与被打击对象在空间上的相对分离。以前的帝国主义战争，被打击的对象国家就是战场，否则就不能达到摧毁敌方政权，夺取或保卫物质产品资源与市场的目的，因此战场与被打击的对象国家在空间上是统一的。然而，为争夺国际资本所进行的战争则与传统的战争形式不同，这是因为，主要资本主义国家都是国际资本的中心市场，国际资本的流动，主要是在这些中心市场地带流动。国际资本的主体虽然是虚拟形态，但毕竟与物质财富有着不可分割的联系，例如上市公司发行的股票，都是对应着发行股票的公司所拥有的物质资产。国际资本以价值形态可以在全球范围内流动，而其物质形态却会相对固定在某一特定国家，例如欧洲各国和日本的国际资本可以大规模流向美国，但是其厂房、矿山、机器设备、房地产、各类建筑设施，以及道路和桥梁乃至各种技术人才等，还是留在欧洲和日本，这就决定了为争夺国际资本而进行的战争，不能以摧毁和占领对方国家为目标，因为如果摧毁了对方国家的物质资产，价值形态的国际资本也将不复存在。所以，“资本流”战争与“物流”战争的本质不同，就在于战场与敌对国家在空间上的相对分离，打国际资本流向，不能打某一特定资本市场的所在国，只能打它的外围，只能通过外部经济因素和地缘政治因素等的改变，间接影响特定资本市场的投资环境以及投资人的判断，以此来影响国际资本的流向。美国发动科索沃战争与这次海湾战争，目的都是为了与欧洲争夺国际资本，但战场都是在欧洲国家以外，充分反映出打击物流与打击国际资本流战争的不同特点。 其次，为争夺国际资本所进行的战争更具有“表演”的性质，是打给国际资本持有人看的战争，是为了让他们从战争所爆发的地点和影响，来作出投资场所好与坏的明确判断，这样就不能使被打击的对象国进入与自己直接军事对抗状态，因为如果进入直接对抗状态，战争的规模以及地域范围就有可能不受控制，对国际资本的持有人来说，就很难判断到底是哪里更安全，国际资本的正常流通渠道也会被冻结敌方国家资产等战时措施所堵塞。所以，打击国际资本流的战争就具有战略与战术伪装的特点，上次的科索沃战争，美国是找了一个维护人权的借口，这次的海湾战争则是把打击欧元的目的隐藏在倒萨借口之后。 当然，这并不是说在虚拟资本主义阶段就不会爆发帝国主义国家间的直接冲突，如果战略伪装被对方识破，也会演变成与敌方国家的直接冲突，但只要战争的目的是争夺国际资本，起码对发动战争的国家来说，就会希望把战争的范围控制在资本市场中心国家以外。 对这次海湾战争来说，在美国的战略佯动计划失败后，美国仍然可以用打击其他海湾产油国，甚至是封锁海湾石油出口的办法直接威胁欧洲，因为这些军事行动仍然是在欧洲之外，但美国必须有战胜德、法、俄联盟，并且不使战争的规模与范围扩大的充分把握，美国对此显然还没有足够的计划与准备，这大概就是这场战争突然神秘结束的原因。 促使美国停战的另一个重要原因，是英国的态度。3月28日“两布”戴维营会谈后即开始传出美、英的立场有分歧，布莱尔在返回英国后也宣称，英国由于财政原因，将撤出大部分参战部队，只留下5000人，同时主动与德、法、俄领导人通电话和会晤，拉近关系。美、英分歧的根本之处在于，美国的目的是要打垮欧元，而英国的目的是要打软欧元，借此来提高英国加入欧元的要价。说到底英国是欧洲国家，英国的根本利益在欧洲大陆，英国的金融业主要是做欧洲人的生意，英国对欧盟的出口比重也在50%以上，英国之所以迟迟没有加入欧元，主要不是经济方面的原因，而是因为欧盟的领导权实际掌握在德、法手中，英国无法与其平起平坐。所以英国跟随美国参战的目的，是想让德、法充分认识英国作为欧美之间战略平衡筹码的力量，以争取加入欧元过程中更加有利的地位。在海湾停战后，布莱尔又是逼迫国内的反对派同意尽早进行加入欧元的全民公决，又是建议在欧盟设立主席或总统的职位，推动欧盟的政治统一进程，充分说明了英国的欧洲立场，甚至有舆论推测，布莱尔在总理卸任后，有可能出任第一任欧盟总统。 英、美虽然有根本的立场分歧，但出于各自的利益，还是联起手来进行了这场战争。英国可能在开始以为，战争的目的会象上次科索沃战争那样，止于打软欧元，美国当然也不会把自己的底牌全部交给英国，但是当出现美欧之间直接对抗前景的时候，美国想坚持强硬立场，不惜与德、法、俄正面冲突，但这不是英国的目的，而且英国继续参加海湾战争，就会被美国强行拖下水，因此在两布戴维营会谈中，布莱尔显得十分紧张、忧虑，面无笑容，显然是不愿与美国继续往前走，回国后则开始与核心欧洲修好，并摆出要从战争中抽身而去的架式。英国的立场和态度美国当然不能忽视，因为与德、法、俄的对抗可能成为美国一家的独脚戏，英国在美欧冲突中两不相帮还好，更糟糕的是英国最终可能也站到德、法、俄一边。 正是由于以上原因，在伊拉克继续打下去已经没有意义，因为美国已经很难通过战争得到他想要的东西，迅速结束战争就成更好的选择。4月4日，两布在北爱尔兰会谈，布莱尔满面春风，显然是因为美国作出了停战的决定。与此同时，美国国家安全顾问赖斯出现在莫斯科，西方有报纸披露，赖斯此行就是为了安排萨达姆的出走，这个情况，正好可以和美军4月9日未遇抵抗就顺利占领巴格达彼此印证。 美元贬值难救美国经济 此次海湾虽然以美军成功占领伊拉克而告终，但是美国的打垮欧元的战争目的没有达到，想通过战争手段解决的经济难题，不仅一个都没有解决，反而在战争期间更加恶化了。在美国宣布占领巴格达的当天，即4月9日，道琼斯指数不仅没有涨，反而下跌了101点，跌幅1·2%。战争结束了近两个月，美国的制造业开工指数仍在50%以下，失业率仍在6%以上，连股市泡沫破裂后一向成为美国经济增长支柱的建筑业开支，也已经连续3个月出现负增长，美元与欧元的汇率，则从开战前的1：1·08猛跌到目前的1：1·18，最低时甚至超过1：1·19。因此从这场战争的结果看，美国胜了也是败了，核心欧洲败了也是胜了。 为什么说美元贬值与海湾停战有关？就是因为在战前很长时间里，早就蕴积着促使美元贬值的巨大势能，美国发动这场战争的目的，就是要阻止国际资本大规模流向欧洲，因为这种流动的结果将是美元贬值和欧元升值。美国发动海湾战争，是由于已经没有经济手段可以阻止这种流动，但是战争手段没有收效，美元贬值就是势不可挡的结果。有人说，美元贬值是美国政府的主动行为，是因为5月中旬美国财长斯诺对允许美元贬值作出的暗示，但在他讲话后不久又重申了美国的强势美元政策，5月末以后，小布什总统又多次强调美国坚持强势美元政策，为什么美元还是持续跌势呢？显然，美元贬值是挡不住的国际经济潮流，美国在战争手段失灵后愿意也好，不愿意也罢，只能接受这个事实，而能做的事情，只是尽量化解美元贬值的不利影响。 关于美元贬值对美国经济的不利影响，我在去年所写的《警惕全球金融风暴》和前面提到的1月26日的文章都有过分析，简要来说，就是国际资本的大量流失，会导致美元贬值，同时使以美元计价的美国资产价格大幅度下跌，而美国资产的持有人，一般都是靠从银行借款来进行资本市场炒作，并把其资产作为对银行借贷的抵押品，如果资产价格大幅度下跌，借款人在银行的抵押品就会缩水，从而出现“资不抵债”的局面，对银行来说，就是出现坏帐损失。资产价格下跌的幅度越大，银行系统出现的坏帐额就越大，大到一定程度，就会出现金融系统运行的紊乱，以及对企业与个人贷款的深幅度紧缩，最后是美国资本市场、美元与美国经济的崩溃，引发金融风暴和长期经济萧条。所以，美国经济目前面临的主要矛盾，不是防止美元贬值，而是防止国际资本离开美国后资产泡沫的破裂，只要不出现美元资产价格的暴跌，美国的银行体系就不会出现大规模坏帐，就还能继续运行，美元也不会出现崩溃性前景，这就是美国的“主和”派主张回到经济轨道化解美国危机的道理。 从海湾停战以来美国的经济政策走向看，主要是围绕稳定美元资产价格水平而操作的。一条办法是减税，前些时候，美国国会刚刚通过了小布什总统的减税方案，根据小布什的要求，是减7500亿美元，国会给砍掉了一半。为什么减税是稳定资本市场的措施？因为主要是对资本市场的股息与利息所得减税。按照小布什的原方案，今年对美国居民与企业来自资本市场的股息与利息收入，要减半征收所得税，明年则全部免征，2005年仍免一半的税，现在让国会给砍掉一半，但减税的方向仍是主要作用于资本市场。难怪巴菲特、索罗斯和美国的民主党人都攻击小布什政府的减税方案是“援助富人的方案”。巴菲特还举例说，他公司的前台小姐，个人所得税要占到她收入的30%，而他本人今年只要交3%，因为政府给免掉了。 另一条办法是向资本市场“灌水”，即大量注入货币。虚拟经济的基础是信用货币，由于信用货币可以不受物质产品生产增长的限制而由中央银行“无限创造”，所以从理论上讲，只要国际资本离开美国多少，美国联储就补充进去多少，美国的资产价格水平就不会下跌，这就象一个蓄水的池子，那边被人捅开了个口子，在不断往外流水，这边只要有个不断往里面放水的龙头，水位就不会下降，如果放水的龙头开得大了，水面还会提高。2001年美国在发生9·11事件后，在两周内美国银行体系曾经迅速创造了超过1万亿美元的商业银行资金供给，从而挡住了美国股市的暴跌势头，美国这次又在旧法重为。我目前还得不到近期美国货币供应增长的具体数字，但是从现象看，美国联储肯定正在大规模向股市“灌水”。 现象之一是美国股市在海湾停战以来的上涨，是与美元贬值同时出现的，这与过去的规律不同，过去的规律是美元涨，美国股市就涨，美元跌，美国股市就跌，这反映了国际资本流动与资产价格的正常关系。从理论上讲，国际资本在短期内是一个常量，因此某一资本市场资本流量的增加，就意味着其他资本市场流量的减少。在供求法则作用下，国际资本所进入的市场，资产价格水平就会上涨，该市场所在国家的货币也会上涨，反之，资产价格水平与货币就会下跌。所以，一国的资本市场价格水平与货币汇率就具有同方向变动的特征。美国资本市场一向以来也是如此，过去10年美元的强势与美国股市的繁荣是同时发生的，目前出现的反规律变化，只能有一个解释，那就是在国际资本从美国流向欧洲，导致美元下跌和欧元上涨的同时，美国向本国的资本市场注入了新的资金，从而在美元下跌的时候，股市指数反而上升。 第二个现象，是在美国股市上涨的同时，美国的长期国债价格也上涨了，这反映为长期国债利率的下跌，5月中旬，美国长期国债利率水平已经下跌到45年来的最低点，这说明投资美国长期国债的资金也显著增加了。一般情况下，美国国债是美国资本市场的“避风港”，当投资人认为股市风险加大的时候，才会从股市撤出资金转投国债，所以美国股市与债市价格水平一般是呈反方向变化的，两者都大幅度上涨的情况很难同时发生。另据报导，5月份以来，美国大公司的领导人都在抛售自己所拥有的本公司股票，例如微软公司首席执行官史蒂夫·巴尔默、美国在线－时代华纳公司总裁特德·特纳、以及戴尔计算机公司董事长迈克尔·戴尔等，根据统计，5月份以来，大公司领导人和主要投资商买入与卖出股票的比例为1：3，这说明美国大公司的领导和主要的投资机构对今后一年内的美国股市并不看好。去年7月曾出现过一次大公司领导人抛售股票的高潮，当时买与卖的比例是1：4，导致美国标准普尔指数在一个半月内下跌了27%，而这次在5月出现抛售高峰，标准普尔指数却从5月1日的916点上冲到6月7日的1007点，目前的反常情况，只能说明在美国资本市场的一般投资人，仍然不看好美国股市的前景，把资金转投美国债市，美国股市的上涨，则另有资金渠道注入。 美国第三个办法是打击股市“卖空”行为。自5月中旬以来，美国证券交易委员会已经展开了对“卖空”行为的大规模调查。6月5日，美国著名女富商玛莎·斯图尔特已被美国证交委起诉到联邦法院，连同被起诉的还有她的证券经济人美林公司的有关人员，因为这个罪名，最长可判她入狱6～7年，美林公司的有关人员则可被判最长入狱25年。如果仅仅对卖出股票的行为进行重点调查，试问谁还敢轻易卖出股票呢？特别是在美国股市蔓延丑闻的情况下，打击“卖空”当然有利于美国股市价格水平的稳定。 美国目前所采取的经济手段是否能显著收效还得继续观察，但从总的趋势看，我认为还是难解美国的危机。首先，外国资本在美国资本市场上大约有3万亿美元之巨，在美国的国债中，外国资本占约40%，公司债中占约30%，股市市场中占约20%，如果这部分国外资本撤出，美国就要补入相应的资金。当国外资金撤出的时候，也会引发本国资金的向外转移，国际资本流与物流不一样，它只是电脑网络中的一个信号，在现代网络技术条件下，世界各大资本市场之间的资金调动，只需要0·6秒。国际投资人对投资方向的判断具有趋同性，不可能外国投资人认为美国资本市场不好，纷纷撤出资金，而美国本土的投资人就认为美国好，不把投资转向海外。如此来说，美国需要向美国资本市场补入的资金，就可能远远高于3万亿美元，因此，如果美国联储大量增发美元，可能会暂时维持住股市的点位，但也会诱发严重的通货膨胀和美元更加严重的贬值，美元贬值等同于美元资产价格的下跌，会造成美国国内外资本的新一轮抽逃，迫使美联储继续增大货币供应量，最后在资本外流、美元贬值、股市下跌和增发货币之间形成恶性循环。 其次，国内外投资人之所以对美国股市恐慌，对美元恐慌，根本原因是由于美国存在着巨大的贸易逆差，去年已接近5000亿美元，今年由于战争、减税、财政赤字扩大等原因，可能会增加到7000亿美元。过去美国是用向国外借钱来补这个窟窿，现在不仅没人愿意继续借钱给美国，以前借给美国人的钱还要抽走，在这种情况下，谁都不知道美国政府有什么办法来平衡巨大的贸易逆差。从道理上讲，借不来钱就只能减少进口，强制实行贸易平衡，但是美国的进口占国内物质产品总需求的25%，消费品则高达40%，先不说有无可能在短期内把如此巨大的国内需求压下来，仅仅说出要让美国居民的生活水平下降40%，就足以使美国的社会政治发生动乱，面对这个前景，国际资本当然不会有安全感。 在虚拟资本主义阶段，国际资本的主体也是由信用货币创造的虚拟资本，从这点来说，美国用增发货币的办法弥补资本外流缺口，只要还能保持住美元的购买力，只要美国主要的贸易逆差对象国还接受美元，巨大的贸易逆差就有办法平衡，就不失为是一条化解危机的途径。从目前看，美国的贸易逆差有近90%是对环太平洋地区，其中来自东亚地区的又占70个百分点上下，仅中国去年对美贸易顺差就超过1000亿美元，而美国对欧盟的贸易逆差仅占约5%。所以，只要东亚地区还接受美元，还继续购买美国的国债和其他金融资产，就是国际资本往欧洲跑了也没什么了不起。但是问题在于，东亚地区以购买金融资产的方式向世界提供净储蓄，目的是为了储蓄的保值与增值，如果出现了一个更强势的货币欧元，而美国即将发生严重通货膨胀，美元将一路贬下去，东亚地区凭什么还要继续持有美元资产而不转向欧元资产呢？今年日本7大主要银行连续报出发生严重亏损，主要原因之一，就是去年以来以美元计价的海外资产因美元贬值而发生亏损，日本总计1·75万亿美元的海外净资产，有一半是放在美国，去年总算帐就下跌了2·2%。去年以来，一直是美元对欧元跌，对日元也跌，今年还是美元对欧元跌，对日元也跌，但是日元对欧元也开始下跌，而且跌得很厉害，已经跌到欧元问世以来历史上的最低点，这说明日本为了减少海外资产损失，开始把美元形态的资产转换成欧元形态。日本总计有超过3万亿美元的海外资产，占发达国家全部海外资产的一半，日本海外资产去年下半年以来就出现了从美到欧的转移趋势，是去年7月份以后欧元对美元能够稳定在平价以上的重要原因，今年以来的加速转移，则是美元加速下滑的重要原因，中国等亚太地区国家，迟早也会象日本一样，出于对海外金融资产的经济安全考虑，减持美元资产而转向欧元，美元贬值的情况越厉害，转移的速度就会越快。所以，美国加快信用货币的创造速度，可以托住美国股市，却不可能保住美元的购买力，也无助于解决贸易逆差问题。 有人说美元贬值可以促进美国的出口，这个途径也可以平衡贸易逆差。从理论上说，本币贬值当然有促进出口的功效，可问题远没有那么简单。美国在二战后以一国之力，曾占有世界60%以上的制造业份额，然而曾几何时，已经衰落到只占目前的15%，这个变化，是由于美国国内产业工人的工资太高，制造业资本在国内的利润太薄，推动产业资本不断向海外转移，逐渐丧失了世界物质产品生产霸主的地位，也正是由于这个原因，美国经济才走上了虚拟经济的道路，因此现在想走回头路是根本没有可能的。自9·11以来，美国政府也出台了很多促进制造业增长的办法，包括用201条款对钢铁等产业的保护，但是收效甚微。近年来，美国的失业率不断上升，在失业人员中，超过一半是制造业工人。最近美国商务部刚刚公布了4月份的美国工厂订单增长率，公布前各方面的专家与机构预计可能会下跌1·5%，结果是下跌了2·9%，大出各方面的预料。实际上，美国政府对美元贬值能促进出口的前景也不抱有希望，而是把主要精力集中到保住美国资本市场的泡沫不破裂上。此外，美国如果是想通过美元贬值平衡贸易收支，就应该对美国的主要贸易逆差国家进行各种制裁，特别是对美国最大的贸易逆差国――中国施加各种压力，比如压迫人民币升值，但是在海湾停战以来，我们却听不到美国对东亚地区和中国的类似呼声，反而看到美国一再修好与中国的关系，这也说明，美国让美元贬值的重点并不在平衡贸易收支方面。 还有人说，美元贬值会打击欧洲经济，因为欧洲经济的外向度很高，欧元升值过于强烈，对本就处在经济萧条边缘的欧洲来说，也是一个沉重负担，如果欧洲经济由于美元贬值而步入萧条，国际资本就会再次流向美国，所以美元贬值是美国向欧洲发起的货币战争。但奇怪的是，欧元区12国财长刚刚开完会，对欧元目前强烈升值的态势竟然表示满意，认为并不会是欧洲经济增长的巨大障碍。为什么会如此呢？首先，欧盟各国虽然出口比重普遍较高，但有60%以上是欧盟国家的内部贸易，就是说欧盟国家的主体贸易可以用欧元结算，不会受到美元贬值影响。其他40%的出口，对北美地和东欧国家约各占10%，对发展中国家占15%，还有5%是对日本和其他地区的发达与发展中国家。东欧国家已经或正在争取加入欧盟，是未来欧元区的成员，也可以使用欧元结算，欧盟对发展中国家15个百分点的贸易中，只有5%是对习惯使用美元的东亚和太平洋地区，其他对地中海与西非地区的贸易，长期以来就是使用欧洲货币，所以，真正受美元贬值影响的出口，约只占欧盟全部出口的15%。其次，对欧盟主要国家来说，英国和西班牙都是长期的贸易逆差国家，法国与意大利的贸易顺差很小，只有德国的顺差最大，最依赖出口。但德国的贸易顺差也是80%来自欧盟内部，只有20%约200亿美元左右对外部，主要是美国，因此只要德国说没问题，欧盟其他成员都不会认为欧元升值对自己有太大影响。最近德国财长说，以1995年德国马克对美元汇率的最高点看，相当于欧元对美元1：2的水平，目前欧元的汇率还不到1；1·2，所以对德国经济不会有大影响，言外之意是欧元还有可上升空间。 当然，欧元升值对欧洲经济仍会产生很大影响，毕竟有15%的出口会因为欧元升值而受到打击，这部分出口大约在4000亿美元左右，相当于欧盟经济总量的4%。但是，这不等于4000亿美元的出口全都出不去，有的可能是真的出不去了，有的则是还能出口，只是利润会减少，而在另一方面，欧元升值给欧盟国家带来的利益则要大得多。目前世界各国共有2·2万亿美元的外汇储备，其中美元占了70%左右，欧元只有约10%，如果因为欧元升值，世界各国外汇储备的40%转换成欧元，就可以给欧元区国家带来超过5500亿欧元的外汇收益，国际资本转向欧元形态所带来的货币收益，更会远远大于外汇储备转向所带来的收益，这正是德、法等核心欧洲国家所期待的事情，标志着世界货币霸权从美国向欧洲的转移，所以即使欧元升值会对欧洲国家经济有所不利，但因为收益远远大于损失，欧洲国家也会坚持下去。 所以，美元贬值不是美国经济的药方，美国目前所采取的其他经济政策也只能有“饮鸩止渴”的功效，美国经济与美元最终还是要不断滑向崩溃的边缘。 警惕海湾战火重燃 5月31日当美元与欧元的比价迅速滑向1：1·2的时候，美国小布什总统重申，美国仍然坚持强势美元政策，由于这与两周前美国财长斯诺的讲话相互矛盾，许多评论家认为美国目前的经济政策含混不清。我看这并非是美国的经济政策含混不清，而是布什政府对美元的贬值也有一个底线。在这个底线之上，小布什政府希望通过美国资产价格与美元的有限度下跌，实现美国经济的“软着陆”，但是如果跌过这个底线，美国经济无可避免地走向危机，美国就会重新转向用战争手段化解经济危机的轨道。 实际上到目前为止，美国始终也没有彻底放弃用战争解决问题的选择，只是在使用战争手段达到目的难度加大的情况下，暂时试用经济解决办法，同时为经济办法一旦失灵后的军事解决创造新条件。 首先，美国目前只是从海湾地区撤回了航母和部分海军陆战队，而15万陆军部队则仍压在伊拉克。其次，美国对叙利亚和伊朗的指责一再升级，也是在为下次动手进行舆论准备。第三，也是更重要的一点，海湾停战后，美国对德、法、俄三国的态度是，拉拢俄国，冷淡德国，重点打击法国，这种外交政策，反映出美国试图分化瓦解三国联盟的企图。前面已经分析过，法、德等核心欧洲国家直到目前还没有考虑好如何处理俄罗斯回归欧洲的问题，而俄罗斯肯于同法、德站在一起，是希望借这个机会融入欧洲，如果法、德在这次海湾危机后不给俄罗斯一个肯定的答复，一旦冲突再起，俄罗斯是否会象上次一样坚定地支持欧洲就很难说。海湾停战后，俄罗斯给核心欧洲开出的加码其实也不高，并不是要求立即加入欧盟，而只是提出要求俄罗斯公民进入欧盟国家可以拥有免签证待遇，实际上就是要一个欧洲人的身份，其他问题可以放在以后再说，但目前核心欧洲还没有作出答复。美国在海湾停战，说是由于三国联盟的出现，其实主要是美国对俄罗斯坚定地站出来以武力支持欧洲缺乏充分估计，然而三国联盟的出现，本就是美国这个外部压力的产物，外部压力减小之后，联盟的基础也不牢固，就有了美国的可乘之机。所以，如果美国的外交努力能使核心欧洲与俄罗斯的关系出现裂痕，美国就有了重开战争后对欧洲战而胜之的关键把握。 美国重启战端，可能会在美元与欧元的比值接近1：1·5，和道指击穿5000点的时候。欧洲资本大举进入美国市场是在1995年以后的事，当时道指的点位是在4000点以下，对比目前接近9000点，欧洲资本已有足够的获利空间，完全有可能在道指跌破5000点以前撤出，如果发生这样的情况，美元对欧元也肯定会跌破1·5的水平。发生这种情况，可能还需要几个月，甚至是一年，但总的走势是美股、美元跌，欧股、欧元涨，美国则会在美国资本市场与美元濒临崩溃之前，再次发动战争。 美国重启海湾战端，很可能动用地面部队占领叙利亚，以打通“中东走廊”，取得对海湾油路实施长期控制的稳定基地，但对伊朗、利比亚等国则不见得进行武力占领，而很可能对这些国家扣上什么罪名，实行海上封锁和石油禁运，以此威胁欧洲经济。如果是这个前景，再次爆发海湾战争，美欧之间直接军事冲突的可能性会比上次大得多。 目前国际社会的主要矛盾，是美欧之间的金融与货币利益矛盾，这场冲突不会直接影响到东亚和中国，美欧双方反而都会加紧与东亚和中国搞好关系，特别是美国，一向以来对中国的各种政治与经济压力都会减轻，是中国和东亚诸国家与地区加快区域经济与政治整合的良好时机。美国所进行的下一次海湾战争，出现也好，不出现也好，都对东亚地区的区域整合有利。如果爆发战争，美欧的经济实力都会受到削弱，东亚地区则相对崛起。不爆发新的战争，美国则不可避免地要陷入金融风暴，结果是退回北美一隅，成为地区性大国，世界将进入北美、欧洲和东亚三大经济区域鼎足而立的新时代。 自去年初以来，美元对欧元已下跌近30%。中国国家外汇储备目前可能已接近3500亿美元，再加居民与企业外汇存款，中国所拥有的外汇储蓄可能已接近5000亿美元。以三分之二为美元形态估计，汇率损失可能已超过800亿美元，选择新的外汇储蓄对策，不管对中国政府还是民间来说，都已是燃眉之急。如果出现美欧之间的直接对抗局面，国际资本的正常流通渠道与秩序都会被打乱，因此很难说是美元涨还是欧元涨，但是如果有战争的可能，各种战略物资都会出现紧缺，倒是应当更多的消耗一些外汇储备进口紧缺物资，而不能认为天下太平，放松了建立国家战略储备的工作。 此外，欧美冲突会使国际资本加紧流向东亚地区避险，这对中国扩大利用外资规模有好处，也应准备好有关对策。 2003年6月9日 （中宏网） 中宏网 C&O 发表于 03:18 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 Bush's joke - 2003-06-13 03:12 Bush's joke　（转贴） Bush got something wrong with his brain. After medical examination, doctor tells him: Your brain has two parts: one is left, and another is right. Your left brain has nothing right, Your right brain has nothing left. C&O 发表于 03:12 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 爆笑英文版三字经 - 2003-06-13 03:08 爆笑英文版三字经　（转贴） 人之初：At the begining of life. 性本善：Sex is good. 性相近：Basically,all the sex are same. 习相远：But it depends on how the way you do it. 苟不教：If you do not practise all the time. 性乃迁：Sex will leave you.. 教之道：The way of learning it 贵以专：is very important to make love with only one person. 昔孟母：Once a great mother, Mrs Meng 择邻处：chose her neighbour to avoid bad sex influence. 子不学：If you don't study hard, 断机杼：Your Dick will become useless. 窦燕山：Dou, the Famous 有义方：owned a very effective exciting medicine 教五子：All his five son took it 名俱扬：and their sexual ability were well-kown. 养不教：If your children don't know how to do it, 父之过：It is all your fault. 教不严：If they had lots of problems with it, 师之惰：their teach must be too lazy to tell them details on sex. 子不学：You may refuse to study this 非所宜：but that is a real mistake 幼不学：If you don't learn it in childhood, 老何为：you will lose your ability when aged 玉不琢：If you don't exercise your dick, 不成器：It won't become hard and strong. 人不学：If you don't learn sex, 不知义：You can by no means enjoy its sweetness C&O 发表于 03:08 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 男人不成熟的标志 - 2003-06-13 01:48 男人不成熟的标志　（转贴） 1．跟知己上床 2．跟网友见面 3．和情人结婚 4．把爱好当成职业 5．把同事当成朋友 6．到朋友的公司打工 7．在上司面前知无不言 8．轻信上司的许诺 9．喜怒哀乐都挂在脸上 10．在人堆里大声讲手机 11．头发油光可鉴，皮鞋却满是灰尘 12．不会给自己找借口或是习惯于给自己找借口 13．相信仅靠努力不靠运气和机遇就可以成功或是相反 14．总是幻想一夜暴富或是从不相信奇迹 15．自作多情，别人礼貌地夸上一句就晕菜 16．超车过去，看开着车有着窈窕背影的MM的脸 17．对MM的新衣服和新发型视而不见 18．始终学不会艺术地恭维MM 19．小心翼翼地问MM："我可以吻你吗？" 20．在感兴趣的MM面前吹嘘自己的魅力和艳遇 21．迷恋网络游戏和网上聊天 22．对MM的"不"字信以为真 23．介绍才结识的漂亮MM与英俊的光棍朋友相识 24．向老婆坦白从前的感情经历 25．介绍老情人和老婆交朋友 26．没有私房钱或是被老婆发现私房钱 27．在网络中期待一夜情 28．靠抽烟来提升形像 29．大领带，衬衫里面露出内衣领子 30．喜欢染头发 31．开口闭口小资 32．模仿F4 33．14岁的时候不是理想主义者而40岁还是理想主义者 34．听不懂英文歌却喜欢买外国CD，对于中国原创的装做没有兴趣 35．不知道罗大佑和蔡琴 36．总是喜欢嘲笑上海男人 37．总是在网上辱骂别人 C&O 发表于 01:48 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——秀逗前年5月20日 - 2003-06-13 01:45 沙僧日记　林长治 秀逗前年5月20日 今天晚上，我们师徒四人在一古刹中歇息。 在微弱的烛光下我们谈古论今，说着说着就说到了女人上。大师兄托着下巴，望着佛像若有所思地问师傅：“师傅，记得你曾说过：空即是色，色即是空。那你给我起个法号叫‘悟空’，也就是‘悟色’的意思了？唉！现在想‘空’一下！” 师傅喝了口茶，慢吞吞地说：“大家再忍耐一下吧，到了天竺……” 八戒抢过来说：“到了天竺又能怎样？成了正果就有得忍了”。 当时我没出声，心想：二师兄长得那个样，就算不入佛门也得忍一辈子了！ 让我没想到的是，师傅表态说：“我不会忍一辈子的！毕竟有那么多妹妹对我垂涎欲滴，特别是那个琵琶精，上次差点被她得逞，哼！多亏我坚持原则，阿门！” 大师兄问二师兄：”八戒，谈谈你对爱情的看法。“ 二师兄说：“爱情就像一条小船，她在船头，我在船尾。我摇着浆，小船在静静的撒满金色夕阳的湖上向幸福的彼岸驶去……” 二师兄果然是一个生性浪漫的猪，说出的话都那么有诗意。整个晚上我一直保持沉默，大家都夸我心如止水，将来定能成佛。我才不稀罕呢，成佛有什么好？还是当妖精好，想干什么就干什么，特别是可以三妻六妾……真令人神往啊！……好！就这么定了。 C&O 发表于 01:45 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——相逢：令狐冲登场 - 2003-06-13 01:41 此间的少年　江南 相逢：令狐冲登场 这时候令狐冲登场了。 他甫一亮相的姿态非常狼狈，不但被人挤得晕头转向，而且500度的深度近视眼镜只有一条腿挂在耳朵上。令狐冲也是拖着行李在人群中艰难地挣扎了半个小时，只差一步就要蹭到国政的报到处前。此时的令狐冲不会想到他会是日后汴大校园里名动一时的人物，事实上汴大为数众多的英雄人物也是和普通人一样混在报到的人流中悄然登场的。 黄蓉一把抓住过路的令狐冲：“同学，知道化学系报到怎么走？” 令狐冲的眼镜就在这么一拉一扯间不见了，他眼前忽然是一片充满朦胧美的世界。令狐冲习惯性地推了推自己已经不存在的眼镜，操着一口陕西和广东的混合腔发火了：“同学，不要拉拉扯扯好不好？” 伴随着这声怒吼，令狐冲很用力地挥舞着自己的胳膊。不过那胳膊也只略比擀面杖粗一点，并无什么威慑力。 黄蓉只好讪讪地把手拿了回来，此时郭靖走到了黄蓉的前面。本来令狐冲并不准备老拳相向而仅仅舔了舔干燥的嘴唇准备来一场君子战争，不过郭靖这个不动脑子的家伙及时抓住了令狐冲的两条胳膊，非常诚恳地说同学对不起，你没事吧。可怜的令狐冲顿时感到两只胳膊被掰往左右，仿佛基督被吊在十字架上，根本没有反抗的余地。令狐冲素来是吃软不吃硬的人，所以他决定给这个蒙古小子看看大宋朝的颜色，而事实是，在人群里挤压了两个小时的怒气终于爆发了出来。 “拉什么拉，老子怕你啊？”令狐冲胳膊肘使劲捣向了郭靖的胸口。 “真够生猛的。”乔峰摇了摇头，上去几步，从背后抓住了令狐冲的领子。 此时郭靖和令狐冲已经揪成了一团，而黄蓉很狡诈地在令狐冲背后推了一把，令狐冲已经处于困兽犹斗的境地了，不过招式大开大阖，看起来凶狠更甚。拳脚无情，旁边的人都顾着自己闪开了。 “拉什么拉？拉什么拉？”令狐冲看不清楚后面的人，只是狠狠地用肩膀往后面撞了过去。 “够狠。”乔峰笑着。空手道三流高手黄蓉终于看见了所谓无招胜有招的境界，乔峰一把拧住了令狐冲的上臂，似乎只是轻松地一扯，令狐冲完全失去重心摔倒在地上。 侯通海队长和他的校警队风风火火地赶来，三个人一起被拎到了派出所。 令狐冲觉得整个学校都在欺负自己，先是有一个蒙古新生随便扯他，然后是他和他的女朋友殴打自己，在自己处于下风的时候，竟然还有一个出来帮手的。最不可思议的是，这个校警队的领导分明是个无法理解事实真相的白痴。 按道理说，伶牙俐齿令狐冲也不是不如黄蓉，可是他的陕西加广东腔实在把校警折腾傻了。他这个人有点容易冲动，平时说话平静有条理，一急就脸红脖子粗的。而且黄蓉是女生，侯通海当然不会傻到相信黄蓉这种女生会无辜拉扯殴打令狐冲，所以最后占优势的是黄蓉。 至于郭靖，他说话也说不清楚，本该是最倒霉的。好在有一件事情救了他，他是蒙古学生，校警考量再三，觉得应该照顾蒙古同学的习惯——“人家民风粗犷，有尚武习俗”，侯通海是这么总结的。 结局是郭靖和黄蓉被放了出去，可怜的令狐冲却给留下来训话。 派出所外，郭靖不解地看着黄蓉，黄蓉小鼻子里“哼”的一声。郭靖只好推车和黄蓉一起走了。 当郭靖和黄蓉都在自己系里报到完了赶到三角地拿宿舍号的时候，排队的人群达到了空前繁荣。 郭靖看到这个情形脑袋嗡的一声就大了，他根本找不到队尾。原来那条长队竟然已经曲成了一条盘龙，队尾缩在中央。黄蓉的第一个念头则是想办法插队或者找一个人帮她拿号。仅仅晚了一脚的欧阳克正在犹豫着是不是应该主动上去帮黄蓉拿号，黄蓉已经先看见了他。 “欧阳克？”黄蓉露出可爱的笑容和小虎牙喊欧阳克。 “郭靖啊？”此时杨康已经帮穆念慈蹬完了三轮跑回来了。和他预计相反，拿号的人不但没少反而更多了。杨康皱了皱眉头，就看见了蒙古傻小子。 “杨康？”郭靖很高兴。 “又扩召了，”杨康不耐烦地耸耸肩膀，“人怎么多成这德性了。” “我去排队吧，”郭靖说，“要是行我就帮你们拿号。” 郭靖这番话大大刺激了杨康的自尊心，他本来准备和郭靖打个招呼就溜过去的，现在看起来如果他不表现一下，会显得他很没有郭靖够爽快。而且拿号在他本来是小事一桩。 “得，我从后门去给老师说一声，”杨康懒懒地靠在电线杆旁边，做出蛮不在乎的样子说，“你们几个要是怕排队我就顺便帮你们拿一下，不过那样我们号连着可能要住一个屋了。” 第一个把单子放到杨康手里的竟然是黄蓉，杨康无可奈何地看着她说：“同学，虽然我也很欢迎你和我们住一个屋，不过楼长其实还没有那么老花眼……” “唉，拿了再说，反正分配的时候女生和男生是分开的。”黄蓉大大的狡猾，这种事情的程序她一想就明白了。 欧阳克几乎是想也没想就把自己的单子放在黄蓉的单子上了。杨康有点不高兴，他本来准备帮帮郭靖的，结果这些人不知道都是从哪个角落里窜出来的。帮黄蓉还说得过去，帮欧阳克这个小奶油杨康就觉得很不爽了。不过他毕竟是杨康，也懒得说什么。 “谢谢，谢谢了。”郭靖也把单子给了杨康。 杨康就这样开了一次小小的后门，直接从办公室老师那里拿到了宿舍号。这个后门打开的时候，我们的郭靖杨康们注定会在未来的四年中遇见一些人和错过一些人。如果没有杨康这次“急公好义”的举动，那么郭靖应该会在一个完全不同的宿舍中度过他的大学四年，他的一生都会因为这不一样的四年而不同。 所以杨康从报名处的后门窜进去的时候，命运很多扇门中的一扇也悄悄打开了，走进去的时候，所有人都茫然不觉。 最后杨康帮着拿号的是四个人——穆念慈、郭靖、欧阳克、黄蓉。五个连续的号码决定了他们在汴京大学四年的生活被一根看不见的丝线连在了一起，有的时候这种联系让他们快乐，有的时候则让他们恼火。 那个心情如云起云落的少年时代…… C&O 发表于 01:41 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 令人大开眼界的标语 - 2003-06-08 13:01 令人大开眼界的标语　（转贴） 中国的标语文化到底发源于何时何地，恐怕无从考证，但18世纪以来，特别是新中国建立后，有星火燎原之势，时至今日仍然方兴未艾。随着经济挂帅，基本诉求已经改变，政治标语减少了许多，不过仍然有一些标语故事令人大开眼界。 ★★当年错批了一个马老，便导致了中国关于计划生育标语的数量和"质量"都令人侧目： ·例如湖南某地的"超生就扎！"，好一个干脆决绝的极左口号。 ·但比起云南楚雄某农村的"一人超生，全村结扎！"就算不了什么了。 ·河南的国道上有条绝对经典："一人结扎，全家光荣"，眼前仿佛浮现出一幕：放鞭炮、骑大马、戴红花，逢人便趾高气昂地宣布："俺结扎啦！快来俺家喝酒吧！"。 ·河南某乡路边的农舍上用白漆刷着："该扎不扎，见了就抓。" ·某地倒有点重女轻男："女扎要得病，男扎还能行！" ·在浙源至理坑的路上一小村庄："国家兴旺，匹夫有责；计划生育，丈夫有责。"这说明那里的主要障碍在男方。 ·在江西婺原见到的："见证怀孕，持证生育！" ·山东某农村计划生育口号："能引地引出来，能流地流出来，坚决不能生下来。" ·旁边还有一条："普及一胎，控制二胎，消灭三胎。" ·山东菏泽的计划生育："宁可家破，不可国亡。" ·河南某县："宁添十座坟，不添一个人。" ·河南农村多处可见："宁可血流成河，不准超生一个。" ·湖南某县的生育计划标语："谁不实行计划生育，就叫他家破人亡。" ·四川某山村："一胎生，二胎扎，三胎四胎--刮！刮！刮！" ·广西前往德天瀑布的路上有条更狠："一胎环，二胎扎，三胎四胎杀杀杀！" ·在河南更有邪门的，叫做："该扎不扎，房倒屋塌；该流不流，扒房牵牛。"，足见那里的计生工作之艰难。 ·某地估计计划生育阻力较大，有关部门便刷了条标语："喝药不夺瓶，上吊就给绳。" ·湖北阳新地区的计划生育标语也很形象很彪悍："通不通，三分钟；再不通，龙卷风！ " ·安徽某地："坚决打击流产女婴！"好一条中国特色的标语。 ·贵州倒是婉转温柔："朋友，你计划生育了吗？" ·北京某远郊区："少生孩子多种树，少生孩子多养猪！" ·在山西看到的版本是："山区人民要想富，少生孩子多种树。" ·最绝的是东三省：农村想不穷，少生孩子养狗熊。" ·湖南某乡政府："结贫穷的扎，上致富的环。" ·湖北某火葬场门口："经济搞上去，人口降下来。" ★★其次我们不得不说到法制，有不少也让人哭笑不得： ·在河北看到一条标语："武装抗税是非法行为。"，它意思似乎是说，和平抗税是合法的。 ·汪口的一面墙上张牙舞爪用红色油漆写着几个飘逸大字："谁烧山，谁坐牢！" ·这是在贵州的施秉看到的，也挺经典的："放火烧山，牢底坐穿。" ·在河南永城看到一标语："不怕死的就到十八里乡来作案！"够直白！ ·安徽亳州向南的公路上一条标语："私设路障违法，拦路抢劫判刑。" ·在铁路上看到的："横卧铁轨，不死也要负上法律责任。"真是经典。 ·某电厂门口大红字标语更绝："严禁触摸电线，5万伏高压，一触即死，违者法办！" ·在河南的国道上看见的超劲爆的一条："抢劫警车是违法的！"类似的还有"不得袭击警车！"。 ·十年前过湖南衡阳，车窗外闪过如下标语："坚决打击挑脚筋！"看得人浑身发毛，不寒而栗。 ·有条保护光缆的："偷割光缆，讨死！" ·江西某地就似乎没有这么粗俗："光缆无铜，偷盗有罪。" ·在山东看到的标语："光缆不含铜，偷盗要判刑！" ·有个最最消极的："光纤没铜，偷也没用。"没有铜，大概也应该有点别的什么金属，也能卖钱，真是爆笑至极！ ·在浙江一座尼姑庵的墙外，写着："偷税漏税，来世罚作尼姑。"，姑且不说对出家人的侮辱，至少我看到尼姑，就觉得她们身上都藏着前世带来的钱财。 ★★再来看看其他的吧，其实，一些看似平常的标语也容易产生"笑”果： ·安徽，归还农业贷款的标语："人死债不烂，父债子来还！” ·去黑龙江，估计当地招商引资有困难，看到："谁侵犯投资者，谁就是人民的罪人。 ” ·证券公司标语："教育投资者！” ·河北某地："不娶文盲妻，不嫁文盲汉！” ·普及义务教育："养女不读书，不如养头猪！养儿不读书，就象养头驴！” ·贵州铜仁，在去梵净山的路上一个屠宰场的标语："以三个代表指导我们的屠宰工作！” ·厦门鼓浪屿附近招揽至金门之观光码头旁："违法越界观光，小心枪弹扫光。” ·农村信用社："农村信用社是老百性生活的贴心人。” ·山东省济宁市至汶上县公路旁某乡镇巨型横幅："集体上访违法、越级上访可耻！” 愚民已到了令人发指的地步。 ·更绝的是重庆人和镇一配种场的标语：人和良种猪配种场。 ·贫困县的基层班干部标语："我们的工作重点是管好两个口，填上面的口，堵下面的口” ·某地领导的口号是："你们要淡薄名利，要加强廉政建设。” ·重庆巫山县路口："外地车辆在巫山境内一般不被处罚。” ·国人对"要致富，快修路。”应该耳熟能详，但在河南某铁路沿线被人改得极其反动"要致富，偷铁路！” ·单位司机班门口："马达一响，集中思想，车轮一动，想到群众。” ·上海浦东新区浦东大道两侧的旗帜："垃圾分类，从我做起！”自己倒先成垃圾了！ ·动物园标语："保护野生动物就是保护我们自己！”成动物总比成垃圾好。 ·某养殖场："敬爱的各界群众，请携带你们的发情母牛前来配种。” ·路边小店："吃饭补胎。” ·广东南海市盐步镇内衣厂很多，产品畅销全世界。有段时间在镇政府围墙上刷了一条标语："发展内衣制造业是我们的基本国策！”，真是语不惊人誓不休！ ·南宁一草坪立有一牌子： 第一行写："开展创造” 第二行写："性的活动” ·一拐角处用白粉刷的标语："投案自首是犯罪”，大吃一惊，拐弯过去接着写道：" 份子的唯一出路” ·另个经典的是上面写："群众有困”下面是："难找警察”，我想意思大概是：群众有困的时候，很难找到警察！ ·十五大后提出若干口号，据说某地将标语挂在公路上之后有如此效果……"高举邓小平理论伟大旗帜！”，旁边路牌："限高5.6米”；"紧密地团结在以同志为核心的党中央的周围！”，旁边路牌："请保持距离”；"加快改革开放步伐！”，旁边路牌："限速80公里/小时”；"沿着有中国特色的社会主义道路走下去”，旁边路牌："此处可调头” 。 ★★除了这些奇怪的口号，那些我们司空见惯的标语，倘若细想起来，也往往问题甚多： ·建筑工地上常见这样的标语："大干天，工程提前完！”不知道非要把有严格施工标准的工程提前"完”的这个"完”是"完成”呢？还是"完蛋”？ ·比如十字路口写着："红灯时请您停车。”，但我想假如一个人连红灯都不在意的话，这个口号他更是不屑一顾了。 ·公共厕所里写着："请您便溺入池"。我不懂一个人即然已经花钱进了公共厕所，为什么还要在里面随地便溺。 ·倒是一所大学的厕所里一条外国留学生写的标语让我觉得格外触目："中国同学，请你便后冲水！" ………… ★★大家以后出门旅行路上尽可留心些，可以收集到好多精彩的标语。城市的高速公路边，县镇的护栏电杆上，乡村的颓墙矮坝旁……大字标语代代传，最初是"农业学大寨”、"批林批孔”；后来的"结扎上环”、"改革开放”；现在是"两岸统一”、"三个代表” ……我们国家这么多年来的酸甜苦辣、风雨历程都写在这标语里了。我不禁要振臂高呼"标语万岁！”说不定日后历史学家编写《中国标语史》的时候便也能勉强占个一席之地，哈哈。 C&O 发表于 13:01 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 爱情诗一首 - 2003-06-08 12:54 爱情诗一首 （转贴） 怒 何故 昨日暮 不意见她 把纤纤玉手 交那衰人牵住 盈盈笑语左右顾 神采飞扬凌波微步 美眸中一片深情倾注 似前年与我同在湖畔路 也这般附耳交颐低语轻诉 如今见我头也不点形同陌路 我发现自己旧情难忘六神无主 两眼痴呆两腿生根心内如被汤煮 象我这么优秀的男子她却总嫌我土 那土鳖相貌恶心行止委琐她爱他粗鲁 女孩子搞不清她想什么我越琢磨越添堵 明知道她与自己不合适想忘记她另起灶炉 到头来都只能是剪不断理还乱最终于事无补 兄弟我长这么大从来没怕过谁却栽给了这个主 看来是上辈子欠她很多钱早知如此就不该和她赌 碰上她算我倒霉下次说什么也得找个温柔姑娘相处 总算明白这世上漂亮不能当饭吃往往还让你难堪重负 从现在起踏踏实实勤勤恳恳谦虚谨慎待人有礼爱护公物 切记过马路左右看要走人行横道线要想富少生孩子多种树 化悲痛为力量一边努力学习一边时刻准备着开发祖国大西部 大丈夫何患无妻没有了你虽然孤独但也使我从此不再一叶障目 这也使我好好反思为什么会失败总结经验教训继续探索革命道路 我会遇上好姑娘没命地追她想她爱她决不放过她不管她属虎还属兔 这个有志青年是个好同志失恋了不失魂落魄自暴自弃颇有男儿气度 他虽然遭遇了现代女陈世美被无情抛弃但没有怪命也不埋怨政府 反而擦亮眼睛激发斗志将其丑恶行径卑鄙嘴脸进行了深刻揭露 再次论证了阶级斗争将会在一定范围内长期存在的精辟论述 展望了初级阶段革命尚未成功同志仍需努力这条基本道路 尤其难为可贵的是该同志认真反省自己并触动灵魂深处 认识到过去在湖畔漫步是小资产阶级情调的严重错误 险些为漂亮的外表所迷惑中了糖衣炮弹的惯用招数 理论联系实际痛定思痛如梦方醒才知道差点迷途 漂亮不能当饭吃漂亮不是本质不是革命的全部 语言虽然通俗但体现了有志青年的朴实感悟 批评与自我批评言辞感人真可谓发自肺腑 并萌发修身齐家治国平天下的远大抱负 体现了由此及彼由表及里的思想反复 象他这么优秀的青年怎么能说他土 自然是徒具外表的女人有眼无珠 天涯何处无芳草佳丽不问出处 好马不吃回头草旧情勿枉顾 兔子不吃窝边草以为三窟 百步之内必有芳草无数 也许有天她变成弃妇 才会想起你的好处 再回来找你倾诉 一切已经太晚 你也有今天 一屑不顾 不理她 扮帅 酷 C&O 发表于 12:54 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 秀逗人在天涯！ - 2003-06-08 12:18 天净沙 西游 和尚行李和马， 路遥途险脚乏。 古道西风人渣。 夕阳西下， 秀逗人在天涯！ ——选自《沙僧日记》 注： “西”字： 象形。据小篆字形，上面是鸟的省写，下象鸟巢形。“西”是“栖”的本字。本义：鸟入巢息止。 西，鸟在巢上，象形。――《说文》 日在西方而鸟栖，故因以为东西之西。――《说文》 这是字典上的解释，但我总觉的是一个“四”字，再加一片天，表示一个四人组，头顶着取经的使命，而他们所去的方向就是西天。 C&O 发表于 12:18 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 断肠人在天涯 - 2003-06-08 12:09 天净沙　马致远 秋思 枯藤老树昏鸦， 小桥流水人家。 古道西风瘦马。 夕阳西下， 断肠人在天涯。 C&O 发表于 12:09 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——秀逗前年5月14日 - 2003-06-08 12:03 沙僧日记　林长治 秀逗前年5月14日 倾盆大雨下了一夜，道路泥泞不堪。 我们在鸡肠小道上走着，浑身已沾满了泥，白龙马已成了黑龙马。在这样恶劣的天气下，我们居然还遇到了一个赶路人。 这个人模样悲惨，但还算刚毅正直，也满身是泥，但他手上拿的包裹却干干净净。二师兄以为是妖精，便拿着钉耙上前唬他：“嗨！小子，你的，什么的干活！” 那人先是吓了一跳，继而平静地说：“猪头三！我干什么关你屌事！” 师傅过来问他：“施主，这样恶劣的天气，你一个人在这荒山野岭行路不怕吗？” 那人见师傅长的如花似玉，说：“长老有所不知，我是一名业务男，为了生活我只能日夜兼程。” “阿弥陀佛，世间居然还有这么不平等的事情！”师傅落下了热泪。 “告辞了，我还得赶路呢。”那人说完便走。 大师兄拦住他说：“慢着兄弟，此途妖精众多，你一个人走太危险了，不如和我们一起走吧！” “和你们一起？和遇见妖怪有什么区别！你就是孙悟空吧，我的工作可不比你们。碰到妖怪，他不找你，万事大吉，他惹你，你就一棍子夯死他，还是万事大吉；我可不行，为了销售连妖精我也得找，他如用我的东西，我高兴；如果不用我也不能将他打死。有点教养的妖还好，如果碰到不讲理的，用了你的东西还不给钱，拿他也没办法，我又不能把他打屁！唉！难啊！”那人叹道。 “悲惨的同志！”我们四人异口同声，“愿上帝保佑你！” C&O 发表于 12:03 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——相逢：杨穆相遇 - 2003-06-08 11:58 此间的少年　江南 相逢：杨穆相遇 “喂，杨康！” 杨康心里咯噔了一下，歪了歪嘴，知道是谁来了。 “穆念慈？好久没看见你了。”杨康回头去和老同学说话。 一个穿白色仔裤和白色旧衬衫的女生，正使劲蹬着帮新生运送行李的三轮板车向他移动过来，后面两个女生和一个男生在帮她推。女生长得挺清秀，看着顺眼，而且越看会越顺眼。至少杨康和她同学了十二年，还很少觉得穆念慈讨厌。 “没搞错吧？”杨康上去对那个男生说，“怎么女生蹬车你推啊？” “我……不会。”那个男生居然是生物技术系的一个硕士研究生。 “哥哥我服你了。”杨康虽然懒得被穆念慈又追问，不过还是把她赶下了三轮自己去蹬。杨康觉得穆念慈蹬三轮很不雅观，心里还有点鄙夷那个硕士男生。反正他闲着没事，宿舍那边领号的又打破头，杨康现在才懒得去凑热闹。 “杨康，丘老师问你那篇竞赛心得的稿子写没写好。”穆念慈一边推车，一边开始一条一条地追问杨康，“出版社又催了。” “快了快了，”杨康开始后悔帮穆念慈蹬车。 “丘老师还说你虽然在生物技术那边，第一年最好还是选他的课，他已经和你爸爸说了。” “选，选。” “丘老师下个月生日，丘老师让我告诉你到时候去他家里玩。” “唉，”杨康叹气说，“每年我不都去的么？怎么还用你再来说一趟……到日子再给我说一声，我怕忘了。” “杨康……” 虽然杨康并不真的“喜欢”穆念慈，不过他必须承认穆念慈在他的生活里还是很有份量的。穆念慈碰巧和他在一个中学读书，穆念慈很刻苦，可惜家里条件不好。丘处机对于辅导中学生竞赛有特殊的爱好，他在杨康他们中学的时候认识了杨康和穆念慈。丘处机喜欢杨康的聪明劲头，也喜欢穆念慈的刻苦。加上丘处机老大年纪也没子女，辅导结束后就经常叫杨康和穆念慈去他家里玩。对于穆念慈是很高兴的，杨康却觉得有点麻烦。不过完颜洪烈本着大力团结校内所有势力的目的，很高兴地催促杨康去。 穆念慈确实很烦，她记性好而杨康的记性差，她就养成了帮杨康记事情的习惯。比如大家一起出去游泳，出来穆念慈很可能会问杨康你洗发水又忘在浴室里了吧。通常她问起来的时候，杨康立刻就拍拍脑袋回去拿了，而大家都惊疑于穆念慈好像与杨康用的是一间浴室…… 所以杨康虽然很希望穆念慈不要总是烦他，但是偶尔一个多月见不到穆念慈的时候，他的生活就会变得有些混乱。于是聪明的杨康会随便搜罗点小东西给丘处机送去并打听穆念慈的情况。杨康就这样和穆念慈一起昏昏噩噩地进入了汴京大学，此时他还根本没有意识到这种关系中隐藏着怎样的危险。 当郭靖发现黄蓉其实根本是个路痴的时候，他们已经绕着宿舍区绕了两个大圈子。郭靖又一次看见那个大个子老生在一面大旗下对自己笑，他只能承认自己又走回到了出发点，黄蓉则只好开始发动她的小脑筋看看周围有没有什么公共地图。 C&O 发表于 11:58 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 择偶 - 2003-06-07 09:48 择偶 蜘蛛和蜜蜂要结婚了…… 蜘蛛感到很不满意，于是就问他的妈妈：“为什么要让我娶蜜蜂？” 蜘蛛妈妈说：“蜜蜂是吵了一点，但人家好歹也是个空姐。” 蜘蛛说：“可是我比较喜欢蚊子耶……” 蜘蛛妈妈说：“不要再想那个护士了，打针都打不好，上次搞到妈水肿……” 蜜蜂也感到很不满意，于是就问她的妈妈：“为什么要让我嫁给蜘蛛呢？” 蜜蜂妈妈说：“蜘蛛是丑了一点，但人家好歹也是搞网络的。” 蜜蜂说：“可是人家比较爱蚂蚁丫……” 蜜蜂妈妈说：“别再提那瘦巴巴的工头，整天扛着东奔西跑连台货车都没有。” 蜜蜂说：“那隔壁村的苍蝇哥也不错啊？” 蜜蜂妈妈说：“他是长得帅，但也不能拣个挑粪的……” C&O 发表于 09:48 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——秀逗前年5月8日 - 2003-06-07 09:37 沙僧日记　林长治 秀逗前年5月8日 今天下雨，大家在亭子里躲雨。二师兄提议打牌，我们就斗起了地主。 唉！斗地主大师兄最赖皮，他仗着自己火眼金睛，大家的牌，他全看见，不一会就赢了我们二十两银子。我们叫他请客买啤酒……等于白说！