Alger's posts with tag: concerns...thoughts
What are tags? You can give your posts a "tag", which is like a keyword. Tags help you find content which has something in common. You can assign as many tags as you wish to each post.
26.11.2008
我是一位微不足道的網路過客, 也是一個只能靠自己磨練而實現理想的劍客.當你開始發出創作的時候, 我還不知道你的存在. 也許當時國內的人已經遍野知道你這位紅人. 而我, 因為人長期在國外, 只能從朋友親戚們的網路聯繫交流中得知你.我不是非常懂得欣賞你的曲風, 歌詞還有影片格式. 不過你的地方性的強調和愛國的熱情吸引了我的注意.我知道你把很多國內的事情和不滿,採用各種不同的視覺和影片效果配上鄉間的語調來表達. 那何嘗不是一種地方性的特征. 這點我敢說你做得非常好.
看了你的短片和相關媒體報導後. 幾分感傷和感慨.我不知道為何華社不能含有多一些包容, 求和,求學與立志.從我父母上一代就已經知道華校生的不平等待遇, 經歷過的長輩們依然走過多少的刁難走進政府發展的前方. 語言本來不是最關鍵的問題.就算你只明白華語不懂英語, 馬來語再者印度語. 有人會幫你傳話和表達思想.問題只在於民族自治和立志發展社團組織的實踐. 80年代, 聽過很多等著奇跡的空想家懊悔當初的被動, 能夠鞏固資源經營和自政管轄權被巫統奪走. 90年代 見識過很多實踐家僅僅局限自己在私人利益和權益的主動一廂情願相信玩陰謀詭計的人在數年下調走原有民族之間的基本權利一致的協議, 因此變得能夠為社團造設應有的勢力和福利越來越遙遠.
我希望黃明志明白,
有人願意作一輩子被錢財醺倒的空想家.也有人願意作一輩子承擔多民族間的爭端然後忘了傾聽華族的心聲和共識性的建設. 很多人忘了要是自己一份廣大的稻田可以分出去讓人耕耘.其人會給一些人勇氣去改善, 給了市民好的就業機會是讓社會的求才與立志提昇.
我希望黃明志好好表現自己.
也希望週圍的人向自己所強發展.
以往的迷失, 錯誤和挫折是最好的老師, 它們促使我們更加清醒, 所以以後的幹勁
就是在於如認真負責的行動放在虛心好學與積極鬥爭.
馬來西亞,一直在小變中.
求勝利與優秀,
切勿過於模仿他人,
不要限制思流.
務必擇善扶持.
小小的愚見, 小小的提醒, 僅留與此.
The symptoms of indigestion include:
* Burning in the stomach or upper abdomen
* Abdominal pain
* Bloating (full feeling)
* Belching and gas
* Nausea and vomiting
* Acidic taste
* Growling stomach
These symptoms may increase in times of stress.
People often have heartburn (a burning sensation deep in the chest) along with indigestion. But heartburn itself is a different symptom that may indicate another problem.
~~Who Is at Risk for Indigestion?
People of all ages and of both sexes are affected by indigestion. It's extremely common. An individual's risk increases with excess alcohol consumption, use of drugs that may irritate the stomach (such as aspirin), other conditions where there is an abnormality in the digestive tract such as an ulcer and emotional problems such as anxiety or depression.
~~What Causes Indigestion?
Indigestion has many causes, including:
Diseases:
* Ulcers
* GERD
* Stomach cancer (rare)
* Gastroparesis (a condition where the stomach doesn't empty properly; this often occurs in diabetics)
* Stomach infections
* Irritable bowel syndrome
* Chronic pancreatitis
* Thyroid disease
* Pregnancy
Medications:
* Aspirin and many other painkillers
* Estrogen and oral contraceptives
* Steroid medications
* Certain antibiotics
* Thyroid medicines
Lifestyle:
* Eating too much, eating too fast, eating high-fat foods, or eating during stressful situations
* Drinking too much alcohol
* Cigarette smoking
* Stress and fatigue
Indigestion is not caused by excess stomach acid.
Swallowing excessive air when eating may increase the symptoms of belching and bloating, which are often associated with indigestion.
Sometimes people have persistent indigestion that is not related to any of these factors. This type of indigestion is called functional, or non-ulcer dyspepsia.