他最爱攒私房钱，说是一分两分攒到结婚。 他怎么不去死啊！ 师傅最惨了，连内裤都输掉了！二师兄把他的一条借给了师傅，师傅穿上他的内裤就像穿了一条灯笼裤！ C&O 发表于 09:37 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——相逢：汴京大学报到 - 2003-06-07 09:31 此间的少年　江南 相逢：汴京大学报到 欧阳克比较喜欢把自己称为一个色而不淫的人，不过实际上十八岁的欧阳克并不太明白色和淫的区别。这句经典的话只是他原样从叔叔欧阳锋那里搬来的。 欧阳锋和黄药师互相很看得起，因为双方都觉得对方够生猛。欧阳锋是白头山一带当之无愧的第一富豪，从辛苦养蛇起家，欧阳锋的蛇类补品厂一路盖到了南方，成为大宋的生物制药行业的第一大公司。欧阳锋不如黄药师的地方是他没什么科班学历，所以致富以后欧阳锋很喜欢收集一些古董增加文化修养，渐渐地在西域铁筝这种稀有乐器的研究上小有名气。于是汴京大学本着四方拉拢的宗旨把欧阳董事长也拉到艺术系，欧阳锋一跃成为名誉教授的同时，也公然开始招收西域铁筝演化研究的博士生了。 欧阳锋比黄药师强的地方是他很受女人欢迎，欧阳锋很酷，而且知道合适地表现温柔，并且懂得用钱去讨女士们的欢心。而黄药师就是酷，很酷，非常酷，酷得不着边了…… 受叔叔的影响，欧阳克从小就很有型。他十三岁就会三种领带一种领结的打法，十六岁就开始自己挑选小夜礼服和衬衣。他在收费高昂的私立中学读书，周末由叔叔的本田雅阁接送。他学习包括礼仪、舞蹈、书法和健身等等普通中学生想也不敢想的课程，不过欧阳克的数学物理化学成绩每每让欧阳锋抓破脑袋。 欧阳克很少去追求女同学，只有女同学追求他。虽然这看起来很荒诞很不可想象，不过有的时候一些神话般的牛人确实存在。正如郭靖入学那年化学系毕业的某个小女孩，那高达95的平均分…… 那天是欧阳克去汴京大学报到的日子，虽然原理上进入汴京大学需要在高考中至少考出600的高分，但是有人能以500分，400分甚至更糟糕的成绩进入汴大却是有目共睹的。欧阳克只是其中之一。 此时前面有一个女孩帮欧阳克拎着他从倭国买的真皮书包，后面两个一个帮他抱着参考书，一个提着装礼品的小包。四个人很融洽地笑着转过了那个拐角。 黄蓉踮起了脚尖去看里面的郭靖帮她买到T-SHIRT没有，这时候那身很入时的衣服完美的勾勒出了她全身的曲线。从精致的足踝到额前的刘海，黄蓉身上所有曲线组合出了完美的青春少女。 欧阳克胸口有点闷呼吸有点紧眼睛有点直，当时他身边的三个女孩不约而同地看向了欧阳克，因为她们也都看见了黄蓉并且想知道欧阳克的反应。 黄蓉敏锐的第六感及时作用，她向着欧阳克的方向转过头来。当时欧阳克的眼睛正在黄蓉身上进行第三遍巡礼并且正好落在黄蓉短裙下的大腿上。 黄蓉恼火地皱起眉毛，对欧阳克的第一感觉糟糕得无以复加。她虽然并不很在意有人看她，不过她不喜欢欧阳克那身驼绒的休闲装，也不喜欢男生把头发挑染成银白色，更讨厌欧阳克刻意竖起衣领那酷酷的模样。 一句话，欧阳克给黄蓉的感觉是太做作。 不过这一切怪不得欧阳克，如果他遇见的不是黄蓉而是其他某个女孩，九成九他会被看作一个帅哥，这也是很多女生喜欢和他亲近的原因。不过相比黄药师，他就显得太嫩了。女孩往往以父亲为标准去衡量男朋友，而男孩用母亲作为依据，这个欧阳克那时候还不懂。不过很明显的是，在黄药师那样酷得堪比一头犀牛的人物面前，欧阳克再怎么装酷也是小儿科。 “同学，请问法律系怎么走？”欧阳克的第一个反应是上前搭话。 “不知道！”黄蓉气鼓鼓地回答，两腮鼓起来好像嘴里塞着两个小包子。 “你也是新生吧？”一边搭茬，一边为自己的魅力不起作用而诧异，欧阳克就是这种人。 “我刚来，不知道，你自己找老师去问吧！” “我也是新生，我去法律系，欧阳克。”欧阳克露出了他灿烂的笑容。 “我真的不知道法律系怎么走……” “同学，一起去报到吧，我们系晚上还有迎新舞会，欢迎来啊。”欧阳克的舞蹈是足以自豪的。 “我还要等人！”黄蓉准备发火了，黄药师的女儿并不是什么乖乖女，这一点从黄蓉的表面上看不出来，不过黄药师自己是最清楚的。 “等谁……” “同学！”郭靖满头大汗地挤了出来，手里攥着一件皱巴巴的圆领衫。郭靖还是挺高兴的，抢购这种圆领衫的人也不少，他拿到了最后一件。虽然是最糟糕的一件，不过至少他买到了。 欧阳克被这个披蒙古袍的家伙吓了一跳，眼睁睁地看着他兴高采烈地跑到黄蓉面前。欧阳克不敢相信自己的眼睛——黄蓉竟然是在等他？难道鲜花插在牛粪上的悲剧历史在和平民主的大宋朝竟然还在重演？ 黄蓉看着郭靖手里有点像咸菜又有点像抹布的T-SHIRT，也很犹豫，这和她心目中的“T-SHIRT”差得太远。不过目前情况下，比起背后那个油乎乎的手印，摆脱欧阳克更加重要。所以黄蓉勉强挤出一丝笑容表示对这个大个子购物水准的嘉许，匆匆把圆领衫套在小背心外去遮挡那个手印。圆领衫的下缘一直垂到了黄蓉的膝盖，她胸前印着鲜红的“汴京大学”，背后印着粉蓝的“汴大，世纪的大学！” 黄蓉终于忍不住狠狠地瞪了郭靖一眼，大个子正挠着脑袋对她傻笑。 “那我先去报到。”郭靖不想打搅黄蓉和欧阳克说话，毕竟他们在一起看着更谐调。 “我……我带你去化学系。”黄蓉毅然决定实现自己的诺言帮郭靖找化学系，并且她很热情地帮郭靖把老破驴后架上的行李整了一下，表示将随他同去的决心。 商店门口，欧阳克被甩在了那里，虽然周围冲进商店抢购的人流还是不断，欧阳克忽然觉得秋风萧瑟起来。 郭靖和黄蓉依然跋涉在寻找化学系的道路上的时候，杨康已经不费吹灰之力的解决了报到的事情。他甚至在这个间隙和生物技术系的无崖子主任谈了谈对专业的想法，从《天工开物》的生物学意义到西域最新的克隆技术，这次谈话的直接结果是无崖子在新生名单中只记得杨康一个人。 杨康很聪明，生物竞赛汴京地区一等奖，短跑是长项，写作也受他妈包惜弱的指导而颇有功力。这些事情让杨康很不耐烦，对别人的赞赏他早就一点反应都没有了。所以和无崖子聊了一会，杨康就借故安排床位溜了出来，四处走走看看，慢慢地往宿舍那边蹭过去。 C&O 发表于 09:31 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 从全真教的衰落看研究生培养 - 2003-06-04 23:28 从全真教的衰落看研究生培养　（转贴） 金庸老先生的名著《射雕英雄传》和《神雕侠侣》大家都是耳熟能详了，毋庸赘言。全真教在《射雕》开始时，正当兴盛之时。重阳真人首创全真教，端的是威震天下，号称武学的“泰山北斗”。可是自王重阳逝世，全真教就开始步入了一个怪圈，培养的人才一代不如一代，全真七子还可以说是在江湖上薄有威名，可是再下一代尹志平、赵志敬、李志常之流就已没落，第四代更沦为碌碌鼠辈矣。 究竟是什么原因使得名满天下的全真教人才匮乏，最终衰落下去的呢？我以为，全真教之衰落自“扩招”始。重阳真人虽然武功天下第一，却不谙人才培养之道。以一人之力，培养七名弟子，又不知有所侧重，需择拔尖者悉心教导，而泛泛教之，妄图七子皆成大器。其结果就是，在师资力量不足的情况下，全真七子无一成才（指拔尖人才）。牛家村一战，七子联手布天罡北斗阵，和黄药师战成平手，亦即不及王重阳一人也。烟雨楼一战，若非郭靖援手，全真教怕一世功名毁于一旦。 更令人遗憾的是，全真七子也没有弄明白建设天下第一大门派的路子应该怎么走，光看着少林派人丁兴旺，就一味的“扩招”，扩了一轮又一轮，最后陷入了不可自拔的地步。殊不知，少林此等门派，乃是历千年而成，有着深厚的历史积淀，有着系统的教育理论和教材，更有着数不清的能人高手，岂是刚创派不久的全真教所能比拟？全真七子误入歧途，继续扩招，到《神雕》之时，一个天罡北斗阵已经不够用了，要七个天罡北斗阵布成一个大阵，而且还要两个大阵，共九十八人，方能抗敌。可就是这样九十八人的大阵，也没有挡住习武天资不高的郭靖郭大侠。其实这是很简单的道理。全真七子自己的武功就没有登峰造极,硬要每个人继续培养多个学生，培养出来的尹志平、赵志敬之流武功更差。他们成为了“导师”，继续培养更多的学生，试问这样培养出来的学生，武功怎么可能有所成就？王重阳当年的绝世武功，恐怕传到第四代，就一点也不剩了。 再看我们的郭靖郭大侠，虽然天资不高，但是从小就有七位师傅悉心指导。虽然七位师傅武功一般，但是郭靖的基础仍然扎得十分牢固。后来又有马钰指导内功，再加上绝世高手洪七公专门的指导，终于使得郭靖得窥上乘武学之门径。再后来老顽童周伯通又专门培养了郭靖一个多月，并把《九阴真经》这样的学术最前沿成果传授给了他，郭靖岂能不成长为高手？没有郭靖的出手，恐怕我就挑了全真教了。 可见，真正的一流门派，不是看你人数的规模，而是看是否有大师级别的人物出现，是否在学术前沿占有一席之地。全真教人数众多，可是九十八人的大阵不能挡住郭靖一人，又怎么能指望他们振兴门派呢？所以说，扩招并不是创建世界一流大学的好方法，恰恰相反，大规模的扩招而不注重真正人才的培养，得到的结果只能是衰落和毁灭。这绝不是危言耸听，全真教即是前车之鉴。 再看我们的研究生培养。现在有些大学，一个博士生导师恨不得带着几十个博士生，别说博导自己的学术水平未必就是世界一流，就算是王重阳这样得了“诺贝尔奖”的“博导”，带了七个弟子也没能把他们培养出来，何况普通的博导呢？目前我国在校研究生总数已经达到４９万人，其中博士生人数１２万多人。 在目前的经济和科研条件下，人数却已仅次于美国德国列世界第三。到２０１０年，甚至计划每年授予博士学位的人数达到５万人，超过美国成为世界博士人数第一。在质与量的把握上，我们一定出了什么问题。 反观郭靖、杨过等真正的绝顶高手所走的道路，都是众多“导师”合力培养的结果，都是身兼数家之长，最终而成才的。目前，国内有多少研究生有这样的机遇和机会？恐怕一个都没有。东邪、西毒、南帝、北丐、中神通五人中，凡是收了多名弟子的，如东邪、南帝、中神通，恐怕都是后继无人啊。可叹，可叹！而北丐、西毒之后继有人，皆赖专心培养一人之功也。 只要我们仔细阅读一下金庸老先生的《射雕英雄传》和《神雕侠侣》，认真吸取全真教的教训和郭靖、杨过等创新型人才培养的经验，我们办世界一流大学才有希望。 C&O 发表于 23:28 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 黄蓉——丐帮千古罪人 - 2003-06-04 23:25 黄蓉——丐帮千古罪人　（转贴） 丐帮在金庸小说中多有叙述，金书中常言道丐帮乃江湖第一大帮，有“帮以丐帮为首，派以少林为尊”之说。书中有丐帮叙述的以《天龙八部》、《射雕英雄传》、《神雕侠侣》、《倚天屠龙记》最多。笑傲江湖和雪山飞狐略有提及。 然纵观以上诸书，细心读者不难发现，丐帮从天龙（北宋年间）到射雕神雕（南宋未年）－－倚天（元未明初）－－－笑傲（明？）－－雪山飞狐（清）的过程，却是一个从辉煌到没落和过程。 我们当有印象，《天龙八部》中的丐帮帮主乔峰乃是当时武林中的顶尖级的人物，当属出类拔萃的英雄奇材。到洪七公出现时，虽然未能压倒群雄，但也居于四大高手“东邪”、“西毒”、“南帝”、“北丐”中之一。不过到了黄蓉一代，虽然她机智聪明，赛似女中诸葛。但武功却未臻一流高手的境界，然后更是一代不如一代，从连一个杨过手下败将霍都都奈何不了的耶律齐，到连降龙十八掌都学不全的史火龙（这姓史的笨得要命，居然练成了半身不遂，连圆真和尚这二流人物也斗不过），真是愧对丐帮历代前辈的英名。笑傲江湖中提到个谢风帮主，此人武功虽未详细描写，但也好不到那儿去。不然正派中三人对战魔教任我行时，公推方证（少林派）、清虚（武当派）、左冷禅（嵩山派）出战。看来这谢风还不如左冷禅。而且书中提及，他还有二名私生子。到了雪山飞狐中姓范的帮主更成了一个几句话就被清庭爪牙蒙敝住的无知莽汉。武功更连胡斐这样一个初出茅庐的后生小子都敌不过。丐帮威名丧失殆尽。 从丐帮的由盛到衰的过程来看，固然有诸多因素。但其中原有丐帮制度的破坏和沦丧是一个很重要的原因。丐帮原有的制度是一个选举贤能，众人公议的制度。在当时条件下，还算得上是一个比较“民主”的制度。在乔峰到洪七公这段时间，丐帮帮主的推举是一个由前任帮主指定，由四大长老公认的一种制度，有点像禅让制。而且在帮主由四大长老等人对帮主的权力也有相当的约束力。在《天龙八部》一书中，我们可以了解到丐帮中的四大长老等力量甚至可以在丐帮弟子前表明理由废除了现任帮主乔峰的帮主职位（虽然这是一个错误，或者说是丐帮的一个悲剧），但由此可见当时的丐帮中的体制还是比较健全的。后来虽然游坦之也能坐上帮主的位子，但毕竟坐不安稳，不多时就被丐帮内部否决掉了。丐帮的实际权力又回到了的土生土长的丐帮人手中。 但是这些情况在洪七公时就有所改变，洪七公时丐帮所谓的净衣、污衣两派的纷争就日趋激烈。洪七公为了平衡双方的利益，就上半月穿净衣，下半月穿污衣，以此妥协。如果从道理上来说，当然污衣派弟子才是本色的丐帮弟子。在思想行为上更接近于丐帮原有的思想和方式。但洪七公为了取得经济上的利益，逐渐吸收了更多的原本不是丐帮的净衣派入帮，就逐渐淡化了丐帮的本色。更为致命地是，他贪图口腹之欲，在黄蓉的欺骗和诱惑下，将降龙十八掌传给了外人郭靖。又将帮主传给了黄蓉。当然从站得高一点的角度来说，郭黄都是武林中杰出的英才，也为侠义道上称颂。但是从丐帮的角度来看，这却是一个重大的转折点。洪七公的行为不仅让丐帮降龙十八掌的绝技就此失传（郭靖根本没教全耶律齐降龙十八掌。而史火龙更不学不会了。），而且让帮主原有的选拔制度就此沦丧。 黄蓉接任帮主后，虽然书上说她治理的丐帮井井有条。但她毕竟是个小女人，心机太多，私心太重。黄蓉虽说也扮过小叫化，但毕竟只是玩玩。绝对不会有洪七公幼年时到处被狗咬，被金人捉去为奴的辛酸体会。也不会有像乔峰那样和丐帮兄弟一起喝酒吃肉打成一片的行动。黄蓉在心里其实是鄙视丐帮弟子的。而且黄蓉渐渐把持了丐帮。然后在傀儡帮主鲁有脚死后，趁机导演了一场假选举的闹剧。让自己的草包女儿的女婿耶律齐出任帮主。这时假扮丐帮弟子的霍都站了出来，质问耶律齐本是蒙古人，又如何能做丐帮帮主？霍都当然不是好人，但此语却暴露出了一个尖锐的问题，当年乔峰统领丐帮扬威武林，立了无数奇功。但就因为“血统论”一说，而不得不辞去丐帮帮主。而如今这个“野驴”大爷，武功稀松平常，又明摆是个蒙古人，却能堂而皇之的“竞选”帮主。帮中长老和其他人却没有人敢有异议。可见黄蓉早已控制了丐帮。破坏了丐帮原有的量才选拔的制度，而走上了任人唯亲的道路。结果耶律齐连霍都也斗不过，却灰头土脸地当上了帮主。帮主肯定有一部人不服，不过不敢说而已。耶律齐如何传了史火龙当帮主，不得而知。但在倚天中，有一点值得注意。在赵敏奔袭武当山时，那个阿大，剑术好生了得。据杨逍说，阿大原为丐帮四大长老之首的方东白，不知何原因离开了丐帮。就武功来看，这方东白的武功肯定在史火龙之上，焉知不是史暗中排挤，迫使方离开丐帮？ 史火龙之后，丐帮却立史的幼女史红石为帮主，已走上了世袭制的道路。史红石年纪幼小，也不是像张无忌那样确实武功超凡。她当帮主，只有血统这一说。可见丐帮早已习惯了这种制度了。 到了笑傲江湖中，谢风的私生子是什么青莲使者、白莲使者，可想而知日后他要做的恐怕是将帮主之位传给他这两个儿子中的一个了。 诸葛亮在出师表中说：“亲贤臣，远小人，此前汉之所以兴隆也，亲小人远贤臣，此后汉之所以倾颓也。”套用此语：“任人唯贤，此丐帮之所以兴隆也，任人唯亲，此丐帮之所以没落也。” 呵呵，如此说来，黄蓉乃是为祸丐帮的祸首了。其实本来都是小说家言，金大侠不知是有意写出，还是始料未及。姑且写出，以博一乐。 C&O 发表于 23:25 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——秀逗前年5月5日 - 2003-06-04 23:22 沙僧日记　林长治 秀逗前年5月5日 真是气死我了！双眼皮了不起啊！那个白面大秃驴，猴骚反斗精，猪头三四五，竟然没事就嘲弄我是单眼皮！尤其是那个白面大秃驴，刚刚还冲我抛媚眼，展示他的双眼皮！他死定了！我挑行李，明天把他的内裤全扔了，嘿……嘿！…… C&O 发表于 23:22 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——相逢：路遇 - 2003-06-04 23:18 此间的少年　江南 相逢：路遇 很快的，在人群中钻来钻去的黄蓉就感觉到了一只危险的手。那只手很危险地印在她背后的脊椎要害上，好在那并不是什么手刀，而只是一只粘着油腻的诡秘的手。在那只手来得及乱摸前，黄蓉不顾一切地往前跑了出去，于是撞到了郭靖。此时她惟一想的是买一件新背心换上，来减轻自己的恶心。 “我不知道！” “我不知道。” 黄蓉气急败坏地大喊的时候，郭靖很老实地摇头。 看着这个傻大个子憨憨地对自己微笑，有些不知所措地擦着额头边的汗，黄蓉愣了一下。然后黄蓉意识到这个傻大个子是可以利用的，利用一些男生帮她买雪糕是黄蓉经常做的事情，像她的朋友王语嫣那样和一个陌生男孩说话都要脸红，黄蓉是很不屑的。 “喂，同学，你先帮我去找商店，我再带你去化学系，我有点急事。”事实上黄蓉根本不知道化学系在哪里。 “我刚来……”郭靖本来想说即使他帮忙也不一定有用，不过他还是点了点头，“那我去找老师问一问。” 临走的时候，郭靖看见前面那个老生叼着烟卷对他笑了一下。即使木讷如郭靖，也可以看出那个人笑得很开心。郭靖有点奇怪，不知道这个素不相识的人为什么会对自己那么友好地笑，那个人的外形看起来其实更像个土匪。 乔峰喜欢看见这种此男和彼女相遇的故事，虽然目前的两个人很不搭配，不过在乔峰看来，相遇总是好的。于是他龇牙咧嘴笑得很开心。 发现商店并不困难，困难的是如何冲进去。 黄蓉和郭靖都没有想到居然有上百人涌在小小的商店前抢购水瓶、杯子和床单，校办商店一年中惟一的黄金季节就是这时候。对于黄蓉，这些东西黄药师一定会让秘书整理好了按时送来，而对于郭靖，他自行车后足足五十斤的行李已经包括了一切，他硬是从蒙古扛了过来。 “我……” 黄蓉本来想脱口而出说：“我操，怎么这个样子。”她并不在乎说脏话，不过在郭靖面前，她觉得应该照顾少数民族同学的听觉神经。 郭靖低头看了看黄蓉，黄蓉紧身的短裙和小背心告诉他这个女同学是比较细弱不堪冲击的。黄蓉警惕地看郭靖，因为他看得未免太仔细了。郭靖忽然意识到了自己的错误，黝黑的脸上微微红了起来，急忙收回了目光。 他把自己的二八老破车停在了商店正门口说：“同学，你要买东西，我帮你去买。” 黄蓉递了张一百面额的大钞：“帮我买一件T-SHIRT，谢谢同学。” 看了郭靖迷惑的神情，黄蓉只好指着自己雪白的小背心说：“一件短袖衫。” 终于明白了对方的意思，郭靖很勇敢地和一帮男生杀了进去。只留下黄蓉一个人在门口看着那辆老破车。周围来来往往的人都不免看黄蓉几眼，一个十六岁的娇小女孩看着一辆如此老旧的二八大车，有一点滑稽的感觉。黄蓉觉得周围的目光很刺眼，她对这个特别敏感。她心里有点抱怨那个蒙古大个子直接把这么辆破驴留给了她看管，让她看起来像一个傻子。 不过当她仔细看了车后的行李时，她发现了拴在包带子上的搪瓷缸子和扎得紧紧的老棉被，以及所有在她来看堪称“古老”的生活用品。她忽然意识到这是那个蒙古大个子的一切家当，他就这么很放心地留给了陌生的自己。 黄蓉忽然很感动。 默默地看着老破车的时候，黄蓉遇见了以后给她带来很多年麻烦的一个人。也许没有郭靖那么麻烦，不过也很麻烦了。 转过那个拐角前，欧阳克还是很在意他身后的几个女孩的，虽然看起来他只是轻松地比划着手给她们说一些笑话，并不怎么正眼看她们。 而转过那个拐角后，他看见了黄蓉。 C&O 发表于 23:18 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 关于当前弱势美元问题 - 2003-06-03 23:43 关于当前弱势美元问题（告某友人） 何 新 美国经济目前最大问题是巨额双赤字。特别是国际收支赤字。这个赤字的涵意是国际负债。其最大债主之一是欧洲。若以美元计价，当美元贬值时，意味着债务的减少。这是一种对经济危机的巧妙转移。美元贬值的另一含义是作为国际货币的美元数量的增加，（有意思的是美国媒体认为已出现国际性通货紧缩。这一点，我一年前在香港商报文章中曾谈过。）美元弱势化主要是对付欧洲的。因此，欧洲如何应对将是很有意思的问题。 强势美元，弱势美元都是美国的金融政策手段，这种金融手段已成为当代资本竞争的主要形态。美国政府推行十几年强势美元政策的目的，是吸引国际金融资本对美国的流入，这种流入伴随着关于“新经济”的意识形态神话，创造了美国十年持续增长的经济奇迹。美国股票债券一路飚升。但近年来“新经济”泡沫的破灭，导致国际资本大幅流出美国，美股、美债已在贬值。迫使美不得不调整政策，反过来实施弱势美元政策。 我在三、四年前已预测到必有这一调整，必有美元暴跌，必有大的国际金融动荡。这不并是事后诸葛亮的吹牛，不信可看《新国家主义经济学》序言第4页。（你可以去查一下。）弱势美元，实际是以赖债的手段，削减巨额国内外赤字。其次也利于抑制国外进口，刺激美出口。（但效果其实不会太大） 中国手中也持有大量美债券、证券，由于美元贬值，会蒙受重大损失（与其他债主一样。）这点在几年前我曾向有关方面提过，应警惕，不要让外汇储备惟美元化。但当时人们普遍不信强势美元会很快贬值。 但是，中国出口品会得到某些好处。因为人民币是与美元联动的，也等于在贬值。 美元调整，是当代世界经济结构深刻调整以及国际政治结构全面变动的重要表征之一。我们正处在全球性历史大动变的前夜。（从现在起，未来三十年之间必将发生一系列大动变。）但中国的主流意识形态和社会思潮，对此昏然无觉。例如对当前弱势美元的许多议论，实际言不及义。 中国作为一个后进入全球资本主义市场的国家，并没有也不可能处在与发达国家的平等地位，而只能处在一种有所依附和被动受剥削的地位。这是中国当前面临困局的一部分。为什么尽管俄国政治改革早已完成，西方仍坚决不允许俄国加入WTO？因为俄国有一个强大的工业体系（远强于中国），西方害怕自己的市场（特别是资本品）对它开放后会被它吞噬掉。 而中国正是由于处在较弱的依附地位，他们才同意吸纳我们。其目的无非是伺机通过资本重组有步骤地兼并、消化以及在有些方面（但也并非在一切产业上）搞垮我们。 （03年6月2日） 附录：《新国家主义经济学》序言第4页： “种种迹象明确显示，我们的确处在爆发新的大规模国际金融危机的前夜。危机的焦点将集中在日元——美元——欧元的汇率上。 如果美元暴跌，引致美元泡沫崩破（这个泡沫大得惊人），就必将引发全球性的金融大突变。在某种意义上，这一突变具有不可避免性。” （2001年8月5日） 何新中国论坛 C&O 发表于 23:43 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——透逗前年3月28日 - 2003-06-03 23:01 沙僧日记　林长治 透逗前年3月28日 越往西走人烟越稀少。已经好几天没化到像样的斋饭了。今天大师兄又只化到半瓶酱油回来。 师傅接过酱油，叹了口气，唠叨说：“喝酱油，我倒不怕，我天生肤白貌美，脸部皮肤堆积点色素也无大碍……就怕悟净，脸已这样黑，再喝酱油怕是再也看不见他了！” 妈的，这个老秃驴！又拿我开涮，吃大便去吧，他！都说吃了这丫的肉可以长生不老，今天晚上我就把他给煮了，给大家打牙祭！至少二师兄不会反对的。 C&O 发表于 23:01 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——相逢：此男和彼女相遇 - 2003-06-03 22:52 此间的少年　江南 相逢：此男和彼女相遇 呆呆地站在那里，郭靖终于发现自己彻底陷入了红幅招展，彩旗飞扬中。整整一条郁郁葱葱的林荫道边，无数面红旗飘扬而起，上面分别用白纸钉着“法律系”、“国际政治系”、“生物系”、“经管学院”等等字样。每一面红旗下都有老生们帮着搬行李、登记姓名、发注册指南，一派忙碌的景象，个个老生都是青春洋溢——很久以后，郭靖才明白这并不意味着汴京大学是个青春洋溢的地方，事实上那些不够青春洋溢的师兄们多半缩在宿舍里玩游戏或者泡图书馆打瞌睡呢。 这一幅繁荣的景象却没有给十八岁的郭靖以回家的感觉，当他在人群中彻底迷失了来时的方向，他也看不见人群的尽头，他只知道尽头并没有自己熟悉的草原，自己熟悉的草原很远很远。 郭靖终于明白，自己是离开家了。 乔峰咬着根烟卷，心不在焉地站在那里。他的头顶，风吹大旗扬，招展着“国际政治系”五个大字。 他一米九五的身材比国际政治系的红旗更像一个标志，一将当关万夫辟易，国际政治系报到的那张桌子就在他背后，几个新生却在附近逡巡着不敢接近。 如果不是生错了时代，乔峰更适合当一个土匪或者民族英雄，而并非趴在汴大窄窄的课桌上读书。他的身材和相貌使人很容易联想起他在那里是收买路钱的，头顶应该是“替天行道”这种更加鲜明的口号。大三的他算不得汴大学生中顶级的老鸟，只是迎接新生的任务激起了他的一些怀旧情绪，让他觉得自己开始变老。他喜欢宽松安静的校园，蜂拥而入的新生让他有些忧愁，因为这意味着过去的某些人……已经不在了，也许从此就音讯杳然。 乔峰不是莫大，非常讨厌被这种伤春悲秋的情绪困扰。他对着淡灰色的天空长长地吐了一口气，一手拦住那个在他面前过了三次的国政新生：“是来国政报到么？就是这里！别磨蹭。” “嗯，是……” “虚竹，别睡了，”乔峰没给新生说完话的机会，一巴掌拍醒在办公桌上打磕睡的光头虚竹。同时他单手拎起那个新生四五十斤的行李，往旁边的三轮车上一堆：“这车满了，走人了。” 那个新生还没弄清楚状况，乔峰已经把一叠资料塞到他手上。他糊里糊涂地签了自己的名字，听乔峰在他耳边毫不停顿的一串：“从这条路往下走，跟学三食堂那边拿宿舍号，准备钱去领凳子，押金加头年住宿费一千一，国政的行李一会儿学生会找人给你们统一送过去，值钱东西自己先收好。明天入学典礼后天英语分级，不用准备，准备也没用。跟虚竹走，就是那个光头，有不懂的问他。” 最后乔峰在新生肩膀上拍了一巴掌，新生就这么木楞楞地跟骑三轮的虚竹走了。走出十几米，新生回头看去，那个高大彪悍的老生正安静地站在淡灰色的天空下，他已经又叼上了一根烟卷，继续非常有造型的发呆。 犹豫了很久，郭靖准备上前去问问那个大旗下的老生，他不知道化学系在哪里报到。这个时候，有人撞上了他的背。 原本这个出场可以适用于任何人，就是不适用于黄蓉，因为黄蓉很喜欢干净，而郭靖的袍子很脏。不过鬼使神差的黄蓉撞在了郭靖的背后，也为我们发展后来的故事提供了不少方便。 黄蓉家很有钱。 有钱分很多层次，黄蓉家那个层次，在大宋也算是少有的高层次了。她爹黄药师本来在汴京大学里面干副教授，一干就是十年。不幸被完颜洪烈那个老学霸始终压在下面，硬是没有扶正。黄药师搞的是生物制药，很有点经济前途，也很有点傲气。被完颜洪烈压了十年后，黄药师的老婆死了。 本来人的生老病死和完颜洪烈没有关系，不过黄夫人冯蘅难产死的一个原因是夜里医生懒洋洋地耽误了收诊。黄药师那时候甚至连一部移动电话都没有，他冒着大雨跑到学校传达室打电话，又冒着大雨请学院那个一脸高傲的司机出车。汴大在汴梁的郊区，而汴大医院的总部却在市区里。就这样，医生还是懒洋洋地迟到了半个小时。黄蓉第一声哭泣中，黄药师一生中第一个重要的女人死了。 这一切的悲剧在黄药师雇了灵车送妻子到火葬场的时候变成了愤怒，出医院的时候，黄药师发现系主任完颜洪烈因为感冒去医院打针，出来的时候后面竟然跟了六七个医生欢送。其中的一个是为冯蘅接生的大夫，天知道一个妇产科大夫为什么要如此关心完颜洪烈的健康。也许只是因为他是汴京大学生物学院院长兼医院的副书记。 最后一次看了妻子苍白的脸后，黄药师以一种醉酒狂歌的豪气写成了辞职信。在第二天完颜洪烈到达办公室的第一个瞬间，黄药师踏进办公室把以前所有的论文堆在他的办公桌上，最后把辞职信狠狠地掼在完颜功烈的面前。 他一生中第一次那么像一个男人。 光膀子下海的黄药师恶狠狠地拼杀了七八年，终于混成了汴梁数三数四的制药公司老板。汴京大学急忙把功成名就的黄专家重新请回了学校，担任生物学院的名誉院长，位置和完颜洪烈平齐。黄药师身穿纯黑的阿玛尼，踏着六千多块的皮鞋，在完颜洪烈的办公室前雄纠纠地走过，走进了他自己的办公室。这是他第一次在生物学院的大楼中拥有完全属于自己的空间。 门在黄药师的身后被锁上，只有他自己知道，他那时候趴在了崭新的倒膜桌上放声大哭。 黄药师很宝贝黄蓉，这个女儿让他很容易记起老婆的容貌，凝视女儿的时候总让他有一种感觉，是十六年前那个斯文宁静的生物学院女助教又站在了阳台上，风如此暖软地吹个不休…… 黄蓉高中的时候曾经有男孩追求她，结果以黄董事长亲自开着黑色宝马去扇了那男孩一巴掌告终。在黄药师的眼睛里，没有三四十把刷子的普通小男生休想碰他女儿一根手指。而黄蓉自己却并不那么以为，她之所以后来不理那个男生，是因为黄蓉觉得他很没种，被扇了耳光也不敢动手和她老爹对战一场。黄蓉自己就经常和黄药师对打，而且这父女两个都有空手道蓝带的水准。 黄蓉很漂亮。虽然她个子不算高，不过高个美女的美好身材按比例缩小后正好符合她的尺码。此外她眼睛很大，笑容很甜，一头柔软的黑发挑染出一点淡金色，回头率高得惊人。 不过郭靖回头的原因却不是因为黄蓉漂亮，而是因为他被撞得愣了一下。 郭靖低头凝视着比他矮一个头的黄蓉，黄蓉抬头凝视着他，一双来自北方的粗犷的眼睛和来自南方的慧黠的眼睛。 很多一见钟情都是从双方的凝视开始的，不过这一次的情况有点例外。 “同学，化学系在哪里？” “同学，商店在哪里？” 郭靖这么问是因为他口舌笨拙，又急着找化学系，黄蓉这么问则只是因为她恶心。 她不是恶心郭靖，而是恶心某个藏在人群中的人。那天她坚决拒绝了黄药师要亲自驾车送她来报到的建议，义无返顾地单身直闯汴京大学。因为黄药师前天严厉地斥责她和同学去酒吧看新鲜，黄蓉对自己蛮横的老爹恨得牙都痒。她心里很有一点兴奋，所以她穿上自己喜欢的斜方格花纹呢短裙和白色的紧身背心，在长筒丝袜外加穿了一双雪白的短袜，登了一双倭国那边流行过来的平底黑皮鞋，背后是黑色的双肩皮背包，用两个乌木的雕刻发卡束起两条长鬓。这一身在高中刚刚毕业而且喜欢打扮的黄蓉来看，或许只是入时而且稍微有点性感。可是盯着她暴露在外面的修长双腿，连门卫彭莹玉都有好半天没回过神来，随即感慨现在的学生都堕落了。 C&O 发表于 22:52 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 偶然 - 2003-06-03 01:25 偶然　徐志摩 我是天空里的一片云， 偶尔投影在你的波心—— 你不必讶异， 更无须欢喜—— 在转瞬间消灭了踪影。 你我相逢在黑夜的海上， 你有你的，我有我的，方向； 你记得也好， 最好你忘掉， 在这交会时互放的光亮！ C&O 发表于 01:25 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——透逗前年3月12日 - 2003-06-03 01:21 沙僧日记　林长治 透逗前年3月12号 我们走着走着，大师兄在前面忽然大叫一声：“不好！有妖怪？大家快隐蔽！” 只见师傅兴高采烈地伸着头就跑了上去，“哎！哎？哪有妖怪？哪有妖怪？快让我看看！长的啥样？快让我看看！” 嘿！这个傻逼竟然对妖精这么感兴趣！ 大师兄一马当先，扑进草丛，不一会儿就把妖怪捉了回来！师傅急不可耐地伸长脖子问：“妖怪在哪？快让我看看！” 大师兄伸出手，哦！原来是只蛐蛐精！蛐蛐精背上刻着四个字：永远不死。 但它确实是死翘翘了。 师傅看着蛐蛐精，表情变得很奇异。呆了半天，唱道：“小蛐蛐儿，会唱歌，两条须须儿竖起来！……” “我靠！师傅你没事吧？”大师兄问。 “我没事，”师傅说：“没想到这么一只点点大的蛐蛐儿也要吃我！？” “他不想吃你，我问过他了，”大师兄说：“他说他只想泡你！拜托师傅你以后不要动不动就唱歌，行不？” “哎？这只蛐蛐精好像有点面熟！仿佛从前见过。”师傅说。 二师兄忙说：“对！他不就是《七龙珠》里的界王神嘛！” 师傅说：“你看，他那一对须须儿长得多有个性！哎？悟空，能不能把它们揪下来安我脑门上！” “好啊！这可是你让我干的，别后悔呦？”大师兄说完就把蛐蛐精的两根须须儿安到了师傅那秃脑门上。 师傅照着镜子，捋了捋须须，美得牙龇多大！ 哦！My God！ C&O 发表于 01:21 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——相逢：校园开学 - 2003-06-03 01:15 此间的少年　江南 相逢：校园开学 一只脚有力地踩在了落叶上，飞驰的身影唰地刹住，虎虎有生气的少年仰面看向高悬在头顶上的四字金漆招牌，缓缓地摸出了一卷书信。 “终于到了……”少年如释重负地说。 郭靖喘了口气的功夫，七八条黑影从不同的角度逼了上来。刚才，他们有的是街边看风景的行人，有的是抱着婴儿散步的妇女，有的则像是在听莫大拉琴。 “光盘要么？” “要游戏么？来我们这里看，不买不要紧。” “软件游戏毛片嘞……” “走走走！学校门口不许摆摊设点，给我抓到一律罚款！”值班的门卫彭莹玉从传达室里噌地跳了出来。 倏忽之间，郭靖身边半径两米内又形成了一个真空地带，那些瞬间涌现的高手如同水滴融入江河一般消失在人流里。郭靖第一次感到汴梁真是一个藏龙卧虎的地方。 “喂，还有你。你这也算摆摊设点吧？”彭莹玉瞪了莫大一眼。 莫大在旁边一本正经地拉琴，脚下摆着十几把漆成大红的劣质二胡——从某种程度上说，莫大是一个打外地来汴梁的民族乐器商人。 “我这不是卖的，”莫大很认真地说，“我都是带出来拉拉看，看声音怎么样。” 莫大说着话的功夫换了一把琴，继续一本正经地拉他的《凤求凰》。莫大号称“悲怆歌北道，惆怅看中流”，这是后来杨康给他起的绰号，因为他在北道街和中流路交口的汴京大学门口一拉就是五年。他和那些初出道贩卖盗版光盘的后生崽不同，见的世面大了，知道彭莹玉这种校警也就是看起来像警察嘴上比较硬，其实是所谓“经济民警”，并没有抓人罚款的权力。 “民工！”彭莹玉从牙关里挤出这两个字，捏紧两只拳头瞪着他。这个老贼头道行不浅，令他束手无策。 《凤求凰》……琴声如丝缕不绝，莫大则巍然不动，充分表达了他对这种世俗看法的不屑和本身出尘的风骨。 “嗯？你干什么的?”看到郭靖一直向自己这边呆望，彭莹玉丢开了莫大，粗声粗气地问他。 郭靖一身蒙古袍子配球鞋的打扮，脏兮兮的羊皮袍子下像是藏着无数骨药小扎刀什么的。这种冒充少数民族出来骗钱的，彭莹玉见得多了。 “我……我，”郭靖努力想让自己说话平静得像个城市人，不过蹬了快一个小时的车，又被身上的老羊皮袍子捂出了一身汗，他的脑子好像比平时更迟钝了。 “你，你什么你？”彭莹玉断定郭靖不是什么好货，“没事不要在学校门口停留，今天开学，我们要接新生呢。” “我……我是来报到的……” “报到？”彭莹玉怀疑地扯过郭靖手里的录取通知书，两只小豆眼盯着上首的名字和下首的印章仔细研究。如今这年头活字印刷术大流行，文凭都能随便买，五百块专业任选还奉送论文一篇。 “嘿，哥们，”旁边有人拍了彭莹玉的肩膀，“别看不起少数民族的同学啊，就算人不是这的同学碍着你什么事情了？人想跟这站着凉快一下不行啊？” 彭莹玉一转身，一个嚼着口香糖的小子双手抄在裤子口袋里，正懒洋洋的缩着双肩站在那里，对他和郭靖龇了龇牙。那种似笑非笑的表情像是在打招呼，又像是懒得打招呼。 汴京大学嘉佑一届，生物技术系的杨康，就这么走进了我们的故事。 杨康本想在这番豪言壮语后很热情地拍拍郭靖的肩膀，让他体会一下汴京人的高素质。不过瞅着郭靖的袍子确实像是有年头没洗了，就只是象征性地拍了拍郭靖的小臂。 郭靖是个老实孩子，很惊讶也很受感动，看见杨康一套彪马的运动衣，登一双锐步，一张白净的脸盘上连汗水都是晶莹透亮的，于是油然而生敬仰。 杨康是跑步来的，并没把开学当回事情。他家就在汴京大学后面，下午玩了半天游戏后，想起自己的床铺还没有搞定，所以一路跑着蹓跶过来了。 “嘿，新生啊？哪个系的？汴京大学我熟，一起过去报到？”瞟了彭莹玉一眼，杨康就招呼郭靖一起进去了，好像在自家门口招呼客人一样。 “我……我是化学系的，我叫郭靖，”郭靖推着自行车跟在杨康背后。 “蒙古同学？”杨康一边走一边瞅了瞅郭靖的衣服，“这里就大前年从你们那里招过生，现在又开始招生啦？” “嗯，丘老师召我的。” “丘老师？哪个丘老师？这里姓丘的多去了。” “化学系的丘处机老师，去年他去我们中学指导竞赛。” “喔，老丘啊，”杨康恍然大悟，“听说他去年混上博导了，他老板是个牛人，王重阳知道吧？” “知道，院士吧？” “去年老家伙不行了，要是他还在，没准过几年院长就轮到丘处机了，”杨康歪着嘴笑，“现在难说喽。” “同学你哪个系的？” “生物技术，”杨康漫不经心地回答。 杨康自己是想学经济管理的，因为经院的课只泡图书馆就可以了，还能不时看见抱着大厚本子走过的文科系妹妹，这对杨康具有莫大的吸引力。他对任何课程都无所谓热爱，女生多一点课程轻一点就成为他的专业首选了。不过事到临头他一向通融的老爹完颜洪烈却发了脾气，硬是逼杨康把志愿改成生物技术。 杨康两三天没给完颜洪烈好脸色，只丢了无数斜眼过去。他娘包惜弱本是带杨康改嫁给完颜洪烈的，是享誉一方的悲情女作家，一贯的矜持。这时觉得丈夫亏待了孩子，于是越发地矜持，完颜洪烈见到冷如冰霜的老婆，不禁也背脊发凉，觉得人生遭遇了前所未有的寒冬。 完颜洪烈虽然在汴京大学的学术界也是坐前几把交椅说一不二的人物，可是就怕家里这一对宝贝，于是急忙拍着胸脯安慰儿子说，生物技术系的主任无崖子是他老朋友，每年保送西域那些留学名额逃不过杨康的份，没准学个两年就直接送西域公费留学了，到时候混个镀金的金融文凭轻而易举，何必跟管理学院苦熬？ 杨康这才体会了完颜洪烈的苦心，父子亲近不必多说，包惜弱又给完颜洪烈做了两天晚饭，把完颜洪烈美得在系里见人就笑。和他有矛盾的几个教授都说学霸这莫非是转性了？或者在学院里又要大清洗，先来点笑容麻痹大家？ “哟，是杨康啊？”计算机系主任冲虚正在本系的接待点上看新生，这时候在远处招呼杨康。 “冲虚老师啊！”杨康心里说完蛋完蛋这老家伙废话最多，脸上却如春花灿烂，毕竟是和他爹平起平坐的人物，杨康也是得罪不起， 对郭靖点个头，杨康双肩一振，扫尽颓废，看起来绝对是意气风发的模范青年。他推开了身边的人窜过去和冲虚聊天，人群在他身后闭合，于是郭靖看不见他的背影了。 C&O 发表于 01:15 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 Why The Professor Can't Teach——几点说明 - 2003-06-03 00:54 Why The Professor Can't Teach——第十一章　一些强制的改革 [continue] Occasionally, a fine researcher is honored for his contributions by election to the presidency of one of these organizations. But it is rare that such a person is deeply concerned about the problems of the mathematical community or, if he is, that he has the administrative capacity to be effective. In fact, most presidents are content to bask in the sunshine of the office and perform perfunctorily during the year or two that they serve. In their behalf one should add that they are not relieved of their normal duties at their universities and so cannot devote much time and energy to organizational work. However, thoughtful, sincere, and unusually energetic men can be found in the organizations we have just discussed; and if perchance they should come to the fore, they could get their respective agencies to grapple with the problems of research and teaching and certainly aid immeasurably in solving them. This does happen - but all too rarely. The above recommendations will not solve all the problems of mathematics education. We must know more about how children learn and what motivates young people at various ages, and we must devise and employ more pedagogical aids; however, these measures call for more study and, unlike the ones recommended, cannot be employed at once. Reforms are needed not only to improve mathematics education. Both the survival of mathematics in the curriculum and of research itself are at stake. The concentration on pure, esoteric studies will ultimately mean less support from society and, as Richard Courant once predicted, all significant mathematics will be created by physicists, engineers, social scientists, and schools of business administration. Poor education drives away students, and fewer students means fewer jobs for mathematicians. The demand for mathematics education was in sharp decline during the 1930s, and deservedly so. Only World War II revived it. One would hardly hope for a repetition of such a saving measure. Though reforms of various sorts have yet to be adopted, we need not be too despondent about our educational system. The defects are somewhat excusable in the light of the early handicaps. As the United States grew in technology, power, and world influence, we sought to match other powers in scientific strength. We were the nouveaux riches who wanted scientific status. And so we imitated the western European countries, which had produced the best research. In our zeal to equal them we lost sight of one of our principles that should truly have given us pride and gratification: Unlike the European countries, we pledged ourselves early in our history to universal education and to free or low-cost education at higher and higher levels. The tasks of building and improving the educational system and at the same time striving for equality or even leadership in research were beyond the country's resources. We have attained that leadership, at the expense of quality education for all students. It is now time for mathematicians to shed their narcissism, broaden their vision and interests, limit research to worthwhile papers, and thereby release time and energy to the many-sided needs and tasks of education. They must cater to the interests of all students, undergraduate and graduate alike. Only recognition of the interdependence of research, scholarship, and teaching can advance mathematics itself, improve teaching, and further the multitudinous valuable uses of mathematics in our society. [end] 《为什么教授不会教书》（Why The Professor Can’t Teach）一书的正文已经全部连载完了。虽然贴在BLOG上有些不适合，而且几乎每天一大章，似乎太猛，效果反而不佳。其实是因为我介绍此书的心切，急于早日让大家知道，而不要在我手中耽搁。 我早早把此书的正文帖于此，一是希望大家有空时也能关注大学教育问题；二来也希望有关人员，如教育管理者、教育政策的制定者能注意到一些习以为常的事情的另一面，把我们的教育办的更好；三是希望找到更专业的人士，将此书翻译，甚至引进出版，让更多人受益。虽然大家手头可能有翻译软件，但毕竟仍是不方便。 这就是我大力推荐此书的初衷，现在仍是不变。我本人并不想从中获取任何利益。因为此书本身就让我学到了很多。 下面我将此书所在的链接再次公布于此，上面有此书的一些其它信息，如索引、版权等，还有许多其它好东东。 Why The Professor Can't Teach. C&O 发表于 00:54 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 Why The Professor Can't Teach——第十一章　一些强制的改革 - 2003-06-03 00:40 Why The Professor Can't Teach. CHAPTER 11: Some Mandatory Reforms. When I see how much education can be reformed, I have hope that society may be reformed. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz The defects in our educational system cannot be eliminated by one measure. There is no one cure for all diseases. Yet, little by little, medicine has conquered some and alleviated the gravity of others. In the educational field the universities' insistence on research as the qualification for appointment and tenure of professors (despite the low quality of much of the research and its irrelevance to teaching), large lecture classes, the use of teaching assistants on a wide scale, and inadequate textbooks are all highly detrimental to the progress of mathematics and to the effectiveness of education. Some helpful steps are apparent, and we have to be willing to take them. The first remedy lies in recognizing scholarship as well as research. Research in mathematics means the creation of new results or, at least, new methods of proof. Scholarship - which fundamentally implies breadth, knowledge in depth, and a critical attitude toward that knowledge - is currently deprecated. This distinction is not made in the social sciences, the arts, and the humanities. The person who digs up facts about an older civilization, who writes a detailed and perhaps critical biography of some major or minor historical or literary figure, or who puts together various theories of economics or government is considered creative, though there may be no single new fact in a given work. Of course, there are seminal thinkers in the nonmathematical fields. Some of their work is as novel, as creative, as anything produced in mathematics. But the distinction between old and new cannot be made as readily. In any case, in these fields new work is only a small part of what is accepted and even honored as research. The re-search of what has been done is accorded as much distinction as new work. In fact, a critical biography or evaluation of a man or an era is often lauded far more than the man or men whose work is being assessed. A lucid explanation or interpretation of mathematical research is worth far more than most research papers. Unfortunately, such presentations, even if of high quality, are held in low esteem. But it is scholars - people with a deep and broad knowledge of mathematics and an ability to communicate whether or not they contribute new results - who can correct many evils and perform many vital tasks. In recent times the overemphasis on research has forced the production of tens of thousands of papers. Beyond the unreasonableness of compelling teachers and scholars to do research, it has also obliged mathematicians to seek specialties so that they can keep abreast of what is being done in the area in which they seek to publish. The consequences have been a proliferation of obtuse papers of dubious value and the fragmentation of mathematics into an incoherent mass of details. More than ever, it has become necessary to decipher the cryptic research papers, to salvage the gems from the sludge, to connect in a coherent account the mass of disconnected results appearing in the hundreds of journals, and to give prominence to deserving contributions. More specifically, scholars can elucidate the inscrutable results contained in research papers. Because they can spend more time reading the published papers, they also can detect duplication of results; and the very knowledge that such duplication will be detected would deter those who would consciously publish old results disguised in new terminology and symbolism. Scholars can serve as critics of writing and here, too, force authors and publishers who would fear criticism to aim higher. There are other valuable functions for the scholar. He can write an expository paper on results obtained in one area and so make the methodology and results accessible to those in other fields. Such a paper can tie together in one intelligible account many research articles that individually mean little or that are of discernible significance only to the specialist. Expository papers would not only broaden the knowledge of currently narrow researchers but might also reveal and synthesize the relationships between works in different areas. They might, in addition, aid scientists and engineers to learn about work that can be useful to them. Survey papers do appear occasionally in the literature, but these are written by specialists for specialists in one particular area and do not aid outsiders. Today researchers hold innumerable conferences on specialized topics. Physicists and engineers wisely do not attend the usual conference, because it is unintelligible. Instead, they spend time creating what they need, even though their creations may already exist in the mathematical literature. Scholars could lead conferences that explain the research to a broad spectrum of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers. Lucid, critical, perceptive synthesis, so sorely needed in the present deluge of publications, would evaluate the import of the findings of the various specialized disciplines and assess them in the light of the overriding questions which prompted the development of the specializations in the first place and which parochial specialists have often lost sight of. Thereby synthesis and synthesizers would keep alive and in the forefront what the discipline as a whole is trying to do or should be doing. When one thinks of the massive manpower, money, and space devoted to mathematical research and the conflict between it and education, then certainly the evaluation of mathematical research and the determination of for what and for whom it is intended is of vast importance. Scholars, raising questions about the worth or direction of a particular specialization, would keep alive the spirit and activity of dissent. Specialists should be called upon to defend their activity and not be permitted to hide behind such shibboleths as "I am creating art," or "I like what I do." There is a function for the gadfly who poses questions that many specialists would like to overlook. Polemics are healthy. They not only tend to reduce fashions to a scale that their worth warrants, but they also may support the worthy unfashionable and the only seemingly ridiculous. Without scholarship - the organization, explanation, interpretation, and criticism of research - the currently vast number of proliferating disciplines steadily gain in quantity as they lose in quality, vision, and effective use of the little in them that is worthwhile. Scholars would, by definition, be thoroughly informed in the history of mathematics, which has many lessons that should be brought to the attention of all mathematicians. For example, faddism determined some directions of research. The pointlessness of some of what was done in past centuries might serve to dampen the fire of rampant current fads. History might also remind mathematicians of the major problems and goals. It is even possible that researchers, informed by scholars of the history of mathematics, might learn humility by becoming acquainted with the truly great works of the past. Scholarship is not easy or shallow, as researchers would have us believe. It requires a mentality more precious than most original research requires, a judgment of intellectual values that enables one to discriminate between the significant and the incidental, a sophisticated and well-developed common sense, and a sympathetic imagination. Victor F. Weisskopf, a distinguished professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has expressed the need for scholars in all of the sciences. Writing in Science (April 14, 1972), he says: Another destructive element within the science community is the low esteem in which clear and understandable presentation is held. This low esteem applies to all levels. The structure and language of a scientific publication is considered unimportant. All that counts is the content; so-called "survey" articles are understandable only to experts; the writing of scientific articles or books for non-scientists is considered a secondary occupation and, apart from a few notable exceptions is left to science writers untrained in science, some of whom are excellent interpreters. Something is wrong here. If one is deeply imbued with the importance of one's ideas, one should try to transmit them to one's fellows in the best possible terms. . . . Perhaps a lucid and impressive presentation of some aspect of modern science is worth more than a piece of so-called "original" research of the type found in many Ph.D. theses, and it may require more maturity and inventiveness. Why aren't scholars performing the functions we have described? Because scholarship, as opposed to research, is not valued, professors do not cultivate it. There is no place for the scholar in the mathematical world. He either receives no appointment or, if by chance he should acquire appointment and tenure, his work is not recognized. Nor does he find a ready outlet for his work. Current policy bars the use of space in prestigious journals unless one has something new to report. Mathematicians have always constituted a clannish, elitist, snobbish, highly individualistic community in which status is determined, above all, by the presumed importance of original contributions to mathematics; and in which the greatest rewards are bestowed upon those who, at least in the opinion of their peers, will leave a permanent mark on its evolution. To most mathematicians scholarship is a confession of failure as a researcher, a tacit admission of inability to compete in the arena of pure mathematics. Thus, in the highly status-conscious world of mathematics it takes courage and even sacrifice to violate the canons of respectability; one incurs derision or ostracism. A scholar performing the functions we have just described may not be a good teacher. The assimilation, synthesis, and evaluation of research are as demanding in time, energy, and special cast of mind as research itself - in fact, more so than most of the research done. True, the scholar would be more broadly informed and, in this respect, better qualified to teach. But knowledge alone does not make a teacher. What is the solution to our pedagogical problem? How are we going to get capable, dedicated men and women who will fashion the courses and write the texts that will inspire and meet the needs of students with diverse interests; spend time counseling students; prepare motivating themes and routines of discovery; know and use in their teaching attractive applications to the physical, social, and biological sciences, psychology, actuarial work, and other fields; take advantage of new teaching devices such as laboratory materials and films; stimulate thinking; study the rationale and methodology of examinations and grades; and, of course, be able to communicate with young people? Such men and women must also be concerned with what the elementary and high schools are teaching, so that college courses can be built upon what the students actually know when they enter college. The desirable men and women will have to know how much young people can understand about abstractions and what motivations will appeal to students at various ages. (See also Chapter 4.) Clearly, we need a third class of faculty - namely teachers - to perform functions that are quite different from those of researchers and scholars. We need. teachers of whom students can say, with Chaucer, "Gladly would he learn and gladly teach." Specialists may believe in the value of their subject, but their beliefs usually stop short at this point. Of course, just as scholarship feeds on research, so teachers would look to scholars for sustenance. Otherwise, teaching would become a repetition of stale, outmoded, and downright incorrect prattling. The magnitude of the problem of supplying college teachers is rarely appreciated; there are now about ten million undergraduate students in colleges and universities. College administrators and professors accept, or pretend to accept, as axiomatic that a Ph.D. well prepared in his specialty, competent as a researcher, intelligent, and sincerely devoted to his subject will certainly be a fine teacher; preparation, training, and special qualifications for teaching are unnecessary. They hold to these beliefs despite the oft-made observation that college teaching is a major learned profession for which there should be a well-defined program to develop the skills that practitioners must possess and to select those who can acquire the skills. Many professors regard with disdain the training needed for teaching. To interest men and women in a college teaching career, we shall have to change radically the attitudes and policies of universities. The shibboleth of research, the glorification and the superior emoluments accorded to it, must be countered if we are to combat the low esteem in which teaching is held. Teaching must be rewarded in every way as much as research. Teachers influence thousands of students during their careers and are far more vital to society than researchers except for a Newton. At present, teachers in universities, if retained at all, are tolerated, and their salaries are far below those of researchers. The argument is often advanced that teachers stagnate. But if the functions described above are required and are performed, there would be little likelihood of stagnation. Indeed, the risk of stagnation is greater in the case of researchers, who, as we have noted (Chapter 4), can and do burn out. Since their function is to strengthen the research capacity of a department, if they do deteriorate they are truly useless for many years of their tenure. Many people have called for recognition of scholarship and teaching. Dr. Alvin Weinberg, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has spoken out forthrightly: In the first place the university must accord the generalist of broad outlook the status and prestige it now confers solely upon the specialist of narrow outlook; and in the second place, the university must rededicate itself to education, including undergraduate education. I realize that the first of these measures is viewed with suspicion by the university. Specialization is "blessed" in the sense that only the specialist knows what he is talking about; yet, if only the specialist knows what he is talking about, only the generalist knows why he should talk at all. Reflections on Big Science, M.I.T. Press, 1967. In an article in Science (May 6, 1965), Dr. Weinberg stressed the need for teaching: The university must recognize its traditional mission - education of the young. Pregraduate education ought to give wholeness to the university. Education at the undergraduate level should properly be less professionalized and puristic than it is at the highest levels. Just as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, so elementary education properly should recapitulate the historic path of a discipline, its connections with other disciplines and with practical purposes - in short its place in the scheme of things. If the university takes undergraduate education seriously, and does not look upon it as attenuated professional education, the university community will be forced to broaden its outlook. Should scholars and teachers be expected to publish? Though exceptions should be permitted, some publication is in order. However, the word publication must be understood in its broadest sense. It should embrace far more than research papers containing new results. A good expository paper will benefit far more people than most research papers. A good text is worth a thousand of the usual trifles that appear in research journals. Significant articles on pedagogy are sadly needed and should be welcomed. Will all scholars and teachers perform as expected? Of course not. The variation of quality among such people will be as great as that among researchers. Some pressure to pursue self-development and up-to-dateness can be exerted by using promotion and salary as incentives. But these measures are all that one can invoke to oblige researchers to continue to produce high-quality research. Scholars and teachers must be trained. The present staffs of graduate mathematics departments cannot do the job, and changes will have to be made. Research professors cannot teach the appropriate courses and even regard it as beneath their dignity to do so. Professors who are sympathetic to training scholars and teachers will have to be appointed, and graduate courses that stress breadth of knowledge rather than specialization will have to be instituted. Moreover, there must be collateral courses in the physical and social sciences that will enable teachers to acquire knowledge that can be used to motivate students and to teach applications of mathematics. Such professors and courses would educate college teachers and provide the proper instruction for prospective elementary and high school teachers. The broadening of graduate education is necessary for other reasons as well. One of the new features of the current educational process is the rise of community (two-year) colleges. Some figures are highly relevant. The University of California has 100,000 students at eight university centers. There is a California state college system with 250,000 students on nineteen campuses. In addition, there are 100 community colleges in California that cater to 700,000 students. Nationwide, about 50 percent of the full-time undergraduate college students are in about 1,200 community colleges - as opposed to about 1,600 four-year colleges and universities - and the percentage in the community colleges is sure to increase. The community colleges face a number of special teaching problems. A third of their courses are essentially remedial. About 75 percent of the students seek to learn only technical subjects that will prepare them for jobs, and they terminate their education at the end of two years. Such fields as computing, statistics, probability, and applied mathematics at a low level are the ones that must be emphasized. Clearly, the teachers must have a broad background, possess interdisciplinary skills, and be willing to work at the level in question. Many community colleges are wary of hiring Ph.D.'s and even prefer to hire high school teachers. Certainly, Ph.D.'s geared to research are not the proper teachers for community colleges. Those who really want to do research will not take any interest in teaching and will leave as soon as possible for a university position, and those who are willing to devote themselves to the requisite tasks are poorly prepared. Even most Ph.D.'s who teach at four-year colleges are not properly prepared. They too are asked to teach statistics, probability, computer science, and physical applications, but they have little idea of how to cater to such interests. Beyond training two- and four-year college teachers, graduate programs should serve other interests. The variety of graduate students, high school and college teachers wishing to improve their backgrounds, housewives returning to teaching, practicing engineers and statisticians recognizing the need for more mathematical training, and adults seeking advanced or updated education, must be catered to. History does not ensure prophecy, but the growth in technology seems to indicate an increased demand for graduate education by nonspecialists in mathematical research. Unfortunately, the many fine intellects that could be devoted to scholarship, teaching, and the training of scholars and teachers are now hindered or even wasted through miseducation. In an article in the American Mathematical Monthly (September 1969), Professor I. N. Herstein of the University of Chicago pointed out that 75 percent of the students trained to do mathematics research never do so after acquiring the Ph.D.; they become teachers at two- and four-year colleges that do not demand research. Other studies confirm this fact. Moreover, surveys made of the research done by Ph.D.'s report that fewer than 20 percent published even one paper a year, and this says nothing about the quality of those papers. No doubt many factors disincline or deter Ph.D.'s from pursuing postdoctoral research. Most of those men and women, intelligent enough to complete a doctoral program, could be trained to be scholars and teachers. But currently they are forced to take a research-oriented Ph.D. The practice of training researchers and then asking them to spend a good deal or all of their professional lives at teaching contributes to the debacle of undergraduate teaching. The universities are wasting an enormous amount of professorial and student time, energy, and resources in failing to recognize the misdirected education of the 75 percent. Several independent commissions have urged the reorganization and broadening of graduate school objectives. One suggestion in particular has received much attention, namely a new degree, to be called Doctor of Arts, that would serve scholars and teachers. As far back as 1946, Howard Mumford Jones, in his Education and World Tragedy, advocated a separate degree for scholars and teachers. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, in Less Time, More Options, a report of 1971, not only supports the Doctor of Arts degree but also points out why it is far more desirable than the Ph.D. for prospective teachers. The report states: We consider it of great importance to reduce the impact of specialization and research on the entirety of higher education. . . . The Ph.D. now has a headlock on much of higher education. The greatest rewards are given to those who are highly specialized in their interests and undertake research, sometimes almost regardless of its importance and their own interest in it. The curriculum nearly all along the line is geared to the interests of the specialized instructor and to training the student for specialization. The requirement of the [Ph.D.] dissertation orients the student toward his research specialization rather than toward the instruction of students; it sometimes results in a "trained incapacity" to relate to students by both the selection process it sets in motion and the standards of performance it imparts. We now select and train a student to do research; then employ him to teach; and then promote him on the basis of his research. This both confuses him and subverts the teaching process. The report stresses the need for a degree program that qualifies people to become teachers, to declare by its very existence that teaching is also important and will be equally rewarded. Narrower and narrower specialization should not dominate higher education. In fact, the Doctor of Arts should be the standard liberal arts advanced degree; the Ph.D. could be retained for the relatively few who train for research. Both the Carnegie Corporation of NeW York and the Sloan Foundation have supported the initiation of the D.A. degree in several universities. As of 1975, about twenty-three universities, none of the most prestigious group, offer the D.A. in one or more departments. Though the specific requirements for the D.A. degree may vary from one institution to another, it should call for a broader knowledge than the Ph.D. degree, perhaps include a course on the nature and problems of a liberal arts program, and require an expository thesis that would also evidence ability to write lucidly. The thesis might synthesize existing knowledge or even tackle many unsolved problems of education, such as motivation. Many people believe that a Doctor of Arts degree is a 7 simplified doctoral program, a second-rate Ph.D. It is, in fact, the Ph.D. program that is second-rate: Candidates take routine courses, show some ability to learn these in an examination that any D.A. could equally well be required to pass, and then take specialized courses or seminars that require no more than a capacity to learn. There is, of course, the thesis, which in mathematics at least calls for original research. But the problem is set by a professor, and usually the student gets continual help from the professor. Adolf Hurwitz, a leading mathematician in the first quarter of this century, rightly said, "A Ph.D. dissertation is a paper written by a professor under aggravating circumstances." The usual thesis is not a sizable contribution to new knowledge or, if it is, is not necessarily the student's contribution. Thus, the Ph.D. does not certify research potential or promise a continuing interest in research. What is finally produced depends very much on the standards of the professors. These are often low, because some professors are too kind and others are anxious to show how many doctoral students they are turning out. The criterion of publication in a respectable journal also ensures nothing, because almost anything can be published these days - and, in fact, publication is no longer a common requirement. In many subjects, the Ph.D. thesis requirement of an original and significant contribution to knowledge is almost meaningless. Graduate students in the physical and biological sciences often work as members of a team, and the students are allowed to choose some detail of the team?s results as the substance of their theses no matter who did the real thinking. As for Ph.D. theses in the social sciences and the humanities, the less said about originality and significance, the better. On the other hand, an expository, critical, or historical thesis such as might be required for the D.A. degree could be demanded of the student as his work. There would be far less question of who is accomplishing what. The quality of the Doctor of Arts degree, as in the case of the Ph.D., will depend on the quality of the institutions and standards of the professors. The qualities and performance required of the candidates could be so demanding that a professor could justifiably say to an Arts degree candidate, "If you do not feel up to this program you can settle for the Ph.D." The usual product of the Ph.D. program is a person of narrow knowledge and broad ignorance. The D.A. may not be any wiser, but he will have some breadth and will be trained for the work that he and most Ph.D.'s subsequently do. The Doctor of Arts need not refrain from research. If he finds that he likes research, he can pursue it to the extent that time permits; he might later take a Ph.D. program, engage in research, and publish. Universities could even grant the Ph.D. to such a candidate solely on the basis of publications, which are more likely to be valuable than the hothouse-forced, professor-guided Ph.D. theses. Alternatively, the Doctor of Arts could pursue research training in an organization such as The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, which gives no degrees or credits but does offer courses and contact with leaders in research. Training in research could be a postdoctoral undertaking, just as specialization in a branch of medicine is post-M.D. training. Another group, the Panel on Alternate Approaches to Graduate Education, in its report Scholarship for Society (Educational Testing Service, 1973), has also advocated broader programs in the graduate schools. In the light of modern needs and changing circumstances, it concluded that new elements need to be added to the graduate programs and the horizons of concern expanded. Interdisciplinary studies were also stressed. The Panel scored the graduate schools for their concentration on training only for research and publication. The faculties of the graduate schools, now under the control of research professors, were urged to take a broader view of their professional roles and not to make decisions on tenure, promotion, and salary even for graduate faculty only on the basis of research and publication: It is a matter of recreating the graduate faculty as leaders in the search for a new understanding of the possibilities of human society and of recreating the graduate institution as one that is capable of counseling political and cultural leaders on ways of assuring meaning to the structural changes of society now in progress... .There are new roles as well as a new clientele for graduate education. The Panel concluded that there must be a "re-evaluation of the basic objectives and organization of each graduate school and the disciplines essential to it." President Derek C. Bok of Harvard University, in his annual report of 1972-73 to the Board of Overseers, stated quite frankly that Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Science has not done enough to prepare its students for the role they will play as teachers and educators. . . . Yet the fact remains that most of our graduate students obtain their doctorates without ever being exposed to the best of the literature on higher education and without ever exploring systematically the educational issues they will encounter as teachers, committee members and department chairman. .. . This situation is hard to defend. Students seek graduate training to pursue specific careers, yet graduate schools make a serious effort to prepare students for only a part of their professional lives. This practice is hardly suited to an age when society increasingly questions the quality of college teaching and the value of traditional forms of higher education. President Bok agrees with other surveys that more and more of even Harvard Ph.D.'s will be devoting their careers to teaching and adds, "But surely it is odd to continue placing such exclusive emphasis on research when so many of our students will spend large parts of their careers in predominantly teaching institutions." He also points out that the problem is hardly new and has been raised many times in the past by presidents, deans, and iconoclastic professors. Yet little has changed, either at Harvard or elsewhere. There is a good chance, however, that the universities will broaden their graduate school programs in the near future. But if they do, in most cases it will not be because they wish to make amends for the narrowness of their present programs or because they have become conscience-stricken about their indifference to the needs of society. It will be to alleviate financial problems by admitting more students and collecting more tuition. The current academic effort is dichotomized. When research in the United States became a viable activity, the universities, falling for the prestige of research and financial gains made possible thereby, strained their manpower and other resources to win that prestige. But the country as a whole, dedicated to universal education at higher and higher levels, needs broadly informed and competent teachers and scholars - which it has not yet produced. Just as two men pulling on opposite ends of a rope fall to the ground when the rope splits, so our mutually competitive educational efforts have suffered. The research has sunk to fruitless specialization and our classrooms on all levels are staffed with poorly trained or mistrained teachers. The empty space that separates the two ends of the split rope is, in the educational area, the vacuum that remains to be filled by teachers and scholars. The problem of what to do with research professors who cannot teach even on the graduate level also remains to be solved. Actually, in some cases teaching and research could complement each other; some professors do derive stimulation from teaching. Moreover, teaching can keep a professor psychologically at ease during an otherwise unproductive period, because the time is being profitably used. Further, it is the desire of any professor who has a worthwhile direction of research to see it pursued, and his students are the most likely candidates for such pursuit. But researchers who cannot or will not teach should be employed in institutes that are devoted entirely to research, conduct no formal teaching, and give no degrees. In such institutions the researchers would be free to pursue their interests full time. The benefits to be derived from segregating excellent researchers who cannot or will not teach are immense. To burden such people with formal teaching is to deprive them of time and energy and to distract them from their valuable work. It is equally important that such researchers be dislodged from dominance in formulating university policies. Although they may soar to great heights of thought much as a towering mountain peak may rise among hills, they are limited in range. Their role in the educational process may be detrimental. As long as researchers are regarded as the cream of the university personnel, more valuable than scholars, teachers, and administrators, their needs and judgments will usurp those of others. The elitism and snobbery of some are an affront to sincere and capable colleagues. Recognition of the shortcomings of researchers is as important as helping them to function effectively. Special institutes for researchers abound in Germany and the Soviet Union, where they are government-supported. In Germany, for example, the Max Planck Gesellschaft (the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science) directs about fifty research institutes called Max Planck Institutes. They employ about ten thousand people and cover many areas of research. (The Max Planck Gesellschaft is the direct successor of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, which was founded in 1911. One of the institutes, devoted to physics, was founded for Albert Einstein in 1917.) These institutes are free to choose their own direction of research. Though there are government-supported laboratories in the United States, these have specific missions and are not free to determine their research programs. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton is the only organization that approximates the German and Soviet institutes; however, our own Institute is privately endowed and cannot be the haven for all who should be accommodated. This is not to belittle its contribution. For instance, when Einstein was forced out of Germany by Hitler he became one of the six chosen to inaugurate the mathematics division. Certainly, a number of such institutions for fine research people would keep research active and permit universities to confine themselves to researchers who would promote the numerous functions of the graduate schools. Still another measure could be adopted by some universities. A few declare openly that their chief function is to do research and train research people. Since the faculties of these universities either cannot teach undergraduates or, even if capable of doing so, cannot take the time and energy to do so properly because research is so demanding, these universities should discontinue undergraduate education. Of course, they would be reluctant to do so. They want the undergraduate courses to help provide jobs for the researchers and for graduate students, and they want the tuition that undergraduates pay, or that the states provide, to support research. But it is just these abuses of undergraduates that must be eliminated, and any justification offered by these universities for retaining undergraduate schools (such as the opportunity they give young students to come into contact with "great" minds) is factitious. The model for purely research-oriented universities could very well be Rockefeller University in New York City. It is outstanding in research strength and offers only Ph.D. degrees. The Institute has no formal connection with Princeton University. It has its own administration, objectives, and funds. However, there are measures that can enable a university to educate undergraduates and still retain the research and graduate training. To eliminate robbing undergraduates in order to favor graduate teaching and research, the two missions of mathematics departments (and other departments) - graduate and undergraduate - should be administered separately and their budgets maintained separately. Undergraduate tuition should be used solely for undergraduates. Moreover, appointments to undergraduate teaching should not be subject to approval by the head of the graduate department. The segregation of funds and authority would permit the undergraduate divisions to hire full-time competent teachers in place of the low-paid, immature graduate students who now do the bulk of undergraduate teaching. Any surplus could be used to increase scholarships and facilities. The suggestion that the undergraduate and graduate functions be separated may appear radical. Actually, it would be a reversion to an older order. When graduate education and research were first undertaken in this country, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the graduate faculties were separate. It was President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard who, in 1890, first established a single faculty for both divisions. This move was wise at that time, because the teaching faculties were weak and the researchers were more able teachers of the advanced courses. Also, through close contact with the teachers, the researchers exerted a largely beneficial influence. The separation recommended for today's universities does not mean that one division should not influence the other, or that the faculties must be entirely distinct from one another. A wise undergraduate chairman will utilize the services of a graduate professor if he believes it will improve the undergraduate program, and the graduate chairman wiii do the corresponding thing. A wise dean would suggest or encourage such cooperation. Researchers oppose the total separation of graduate and undergraduate schools. The arguments are, first, that "A good graduate school provides the best way of assuring high academic and intellectual standards." Just how these standards work their influence on the undergraduate schools is not made clear. The research professors are not at all interested in the undergraduate activity. What is clear is the disregard of the undergraduates in favor of the graduate faculty (Chapter 5). Second, "A good graduate school provides the best way of recruiting a distinguished faculty. The strength of a faculty depends on its creativity - on the opportunity to do research, write books and work with advanced students." Again, what does this have to do with undergraduate teaching? And then comes the giveaway. "Third, the graduate school is responsible in great part for the reputation of a university, for the impression outsiders have of it" (italics added). But what value does the reputation of a university for graduate work or the impression this reputation creates have for undergraduate teaching? And if one does attract good undergraduates but does not do justice to them, how can one justify attracting the students and then fouling up their lives? The prestige of the graduate school ensnares the best undergraduates, springs the trap, and then lets them perish while struggling to free themselves. One is quite safe in assuming that the more prestigious the university, the fewer its educational concerns and the poorer its educational effectiveness. Certainly, as long as research is the criterion of faculty value, few benefits will accrue to teaching. These arguments were presented, as quoted above, on the Op-ed page of the New York Times of December 17, 1975. Still another argument for the status quo is that graduate schools "attract the best teachers." If the purport is that the presence of a graduate school attracts good undergraduate teachers, then the facts deny this contention. A good graduate school attracts young people who seek to promote their own research more readily, and these people aspire to become prestigious researchers rather than great teachers. Moreover, at most universities they have no choice; their futures depend only on their achievements in research. The claim that undergraduate professors need the backing, stimulus, and knowledge of the researcher is false. There are some excellent four-year colleges in this country where the best teaching takes place (Chapter 5). The professors in such schools are entirely isolated from research professors. A testimonial to the superior teaching performance of the four-year colleges was recently given by a professor at one of the most prestigious universities. Speaking of his own institution he said, "It wants to be Amherst to its undergraduates and Yale to its graduate students." Surely, then, independent undergraduate divisions in universities would not suffer. The objection that research professors advance to the separation of graduate and undergraduate colleges of a university is entirely self-serving. Political colonialism of the nineteenth century has been ref ashioned into academic colonialism by which the graduate division preys on the undergraduate just as surely as wolves prey on sheep. If the graduate schools are forbidden to use undergraduate funds, how will they maintain themselves? The answers are to cut down the number of research professors, require more teaching, cut out the competition for high-salaried researchers, and eliminate those men and women who, though called professors, contribute no more than their names. Money would also be saved on supporting personnel and space. The indirect gains would also be appreciable. Fewer specious or trivial papers would be published, and the truly worthy ones would stand forth. Further, because the number of journals in all fields is now so large that libraries cannot find the space and funds for them, reduction in the size and number of journals would reduce library costs. These costs are now so great that a current study financed by major foundations (New York Times, June 23, 1975) is seeking new ways of preserving and disseminating research that would eliminate journals. Research and graduate teaching were dire needs in 1876. In 1976 both must be re-examined. While a greater variety of graduate programs is needed, the total number of graduate degrees can be reduced now and for the forseeable future; all predictions of undergraduate enrollment agree that it will decline. The universities are even now competing fiercely for students, and the competition will be stiffer as college enrollment drops. Quality of education is in the long run the best attraction, whereas the roseate bubble of prestige, which has enveloped many institutions and enabled them to look attractive, may be pierced and collapse. In any case, the sacrifice of the undergraduates to favor the graduate activities cannot be tolerated. The separation of undergraduate and graduate functions would have another positive value. At present the running of the undergraduate activities -decisions on courses to be offered, selection of teachers (whether graduate students or mature people), choice of texts, and teaching schedules - is assigned to an administrative assistant by the head of the department. The low quality of the resulting undergraduate education does not worry the head. He knows that his [258] performance will be judged by the research activity. On the other hand, the undergraduate chairman, if properly chosen and a power in his own right, would seek out competent teachers. Thus, teachers would finally find a place in the universities, and the money to pay them their due would also be available. The graduate departments, in turn recognizing that their existence would depend in part on getting jobs for their graduates, might be obliged to introduce a doctoral program that would actually train teachers. Of course, there are disadvantages and even dangers in separating graduate and undergraduate administrations and budgets. Friction, competition for funds and facilities, and even opposition may develop. It is trite to say that we must choose the lesser of two evils, but when the lesser evil is to do justice to the millions of undergraduates and, at that, indirectly provide some benefits to graduate teaching and research, the choice is clear. It is not unlikely that even government intervention may force improvements. The most prestigious universities practiced racial and religious discrimination for decades. Present federal regulations have compelled elimination of this and other unfair practices. The likelihood of further governmental action is implied by the statement made by President Derek C. Bok of Harvard in his 1972-73 annual report to the Board of Overseers: "If universities accept huge sums in federal aid for research and training, public officials could not fail to pay attention to the way in which tax dollars were spent." State departments of education have been rather lax in imposing standards of quality, but the call for a crackdown has already appeared in newspaper editorials. Americans might well consider another measure. Elementary school teachers used to receive training in what were called normal schools, and secondary school teachers were taught in colleges devoted to teacher training. Both types of schools were indeed poor, but only because all levels of education and knowledge in this country were poor. By 1960, the normal schools and teachers colleges had converted to liberal arts colleges, often with graduate and research programs. The latter have sought to emulate the large universities and have enlisted faculty who are sub jectoriented and who seek to obtain recognition in their respective professional circles. Teacher education has been sacrificed. Prospective teachers now attending these altered colleges or the liberal arts colleges of the universities are taught content by the typical Ph.D. or by a graduate student, neither of whom is informed in the specialized needs of the students. We might now reverse history and re-establish four-year colleges devoted to teacher training. Such colleges today could demand and obtain knowledgeable faculty that would devote itself to the education of teachers. Perhaps the wisdom of such a move might be more evident by considering the situation in engineering schools. These schools must be separated from liberal arts colleges because the engineering students have to learn many technical subjects. Nevertheless, in most universities all mathematics courses are taught by liberal arts professors who care little and know less about what kind of mathematics is best for engineers. Hence, as noted earlier (Chapter 7), many engineering colleges of the large universities offer their own mathematics courses rather than have their students take those offered