~~How Is Indigestion Diagnosed?
If you are experiencing symptoms of indigestion, make an appointment to see your doctor to rule out a more serious condition. Because indigestion is such a broad term, it is helpful to provide your doctor with a precise description of the discomfort you are experiencing. In describing your indigestion symptoms, try to define where in the abdomen the discomfort usually occurs. Simply reporting pain in the stomach is not detailed enough for your doctor to help identify and treat your problem.
First, your doctor must rule out any underlying conditions. Your doctor may perform several blood tests and you may have X-rays of the stomach or small intestine. Your doctor may also use an instrument to look closely at the inside of the stomach, a procedure called an upper endoscopy. An endoscope, a flexible tube that contains a light and a camera to produce images from inside the body, is used in this procedure.
~~What Is the Treatment for Indigestion?
Because indigestion is a symptom rather than a disease, treatment usually depends upon the underlying condition causing the indigestion.
Often, episodes of indigestion go away within hours without medical attention. However, if your indigestion symptoms become worse, you should consult a doctor. Here are some helpful tips to alleviate indigestion:
* Try not to chew with your mouth open, talk while chewing, or eat too fast. This causes you to swallow too much air, which can aggravate indigestion.
* Drink fluids after rather than during meals.
* Avoid late-night eating.
* Try to relax after meals.
* Avoid spicy foods.
* Stop smoking.
* Avoid alcoholic beverages.
If indigestion is not relieved after making these changes, your doctor may prescribe medications to alleviate your symptoms.
~~How Can I Prevent Indigestion?
The best way to prevent indigestion is to avoid the foods and situations that seem to cause indigestion. Keeping a food diary is helpful in identifying foods that cause indigestion. Here are some other suggestions:
* Eat small meals so the stomach does not have to work as hard or as long.
* Eat slowly.
* Avoid foods that contain high amounts of acids, such as citrus fruits and tomatoes.
* Reduce or avoid foods and beverages that contain caffeine.
* If stress is a trigger for your indigestion, re-evaluating your lifestyle may help to reduce stress. Learn new methods for managing stress, such as relaxation and biofeedback techniques.
* Smokers should consider quitting smoking, or at least not smoking right before or after eating, as smoking can irritate the stomach lining.
* Cut back on alcohol consumption because alcohol can irritate the stomach lining.
* Avoid wearing tight-fitting garments because they tend to compress the stomach, which can cause its contents to enter the esophagus.
* Do not exercise with a full stomach. Rather, exercise before a meal or at least one hour after eating a meal.
* Do not lie down right after eating.
* Wait at least three hours after your last meal of the day before going to bed.
* Raise the head of your bed so that your head and chest are higher than your feet. You can do this by placing 6-inch blocks under the bedposts at the head of the bed. Don't use piles of pillows to achieve the same goal. You will only put your head at an angle that can increase pressure on your stomach and make heartburn worse.
~~When Should I Call the Doctor About Indigestion?
Because indigestion can be a sign of a more serious health problem, call your doctor if you have any of the following symptoms:
* Vomiting or blood in vomit (the vomit may look like coffee grounds).
* Weight loss.
* Loss of appetite.
* Black, tarry stools or visible blood in stools.
* Severe pain in upper right abdomen.
* Pain in upper or lower right abdomen.
* Discomfort unrelated to eating.
Symptoms similar to indigestion may be caused by heart attacks. If indigestion is unusual, accompanied by shortness of breath, sweating, or pain radiating to the jaw, neck or arm, seek medical attention immediately.
"Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another...."
Interestingly to note that reason is not just a form of faith, it is also a tool of influence. We might think, for example, that we obviously need other things, such as good laws, good institutions where a clear and unbiased understanding of history, as well as science to offer some clues of solutions when problems come.
Many assumed religion and science are the central of present evils that confuse one's judgement but it was strange that the fact both parties played a huge part in the widespread exaltation of civilisation in different periods with their golden time, both in the east and west.
Dare to know the reasons is not good enough, because it is ambiguous and one-sided. Probably it is observed science and religion walked their own independantly, somehow. Sadly to see, people are reluctant to explore life under the basis of both, only either; it led to science's functioning like a kind of rival religion itself.
The question to think again is, trust and flexibility? What do one put faith in? Would trust welcome to admit what is so wrong? Would flexibility allow reason to belief to go further?