by the academic mathematics department. Though the proper education of prospective school teachers is closer to liberal arts than is that of future engineers, nevertheless there are features that demand specially oriented professors. The need for such specialists is underscored by events of the 1960s. College professors should know what students learn in high school, and professors who train prospective high school teachers should certainly know what these teachers will face. During the 1960s the high schools most commonly taught the New Math. When the subject of the New Math was broached in conversations among professors, even men who were specifically undergraduate teachers would ask, What is the new math? Whether it was good or bad, the high school teachers were obliged to teach it.Certainly, then, college professors involved in training high school teachers should have been fully informed about that curriculum. Indeed, many apologists for the New Math blame its failure not on the content but on the fact that the teachers were not prepared to teach it. There is some substance to this contention. Since the universities do not on their own initiative undertake to meet the needs of most of the students, one might look to other agencies to exert pressure on the universities. The most prestigious agency is undoubtedly the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy should certainly be concerned with the scientific health of the nation. But apparently, the most important function of this organization is to elect members - or, as one member put it, to bore those who belong and to embarrass those who do not. The election process itself may give some indication of what can be expected of the Academy. Election must be initiated through nomination by a member. Whom would a member know? Most likely his own colleagues. And he would prefer such men because honored colleagues imply honor to oneself. On the other hand, a rival in research is clearly not worthy of honor. The actual election of nominees is a political bargaining session. Because the members, coming from numerous, diverse, and highly specialized fields, really cannot judge most of the men they vote for or against, many biases determine the decisions. The election process is incredthly complex and devious. When the academicians Norbert Wiener and Richard Feynman, both distinguished in their respective fields of mathematics and physics, witnessed these elections, they resigned in disgust. The topologist Stephen Smale, after attending his first Academy meeting, remarked irreverently, "It was really fantastic as these days passed to see how this group of America's most celebrated scientists meeting together could be so dominated by the question of just how to increase their membership and ways to remember their dead." The outcome of elections is that the in-group perpetuates itself. This is also evident from the fact that no engineers, medical people, or social scientists were among the Academicians until about ten years ago when, after protests, the Academy decided to elect members from these fields. It is significant that in the years between 1950 and 1973 twelve American scientists who won Nobel prizes - surely, some deserved it - were not members of the Academy at the time. On the whole, the membership consists of researchers who do not possess breadth of vision; one would not, therefore, expect the Academy to help in pedagogical matters. But one can expect the members to be concerned about the enormous waste in research and the damage that the flood of publication is causing. However, the Academy does nothing about these problems. Once in a while the members are stirred into action and appoint a committee to perform a particular function. In the late 1960s, when the United States government was still pouring money into mathematical research, the members of the Academy were not satisfied that the amount was enough and appointed the Committee on the Support of Research in the Mathematical Sciences, known as COSRIMS. The Committee decided that its best argument for increased support would be that the nation needs more Ph.D.'s for college and university teaching. Even by 1965, independent studies of future college populations were estimating that the college population would stabilize by 1970 and, somewhat later, decrease. These estimates were reliable, because the number of children who would be of college age in the next two decades was known, and the proportion of high school students entering college had not changed appreciably in several decades. Moreover, the mathematics departments were already turning out Ph.D.'s in greatly increased numbers. In fact, Dr. Allan Cartter, at that time head of the American Council on Education, warned the academic community during the boom years of the mid1960s that there would be an oversupply of Ph.D.?s and this was evident, some said, even in 1961. Nevertheless, the figures issued by COSRIMS indicated that there would be an enormous shortage of Ph.D.'s in the 1970s. In fact, the Committee recommended an increase of two hundred more in mathematics each year over the preceding year for the next five years after 1968. Because students were thus led to believe that jobs would be available, the number of Ph.D.?s awarded in mathematics increased from 970 in 1968 to 1,281 in 1972. It has since begun to drop, because the shortage of jobs has discouraged students from entering the field. As one article put it, the good news in the summer of 1974 was that unemployment among Ph.D.'s was not much worse than in 1973. COSRIMS not only did not do its homework but allowed its desire to obtain more funds for research to be defended on simple-minded extrapolation from what was happening in the 1960s. In effect, as one prominent professor observed, the report was a piece of propaganda rather than one based on hard-headed research. The work of COSRIMS was but one activity of the National Academy, and one might be tempted to dismiss this one "mistake" as minor. But those young people who were encouraged to take a Ph.D. in the expectation of obtaining employment as college teachers and are now walking the streets cannot be quite so charitable. Another organization that could have significant effect on unbridled, low-quality research and on the programs of the graduate schools is the American Mathematical Society. At its founding in 1894, the Society planned to devote its efforts to teaching, writing, research, and any labor that any member might consider appropriate (Chapter 2). Writing, on all levels, was explicitly recommended. In particular, the Society described itself as an organization of teachers: "Any tendency to restrict its usefulness solely to the paths of investigation and publication should, for every reason of prudence and wisdom, be resisted." Of course at that time research in the United States was in its infancy. As research became more active, the Society turned its attention more and more in that direction, and it began to extol research as the only significant activity of college professors. One would expect, however, that the interest in good research and in the diffusion of relevant knowledge into the classroom would cause the Society to concern itself with teaching and expository writing and to combat overspecialization, the flood of poor research articles, the imbalance between pure and applied mathematics, and the ever increasing isolation of mathematics. But none of these evils has been tackled. The measures that the American Mathematical Society could adopt to check excessive and wasteful publication, to aid teaching, and to reduce the inhumane pressure on young Ph.D.'s to publish would require careful consideration. A radical measure, but one that seems to have at least more merits than defects, would be to prohibit men and women who are only two or three years past the Ph.D. from publishing in its journals. This not only would permit the young professors to adjust themselves to teaching but also would eliminate many of the worthless articles that are now flooding the journals. And it would oblige administrators to judge people rather than to count publications. *The shortcomings of the Academy are described in Boffee, Phillip M.:The Brain Bank of America, McGraw-Hill, 1975. Certainly, the Society should advocate a wiser appointment policy. In place of the widespread three-year appointments, new Ph.D.'s should be appointed with no time limitation other than the understanding, as recommended by the American Association of University Professors, that they must serve seven years to acquire tenure, with notification at the end of the sixth year if tenure is not to be granted. Naturally, those who are clearly unsuitable could be dismissed sooner because the appointments are legally on a year-to-year basis. But if a young teacher feels that he has at least six years in which to adapt himself to a faculty position and can therefore allow some time to recognize his natural interests and aptitudes, he is more likely to devote himself to teaching, to building a better background for research, and to determining what his major contribution to the university can be. A new Ph.D. also needs time to recoup psychologically from his doctoral work. The university in turn will have more time to judge what his actual strengths are. If it should be necessary to terminate the appointment of a teacher who has served for five or six years, such a teacher would normally be about thirty years old, still young enough to find another position. In fact, having had the opportunity to examine himself, he could seek an appointment suited to the career most congenial to him. The Society could expose other undesirable practices. It could, for example, ask for more integrity in university administrators. Many a department today appoints dozens of new Ph.D.'s for a three-year period knowing that there would be no possibility of a permanent appointment for more than one or two. These appointments are not carefully screened. The reason given for the multiple appointments is that the tyros will be observed during the three-year period and the best retained. But the real reason for the policy is that the university can boast of having a large number of research-oriented Ph.D.'s while paying them about one-third of a full professor's salary. The Society also should be concerned with the quality of its publications. Since refereeing of papers is now an almost impossible task (Chapter 3), the Society could insist that papers submitted to its journals be readable; thus, at least correctness could be determined. Most authors write as though they were more concerned to be admired than understood. The full worth of a paper may be harder to determine, but even this judgment could be facilitated. Each author should be required to state what, at least in his opinion, is the contribution of his paper - application to science, aesthetic value, or intellectual interest. The most likely objection to such requirements is that more journal space would be needed, and journal space is expensive. But the proposed requirements would result in eliminating a great many of the presently published papers because they are either incorrect, worthless, or duplications. The net result would be a saving of space and easier determination by readers of whether a paper is relevant to their interests. With the present uncontrolled flood, the good is swamped by the bad. Still another organization, the Mathematical Association of America, explicitly states its devotion to furthering the interests of undergraduate education. This organization should certainly be fighting the overemphasis on research, the low status accorded to teaching, the lack of training of graduate students for future teaching, and the use of teaching assistants. In fact, the organization was founded by a group of the American Mathematical Society, which in 1915 recognized that the Society had begun to ignore teaching in favor of research. But this organization is no more effective in its sphere than the Society is in research. No more can be expected of it than to maintain the status quo. Both organizations appoint committees that report on current problems and urge the appointment of more committees and the gathering of information. In the last few years the need to diversify the training of mathematicians has been stressed by panels at meetings and occasional articles in the journals of the two societies. A recently appointed committee even pokes a little fun at one organization by using the title "How to Cope with M.A.A.: Mathematical Avoidance and Anxiety." But a scrutiny of these talks and articles soon yields the underlying reason for urging any reform - to help Ph.D.'s get jobs. For example, a rapidly expanding possible market for Ph.D.'s is the two-year junior college. Hence, the panels and articles address themselves to the needs of these colleges. Industry also needs mathematicians, and applied mathematics is frequently recommended as preparation for such jobs. Of course, the advice from present-day professors in universities on the needs and problems of the junior colleges and industry is almost worthless. Very few of the men have had experience in either field and so do not know what these organizations require of employees. The advice expresses pious sentiments motivated solely by the job shortage. The overemphasis on research, the narrowness of the Ph.D. training, and the miserable teaching of undergraduates in most universities are not attacked. These articles and speeches attempt to cure a serious illness with aspirin. No concrete, effective measures are undertaken. Actually, many members of both societies are influential in their own university departments; some are chairmen. But they do nothing at their own institutions to broaden the nature or goals of graduate education or to secure and retain scholars and teachers. Research is the coin of the realm. Ironically, some of these chairmen sought administrative positions because they did not do research. Though a few chairmen now favor a broader thesis that might be an expository dissertation rather than original research, in the present atmosphere the chances for a person who writes such a thesis to get a job are practically nil. One chairman magnanimously said he would hire such a person for two years, but of course would not keep him beyond that period. One other organization, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, warrants mention. This organization is concerned with high school and elementary school education. It is more effective in its sphere than either of the other two. High school and elementary school teachers do not have the time and opportunity to develop and test new ideas, new techniques of teaching, and new communication media. Through its journals, meetings, and workshops the National Council does provide instruction in content and methodology. But some of its leaders have been gullible. In 1961, before the New Math had received any significant testing, the Council published a pamphlet, The Revolution in School Mathematics, that not only advocated the New Math but charged that those schools that failed to adopt it were remiss in their obligations. Moreover, the Council should represent the views of all the members. It has not always done so. For example, during the heyday of the New Math, the Council's journal, The Mathematics Teacher, could not avoid publishing some articles condemning the New Math. Thus, when a critical speaker, invited to give a keynote speech at some meeting, submitted his speech for publication, the editors dared not reject it. But they made sure it was followed in the same issue by a rejoinder. Apparently the editors wished to prevent criticism of the New Math from having any influence on its members. Most editors of the American Mathematical Monthly, the official organ of the Mathematical Association of America, also reject articles critical of the existing conduct of education. The cause of the shortcomings in the several organizations is readily explained. Leadership in them offers prominence, prestige, and - indirectly -personal advancement in one's university, college, or other institution. Hence, such positions are sought by members of the profession. How does one attain high position in these organizations? The procedure is not unlike what happens in politics. The president appoints the important committees, including the committees that nominate future officers and editors of journals. The committees are sure to be composed of insiders, and they make the choices for lesser committees. An aspirant to office seeks and makes the acquaintanceship of some prominent members of the society and at an opportune time offers to serve on some minor committee. These prominent members, usually already on important committees, will choose this man because his name stands out as opposed to the thousands of names of unknown members. Going along with the majority and continuing cultivation of prominent members leads to more and more important roles, visibility in society affairs, and almost inevitably to higher and higher office. Finally, the organization sends out an election ballot to its members with Mr. BLank as the only choice for president. Of course, Mr. Blank is elected. The leadership perpetuates its own kind. That mediocrities and power - or prestige-seekers should rise to the presidency of a national organization may seem incredible. But one has only to think of some of the men who have become presidents of the United States. [to be continued] Why The Professor Can't Teach. C&O 发表于 00:40 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 对联欣赏１ - 2003-06-02 04:24 对联　顾宪成 风声雨声读书声　声声入耳 家事国事天下事　事事关心 C&O 发表于 04:24 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 沙僧日记——透逗前年3月3日 - 2003-06-02 04:20 沙僧日记　林长治 透逗前年3月3日 其实我和大师兄，二师兄早已破了荤戒了。我们经常背着师傅，一起去化斋。在路上，我们捉个兔子，野鸡什么的就烤着吃，可解馋了！然后再化点斋饭带回去给师傅吃。 想想师傅没得荤腥吃着实怪可怜的。于是，我们三个决定今天把兔子肉打碎拌在饭里，让师傅也吃点好的。 我们端着混着肉的饭回来后却遍寻不到师傅，可把大家急坏了！最后在一个小山洞里找到了师傅。见到我们他大吃一惊，忙将嘴擦干净，嘴角还留着没擦掉的鸡毛。 哦！原来他躲在山洞里烤鸡翅膀吃呢！ “既然你们都看见了，我也不瞒大家了，我太馋了，但又怕你们笑话，所以就等你们出去化斋的时候搞点兔子野鸡什么的吃。”他说得满脸通红。 “师傅，你这样做可太不应该了！走！今晚我请客，吃海鲜去！”二师兄叫道。 C&O 发表于 04:20 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 此间的少年——楔子 - 2003-06-02 04:15 此间的少年　江南 楔子 又是汴梁的秋天，积累了整整一个春夏的枝叶悄然凋零，几片落叶的背后，是二胡嘶哑的弦歌。 秋天是操琴的天气。很久以前，教莫大胡琴的师傅说：“春宜绘墨，秋宜操琴。”莫大那个时候还年轻，不理解，师傅也不多解释。后来经历的风霜多了，莫大才觉得领悟了。原来春水春树这种一时繁华的东西最该入画，否则就流逝了，一时好景色，过去就追不回来。而秋愁如此，最是消磨意气，惟有以胡琴的两根枯弦唱出来才略可慰藉。所以风雅苍凉如莫大者，一到秋来时，纵然是《凤求凰》这种曲子也不由得萧瑟悲凉起来。 不过这个观点得不到莫大师娘的首肯，根据莫大师娘的意见，莫大和他师傅都是村上有名的懒虫，春秋两季农忙的时候总是偷懒不肯下地干活，于是就会抱着胡琴跑到附近的山头上打发打发时间。而莫大师傅那句话只是他一生的真实写照，和春思秋悲这种深奥的情绪扯不上半点关系。 莫大说：“可为啥师傅一定说春天画画秋天拉琴呢？” 师娘说：“你也学了那么多年了，怎么一点不长进？老鬼的意思是讲春天天气太湿磨墨方便，秋天琴弦比较干，拉起来高兴。” 于是莫大很惆怅，不知道是自己错了还是师娘错了。那句话的意思永远是一个解不开的谜——当莫大想回头去找这个谜底的时候，说话的人已经死了。 很多年以后，莫大就从江西的村头挪到汴梁的马路边，怀里不变的是那把黄杨木的老胡琴，变了的是莫大的琴声和莫大自己。有时候看着熙熙攘攘的人流，莫大会想自己在学会记忆以前已经开始忘记了。也许除了老师那句话，当年有更多的东西是他应该弄清楚的，比如住在村子围堤北边的那个梳羊角辫的小女孩，为什么她总是扛着一筐草安静地站在自己背后听那曲一成不变的《凤求凰》？ 莫大有时候喝了点老酒，会对后生崽子们说，年轻好啊……往往当他想继续往下说的时候，他就只能看见那些后生崽子的屁股了，所以莫大知道他们其实并不想听他说。 后来莫大喝了酒也不多话，他只架起一条腿坐在汴京大学草地的铁栏杆上，续两根新弦，拉一曲老旧的《凤求凰》。 大宋嘉佑元年，汴梁城西中流道北，曾经有过一个江西老头莫大拉一曲二胡，说他自己对光阴的一点感悟。而我们的故事，也是从那个时间和空间点上开始的。 C&O 发表于 04:15 | 阅读全文 | 评论(1) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 今天起连载《此间的少年》和《沙僧日记》。 - 2003-06-02 04:13 今天是休息日，多贴些搞笑的。 今天起连载《此间的少年》和《沙僧日记》。其中转贴《此间的少年》是为了纪念我的大学时代。 C&O 发表于 04:13 | 阅读全文 | 评论(1) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——大话西游精彩对白 - 2003-06-02 03:56 星爷的经典台词 大话西游精彩对白： 你妈贵姓？ 你又在吓我！ 小心啊！打雷喽！下雨收衣服啊！ 跟我说话吗？不是跟我说的吧？认错人啦！ 悟空，你怎么可以这样跟观音姐姐讲话呢？ 唉，文也不行武也不行，你不做山贼，你想做状元啊？ 喔－－！熟归熟，你这样乱讲话，我一样可以告你毁谤，哈！ 省省吧你！改变什么形象，好好地做你山贼这份很有前途的职业去吧！ 我怎么说也是个夕阳武士，你叫我亲我就亲，那我的形象不是全毁了！ 老弟，象我这么有理性的人，我怎么可能会接受这种无稽的事情呢？ 你把胡子剃光干什么？你知不知道你少了胡子一点性格都没有了？ 长夜漫漫无心睡眠，我以为只有我睡不着觉，原来晶晶姑娘你也睡不着啊！ 少罗嗦！你追了我三天三夜，因为你是女人我才不杀你，不要以为我怕了你了！ 看看你这副德性，鬼鬼祟祟丢人现眼披头散发人模狗样，怎么跟我出来闯荡江湖，啊？ 以前陪我看月亮的时候叫人家小甜甜，现在新人胜旧人了，叫人家牛夫人！ 我刚刚睡醒，经过外面无所事事，就顺便进来拜师学艺的。 你突然跟我提到成亲的事......我牙齿还没刷呢！ 谁说我斗鸡眼？我只是把视线集中在一点以改变我以往对事物的看法，干吗？造谣我不行了，想抢我的位子？ 紫霞在你心目中是不是一个惊叹号，还是一个句号，你脑袋里是不是充满了问号？ 爱一个人需要理由吗？不需要吗？需要吗？哎，我是跟你研究研究嘛，干嘛那么认真呢？ 你有多少兄弟姐妹？你父母尚在吗？你说句话啊，我只是想在临死之前多交一个朋友而已。 人和妖精都是妈生的，不同的人是人的'>的'>他的，妖是妖的'>的'>他的...... 所以说做妖就象做人一样，要有仁慈的心，有了仁慈的心，就不再是妖，是人妖。 我受不了你呀！你长得这么丑，帮个忙，大家都是神仙，不要再性骚扰我了行不行？ 论智慧跟武功呢，我一直比他高一点点，可是现在多了个紫霞仙子，他恐怕比我高一点点了。就是因为多了你这个累赘他才会高我一点点！ 悟空他要吃我，只不过是一个构思，还没有成为事实，你又没有证据，他又何罪之有呢？不如等他吃了我之后，你有凭有据，再定他的罪也不迟啊！ 悟空，你尽管捅死我吧，生又何哀，死又何苦，等你明白了舍生取义，你自然会回来跟我唱这首歌的！喃呒阿弥陀佛、喃呒阿弥陀佛、喃呒阿弥陀佛...... 一定要交代！所以我一定要拿回那个月光宝盒带你一起回去跟他们说清楚。我不管别人怎么说我，我也不怕后世会有千千万万的人对我唾骂，我要一个人承担下来。 大家看到啦？这个家伙没事就长篇大论婆婆妈妈叽叽歪歪，就好象整天有一只苍蝇，嗡……对不起，不是一只，是一堆苍蝇围着你，嗡…嗡…嗡…嗡…飞到你的耳朵里面，救命啊！ 所以呢我就抓住苍蝇挤破它的肚皮把它的肠子扯出来再用它的肠子勒住他的脖子用力一拉，呵－－！整条舌头都伸出来啦！我再手起刀落哗－－！整个世界清净了。现在大家明白，为什么我要杀他！ 哇！大哥，你化这个妆就说自己是孙悟空喽？给点儿专业精神好不好？你看，那些毛通通都开叉了，头上象戴了两块年糕似的，出来混饭吃得花点本钱嘛！看什么看，你的妆是恶心嘛！生我气我也这么说！ 你想要啊？悟空，你要是想要的话你就说话嘛，你不说我怎么知道你想要呢，虽然你很有诚意地看着我，可是你还是要跟我说你想要的。你真的想要吗？那你就拿去吧！你不是真的想要吧？难道你真的想要吗？ 喂喂喂！大家不要生气，生气会犯了嗔戒的！悟空你也太调皮了，我跟你说过叫你不要乱扔东西，你怎么又…你看我还没说完你又把棍子给扔掉了！月光宝盒是宝物，你把他扔掉会污染环境，要是砸到小朋友怎么办？就算砸不到小朋友砸到那些花花草草也是不对的！ 唉，那个金刚圈尺寸太差，前重后轻左宽右窄，他带上之后很不舒服，整晚失眠，会连累我嘛！他虽然是个猴子，可是你也不能这样对他，官府知道了会说我虐待动物的！说起那个金刚圈，去年我在陈家村认识了一位铁匠，他手工精美、价钱又公道、童叟无欺，干脆我介绍你再定做一个吧！ 你应该这么做，我也应该死。曾经有一份真诚的爱情放在我面前，我没有珍惜，等我失去的时候我才后悔莫及，人世间最痛苦的事莫过于此。你的剑在我的咽喉上割下去吧！ 不用再犹豫了！如果上天能够给我一个再来一次的机会，我会对那个女孩子说三个字：我爱你。如果非要在这份爱上加上一个期限，我希望是......一万年！ C&O 发表于 03:56 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——其他类 - 2003-06-02 03:54 星爷的经典台词 其他类： 对不起，我是卧底。 你看不见我你看不见我你看不见我...... 意不意外？高不高兴？开不开心？ 对不起啊，导演。嗯...... 根据角色的背景性格呢，等一下演的时候，在节奏上我想再调皮一点，但是又带点矛盾，你看怎么样？ 拿痛来说呢，根据俄国戏剧理论大师史坦尼斯拉夫斯基的说法呢。应该从外到内，再由内反映出来的。来，你现在再试着做一次看看。 不可能的，大傻的妹子的老**的'>*的大哥的儿子说是有的啊。 谈钱伤感情嘛！但是陈兄，我们几个兄弟跟你没什么感情可言，还是谈钱直接一点。 有没有钱没关系，但起码要做一个受人尊重的人！（话锋一转）——我宁愿有钱...... 你们大家都是女人，何苦自相残杀呢？就算是鸡，都有爱国的。 你快点回火星吧，地球是很危险地。 你想吓我是吓不倒地，我什么都怕就不怕鬼！ C&O 发表于 03:54 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——对话类 - 2003-06-02 03:52 星爷的经典台词 对话类： A： 十年了，已经十年了，我还以为国家已经把我忘记了。 B： 怎会呢，就算是一条底裤，一张厕纸，都有它的用处。 A：真的，如果我骗你，保证我生儿子没屁眼 B：看你这个样子，生儿子肯定没屁眼，就算是有，也是畸形屁眼！ A： 你究竟是何方神圣？ B： 江湖险恶，我从来都不轻易留下我的姓名。 A： 你既然不肯留下姓名，就只有留下你的人头！ B： 我一生孤独，唯一相依为命的就只有这个人头，你要拿走它，恐怕不是那么容易！ A： 好！是你迫我出手的，我要用你的鲜血染红这片大海。 B： 我一生漂泊，就仿如汪洋里面一页孤舟，早将生死置之度外。 C&O 发表于 03:52 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——短句类 - 2003-06-02 03:49 星爷的经典台词 短句类： 禀夫人，小人本住在苏州的城边，家中有屋又有田，生活乐无边。谁知那唐伯虎，他蛮横不留情，勾结官俯目无天，占我大屋夺我田。