As for science itself, things may need to come up with an observation (not just definition only) based on comparing the evidence for rival theories rather than black-and-white falsification.
As for religion, shouldn't they open for democratic claims and rationality? I do believe the divine words always implied complicated messages behind, and when it goes in a world of complex and life-or-death decisions on issues ranging from climate change, war, disagreements, injustice. I suppose all these need democratic judgements as well as realistic observations on how individuals or groups make decisions?
I know, old good things are hard to save and old bad things are hard to go away. Larger and larger sections turn into corporate power, leaving no choice but "to follow their reasons". Even if we want to give effort for a try, the essential aspects of doubts above, will continue to be marginalised.
Expectations seem healthy, when we never learn, the existence is merely, just, unreasonable.
Ok, reviews is back to life again :)
The world has suffered much more dramatic sea level shifts in the past, however. At the height of the ice ages, sea level was as much as 120 metres lower than it is now, but in the planet's hothouse phases, such as between 100 and 50 million years ago, there was no ice at all and the seas were 70 metres higher than today. After the last ice age the sea rose at the amazing rate of 4 metres per century. Perhaps this is why a global flood is an "urmyth" of our culture: there were many Noahs, from the Sumerian Ziusudra to the Akkadian Utnapishtin of the Gilgamesh saga.
This awareness of the huge events of the past, combined with the imminent reality of flooding, inspired me to write a disaster story featuring a modern global flood. What would happen to us if the fluctuations of the past returned? There is evidence that the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are already becoming destabilised; what if all the ice were to melt? A consideration of the implications for humanity of extreme sea-level rise becomes an exercise in hypsographic demography - the distribution of human population by altitude. One-third of the world's people live at elevations below 100 metres. If all the ice melted, billions would be driven inland, with thirst, famine, disease and brushfire wars dogging their tracks. With the loss of cities and lowland facilities, our technological civilisation might start to fall apart. Meanwhile, the weight of the new masses of water over the land would perturb the planet's geology, and the vast injection of fresh water into the oceans would destabilise ocean currents. There would be climate catastrophes, earthquakes and tsunamis, and hurricanes spinning off the warming oceans to pound the miserable refugees.
What if the floods got even worse than that? The mean height of the continents above sea level is 800 metres. Only one-sixth of the world's population lives above this altitude. If a global flood approached anything like this height little would survive of our modern civilisation, which would end in war over the remaining useable high ground in the Andes and Tibet.
Where could the extra water come from to fuel such a megaflood? Some scientists believe Earth may contain a great deal more water than is present in its oceans and ice caps. A major lode of water - trapped during the planet's formation - created the first oceans through outgassing, the theory goes, though these early seas were lost to impact events. The present oceans could be relics of the outgassing, or may have been delivered by comet impacts. But some of Earth's primal water could have been retained as molecules trapped in the mineral structure of the deep mantle rocks - perhaps as much as five times the volume of the surface waters and more than enough to engulf the continents. To cover the highest mountain would require an ocean just three times the volume of the existing seas - and less than 1 per cent of Earth's total volume.
Though a sea level rise of up to 70 metres, driven by the melting of polar ice, is clearly quite possible, Mechanisms and pathways are yet to discover...But myths and stories where we read in classical literature are a way for us to internalise truths, more directly than through factual arguments. Earth becoming a planet-wide Tuvalu is a metaphor for climate change itself, for the relentlessness of the future changes we face.
If megaflood really comes, consider that people actually bring the movie "the day after tomorrow" into reality by their own hands? Maybe, until now we are still arrogant to assume that, it's just a movie that earns money...
 | 多元化的社會 | Jul 17, '08 9:04 AM
for everyone |
我來自一個多元化的社會, 它從一開始是個無名無式的地方. 因為希望得到一份歸屬感和至高無上的榮譽, 所以它有了一個獨特的名字. 每個人有著不同的信念, 不一樣的價值取向和不同德生活態度. 嚴格來說, 這國家一直存在著多層矛盾, 有趣的是持不同的信念的人可以在這裡抱著同樣的動向去工作, 乘同一輛巴士上下班, 住在同一層樓, 在同個菜肉市場逛街...各自有各自的學校和宗教地點. 他誦他的可蘭經, 你讀你的佛經, 我鑽研我的資產主義還有賺大錢的途徑...
即使同一個家庭, 也可能出現這樣的情況: 有人支持政改, 有人反對政改; 有人是民聯的支持者, 也有人支持民主黨的熱心人. 飯桌上, 一旦提起政治, 可以爭辯討論各自其說地爭得臉紅耳赤. 談到要哪裡有好吃好喝的, 哪裡有什麼外部節目的, 哪裡有什麼潛能性的商機, 大家很自然而然地蒐集一致的意見再作行動, 作到最基本的尊重包容.
雖然有一定的處事共識, 可是依然有太多過程中的矛盾, 就好像統治者與被統治者的矛盾, 到底政府應該事事遷就市民, 還是事事要市民遷就呢? 這問題一直都解不開.
生產者和消費者也永遠存在著之間的矛盾. 消費者慣性要求價錢便宜以及高材素質, 但太便宜就影響了生產者的收入. 更何況, 貨品從生產者到消費者, 不知要經過多少個中間人, 他們也得分到一些可觀的利潤酬勞. 問題是生產者叫價太高,經營者便得無利可圖.
老闆和僱員也面對著同樣的問題. 哪個老闆不希望賺最多的錢, 又哪個僱員不希望高薪厚祿...? 經過市場的調節, 似乎大家會覺得可以接受, 滿意拿到自己應有的一份.
隨著中西印文化的互相衝擊, 很多方面對立和融合變得矛盾百出. 資本主義與獨裁統治的意識形態下造成的對立現象即是非常不穩定造就行政和經濟阻礙, 其中的矛盾引起激烈的爭端. 爭端未找出妥協, 多少應該實行的計劃不能如期運作, 極有可能導致發展障礙. 爭端的勝負同時也慢慢形成貧富的懸殊, 也產生窮人與富人的生活矛盾. 雖說國家的經濟還是有一定的增長幅度, 貧富矛盾延伸到低階層的收入不見增加, 貨物高度通脹的重臨來襲, 這樣一來逼得低收入, 低階層的市民苦不堪言. 相反, 掌握財富和行政實權的人卻變得越來越揮霍. 這矛盾越來越顯著, 也沒有實際的良方可緩慢. 在長期不平等的政府與富人關係下累積了怨氣和不滿, 在適當的帶動中有些等待機會來騷動的政黨會聚合他們, 成為一股反政府的力量.
夾在富人與窮人之間的中產階級, 他們不是專業人士, 不然就是中小企業的老闆或職員, 一方面要向上爭取自己的利益名聲, 也要為低下階層的說一些冠冕堂皇的說詞來獲得支持, 同時又要幫助富者剝削不必要的低下階層. 甚至還要跟自己的同道互相殘殺爭個傑出的認同. 他們對看不過眼的事情往往不能容忍, 還喜歡大放厥詞, 表達見解, 唯恐天下不亂似的讓人知道他們的存在. 這社會, 中產者的聲音越來越多的時候, 無形中分散了應有的共識, 也讓不同階層的矛盾更加複雜化.
到底, 政府和富人在矛盾加劇的情況下對老百姓作出多少無數次的壟斷市場, 限制企業多元化, 還有任意控制商機和飯碗的價值, 老百姓的日子是否好過? 政員們, 到底有沒有洞察到最基本問題在何處?
10.07.2008
2 days ago, we heard "bad" feedbacks from the reviewers.
"Nature is finished, we felt defeated to admit"
Problem is how they are going to tell the public and rest of the world.
By then, taking all the long courses to be heard.
Nothing is likely to happen better.
Rather than working to get back, how about to work against it?
Why people is scared of "against"?
Anyhow, we will work our own.
Hard to be a global saviour,
but hardworking to be a nature's farmer.
| 包容 | Jul 6, '08 10:30 PM
for everyone |
渴望創建和諧社會,表示他們看到這個社會不怎麼和諧,又或者出現了各種表面和深層的矛盾.到底怎麼樣才能達到社會和諧?相信沒有什麼獨步妙方.單靠傳媒的宣傳,呼籲人們互相包容尊重,或者來名人鼓吹一番,看來也只是有了很小的短期作用而已.