我爷爷跟他来翻脸，惨被他一棍来打扁，我奶奶骂他欺骗善民，反被他捉进了唐府，强奸了一百遍，一百遍，最后她悬梁自尽遗恨人间。他还将我父子，逐出了家园，流落到江边。我为求养老爹，只有独自行乞在庙前。谁知那唐伯虎，他实在太阴险。知道此情形，竟派人来暗算，把我父子狂殴在市前，小人身壮健，残命得留存，可怜老父他魂归天！此恨更难填。为求葬老爹，唯有卖身为奴自作贱，一面勤赚钱，一面读书篇，发誓把功名显，手刃仇人意志坚！从此唐寅诗集伴身边，我铭记此仇不共戴天！！！ 在一个月黑风高阴森恐怖的晚上，我是至尊宝你是白晶晶，奇妙的爱情就从桥头上这一点火开始的。我才一转身你就突如其来地向我一指，我整只手就著火了。你还要冲过来向我拚命地打拚命地打拚命地打，不是不是不是这样打，是这样这样这样，是了就是这样打的，你看到了吗？以后的发展我可以用一句峰回路转来形容，因为突然之间杀出了个牛魔王。当时你手拿一条骨大战牛魔王之后，就把我抓回了盘丝洞里。所谓光阴似箭，真的一点也不错，因为才一眨眼就到重头戏了。在断岩上就是感情爆发的时候，我不顾一切地摸你你也不顾一切地摸我，并立下了永不分离的誓言。可惜快乐永远是短暂的，换来的只是无限的痛苦跟长叹，为什么你会死呢？我只有利用月光宝盒使时光倒流查出真相，终于被我知道原来你是自杀的！在最后关头我於于能把你救活！可是最后一次时光倒流月光宝盒发生故障我"啾"的一下就回到了五百年前……就这样。 C&O 发表于 03:49 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——自述旁白类 - 2003-06-02 03:47 星爷的经典台词 自述旁白类： 你先走吧，我等我的腿没那么颤抖，心跳没那么乱的时候，我再走好了。 三十多年前，我上中学的时候，我真的时时刻刻都会想着她，有时候撒尿都会突然间停一下，然后想起她，心里甜甜的，跟着那半泡尿就忘了尿了。 子弹射入了我的大腿骨，压住了我的大动脉，挡住我的三叉神经，现在我左边脑部缺氧麻痹，右半身开始瘫痪，（撕开裤子）一定要用刀割开伤口把子弹取出来。 我是说我的这个方法，是古代神医华佗所用的分心可爱的家乡。古代有关云长全神贯注下象棋刮骨疗毒，今日有我007聚精会神看A片挖骨取弹头，开始－－ 当头一刀，就由额头砍到鼻子那，那（指档口），就在他的档口跟前，尾龙骨砍了好几刀，断了两条筋，压住了三叉神经，影响了大脑的中枢系统，连牙都窜出来了。 斩过鸡头，烧过黄纸，歃血为盟之后，韦小宝你就是我天地会的兄弟，暂时编入青木堂。我们有十大会规，二十大守则，三十大戒条，八十小戒条，如果犯了其中一条的话，就算你是我的徒弟，也要身受九九八十一刀而死。 不过这样，我是一个感情很复杂的人，一个感情很复杂的人如果只爱你一个人的话，就会变得感情有缺陷，一个感情有缺陷的人，你就算永远地拥有他，也是没用的。 (哭)旺财...... 旺财...... 旺财你不能死啊，旺财，你跟了我这么多年，对我有情有义，肝胆相照，但是到了现在我连一顿饱饭都没让你吃过，我对不起你啊，旺财！ 小强！小强你怎么了小强？小强，你不能死啊！我跟你相依为命，同甘共苦了这么多年，一直把你当亲生骨肉一样教你养你，想不到今天，白发人送黑发人。 C&O 发表于 03:47 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——羞辱求饶类 - 2003-06-02 03:43 星爷的经典台词 羞辱求饶类： 凭你的智慧，我很难跟你解释！ 屎，你是一滩屎。命比蚁便宜。我开奔驰，你挖鼻屎。吃饭！？吃屎吧你！ 碱水面没过过冷水，所以面里面全是碱水味。 鱼丸也没有鱼味，但是你为了掩饰，特别加上了咖喱汁，想把它做成咖喱鱼丸。但这么做太天真了，因为你煮的时间不够，咖喱的味道只在表面上，完全没有进到里面去，放进汤里面鱼丸就被冲淡了。好好的一颗咖喱鱼丸，让你做得是既没有鱼味又没有咖喱味，失败！萝卜没挑过，筋太多，失败！ 猪皮煮得太烂，没咬头，失败！ 猪血又烂稀稀的，一夹就散，失败中的失败！ 最惨的就是大肠了，里面根本没洗干净，还有一坨屎，你有没有搞错？哎，有坨屎哎，哎，有坨屎你看到了没有？哎，有坨屎！ 荒谬！我敢大胆的说一句，在我的面前，还没有人敢装模做样，你给我安静一点！ 剪头发不应该看别人怎么剪就发神经跟流行，要配合啊！你看你的发型，完全不配合你的脸型脸型又不配合身型，身型又和发型完全不搭，而且极度不配合啊！！欢哥！你究竟要怎么样啊？ 你说什么？你这种谎话也说的出口？你对不对的起自己的良心？对不对的起你的父母？对不对得起这个国家？你赶快召开记者会澄清，否则我就扒你的皮，拆你的骨，喝你的血！ 大姐，你也不怕别人笑话你，小心就连狗都会晕倒。 你完全没问题，是你爸妈有问题，把你生成这个样子。 你想？什么时候轮到我想？！ 不要怪我太坦白！就凭这你们这几个滥番薯，臭鸟蛋，想取我的性命，未免太过儿戏了吧！！！！ 实在令人太失望。听到你的声音，我还以为你是一个很有感性，很有电影幻想的人。看你这一身造型，就知道你太没有内涵了。 老板娘：你生儿子没屁眼，老爸卖屁眼，你自己烂屁眼，爱吃鸡屁眼。大屁股，你自己没生意，还跑来闹我？ 老板娘：不用你闹，我自揭身世。我三岁死了爹，四岁死了爹，五，六，七八岁都死过爹，十岁勾引男人，十一岁勾引男人，你的男人也被我勾了。 包龙星：你是柠檬头，老鼠眼，鹰勾鼻，八字眉，招风耳，大翻嘴，老羌牙，灯芯脖子，高低膊，长短手，鸡胸，狗肚，饭桶腰，我要是你，我早就自尽了 伯虎啊，不要这么绝好不好？大不了我发个毒誓，如果以后我再赌钱的话，就让天下最丑的女人夜夜轮奸，直到体无完肤，摇摇欲坠为止，这样可以了吧？ 两位姑娘，可怜可怜我吧，我一家六口一晚上全死光了。我身染十级肺痨，半卖半送，你就买了我吧。 命运真是不公平，为什么我这么帅却要掉头发，你们长的那么丑却不掉头发。 你怎么把我当猪啊，一看到我就让我睡觉。 C&O 发表于 03:43 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 星爷的经典台词——介绍吹捧类 - 2003-06-02 03:38 星爷的经典台词 介绍吹捧类： 其实我就是改变社会风气，风魔万千少女，刺激电影市道，提高年轻人内涵，玉树临风，风度翩翩的整蛊专家，我名叫古晶，英文名叫Jing Koo！ 介绍Pizzad的男朋友给你认识，他的发型又衰又难看，又没什么钱，也没读过书，性能力又马马虎虎，不过都算一表人才啦。哈哈...... 阿水出了名的泡妞无数，是我们所有男人的眼中钉。他优雅的体态散发出诱人的魅力，让所有的少女都难以抗拒。他那双叫人心碎的眼睛，不管多么冷傲的女性，都会被他温柔的眼神所融化，他是众所公认的街坊情圣，行运茶餐厅的灵魂，谁都认识的——蛋塔王子。 他高傲，但是宅心仁厚；他低调，但是受万人景仰。他可以把神赐给人类的火，运用的出神入化，烧出堪称火之艺术的超级菜式，他究竟是神仙的化身？还是地狱的使者？没人知道，但是可以肯定，每个人都给他一个称号——食~~神！ 此话当真？！说过的话不能不算数哦！不错！我就是美貌与智慧并重，英雄与侠义的化身唐伯虎！ 扫地只不过是我地表面工作，我真正地身份是一位研究僧。 先生：我左青龙，右白虎，老牛在腰间，龙头在胸口，人挡杀人，佛挡杀佛！ 贫僧乃少林寺方丈，法号梦遗。阿弥陀佛，我随风而来，随风而去...... 哇呀呀呀呀~~~，好！实不相瞒，小弟我就是人称玉树临风胜潘安，一支李花压海棠的小淫虫周伯通！ 凭你的智慧，我唬得了你吗？ 不怕告诉你，我从BB仔的时候就已经见过飞碟，即世人所说的UFO，不明飞行物体你懂不懂？4岁那年我又见过传说中的尼斯湖水怪，又同喜玛拉雅山的大脚怪聊过天猜过泉，再加上我从小到大天天早上都玩过山车，晚上呢就玩海盗船，也都会早上玩海盗船，晚上玩过山车，黄昏再玩多次海盗船都试过呀我告诉你。 先生，你额头有朝天骨， 眼里有灵光，仙人转世，神仙下凡，我终于等到你了。别动，虽然我泄露了天机，灾劫难免，可这是我命中注定，就算我要冒天大的危险，也要给你看个全相。 啊！师父的思维，果然天马行空仿如逆水行舟，厉害不愧以点子称王。 好！他想也不想就塞进去，不愧为一条荡~~~气回肠的汉子。我爱你！！！ 你以为躲起来就找不到你了吗？没有用的！象你这样出色的男人，无论在什么地方，都像漆黑中的萤火虫一样，那样的鲜明，那样的出众。你那忧郁的眼神，稀嘘的胡喳子，神乎其神的刀法，和那杯Dry Martine，都深深地迷住了我。不过，虽然这是这样的出色，但是行有行规，无论怎样你要付清昨晚的过夜费呀，叫女人不用给钱吗？ 除暴安良是我们做市民的责任，而行善积德也是我本身的兴趣，所以扶老太太过马路我每星期都做一次，星期天和公众假期也有做三四次的。 错！这并不是个普通的箱子，它是箱中之神，简称箱神！ 善有善因，恶有恶报，天理循环，天公地道，我曾误抓龙鸡，今日皇上抓我，实在抓得有教育意义，我对皇上的景仰之心，有如滔滔江水绵绵不绝，又有如黄河泛滥，一发不可收拾。 他武功的名堂呢，称之为九天十地，菩萨摇头怕怕，劈雳金光雷电掌！一掌打出，方圆百里之内，不论人畜、虾蟹、跳蚤，全部都化成了飞灰！ 我告诉你们，对付这种女人，一定要用居高临下的眼神，和一只强而有力的臂膀，把她从欲海当中解救出来。 C&O 发表于 03:38 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 大宋新闻联播 - 2003-06-02 03:27 大宋新闻联播 嘀铛嘀铛，嘀铛铛嘀铛……一阵随着熟悉的音乐，DSTV新闻联播，几个粗壮有力的大字从屏幕上滚过，每天19：00的大宋皇家电视台黄金时段的新闻节目又开始了。 一男一女两位播音员又出现在电视屏幕上，男的一身青衣，头插玉簪，背背三枝小箭，相貌英俊，正是浪子燕青，女的身着素服，淡扫蛾眉鬓戴一朵珠花，不是汴京第一美女李师师是谁？ 只见二人，神态端庄，面对镜头。“各位观众晚上好，今天是嘉佑元年农历二月二十丁未日，欢迎收看大宋皇家电视台新闻联播节目，我们先介绍一下这次节目的主要内容。”燕青中气十足的念道，“吾皇万岁会见大理国镇南王世子段誉率领的青年代表团；” 当念到吾皇万岁几个字时，神色肃穆地一抱拳，对空一揖，“王安石会见西夏大宋旅夏同胞联谊会总商会访问团，范仲淹考察安徽省税费改革工作；辽国边防军公然占领我燕云十六州，我外交部发言人公开表示抗议；民间抗辽团体丐帮举行集会，声讨前帮主乔峰的卖国行径……下面请看详细内容”画面出现壮丽的宫墙，镜头推移到大殿，一个戴束发金冠的青年，向坐在龙椅上的皇帝跪拜行礼，皇帝也站了起来，走下宝座，上前拉起青年，两人亲切交谈，并在旁边的偏殿落座叙话，皇帝是当今年青的天子赵哲，那戴束发金冠的青年，自然是大理国镇南王世子段誉，旁边跟随的朱丞相状态儒雅，武将军也相貌威武。 （李师师温婉的画外音响起：万岁在文华殿亲切会见大理国镇南王世子段誉率领的青年代表团一行，宾主在热烈的气氛中，就贸易与合作、科技与交流、和平与发展等问题进行诚挚友好地会谈，段誉世子表示，大理坚持一个大宋的原则，燕云十六州自古以来就是大宋的领土，是大宋不可分割的一部分，青年是民族希望和未来，大理将加强两国青年的交流与互访，两国将世世代代友好下去，……吾皇万岁也表示尊重和理解大理国的宗教信仰和民族习惯，非常钦佩大理段氏领导的民族解放运动和独立斗争，两国还将签订一系列的合资与合作协议……） 接着画面转到一个繁华的都市，高墙大瓦，飞檐斗拱，路上行人熙熙攘攘，甚是热闹，骑马的，坐轿的人人脸上喜气洋洋，连抬轿似乎也显得颇为轻松…… （燕青混厚的男中音响起：旧貌换新颜，曾经惨遭洪水袭击的陈州府，在包勉知府的亲自领导和指挥下，全州军民同心同德通过生产自救，不但彻底恢复生产，而且已基本建设成为商贸中心，配合国家中部大开发的政策，将成为一颗耀眼的明珠……）同时出现皇家电视台记者采访行人的镜头，一个坐轿的人探出头来接受采访，对着镜头用乡音表达感想，画面打出字幕：“火车跑得快全靠车头带，我们全靠知府大人的领导，才有了今天，全靠万岁爷开恩哪！”说着向天作揖。 画面再变，面容青癯的王安石在宰相府的西花厅中微微欠身，接见西夏代表团，代表团为首一人，头戴毡帽，塌鼻阔口招风耳，竟然是虚竹，自他与西夏公主成婚后，也不再做和尚，理所当然地成了在西夏的大宋侨领，这次率团归来一是想开展民间商贸往来，二是想回河南投资，也算是报答少林寺的栽培之恩。王安石面带微笑和他交谈，他一脸虔诚地听着。 （画面外李师师的声音响起：……王安石大人说：虚竹先生历尽千辛万苦，终于事业有成，但他们成功不忘报国，幸福不忘他人，毅然联络广大侨胞回来投资，支援家乡建设，我们地方各级府衙，一定要给予支持，在政策上要给予优惠……旅外宋人秉承炎黄子孙的优良传统，在域外孤身奋斗，非常地不容易，你们回来，我们一定要给予大家庭的温暖……） 画面换到安徽的市镇，头戴乌纱，身穿红袍的范仲淹在大小官员的簇拥下，穿行在街道上，视察了繁华的商业街，走访了几家徽菜馆和典当铺后，又来到了两大文化用品生产基地，徽墨和宣纸生产厂。在参观完宣纸的全套工艺流程之后，应纸厂的要求，欣然命笔，挥毫泼墨，写下了“先天下纸忧而忧，后天下纸乐而乐”的千古名句。 （燕青的声音解说道：范仲淹副枢密使在听取当地知府的汇报后作出指示，当前的税费改革工作责任重大，各级府衙一定要严格执行中央政策，“交子”作为我朝首次流通的纸币，在历史上是绝无仅有的，由于它的出现，我们节约了大量的贵重金属，这在货币流通史上具有划时代的意义，我们从事的是前无古人的事业，我们一定要打起十二分精神继续下去，不管前面是万丈深渊，还是地雷阵，我们一定要将改革进行下去。） 画面上随行人员均将双手提至胸前，上下相对，间距半尺，当他讲话一完，便长时间热烈鼓掌。 屏幕上出现一群蒙古、契丹、西夏、女真、波斯等异族装饰的人，在几个大宋官员的带领下，在汴梁城内游荡，…… （画外音响起：国际鞠联评估团听取我国申办世界首届鞠蹴联赛委员会的陈述，评估团在汴京参观视察，评估鞠蹴联赛的准备情况……） 画面上，燕青神色严肃地念道：“民间抗辽团体丐帮举行集会，声讨前帮主乔峰的卖国行径，……请看本台记者发回的详细报道。”杏子林中，开满枝头的杏花落了满地，还有些折断的树枝和损坏的武器也扔在一旁，一群破衣烂衫的乞丐围坐在一起，许多人都垂头丧气，看情形似乎刚刚经历了一场大战，但却没有发现血迹。皇家电视台的记者手持带小金龙标志的话筒正在一一进行采访。一个头戴方巾，眉目清秀的中年乞丐（打出字幕：丐帮长老全冠清），对着话筒义正词严：“本帮前任帮主乔峰，其实是一个暗藏的契丹特务，他阴谋杀害马副帮主，企图支持契丹，分裂丐帮。我们是可忍，孰不可忍！”镜头转向一白发老者（字幕：丐帮执法长老白世镜），他沉着脸说道：“乔峰本姓萧，乃契丹人之后，非我族类其心必异，为保持革命队伍的纯洁，本帮已将他开除。”一手持钢杖的矮个子来道镜头前（字幕：丐帮奚长老），涨红着脸说：“乔峰虽然救过我的命，但他要做契丹狗我第一个不放过他！”…… 镜头回到演播室，李师师语调低沉：“作江湖第一大帮派，民间最具规模的抗辽组织的首领，乔峰是怎样从一个英雄模范蜕化成一个叛徒的呢？请在新闻联播之后收看本台的焦点访谈。”一个国字脸，紫袍金带的官员出现屏幕上，在他身后悬挂着大宋的龙旗，面前一张黄绫缎包裹的桌案上摆满了各种标记的话筒，他面对镜头侃侃而谈…… （燕青义正词严地解说道：“辽国边防军公然占领我燕云十六州，我外交部发言人文彦博大学士公开表示抗议，燕云十六州自古以来就是大宋的领土，是大宋不可分割的一部分，我先皇太祖、太宗皇帝在世时，曾与辽国有过协议，现在他们却趁我新皇登基，国内进行经济改革之机，悍然发动侵略战争，占我领土，伤我边民，掠我财富，我们提出最强烈的抗议，我们敦促辽国政府耶律内阁，尽快停止错误行径，回到和平谈判的轨道上来，如若一意孤行，必将为所产生的后果承担全部责任。”） “下面播送国际要闻，”李师师念道。“西夏国农业科技人员研究出农作物栽培技术，从此西夏将结束不懂种植的历史；大理举行狂欢节，当地人民载歌载舞，热烈庆祝自己的传统节日；女真猎手阿古打活捉幼虎一头，现已饲养至3岁；……”画面随着她的解说不断地变化着图像……最后又会到了节目开始时的画面，两位主持人抬眼望着电视机前的观众，燕青平静地说：“各位观众，这次节目的全部内容播送完了，谢谢收看，请大家在明天同一时候继续收看我们的新闻联播节目，再见！”灯光渐渐暗淡，镜头也逐渐后退，出现演播厅的全景，灯光、布景等工作人员的名字逐行出现，最后出现一行字： 本节目主持人服装由王婆裁缝店提供。 C&O 发表于 03:27 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 几个让你终身受用的寓言 - 2003-06-02 03:20 １．当老婆刚刚冲完早出来老公正要开始淋浴时门铃响了，在几秒争吵谁该去应门之后老婆放弃了，裹了条毛巾急忙下去开门。她打开门看见Bob，他的邻居。在她还没开口之前，Bob就说：“如果你把那条毛巾拿下我就给你$800。” 老婆想了想，就脱下毛巾处裸站在Bob面前，过了几秒Bob给了钱就走了。 老婆困惑又兴奋她的好运的裹上毛巾上楼。当她回到浴室老公问她：“刚刚是谁呀？” “隔壁的Bob啦”她回答。 “很好”老公说，“那他有没有拿他欠我的$800还我吗？” 故事的寓意 在未了解事情的真相之前，永远不要轻易自行判断而造成错误，而且还不知道自己有多难堪。 ２．有个牧师开车在路上见到路旁有个修女，便停车主动载她一程。她进车后便翘起脚来，让她可爱的美腿从长袍中露了出来。牧师看了一眼高兴的差点让车子出了意外。在控制车子后，他偷偷摸摸的将她的手往美腿上移动。修女看了看他便说”神父，记得圣诗129吗？” 神父脸红连忙道歉，他被迫移开他的手，但是他的视线却离不开他的美腿。在几次换档之后，他的手又再次滑向美腿。修女又说”神父，记得圣诗129吗？”神父又在一次道歉”对不起，姊妹，肉体是虚弱的。” 到达修道院后，修女下车给了他一个寓意深长一眼就走了。当神父回到教堂他急忙拿出圣经想找出圣诗129是什么。 圣诗129节：“走向前并寻求，再更深入一点，你会找到荣耀的。” 故事的寓意 永远对你的工作保持熟悉，不然你会错过很多机会的。 ３．业务代表，行政职员，经理一起走在路上去吃午餐意外发现一个古董油灯，他们摩擦油灯一个精灵从一团烟雾中碰了出来。 精灵说”我通常都给每个人3个愿望，所以给你们每个人一人一个。” “我先！我先！”职员抢着说”我要到巴哈马，开着游艇，自在逍遥”噗！她消失了。 惊吓之后，“换我！换我！”业务代表说”我要在夏威夷，和女按摩师躺在沙滩上，还有喝不完的pina coladas(凤椰汁)，和生命之爱。”噗！他消失了。 “好了现在该你了。”精灵对经理说。 经理说：“我只希望他们两个吃完午餐后回到办公室。” 故事的寓意 永远让你老板先说话。 C&O 发表于 03:20 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 Why The Professor Can't Teach——第十章　市场的嘲弄：帐篷的讽刺 - 2003-06-02 03:03 Why The Professor Can't Teach. CHAPTER 10: Follies of the Marketplace: A Tirade on Tents Four species of idols beset the human mind: to which (for distinction's sake) we have asssigned names.. . the third, idols of the market... Francis Bacon Curriculum and teachers are the most important factors in education. But there are also texts from which students might learn and which, at the very least, can reinforce the teachers' contribution. Unfortunately, concern for exposition is not one of the hallowed traditions of the mathematical world and the quality of texts at all levels is very low. The blame for this state of affairs must be laid on the professors. College texts are, of course, written solely by professors. The secondary and elementary school texts are often supposedly cooperative efforts between knowledgeable professors and experienced teachers, but the professors, "obviously" the authorities, dominate the projects. What should we expect of professors insofar as texts are concerned? Many professors are indifferent to pedagogy and others are totally ignorant of it. They receive no training in writing - even of research papers, let alone texts. On the basis of their backgrounds and major concerns one should no more expect effective writing from mathematics professors than good mathematics in mathematical research papers were they written by English professors. Our expectations are more than fulfilled. Explanations of mathematical steps are usually inadequate - in fact, enigmatic. Because mathematicians do not take the trouble to find out what students should know at any particular level, they do not know how much explanation is called for. But the decision is readily made. It is easier to say less. This decision is reinforced by the mathematician's preference for sparse writing. If challenged, he replies, "Are the facts there?" This is all one should ask. Correctness is the only criterion and any request for more explanation is met by a supercilious stare. Surely one must be stupid to require more explanation. Though brevity proves to be the soul of obscurity, it seems that the one precept about writing that mathematicians take seriously is that brevity is preferable above everything, even comprehensibility. The professor may understand what he writes but to the student he seems to be saying, "I have learned this material and now I defy you to learn it." Some of the great masters of mathematics did write enigmatically. The most notorious in this respect was Pierre-Simon Laplace. His assistant Jean-Baptiste Biot, who helped Laplace to prepare for the press the latter's masterpiece, the Mécanique céleste, reported that Laplace was frequently unable to reproduce the steps by which he had reached a conclusion and so inserted in the manuscript, "It is easy to see that.. ." Evidently modern textbook writers have taken seriously the precept that one should emulate the masters. Even if one does not become a master thereby, one can at least appear to be one. There are textbook writers who believe that a mathematical presentation that is logically sound explains itself to the reader who faithfully follows the author step by step. Presumably the meaning need not be stated by the author explicitly but can be grasped by the reader from the details he ploughs through. The authors do not see the need to take the readers into their confidence, to explain where the road is going, why this one is better than another, and what is really achieved. They give no inkling of how a proof was arrived at, why anyone sought the result to begin with, or why anyone should want it now. In effect, the texts are challenges to clairvoyance. Some textbook writers, unwilling or unprepared to do research, display their "talent" in their texts. They deliberately omit steps that they could not have supplied as students and that they know belong. By pretending that the omitted steps are readily supplied, they seek to put themselves in the position of great masters who have omitted only the trivial. If this condemnation appears too strong, let us remember that with respect to character, mathematicians, whether researchers or teachers, are just a cross section of humanity and, with respect to egotism, a rather disagreeable portion of humanity. In any case, their texts are too often unintelligible. Surprisingly, many professors object to the few texts that give full explanations and discuss the significance of the ideas being presented. They often complain that such texts are too wordy. Too wordy for whom? These professors prefer to see an enigmatic presentation that leaves the student baffled. Then they, the teachers, can display their brilliance by explaining the text. This preference is well known, but one can also find evidence for it in print. A professor at a good college had the following to say in his review of a text: "So much is here written that is normally spoken by the teacher that the teacher in using the book as a text may find it hard to break away from the book not only in his formal presentation but also in his asides." But if the professor were really teaching ideas and creative thinking he would have so much to do in raising questions, guiding the students' thinking, and improving their suggestions that no book, however helpful, could replace him. Much poor mathematical writing is due to sheer laziness. There are mathematicians who fail to clarify their own thinking and attempt to conceal their vagueness by such remarks as, "It is obvious that ...," "Clearly it follows that.. . ," and the like. If a conclusion is really evident, it is rarely necessary to say so; and when most authors do say so, it is surely not evident. Often what is asserted as obvious is not quite correct, and the unfortunate reader is obliged to spend endless time trying to establish what does trujy follow. In some cases the difficulty is the writers' sheer ignorance. Even matters that are well understood by reasonably good mathematicians are not understood by numerous authors of high school and college texts. They put out books mainly by assembling passages and chapters from other books, and where the sources are inadequate so is the pirated material. In their books one finds inaccurate statements of theorems, assertions that are not at all true, incomplete proofs, failure to consider all cases of a proof, the use of concepts that are not defined, reliance upon prior results that were not proved or are proved only subsequently, the use of hypotheses that are not stated, two nonequivalent definitions of the same concept, extraneous definitions, assertions of a theorem and its converse with proof of only one part, and actual errors of logical reasoning. A glaring deficiency of mathematics texts is the absence of motivation. The authors plunge into their subjects as though pursued by hungry lions. A typical introduction to a book or a chapter might read, "We shall now study linear vector spaces. A linear vector space is one which satisfies the following conditions. . ." The conditions are then stated and are followed almost immediately by theorems. Why anyone should study linear vector spaces and where the conditions come from are not discussed. The student, hurled into this strange space, is lost and cannot find his way. Some introductions are not quite so abrupt. One finds the enlightening statement, "It might be well at this point to discuss. . ." Perhaps it is well enough for the author, but the student doesn't usually feel well about the ensuing discussion. A common variation of this opening states, "It is natural to ask. . . ," and this is followed by a question that even the most curious person would not think to ask. One need not always precede the treatment of a mathematical theme with the major reason for studying it. The introduction could be the historical reason the topic was studied. But if this is not the reason for its importance today, applications of current importance should immediately follow the treatment. Unfortunately for the authors, most applications involve physical science, with which few mathematicians and high school teachers are familiar. The best that many authors can do is simply to state that there are important practical applications of the subject treated. Some actually promise they will discuss applications but fail to do so. Problems of science need not be the sole motivation. The mathematics to be taught might be related to the students' world. Perseverance would reveal what excites student interest, but this effort is far more than authors are willing to undertake. The consequence is bare bones and no meat. Even the prettiest woman seeks to enhance her appearance with dress and cosmetics. Similarly, mathematics should be made more attractive by relating it to the interests of neophytes. The lack of motivation has been criticized by Richard Courant, whom we have cited in other connections: It has always been a temptation for mathematicians to present the crystallized product of their thoughts as a deductive general theory and to relegate the individual mathematical phenomenon to the role of an example. The reader who submits to the dogmatic form will be easily indoctrinated. Enlightenment, however, must come from an understanding of motives.... To begin a text with a statement of the axioms is to write a work that omits the first chapter and that demands of the reader an understanding without which he cannot comprehend the text before his eyes. Mathematicians wreak additional hardships on the students by indulging their own tastes. As mathematicians they recognize the advantages of generality and abstraction. Surely a general result covers many special cases. Hence, they conclude, it is more efficient to present the general result at once. Logically this is correct; pedagogically it is false. The recklessness with which authors of texts plunge into generalities indicts their judgment. For example, before students have worked with concrete functions such as y = 2x, y = 2x+3, y = x2 and the like, they are asked to learn a general definition of function in terms of mappings. A mapping from a set A to a set B is a set of ordered pairs with each first component from set A and each second component from set B. Mappings are "wonderfully" broad. The relationship of a set of fathers to a set of sons is a mapping, and knowledge of this fact "clearly" improves the relationship between parents and children. To be sure, the definition of a mapping includes the concrete functions just mentioned; but it also includes relationships that students will never encounter or that are certainly not illuminated by the mathematical definition. Moreover, the vagueness of a general definition leaves students uneasy. Whereas a generalization extends to a wider class of objects a result known only for a special class - for example, one may prove for all triangles a theorem known previously only for isosceles triangles - abstraction selects from different classes of objects properties common to the classes and studies the implication of these properties. No one would question the value of abstractions for mathematics, but one must question the abstract approach to the concrete. Children do not learn about dogs by starting with a study of quadrupeds. This elementary principle does not seem to have been learned by mathematicians. They love abstractions and indulge in them freely, of course at the expense of the student. Many other faults already cited apropos of teaching methods are repeated in the texts. Rigorous presentations addressed to beginners in a particular subject are common. From a conceptual standpoint the most difficult mathematical subject is calculus. The concepts can be far more readily understood intuitively, and this is how mathematicians grasped the subject until, after two hundred years of effort, they managed to erect the proper logical foundations (Chapter 7). But many modern authors courageously risk the students' necks. They start their calculus texts with the rigorous formulations of the concepts and at the outset succeed in destroying the students' confidence in their ability to master the subject. Some authors choose the rigorous approach because they are insecure. They are fearful that if they compromise in order to help the student they will appear ignorant to their colleagues. To justify their stand they argue that texts at least must be precise and complete, and often they insist that understanding can best be obtained through the rigorous formulation. The result is elementary mathematics from a complicated standpoint. Most authors profited as little from their study of English as their readers then profit from the study of mathematics. The writing in mathematics texts is not only laconic to a fault; it is cold, monotonous, dry, dull, and even ungrammatical. The author seeks to remain impersonal and objective. As one reviewer said of the writing in a particular text. "The book is mathematically masterful, grammatically grim, literarily limp, and pedantically pompous. It tells the undergraduate more than he wants to know, presuming, at the same time, that he knows more than he does." Of course good texts should have a lively style, arouse interest, and keep the readers? background in mind. But few do. The books are not only printed by machines; they are written by machines. One ingredient of style is humor. A relevant story or joke does revive a sagging spirit. But the professors object. They use the same text a number of times and to them the humor becomes stale or the joke palls. But for whom is the book written? What would these professors say about an actor who must repeat for the thousandth time a most dramatic line or a joke as though it were the first time he ever said it? Beyond their sheer incapacity or unwillingness to write interesting mathematics, authors splurge in terminology that baffles the reader. In addition to using many technical words unnecessarily, mathematicians love to introduce new vocabulary. Thus they have long used the words homomorphism and isomorphism, which at least preserve the etymological meanings of similar structure and same structure, respectively. Instead of saying that a certain homomorphism is an isomorphism, the practice