要達到社會和諧,首先要所有人明白和諧的意義和定義.倘若和諧是同心同德的,徹底擁護政府向前邁進,這根本是不切實際的設想.現在的情況是慢慢地走向種族和文化多元的社會,要所有的意見和方向一致是難上加難.應該是多元包容以及異聲的互相尊重.即是說,我們見到的不再是兩極分化的贊成或反對這麼單純結果.派系化的民族,性別,文化,教育也同時被深入分化各大小的大眾.
黑白在人的眼中容易辨別,可是每當運用在現實問題和和諧問題的時候往往不只有黑白之間的差異,還有更小差異的灰, 點點灰,灰白,白灰等等. 這些不同層次的前後,虛實, 明暗立體聯合起來所展現在眼前的事物並非黑白分明那樣簡單.這就好像男女的例子一樣,每個人都是男中有女,女中有男的思想性格,其比例不全是一對一,也會隨著生活環境和個人機遇而轉變.
如果以政府為借鏡,把國聲和民聲合分開一起談的想法是非常的危險,認知的大眾制度只能用投票制度把支持與不支持來定勝敗.但是個中定位不清的,勉強的支持和不支持也是比例不全為一對一.同樣的,為了鞏固勢力,應該包容國聲和民聲之間的異聲,他們大小派系會無所不用其極去剷除對方.話說回來,政壇要談和諧,那是南柯一夢.
和諧,真的要求個良方,不單單是包容和尊重.更明確一點是求得足夠互動的空間.這空間說得不只是地域上的自由空間,還要包括了思維和發展的空間.
現代的生活標榜制度和設定標準說為了和諧為出發點,可是這些東西時時刻刻,一年又一年,一個又一個套住在人民的自由的空間上.它們越是完, 思想和自主的發展越來越受限制和僵硬化.無論思考,生活,工作,吃飯,興趣,上網,做愛,喝咖啡,寫字...等等也帶著一定的制度和標準去做,不然的話極有可能會批評為不夠水準,不跟標準,不合大眾也可能立為犯規犯法,有反政府的意思.
這樣的制度化的"和諧"能夠算是包容嗎?
Sadly, their environmental benefits, no one can guarantee the certainty.
In theory, the growing crops soak up as much carbon dioxide as is made burning them. But in practice, the cultivation and processing of corn in particular takes a large amount of energy, resulting in additional greenhouse gas emissions that can cancel out this benefit. Cultivating soya or oil palm can also add to global warming if the crops are grown on former rainforest land or drained peat bogs.
Perhaps thankfully, we now have an alternative, in the form of second-generation biofuels made from inedible plant material that can be grown on unused land or, even better, from plant or organic waste such as corn straw, wood chips or the contents of landfill. The theory is that such material will not require cultivation and therefore will have low carbon emissions. In recent weeks work has begun on several pilot plants aimed at bringing these fuels to a forecourt near you. The big money at the moment is going into cellulosic ethanol - ethanol made from the bits of plants we cannot eat. Edible starch, the stuff currently turned into bioethanol, makes up only a small proportion of the total biomass of plants. Most biomass is a woody, indigestible mixture of lignin and cellulose, bound up in plant cell walls.
But the problem is the big money is going into ethanol made from the bits of plants we cannot eat? Lignin will burn, but has so far defied efforts to convert it into liquid fuel. But cellulose, like starch, is made up of long chains of glucose that can be fermented to make ethanol. The bad news is that separating cellulose from lignin and breaking it down into its component sugars is still far more difficult and expensive than doing the same to starch. The cost of producing cellulosic ethanol from corn, for instance, is currently 50 per cent higher than for making bioethanol from starch.
This year Brazil hopes to export up to 3 billion litres of ethanol to the United States. But this market depends on the corn price being so high as to make it profitable to pay the import tariff. That was not the case last year and it may not be the case next year. Brazil could expand output much more, but will do so only when export markets are less unpredictable. That is because supplying them requires investment in pipelines and port equipment.
For those worried about climate change, Brazilian ethanol is worth buying only if it is as green as it claims to be (keep finger crossed). It is certainly much greener than its corn-based rival in America: it packs 8.2 times as much energy as is used in its production, compared with just 1.5 times for corn ethanol, according to the Woodrow Wilson Centre, a Washington think-tank. Some greens say that the spread of sugar is deforesting the Amazon. That is not true. The vast majority of the sugar crop is grown thousands of miles away from the forest, in São Paulo state or the north-east. Some 65% of new planting of sugar cane has been on land that was previously pasture; the rest was previously used for other crops, according to Conab, a government agency.
But might ethanol be indirectly responsible for lifting food prices and for pushing cattle ranchers into the Amazon? Such concerns look premature. Sugar cane occupies only 7m hectares (17m acres) of Brazil’s farmland (and only about half of the crop is distilled into ethanol). This compares with some 200m hectares devoted to cattle ranching, much of which is extensive (a Brazilian cow enjoys, on average, a lordly hectare of grazing). Sugar could expand on degraded pasture with little or no effect on beef prices.
Besides, the ethanol industry may be poised for a leap in productivity. “The sugar-cane plant is now where corn was at the beginning of the 20th century,” reckons Fernando Reinach, a biologist turned venture-capitalist at Votorantim, a conglomerate. His fund has backed two start-ups in Campinas in São Paulo state. One of them, CanaVialis, breeds better varieties. The other, Alellyx, alters the genes in the plant to give them new properties (one strain being tested gives about 80% more sucrose; another can go for 45 days without water). It is run by Paulo Arruda, a Brazilian who led a team of 200 people in sequencing the DNA for sugar cane. Across the road is Amyris, a Californian company which has developed enzymes that in laboratory experiments have turned sugar into substitutes for motor and jet fuel.
In this high-tech environment, it is easy to forget that the early part of the ethanol production line consists of labourers spending long days swinging machetes in hot fields of charred cane. The Brazilian labour ministry sometimes uncovers cases where workers are paid almost nothing and live in squalid conditions. Cane-cutting is back-breaking work, and every year some people die during the harvest.
Yet the sugar industry may be less deadly than many others. In 2005, of its 440,000 workers, 453 died; of these 17 (or one in 26,000) were killed in accidents, according to a study by Márcia de Moraes of the University of São Paulo. In the same year 2,900 of the 2.16m workers toiling in other branches of Brazilian farming died. Of them, 135 were killed in accidents, giving a higher accidental death rate of one in 16,000, even though the sugar harvest lasts much longer than that for any other crop.
In fact the most noticeable thing about cane-cutting labourers is how fast they are disappearing. At Santelisa Vale, a collection of mills in Ribeirão Preto whose owners include Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, 60% of cane-cutting is already mechanised. The remaining manual cane-cutters will go by 2012. The story is similar across São Paulo state. This may make for a safer industry, but it threatens to leave a large, unskilled workforce unemployed.
When it comes to environmental concerns and technological advancement along with global warming, it is still hard to see they will win together and of course, so the overall scenario may be no single winner. Once again, we should not ignore the possibilities that there will be a lot of alternatives found and tested out there: different feedstocks, different methods in different parts of the world.
上星期日的下午四點 我終於去找了神婆算命.
長怎麼大, 算命的次數不超過五次, 這次是第四次.
起先對算命求籤這些東西一直抱著半信半疑的心態去看待各種各樣的說法. 不過再不是怎麼願意作為參考也並無害處. 只要不過度沉迷而變了迷信心情就好. 上星期拜讀了嫙女王和花啦啦女帝的求籤記加上我女孩的好奇心. 所以就這樣提起勁兒去了一躺. 這一算就算了我的命格, 婚姻和事業, 花了差不多馬幣263. 價錢是驚人. 不過, 能聽神婆用一小時長篇大論來分析. 理論上尚可接受.
具有旺親旺妻之相? 這話聽起來總是好笑...聽了三次後還是覺得世間很多離奇的事情難于解釋. 最令我費解的是她是如何當憑透明水晶球的神奇訊息還有手上握著像塔羅不像塔羅的卡, 我記得在臺上看到一張向日葵, 另一張星月天空, 還有一張是天女騎士. 旺親我可以理解, 至於旺妻....旺他妻還比較說得過去. 身邊的已婚女子近來變成月薪五位數的富婆. 跟她們搭在一起男生們還有我會某種程度上覺得自嘆不如. 話說回來...女生賺錢可以自己留下來私藏, 沒有經濟資產後備的男人賺來的錢除了養自己的家外還有雙親, 所剩的只能慰藉自己在忙碌的生活如何自得其樂 (這個嘛...興趣各有不同...)