is to say that the homomorphism is faithful - a statement that does nothing to convey its meaning in mathematics, though it may have the merit of suggesting a steadfast, if illicit, romance. Of course, the appearance of a new term gives the impression that a new concept has been introduced. The terms greatest lower bound and least upper bound of, say, a set of numbers were used for years and do describe what they stand for; now, presumably in the interest of brevity and certainly in the direction of making comprehension more difficult, the terms infimum and supremum are used. Single-valued functions and multiple-valued functions are now functions and relations. Further, one no longer speaks of the values of x that satisfy x2 = x + 7 but of "truth values." Apparently, truths can now be obtained readily and we need no longer ponder the mysteries of the universe. New terms to replace old ones appear constantly. This practice disturbed even Cauchy, who shared with Gauss leadership in mathematics in the first half of the nineteenth century, and he felt obliged to complain of the strange terminology introduced in his day: "One should enable science to make a great advance if one is to burden it with many new terms and to require that readers follow you in research that offers so much that is strange." Instead of introducing new, meaningless terminology in place of suitable words, mathematicians would do well to replace the old terminology that has misled students. Terms such as irrational, negative, imaginary, and complex, which were historically terms of rejection, remain in the lexicon of mathematics to disturb students. Even the great mathematicians of the past were frustrated by such terms. The resistance to imaginary numbers persisted for three hundred years after their introduction, partly because the word imaginary suggested something unacceptable. As Gauss remarked, if the units 1, -1, and had not been given the names positive, negative, and imaginary units but were called direct, inverse, and lateral units, people would not have gotten the impression that there was some dark mystery in them. Meaningless terminology is only one evil of the language used. Mathematicians believe in brevity so much that they invent shortened terms. A partially ordered set is now a poset. Still more brevity is achieved by using acronyms a.e. (almost everywhere). This atrocity, added to already barbarically poor writing, makes it almost impossible to read the text, let alone understand it. The l.q.m.w. (low quality of mathematical writing) has no bottom. The evils of terminology are compounded by the excessive use of symbols. No one would deny that mathematical thinking and processes are expedited by the use of symbols, and one of the great features in the progress of mathematics was the introduction of better and better symbolism. But mathematicians have turned a virtue into a vice. They sprawl symbols over all the pages of their texts just as some modern painters splash paint on canvas. Page after page, almost devoid of exposition, is filled with Greek, German, and English letters, and various other symbols. Some books use as many as a few hundred symbols, presumably in the interest of brevity but more likely to conceal shallowness. Even a gain in brevity hardly compensates for the burden on the reader's memory. What is worse is that a symbol introduced on page 50 is not used again until page 350, with no reminder to the reader of what the symbol stands for. A few authors, somewhat conscious of this problem, include in their texts a glossary of the symbols employed. However, the reader stuck on page 350 must interrupt his reading to find the meaning of the symbol among the several hundred in the list. The natural reaction is exasperation. In modern texts symbols do not facilitate communication; they hinder it. Many authors seem to believe that symbols express ideas that words cannot. But the symbolism is invented by human beings to express their thoughts. The symbols cannot transcend the thoughts. Hence, the thoughts should first be stated and then the symbolic version might be introduced where symbols are really expeditious. Instead, one finds masses of symbols and little verbal expression of the underlying thought. As in the case of terminology, much could be done to improve older symbolism. Perhaps the most imperative need is to replace the symbol dy/dx of calculus. The most important idea to be transmitted in calculus is that the derivative is not a quotient but the limit of a quotient. However, the symbol dy/dx, though intended to be taken as a whole, looks like a quotient of dy by dx. (In fact, this is what it was for Leibniz, who failed to formulate the precise concept.) Hence, the notation seems to refute what the teacher must attempt to convey. Superior notations have been proposed, but professors resist change in this area as zealously and perversely as they promote it where the traditional symbolism is altogether adequate. A mathematician of the sixteenth or seventeenth century often presented his discoveries in the form of an anagram that was intended as evidence to his rivals that he had solved a problem but that was also intended to be undecipherable to the rivals so that they could not claim they, too, had solved the problem. When challenged, the composer of the anagram could then reveal what the anagram stood for and establish his claim. This practice continues today, except that the anagram is called a textbook. Mathematicians claim to teach thinking, and this can be promoted by getting students to help discover theorems and proofs. But the texts do no such thing. Definitions, axioms, theorems, proofs, and obscurity are the style and content, the sum and substance. This type of presentation has the advantage - for the author - of facilitating the writing. One does not have to think about what to say because the theorems and proofs of the usual undergraduate textbook are well known. However, as we have previously noted (Chapter 6), most theorems of any consequence have been reproven many times; each time some refinement or modification is achieved that makes the theorem more general or the proof shorter. Often an ingenious trick will do the latter. Since even the original proof may have been the product of weeks, months, and perhaps years of thought, to which a succession of mathematicians may have contributed, a modern proof is almost sure to be sophisticated and highly artificial, though mathematicians would describe it as elegant. These refined proofs, presented in a page or so, stun and humble the students. They cannot help imagining themselves being called upon to make such proofs and readily realize that the task would be inordinate for them. The inevitable consequence is that they lose confidence in their ability. To pass examinations they memorize the proofs. Good writing, like good teaching, calls for letting the students in on the struggles mathematicians have undergone to arrive at the proofs. Students should be told how long and hard the best mathematicians worked to obtain the proofs, and how many false proofs were often published in the belief that they were correct. This history not only would avert discouragement and loss of confidence but also would dispose students to the kind of effort they must be prepared to make when attempting a proof on their own. But authors are reluctant to level with the students. By presenting proof after proof with no mention of how these were obtained, the authors seem to suggest that the clever proofs are due to them and, very likely, this is the impression some wish to give. Authors do not recognize the psychological damage of a bare logical presentation. *Texts do present historical material, usually to the effect that Descartes was born in 1596, died in 1650, and had one illegitimate child. Why can't texts be more informal, almost conversational? Suppose an author is about to present the theorem that the three altitudes of a triangle go through the same point. This fact should surprise anyone. Should not the author remark on this, perhaps state that it is not an expected fact, and first give some intuitive reason that it should be so before proving it? Calculus texts treat the derivative of the product of two functions. Students expect that the result should be the product of the derivatives and are surprised to find that it is not so. Even Leibniz stumbled on this point and spent a whole month getting the correct result. The authors could state what superficial argument suggests and then point out why it is not correct. The fact that Leibniz struggled to understand this matter might also be mentioned and would reassure students that they are not so far below the Leibnizes in intellectual capacity. Such discussions should precede the formal presentation. To rebut the charge that the texts proper do not call for student participation and thinking, the authors point to the exercises. Good exercises could be some redress for the dogmatic text. However, the texts usually work out half a dozen typical problems in each section and then assign exercises of the same type. The students, called upon to do an exercise, look among the illustrative examples to find one that fits the exercise. They then repeat the steps made in the illustrative example without necessarily understanding them and certainly without having to do any thinking for themselves. Thus, the students do the homework successfully and feel satisfied. The professors, in turn, congratulate themselves on their successful pedagogy. Of course, some illustrative examples are needed. Students cannot be expected to acquire techniques without guidance. But the examples should be accompanied by a discussion of how the theory is involved, why the solution should take one course rather than another, and any other pertinent comments. In fact, rather than being set out as examples, these illustrations are best incorporated in the text proper to oblige the students to read the text - something that students often shirk if not compelled to do it. Moreover, some of the exercises could raise questions about the examples. Alternative methods might be proposed that may or may not work, and the student might be asked to evaluate them. Mere repetition of a process that is illustrated will teach technique, but it will not inculcate understanding or foster thinking. The usual exercises are intellectual slavery rather than intellectual challenges. Many textbook authors boast of the number of illustrative examples their texts contain. What they are really saying is that the students do not have to read the texts or do any thinking. These texts are rightly called cookbooks. Actual cookbooks usually offer recipes: pour a half cup of flour into a bowl, add one quarter cup yeast, sprinkle with vinegar and bake for one hour. Lo and behold, a cake appears. But the cookbook gives the cook no idea why such a mixture produces a cake. The illustrative examples are likewise recipes for getting answers. If the recipes were changed and produced absurd answers, the students would not have the insight to recognize this fact and would be content as long as their answers agreed with those given by the text. Clearly, the valuable role that texts could play in the educational world is nullified by the various defects we have cited. The students certainly do not read the texts, because the texts are unreadable. Surprisingly, when choosing texts for their classes many professors have said openly that they do not care about text exposition. They look only at the illustrative examples and the exercises. But in our civilization, learning to think and learning to use books are surely some of the objectives of higher education. Apparently these objectives have been abandoned. Since the texts are so bad, one is impelled to ask, why are such texts chosen? The reasons are numerous. The poor exposition is not recognized by most professors because they themselves are not trained in writing. Lack of motivation and application in textbooks is even welcomed by professors. Such material must usually draw on subject matter that lies outside mathematics proper, and to teach it would require that the professors know and feel secure about, for example, a bit of science. But the professors do not know science, and they are not willing to learn it just to do a better teaching job. In fact, many professors fear any book that would make them deal with the history of mathematics, science, or cultural influences. Hence, they choose one that takes the straight and narrow path of mechanical, technical mathematics and routine exercises. Terminology, symbolism, rigor -these are dear to the hearts of mathematicians. From their point of view one could not possibly overdo such features. A major reason for the choice of poor college texts is that the bulk of the undergraduate courses is taught by graduate students. For such teachers, stock material and routine presentations are musts. Any felicitous or unusual approach, especially if it calls for pedagogical skill, would be ignored or bungled. Many professors choose a text because the topics treated are what they want to teach. But they do not care about the text's presentation. They give their own. The student is then faced with the task of reconciling what the teacher says and what the book says. This is difficult to do in mathematics. And since the book is most likely to be poor, the difficulty is compounded. If the professor really has a better presentation than what is available in an existing text, he should write up his material and distribute it so that students will not have to spend the class time in copying. In many cases the professor's presentation is not better, but he considers it demeaning to follow someone else's. There are even university professors who deliberately adopt a difficult book because it bolsters their ego to be able to say that they are using it. They hope that others will judge them and their students favorably, because presumably both can master such a book. Actually, many of the professors who choose such books are hard put to understand them, but the students are so much more bewildered that the professors can get away with almost any kind of explanation. Professors at four-year colleges often feel inferior to those at the prestigious universities. To overcome the feeling of inferiority many four-year college professors try to "outdo" the university professors by adopting texts that are far too difficult for the students. When asked at a professional society meeting what texts they are using, they can name them and imply that they are really doing wonders with their students and, of course, have no trouble themselves in teaching on the advanced and sophisticated levels that these texts bespeak. Teachers at the two-year community and junior colleges, which, on the whole, have the weakest students, also use difficult texts just to be able to boast that they are teaching on a high level. They claim they must use these books to prepare students who will transfer to a four-year college. But they kill off the students and so make transfer impossible. Only about 25 percent go on to a four-year college, and most of these students do not take any more mathematics. The phenomenon of low-level institutions using high-level texts is especially prevalent in areas dominated by a major university. Many texts are chosen by a committee. If a book contains any applications, some professors who are unfamiliar with them will object. Other professors may rightly or wrongly object to the level of presentation. Still others may object to the "wordiness." The consequence is a compromise that almost necessarily is a dull, meaningless, inept book. Even where a text is chosen for departmental use by a single professor, he may, like so many others, lack insight, conviction, and determination, and pick a "safe" book - which usually means a mediocre one that will satisfy most of the professors. Quite often a department decides to change the text in use because some members complain that it is not satisfactory; or it may be going out of print. One would think it might be replaced by a good text, but that rarely happens. Most of the staff prefer a text that is old hat, so they do not have to read it and do new exercises. Hence, the replacement is usually a "copy" of the previous text. After all, change is sufficient evidence of progress in our society. There are many other reasons that a professor will pick a poor text. Professors are most likely to be narrow specialists. An algebraist who is called upon to teach differential equations is not interested in how to teach that subject. He wants a book that is easy to teach from, and this means one that presents either a series of techniques or a canned sequence of theorems and proofs that need only be repeated. Even if all or a majority of the texts were good, the students in many institutions would still suffer. Some professors choose texts that interest them and from which they can learn new ideas or new proofs, whether or not these texts are right for the students. Thus, an algebraist might pick an advanced text for an elementary course not because the students can learn from it, but because he can. At one respectable institution the professors used a text that was two or three levels higher than the course, and a large percentage of good students failed. Others, also highly qualified, became discouraged and abandoned mathematics. When the professors were asked why they used such an unsuitable text they replied that they were conducting an experiment. They might just as well have said that they had fired six bullets into a man's heart to see if he would die. Why are so many poor texts written? The main reason is obvious - greed. Texts bring in royalties, and money does interest some people. To make money, one must write a text that sells well. But the poor texts sell best, and the money-minded author caters to the market. Most professors write with more than one eye on the market. They rivet their attention on it. What happens is well illustrated by the history of calculus texts. For years only mechanical or cookbook treatments of calculus were used. Authors, accordingly, wrote cookbooks. As American professors became better educated, they decided that students should receive the benefit of professorial enlightenment and that calculus should be taught with a full background of theory. A spate of rigorous calculus books soon appeared on the market. When this pedagogical blunder became apparent and the intuitive approach became popular, professors showed their open-mindedness and flexibility by turning to an intuitive approach. It did not take long before the very authors of rigorous texts wrote intuitively oriented texts and even boasted that they offered this approach. Professors do learn remarkably fast - what the market wants. Because most authors aim for the largest possible market, they repeat endlessly books that sell well. All that is required is a minimum of knowledge, shoddy writing, standard exercises, and reasonable caution against outright plagiarism. One need only vary the order of the topics to make a book seem different, and since there are about twenty-five topics in the usual text, the possible permutations are large enough to allow for many thousands of "different" college algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and other texts to be written. The fact that the sources may be incorrect or poorly written is a minor concern compared to the expected gain. To hide obvious repetition of existing texts, some authors introduce a few variations, such as contrived proofs even though more natural ones are available, sophisticated definitions, new terminology, and their own brand of symbolism. When accused of plagiarism the professors can always retort that the truth never changes. One must of course have a different title. But then one can use College Algebra, Elementary College Algebra, College Algebra: A Full Course, College Algebra: A Short Course, and College Algebra: A Seven-Eighths Course. The possibilities are clearly infinite. In fact, since there are irrational numbers, one could use Algebra: An Irrational Course. The outright imitation of successful texts - successful financially though usually not at all pedagogically - is a fact. Many authors do not hesitate to admit this. They speak proudly of their books as being in the mainstream of mathematics education, as though this fact is an assurance of quality. Actually, in view of what books sell best, a book in the mainstream is sure to be dull, unoriginal, and pedagogically disastrous. Are all texts repetitious of each other? No. Another spate of bad texts comes from professors who have achieved a reputation for research in their specialty or whose name is well known in the mathematical world, perhaps because they have held high office in a professional society. These authors, most of whom have never or only rarely taught the courses for which the books are intended and are unconversant with how college students think and what backgrounds the students have, nevertheless decide to cash in on their names and plunge unhesitatingly into the writing of texts. "Genius" transcends mediocrity; so these texts contain innovations in concepts and proofs that students cannot possibly grasp. The exposition of the topics is shoddy and the writing is shameful. The books are hastily written and often contain numerous errors. Chapters or sections begin with one objective and end up with another. Within the same section authors shift from one topic to a totally unrelated one. They ask the students to do exercises that are not workable on the basis of the material in the text or, if related to the text, require a Newton. To make a token gesture to that sector of the market that wants some applications, these researchers include some brief mention of relativity or quantum mechanics, topics that mean nothing to undergraduates at the levels for which the texts are written. It is clear that these professors dash off the books as fast as they can just to get them out and "earn" royalties. Were these authors judged by their texts they would not be admitted as graduate students to any decent graduate school. Nevertheless, many schools adopt such texts on the basis of name alone. Usually the texts are so bad that they are dropped after one year's use. About all one can say of them is that they are flops d'estime. Ironically, these prestigious professors, who rush to write texts for low-level courses, would disdain teaching them or, if obliged to do so, would be ashamed to admit that they were teaching such lowly work. Sometimes these prestigious professors resort to second and third editions and, having learned by this time how to meet the market on its terms, sell more books. The venality of such professors and their crass commercialism are disgraceful. In these later editions they may succeed in selling more books, but they also succeed in sacrificing students and vitiating educational goals. Cheap fiction, potboilers, are far more excusable because the authors make no pretense to ethical principles and are not under any obligation to develop young minds. If these professors are really capable research men or seek to exert beneficial influence through office-holding in professional societies, why do they lower themselves by writing the hundredth facsimile of cheap, commercial texts? Or are the supposedly intelligent professors as badly confused about their role and goals in life as any adolescent? The problem of writing for financial gain does call for keeping up with the market. As we have already observed (Chapter 7), mathematical teaching as well as mathematical research is swept by fads. Analytic geometry, formerly taught as an independent course preceding calculus, is now submerged in calculus. The successful author must yield to this fad or his book will not sell. If the fad is to incorporate linear algebra in the calculus or the differential equations text, whether or not there is any point to doing so, one must incorporate the linear algebra. To keep up with fads one must put out new editions every few years. But professors do not object because this eliminates the secondhand market for the older edition and students are obliged to buy the new one. The determination of what the market wants is made rather scientifically. The publishers canvass the colleges for what they would like to see in the texts, and then the authors willingly set about supplying the common denominator of those wants. The author's own convictions, if he has any, as to what a text should contain are irrelevant. The normal market can be enlarged by special devices. One such device is to offer applications but to crowd them all into the last chapter. There is method in this madness. Applications are desired by some professors but frighten off others. If they are placed at the end, professors who do not want to teach them manage to end the semester before reaching the last chapter, thereby omitting them with least embarrassment. Applications placed at the end of a text serve little purpose in any case, because whatever value these applications might have as motivation and meaning for the mathematics proper comes too late. To enlarge their market many authors employ ruses that are deliberately fraudulent. When the New Mathematics became popular these authors took traditional books, inserted a few pages of New Mathematics material here and there, changed terminology in spots, and sprinkled words such as sets, commutative law, inverse, and the like throughout; they then proclaimed that they were presenting the New Mathematics. Many teachers aided in~ this fraud because they could convince their superiors that they were teaching the New Mathematics, while actually continuing to teach the material they either preferred or knew better. Calculus texts often contain a facade of rigor to please those professors who wish to include some theory but the rigor, usually in the first chapter, is thereafter never utilized. There are other types of deception. One would expect that a text entitled Mathematics for Biologists would contain not only the mathematics that biologists use but also some indication of how biologists use it. But the contents are the same as any traditional text that covers the same level of mathematics. Many authors know that students come to college disliking mathematics. However, some colleges still require a course in mathematics as a degree requirement. Even if they don't, the professors wish to attract students to a mathematics elective so there will be more jobs. Hence, many authors write texts that purportedly offer an appreciation of the role of mathematics in our civilization. The titles are inviting: Mathematics, An Intellectual Endeavor; Mathematics, the Science of Reasoning; An Appreciation of Mathematics; Mathematics, the Creative Art; Mathematics, Art and Science. But the texts teach axiomatics, symbolic logic, set theory, topics of the theory of numbers such as congruences, the binary number system, finite geometries, matrices, groups, and fields and so do not really live up to their promise (Chapter 6). Clearly, one can't judge a book by its title. Since a course in mathematics proper does not attract liberal arts students and has little value for them, some professors have taken another tack. For their books they gather together curiosities, trivia, puzzles, and bits and pieces of standard topics that never get to any serious level and do not require any thinking on the part of the student. The chapters are deliberately unrelated to each other so that the student will not have to carry an extended train of thought and so that the teacher can pick and choose what pleases him. Since these measures rarely succeed in interesting students, some professors have resorted to the ingenious device of including cartoons. There are even calculus texts "enlivened" by cartoons. Why not? After all, isn't mathematics supposed to be fun? Perhaps pointed, truly humorous cartoons can be admitted as a pedagogical device on the college level, but shallow sequences of drawings that would hardly elicit a smile from six-year-olds make no contribution. Something can be said for cartoons: They do enlighten us as to the intellectual level of the authors. Mathematical texts do not as yet resort to pornography, though this means of attracting students would be more acceptable because it would not be mistaken for a pretense to education in mathematics. These puerile "liberal arts" texts also sell well. Students, deceived or not as to the worth of the material, can earn credit for the course without really being pressed into thinking. The professors can teach such material without any effort and thereby "solve" the problem of what to teach the liberal arts student. Many professors express concern that the lowering of standards for admission to college and automatic admission of any high school graduate will result in the lowering of the educational level for all students. But by publishing the liberal arts and cookbook texts we have described, which are used in hundreds of colleges, these professors have reduced standards to about the lowest level possible. The financial gain to be derived from textbook writing has corrupted many professors. Some authors ask publishers for guarantees up to $100,000. Apparently the authors have no confidence in their works and seek to ensure profit by a guarantee. The argument is sometimes made by authors that a publisher will work harder to push a book on which it has given a guarantee. But this is hardly a justification. The investment of the publisher can range from $50,000 to $100,000. Surely no publisher will invest such a sum and then fail to promote the book. If the author is asking for sales promotion beyond the merits of the book, he is certainly culpable. There are two possible controls over the quality of texts. The first is reviews. Most texts are reviewed in one or more of the professional journals. However, some reviewers are apparently too polite to write the condemnation that most texts should receive. Instead, they merely describe the contents or compare the book with similar ones and often end with the "compliment" that it is good because it is just like the others on the market. Other reviewers respect the principle of honor among malefactors. What we need is honest, damning reviews of books that impose unnecessary hardships on students and fail to teach the values that the course in question should offer. Though critical reviews of texts are rare, one does find some. One reviewer of a new calculus text said that the "exercises are presented with less imagination than" - and here he mentioned a best-selling calculus book - "if that is possible." One might look to the publishers to control the quality of texts. But this is not fair. Publishers do have manuscripts reviewed before they accept them; but generally the reviewers are men who teach at the same level as the proposed book, and they are no more critical and no more demanding about pedagogy than the authors. If they see material they are able to teach, they approve the manuscripts. Moreover, publishers are in business to make money. This is their avowed purpose, and they cannot alter the market. If they do not yield to it, they will fail. They certainly cannot exist on the rewards of virtue. No doubt many exaggerate the qualities of what they publish. Often, too, they seek to anticipate a trend and accelerate it by promoting books that further it and give the impression that such texts are already in wide demand. They did this when the New Mathematics was in the offing and are now hastening to break from the New Math because they foresee its doom. Publishers are often criticized because they publish books just like dozens of others already on the market. But if a publisher is to stay in business he must have saleable books in each of the subjects and perforce must duplicate existing books. The better publishers do compensate somewhat for publishing junk by putting out high-quality monographs and treatises on which they lose money though they may gain prestige. The responsibility for good texts definitely rests with the professors, who, unfortunately, regard their station as practically a license to publish. In these times the only concession they must make to secure the full imprimatur is to have an opening chapter on set theory, whether or not it is relevant to the body of the book or referred to in later chapters. Good texts, so sorely needed, would raise the educational level immeasurably. Not only students would benefit. Young teachers, older ones when called upon to teach a course in an area unfamiliar to them, and even knowledgeable and competent teachers can learn much from a good text because the author would have devoted months and years to the selection and presentation of the material, whereas the teacher could not hope to do that in more than one area. The low quality of the texts is the severest indictment of the professors. Those who deliberately cater to the market even when capable of doing a better job besmirch their character. Those who write texts for courses they have never or only rarely taught impugn their integrity. And experienced teachers who sincerely attempt to write well demonstrate that the arts of pedagogy and writing are rare gifts. This derogation of the quality of American mathematics texts may seem overdrawn or grossly exaggerated. It is not. The low quality is as much a consequence of the development of the nation?s educational efforts as are the poor content and pedagogy of the courses and curricula. The principle of universal education from the elementary school to the highest levels students can attain certainly was and is desirable. But the constant immigration of mainly poor and uneducated people has placed a burden on the country that would be difficult to carry under any conditions. To make matters worse, the emphasis on research in the last thirty or forty years has diverted manpower from teaching and so has cut off the flow into the fountain of all our educational efforts, the teaching in the colleges. Perhaps rather belatedly we shall develop sincere and capable cultivators of mathematics - a science and an art - who will recognize that exposition is as vital in their medium as it is in painting, music, and literature. Why The Professor Can't Teach. C&O 发表于 03:03 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 射雕网的整改报告 - 2003-06-01 07:03 射雕网的整改报告 射雕网最近人气下降，CEO王重阳紧急研究之后，正式向董事会提交整改报告如下： 新闻要注重时效，速度要快，要第一手的材料。花剌子模国侮辱大元使者，成吉思汗大帝一再扬言西征，战争一触即发，西征目的何在，胜算几何，大都民众反战情绪如何，都应随时报告。拟派邱处机随大军西行，做全程跟踪报道。后方由马珏、刘处玄等做顾问点评。 娱乐动态不能放松，目前电视剧最红的女星穆念慈曾说要息影嫁入豪门，但杨康却不置可否。务必动用一切手段侦查出穆念慈秘密出入医院的真实目的，查出她是否已有了杨康骨肉，要快，不要怕错。 “桃花运”版块改由黄药师主持，重点讨论羊年女性运程，加入星座生肖、血型阴阳等，栏目要大胆创新，比如，AB型血能否练一阳指，当蛤蟆功遇到天蝎座等。 进入读图时代，图片要抓住网友的眼球，曲灵风已联系好了号称江湖手模(特)第一人的梅超风，拟去沙漠拍摄外景：月光悠悠，长发飘飘，十指纤纤，一定要拍出夺魂摄魄的感觉。把和梅超风关系复杂的陈玄风的背部文身也要放在显著位置，题目可以叫做别样的性感，别样的九阴真经。 洪七公设计的九指食谱有些落伍，暂时从“打狗办”调黄蓉协助工作，研究一些“穿过你的黑发的我的手”(海带炖猪蹄)一类的新新食谱。 短信业务需求增长迅速，绝不能轻易放弃，由朱聪挂帅，尽快组建一支才思敏捷又妙手空空的写手队伍，占领短信市场。 最后，关于人事调动：周伯通在负责“四张机”聊天室期间，多次发生网恋，最近和网友瑛姑更是闹得不可收拾，段氏集团已提出撤消资金，取消上市。因此调周伯通去公众游戏区，双手互搏，改做职业玩家。郭靖接替黄药师主持“碧海潮”音乐斑竹，其人虽不解音律，但为黄药师女婿，别人也无可指责。 C&O 发表于 07:03 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 无常　赏析 - 2003-06-01 02:38 王菲唱的那么多歌中，我最喜欢这首《无常》。 特别的是，这首歌是王菲自己写的。 首先是美。 微风、树、月、云儿、水、花、田野、山岗、山色湖光、蓝天白杨、海天碧浪、晚霞曙光，还有人。众多的词再配合王菲飘忽的声音描绘出一个绚丽的场景，心情也随之好了起来，看不到一丝渺茫。 然而却有暗流涌动，美丽之下有凄凉。因为夜色快要降临了。 风是夜的风，霞是晚霞，还有月亮。所以喜中带忧、暗中有光，而人的心情也不禁一片夜色放心上。 这么美的景色，却稍纵即逝，感叹世事无常，发出哲理般思考，怎么度，怎么量。 时间的脚步如此匆忙，人的心情也由希望转为失望，如同整首美妙的歌，没有任何先兆，突然结束。意料之外，情理之中。妙笔。 世事无常。你可以狭义的理解为是男女的爱情，也可以广义的进行哲学上的思考。其实，“变态是常态，常态是变态。”所以我们的祖先早就在这方面进行探索，就有了“易经”。但问题是怎么度，怎么量。实在没办法了，就“以不变应万变”。 在数学上，我们也想解决世事中复杂的问题，也同样面临怎么度，怎么量。于是我们变，主动的变，合理的变。我们借助函数（functions，mappings，transformations），对特定集合（sets）中的对象（members）进行操作（operations），以便我们可以度量，得到我们想知道的。 所以每次研究数学遇上困难时，我就会思索怎么度，怎么量，以及怎么变，想到这首歌——无常。 C&O 发表于 02:38 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 无常 - 2003-06-01 02:26 无常　王菲 夜风微凉　树摇月晃 云儿在飞　我在想 水流　　　花儿香 一片夜色放心上 喜中带忧　暗中有光 怎么度　　怎么量 田野　　　山岗 美丽之下的凄凉 无常 你看那　　山色湖光 你看那　　蓝天白杨 看不到一丝渺茫 你再看　　海天碧浪 你再看　　晚霞曙光 禁不住匆匆忙忙 把希望留给失望 C&O 发表于 02:26 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 南开大学组合数学研究中心的招生信息 - 2003-06-01 02:00 南开大学组合数学研究中心 硕士研究生招生信息 专业方向： １．组合数学 ２．组合数学与计算机软件 ３．图论与组合最优化 开设课程： 组合计数，图论算法，组合恒等式的机器证明。（必修课） 博士研究生招生信息 专业方向： １．组合数学 ２．图论与组合最优化 开设课程： 组合数学中的概率方法(Probability Methods in Combinatorics) 注：以南开大学组合数学研究中心的地位，专业设置应当更广、更全面。但目前似乎以走学术道路为主，与应用层面结合得还不够。看来，组合数学与优化在中国的普及和广泛应用还有很长的路要走。 我是主张数学的美、数学的价值通过广泛的应用、解决实际问题来体现的。需要一批人从事基础理论的研究，更需要培养大量的应用人才。这两者之间的关系其实也是“水与舟”的关系。 C&O 发表于 02:00 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 北方交通大学理学院研究生培养方案 - 2003-06-01 01:23 北方交通大学理学院研究生培养方案 运筹学与控制论研究方向如下： 1). 拓扑图论 (拓扑图论以及在超大规模集成电路布局自动化中的应用) 主要研究图在各种拓扑流形上, 在各种条件下嵌入的存在性, 以及在各种目标下的最优性. 兼顾在超大规模集成电路布局设计自动化中的应用, 以及从中提出一些问题的数学理论基础的研究。 2). 组合设计 （组合设计及其在密码学中的应用） 组合设计是一门年轻而古老的重要分支. 与数论, 代数学, 有限几何以及数理统计等数学分支有密切而深刻的联系. 在计算机科学, 信息伪装及通信工程技术中有着广泛的应用背景. 主要研究各种组合设计的存在性及构造性问题, 以及在编码密码学中的应用。 3). 代数图论 （代数图论及其在网络中的应用） 代数图论是近三十年发展起来的一个新兴分支.随着计算机的快速发展,该学科目前在国际上的研究十分活跃.除了传统的谱理论外,侧重研究图的对称性以及在网络理论,编码理论等中的应用, 而且在通讯理论、软件工程、优化设计等方面均有实际的应用背景。 4). 组合泛函方程与地图计数 （组合泛函方程、地图计数以及在交通网络中的应用） 在理论上, 主要研究组合地图计数理论以及从中发现的一批带有一个线性泛函的线性与非线性方程. 这个泛函全然不同于微分和积分. 多数难度很大而且意义也很大. 它不仅与拓扑学中的纽结的研究有关系, 而且与交通网络的设计有密切关系。 5). 组合最优化 （组合最优化与复杂性理论.） 主要围绕着近代计算机科学中提出的是否NP-完全类为P-类的至关重要的理论问题, 并伴随着研究近似算法与经验算法, 以便更有效地利用现代的计算机。 6). 最优化理论、算法及应用 最优化是运筹学中的一个重要分支, 它所研究的是应用现代计算机与网络技术, 为各种最优化问题提供理论基础和求解方法.主要研究课题有：线性与非线性规划的理论与新算法研究; 大范围优化理论与算法研究; 数学规划与经济管理; 变分、互补与交通平衡研究等。 应用数学专业研究方向如下： 1）微分方程与应用 微分方程是数学的一个重要分支，是数学的基础分支（分析、几何与代数）理论联系实际的重要触角。主要研究课题有：常微分方程与偏微分方程的定性理论、稳定性理论、解析理论、可积性与群论，动力系统理论、非线性波理论、变分方法与拓扑方法，正则性理论，数值方法，结合现代计算机与网络技术研究与求微分方程精确解相关的符号计算方法，也研究相关的非线性分析理论。 2）代数学及其应用 代数学是一门非常重要的数学理论，在物理学、工程技术、国民经济等方面都有非常广泛、深入的应用。 代数学这一重要的数学理论，与密码学的发展有着密切的联系，在其中有着重要的应用。随着计算机科学的蓬勃发展，我们这个社会以进入信息时代，而计算机通讯的保密与安全显得尤为重要，对信息的加密是达到上述目的有效措施。我们将代数的理论和方法应用到编码理论和密码学中，解决通讯中保密与安全的实际问题。 3）几何学及其应用 几何学是数学的一个古老的分支，而微分几何学则是本世纪以来得到迅猛发展又对数学的其它分支及其理论产生重大影响的分支学科。它包括极小子流形理论，黎曼几何学，Mobius几何以及流形上的分析等。经典微分几何就是三维欧氏空间中的典面论和典线论，它对于齿轮设计和计算机的图形设计等都有具体的运用。我们的主要研究兴趣包括Mobius几何和流形上的分析，主要内容为指标定理，尤其是殆复流形上椭圆算子的局部指标定理的研究。 4）概率论及数理统计 主要研究概率论有关分枝的理论及其应用，包括随机控制、极限理论、随机过程论、概率论方法应用及数理统计等。其中随机控制为综合概率论、分析理论、方程理论与控制理论的综合研究领域，其研究有重要的理论意义及应用价值；极限理论包括强极限理论及弱极限理论，它是概率论中的一个重要研究分支，还构成数理统计的理论基础。随机过程论包括马氏过程论、鞅论、平稳过程等有关理论，是概率论中发展迅速的一个研究领域。概率论方法应用是一个涉及面十分广泛的领域，包括随机力学、排队论等有关方面，数理统计是研究统计方法及理论的一个概率分支，在应用方面有重要的价值。 5）非线性分析与分形 分形几何是一门新兴的数学分支,这是一个研究和处理自然与工程中不规则图形的强有力的理论工具。它的应用几乎涉及自然科学的各个领域，甚至于社会科学，并且实际上正起着把现代科学各个领域连接起来的作用。分形几何研究的基本内容包括：Hausdorff测度和维数，几种维数的定义，计算维数的技巧，分形的局部结构，分形的射影，分形的乘积，分形的交等。分形在数学科学中的应用主要包含：自相似集和自仿集，数论，函数的图象，动力系统，复变函数的迭代，随机分形，布朗运动，多重分形测度等。 6）计算数学与数学建模 计算数学是数学的一个分支，它主要研究怎样在计算机上有效快速地进行数学计算与计算机模拟的科学计算方法及其有关理论，而数学建模是研究怎样将实际问题转化为数学问题来寻求对实际问题的解决方法和理论。由于计算机的发展和解决大量实际问题的需要，科学计算与数学建模将成为当今技术科学中最有用的 数学研究领域。研究的内容有科学计算方法的构造和理论，计算机的编程技术，数学建模和应用的理论和方法等。 注：转贴这个，只是想说明专业设置上比较有特色、新颖，相对于国内其他高校。尤其是在组合数学方面。至于学校具体如何，我不清楚。 在运筹学与控制论研究方向上，比较侧重组合数学。其中组合数学中的图论、组合设计、计数、组合优化开得那么专业和完整，实在是值得推荐。当然这也与其他高校的运筹学与控制论研究方向有着很大区别。 我本人目前对组合设计和组合优化比较感兴趣。其中组合设计涉及了代数、有限几何、图论、拟阵论、编码等等众多数学分支。而目前又广泛用于化学、生物和通信等领域。 这才叫左右互搏吗！ 左右互搏可以解释为： 纵横南北，敞开我们的心扉。 天地都在我心中。 C&O 发表于 01:23 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 哈姆莱特——译文二 - 2003-06-01 00:32 哈姆莱特上。

哈姆莱特 生存还是毁灭，这是一个值得考虑的问题； 默然忍受命运的暴虐的毒箭， 或是挺身反抗人世的无涯的苦难， 通过斗争把它们扫清， 这两种行为，哪一种更高贵？ 死了；睡着了； 什么都完了； 要是在这一种睡眠之中， 我们心头的创痛，以及其他无数血肉之躯所不能避免的打击， 都可以从此消失， 那正是我们求之不得的结局。 死了；睡着了； 睡着了也许还会做梦； 嗯，阻碍就在这儿： 因为当我们摆脱了这一具朽腐的皮囊以后， 在那死的睡眠里， 究竟将要做些什么梦， 那不能不使我们踌躇顾虑。 人们甘心久困于患难之中， 也就是为了这个缘故； 谁愿意忍受人世的鞭挞和讥嘲、 压迫者的凌辱、 傲慢者的冷眼、 被轻蔑的爱情的惨痛、 法律的迁延、 官吏的横暴和费尽辛勤所换来的小人的鄙视， 要是他只要用一柄小小的刀子， 就可以清算他自己的一生？ 谁愿意负着这样的重担， 在烦劳的生命的压迫下呻吟流汗， 倘不是因为惧怕不可知的死后， 惧怕那从来不曾有一个旅人回来过的神秘之国， 是它迷惑了我们的意志， 使我们宁愿忍受目前的磨折， 不敢向我们所不知道的痛苦飞去？ 这样，重重的顾虑使我们全变成了懦夫， 决心的赤热的光彩， 被审慎的思维盖上了一层灰色， 伟大的事业在这一种考虑之下， 也会逆流而退， 失去了行动的意义。 且慢！美丽的奥菲利娅！ ——女神，在你的祈祷之中，不要忘记替我忏悔我的罪孽。 C&O 发表于 00:32 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 哈姆雷特——译文一 - 2003-06-01 00:19 [哈姆雷特入] 哈: {自言自语} 生存或毁灭, 这是个必答之问题: 是否应默默的忍受坎苛命运之无情打击, 还是应与深如大海之无涯苦难奋然为敌, 并将其克服。 此二抉择, 就竟是哪个较崇高? 死即睡眠, 它不过如此! 倘若一眠能了结心灵之苦楚与肉体之百患, 那么, 此结局是可盼的! 死去, 睡去... 但在睡眠中可能有梦, 啊, 这就是个阻碍: 当我们摆脱了此垂死之皮囊, 在死之长眠中会有何梦来临? 它令我们踌躇, 使我们心甘情愿的承受长年之灾, 否则谁肯容忍人间之百般折磨, 如暴君之政、骄者之傲、失恋之痛、法章之慢、贪官之侮、或庸民之辱, 假如他能简单的一刃了之? 还有谁会肯去做牛做马, 终生疲於操劳, 默默的忍受其苦其难, 而不远走高飞, 飘於渺茫之境, 倘若他不是因恐惧身後之事而使他犹豫不前? 此境乃无人知晓之邦, 自古无返者。 所以,「理智」能使我们成为懦夫, 而「顾虑」能使我们本来辉煌之心志变得黯然无光, 像个病夫。 再之, 这些更能坏大事, 乱大谋, 使它们失去魄力。 {见到欧菲利亚} 哦, 小声。 美丽的欧菲利亚, 可爱的小姐, 在你的祈祷中可别忘了我的罪孽。 C&O 发表于 00:19 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 To be, or not to be: that is the question: - 2003-06-01 00:16 HAMLET　Shakespeare To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.--Soft you now! The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons Be all my sins remember'd. C&O 发表于 00:16 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 哲思：郭靖的哈姆雷特式危机 - 2003-06-01 00:09 哲思：郭靖的哈姆雷特式危机 王怡 《射雕英雄传》里，郭靖出得江湖，一年之中惨遭大变。五位恩师抛尸桃花岛，成吉思汗意欲南侵，母亲李萍则在郭靖面前断然自尽，以明其志。郭靖纵马南归，一路上又是兵荒马乱，尸骨遍野，令人触目惊心。郭靖茫茫漫游，不知从哪里来，要到哪里去。一时间诸般事端纷至沓来，如同哈姆雷特得知叔父杀兄娶嫂的真相后，陷入不得解脱的质问之中： ——To be or not to be？That＇s a question. 郭靖不得不停下来，像兔子一样暂时退出与乌龟的比赛，对自己进行碎片整理。 “练了武艺又有何用？连母亲也不能保住。” “我一心要做好人，但到底让谁快乐了？” “完颜洪烈自然是坏人，但成吉思汗呢？” “穆念慈姊姊是好人，为什么却对杨康死心塌地地相爱？” “我怎能杀别人的儿子，叫她母亲伤心痛哭？但是，难道任他来杀我大宋百姓？” “我勤勤恳恳的苦学苦练，到头来只是害人。但不学武我又做什么呢？我这个人活在世上，到底是为什么？” “活着好呢，还是早点死了？若是活着，此刻已是烦恼不尽，日后烦恼自是更多。若是死了，当初妈妈又何必生我？” “世间到底有没有天道天理？老天爷到底生不生眼睛？” 你说郭靖笨不笨？这些问题没有慧根又如何思量得出来。连修道数十载的丘处机也将他开导不了。郭靖一句反问：“武功要练到四位前辈一般，固然千难万难，但即便如此，于人于己又有什么好处？”丘处机立刻就呆了，只有叫他去找周伯通。 韩非将游侠列为五蠹之一，就是看不惯这些江湖之人以武犯禁，任用私刑。而现代法治的一个目标就是要减少和消除私力救济，并将善恶恩仇纳入一个看得见的诉讼程序当中。 侠客们脱离宗法社会，在家靠父母，出门靠朋友。其价值取向便以“忠义”为先，孝悌为后，与主流社会的价值观殊为不同。杀人活人，全在一念之间。一个不再以孝为根基的江湖社会，杀起人来就没什么恻隐之心。李逵的母亲被老虎吃了，回到山上摆谈起来，众位兄弟只问杀虎的细节，说到痛快处哈哈大笑，没有一个人有片言安慰之语。当然李逵恐怕也不需要安慰，每一回劫法场，他都像过节一般，见人就杀，不分军民。又加上没有源自宗教的对于善恶的绝对标准，杀与不杀的问题，每个侠客都全凭自由心证。黑白两道，谁杀谁不杀，大侠们心中通常都是泾渭分明、毫无怀疑的。所以在一个如此崇尚暴力的环境中，郭靖能够灵台清明，屡遭惨变之后堕入信仰危机，已经算有大智慧之人，在射雕一族里已是一枝独秀。相比之下，黄蓉的那点小聪明又实在算不了什么。 后来上了华山，看见丘处机被沙通天等人围攻，情势危急。郭靖在一旁天人交战、内心苦痛不堪：“丘道长若被彭连虎等害死，岂非全是我的不是？但若上前相助，将彭连虎等击下山去，又到底该是不该？” 此时的郭靖已经跳出三界外，不在五行中，进入了物我两忘的状态。他渐行渐远，慢慢不闻兵刃相接之声，独自倚在石上，呆呆出神。 此时郭靖心中真正的问题是，谁有权力去杀人？谁授予了侠客做法官和刽子手的资格？暴力本身是一种善还是一种恶？ 丘处机与沙通天，什么是对，什么是错？ ——天啊，我该怎么办？ 洪七公的出现，终于将郭靖从哈姆雷特式危机当中解救了出来。 裘千仞作恶多端，在华山被众人围攻，眼见像拿撒拉的妓女一样凶多吉少，又没有耶稣出来发问，便哈哈大笑，自己跳出场子，向众人质问道：“说到是非善恶，嘿嘿，裘千仞孤身在此，哪一位平生没有杀过人，没有犯过恶的，就请上来动手！” 一灯大师长叹一声，首先退下。其他各人扪心自问，皆心中有愧。五十步笑百步，谁有道德上的绝对优势和权威向他扔石头呢？ 这时洪七公作为江湖上的道德高标，从天而降。接下来一席话掷地有声、大义凛然：“老叫化一生杀过二百三十一人，这二百三十一人个个是恶徒，若非贪官污吏、土豪恶霸，就是大奸巨恶、负义薄幸之人，老叫化贪杯贪食，可是生平没有杀过一个好人。裘千仞，你是第二百三十二个！” 没有一个人敢有意见，连裘千仞也为之气夺。 一个杀了二百三十一人的洪七公，说自己问心无愧，生平没有错杀一个。你信吗？你又行吗？反正我是首先就不信的。也自认不行。 当一个凡人拥有对旁人的生杀大权，拥有以善恶和绝对真理的名义去宣判的时候，是最危险的。江湖是一个最容易自我膨胀的地方。手执利剑就等于口含天宪，这种侠客们的救世主心态仅仅来自于武功的卓越，并没有更高的意识形态来为这种绝对权威加冕。因此它显得比君主制下的权威更加无理，世俗的君王，至少有“合法性”的说词，比如孟子的“天子受命于天”，胡克的“神授君权”。 “统治人类的权力是一种可怕的权力”。这是罗伯斯庇尔在大革命初期说的话。这位罗先生因此大声呼吁取消统治者杀人的权力，他说：当一切人的力量用于对付一个人的时候，死刑是极端不公正的。 那时的罗伯斯庇尔，多么像正义凛然的洪七公啊。但在随之而来的腥风血雨中，罗先生狂热地高叫着：杀死路易十六！杀死王后！雅各宾取得政权后，罗成为法国事实上的最高领袖，无论他有着如何令人称道的个人品质和崇高目标，一个洪七公就这么轻易地变成了杀人如麻的东方不败。 但郭靖是完全被这一番话折服了。心中豁然开朗，想到：“原来只要不杀错一个好人，就是问心无愧。瞧师父指斥裘千仞时，何等神气凛凛。只要我将武功用于仗义为善，又何须将武功抛弃忘却。” 洪七公成为了郭靖在信仰危机中意外抓住的救命稻草。他的慧根也就到此为止。他完全忽视了当裘千仞悔过跳崖时一灯大师的言行，也使自己提出的问题转移了方向。 如果说郭靖和洪七公代表了一种理想主义的江湖力量，金庸后来的作品就慢慢倾向怀疑论了。最后抵达《鹿鼎记》的虚无主义，武侠就再也写不下去。 郭靖重获信仰，渐渐树立了“侠之大者，为国为民”的终极目标，构成这个终极目标的两个主要信念，民族大义和正邪之分，在后来的两个大侠身上，对单纯信条的绝对自信终于被复杂的现实彻底击碎。这两个大侠就是契丹人乔峰和笑傲江湖的令狐冲。 令狐冲的慧根最高。之所以说令狐冲是真正的隐士，是唯一真正笑傲江湖的人，就在于他完全降解了属于郭靖的终极目标。他最终跳出了所有杀戮的理由。他对于世俗价值的怀疑也是最深的。郭靖在灵台清明的一瞬提出的问题，直到令狐冲的出现，才得到一个最后的答案。 令狐冲是一个江湖之上的个人主义者。他在本质上更接近哈姆雷特。虽然他的解脱之路却是彻底东方化的。梅因在论及“从身份到契约”的历史进程时，说：“起初，人们首先不是被视为一个个人，而始终被视为一个特定团体的成员。”在金庸笔下，我们看到只有令狐冲，在精神上是作为一个个体，而不是作为一个团体当中的成员而出现的。他比乔峰更本质地使江湖的乌托邦遭到摧毁。 在一个个人主义和后金庸时代的江湖中，像洪七公这样的人物本不该出现在古龙的笔下。但侠客杨凡（《大人物》），却是又一个在乌托邦的路上执迷不悟的罗伯斯庇尔。田思思离开家去寻找她心目中的大人物，结果爱上了其貌不扬的大头鬼杨凡。最后谜底揭开，这个杨凡的平凡不过是外貌，他原来才是真正的大人物，是秘密组织“山流”的首脑。这是一个什么样的秘密组织呢？是一群热血青年怀着正义，去暗杀江湖之上的“坏人”，他们希望这个江湖变得更美好，变成一个乌托邦。 他们把这种事叫做“锄奸”。 杨凡的道德优越感和绝对的自信，使这部武侠小说成为我最不喜欢的、也是古龙中后期作品中最不可原谅的一本。因为他彻底背叛了一个自由主义的江湖，背叛了古龙自己的武侠精神，甚至退回到了金庸的起点之前。杨凡连郭靖都不如，连灵台清明的一瞬也没有。那么多人的死从没有让他陷入过信仰危机，却成为一个坚定而冷酷的原教旨恐怖主义者。 有一天，如果杨凡也振振有词：我一生杀过二百三十一人，这二百三十一人个个是恶徒，若非贪官污吏、土豪恶霸，就是大奸巨恶、负义薄幸之人。我生平没有杀过一个好人，王怡，你是第二百三十二个！ 列位看官，我的丧钟为你而鸣。 来源：《文汇报》 2002年10月24日 C&O 发表于 00:09 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(0) | 编辑 Why The Professor Can't Teach——原文链接 - 2003-06-01 00:01 《为什么教授不会教书》虽然还没有连载完，不过我先将原文的链接公布在此： Why The Professor Can't Teach. 有兴趣的话，上该网站可以找到更多关于数学教育的好文章。 如你有心的话，愿意将该书翻成中文，那再好不过了，我愿意尽我所能提供帮助！ C&O 发表于 00:01 | 阅读全文 | 评论(0) | 引用trackback(1) | 编辑 分页