談到我的婚姻. 我望著神婆搖搖頭的無奈神情, 她提議我對感情觀比較穩定後方才決定走向婚姻路...我大概猜想到她解說有我多妻制生活. 拜託...這是什麼年代. 真的有八個老婆... 像偉小寶那樣天天圍在八位妻子身邊吵吵鬧鬧的我想我會早點昇天比較有可能. 不過有些說法跟之前雷同, 就是她們會在我的人生階段出現, 差不多每個五至十年的艷遇纏綿. 當然, 信不信由我決定. 只要不是因為尋找精神寄託, 金錢權益來談兒女感情. 一輩子能夠談上八次認真的戀愛, 敢情是可遇不可求的....夢想! (劍客本色, 實話實說).
事業到最後才說, 也是我最關心的一段. 說我是創新派也是好動的人. 很多時候會叫人摸不清你的年齡和成熟的觀念. 會以崇尚創意與個人興趣為首要職業. 腦袋瓜子喜歡收集一堆不同賺錢的計劃還有少不了自我挑戰的物質改造. 許多發展的机會讓對生活我很有新鮮感. 不過要注意的是勞心勞力的同時帶不走周遭思維方式的壓力, 還有可能工作條文出錯, 才思敏捷雖是好, 但容易得罪人的危機, 為人處世必要注意. 好奇得像外星人的我會當成自己給自己事業成就感. 對工作和興趣的熱情從來不減, 正是交錯著新奇的熱情熱愛, 也不免在各階段飽受排斥和阻擾 ,人際關係還有感情生活如果不費心思容易不自覺地忽略掉造成負面的傷害.
結論, 我的生活不是天下掉下來的好, 也沒有很多撞巧的好運. 好事都要自己小心謹慎, 用心耕耘.
It is an interesting question if someone tries to bring it up. When it's believed that wonderful goals and positive promises can convince the public, but why are we so often disappointed with those in charge? Do different political, economic and social situations demand leaders with particular styles? How should we judge who is right for the job?
Despite the overflown questions and assumptions to explain, however, one aspect has been sorely missing - the historical perspective. Until recently, very few people have considered the origins of leadership. Yet to understand how our ancestors acquired the psychological biases upon which leadership is based is to see the concept in a whole new light. In particular, the evolutionary perspective highlights the importance of those who follow and the reasons why leaders and followers may not see eye to eye. Some thoughts to share what sort of leader is best suited to take charge in a particular situation. In essence, leadership is a response to the need for collective action. How do members of a group decide what to do and how and when to do it? An obvious solution is for one individual to take the initiative and provide guidance while the rest agree to follow. If this strategy promotes survival, then psychological adaptations for both leadership and "followership" are likely to evolve. In humans these would have included specialised mental mechanisms for planning, communication, group decision-making, competence recognition, social learning and conflict management. Although such traits are generally associated with higher reasoning, cognitive pre-adaptations for leadership probably evolved long before modern humans ever appeared on the scene.
The foraging patterns of many insects, the schooling of fish and the flying patterns of birds all suggest that species lacking complex cognitive capacities can nevertheless display leadership and followership - perhaps using the simple rule "follow the one who moves first". Our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, also used leadership to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. The evidence of animal observation which supports the idea that adaptations for leadership and followership tend to evolve in social species. In humans, they were probably further shaped by our unique evolutionary history. There were three distinct stages in human development where the nature of leadership altered to reflect cultural and social changes
The first and by far the longest phase extended from the emergence of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, until the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago. Natural selection for certain successful strategies of leadership and followership during this long era is likely to have shaped the distinctly human leadership psychology we still have to this day. Throughout this time, our ancestors probably lived in semi-nomadic, hunter-gatherer bands of between 50 and 150 mostly related individuals. Their lifestyle is widely thought to have resembled that of today's hunter-gatherer societies such as the Kung San of the Kalahari desert and the Amazonian Yanomamo. These groups are fundamentally egalitarian, with no formal leader. Although there are "Big Men" - the best hunters and warriors or wisest elders, for example - the influence of each is limited to their areas of expertise and, crucially, it is only granted with the approval of followers. This suggests that collaboration among subordinates allowed early humans to move beyond the dominance hierarchies found in other primates, towards a much flatter prestige-based hierarchy with a more democratic style of leadership.
With the development of agriculture some 13,000 years ago, groups settled, populations grew rapidly and, for the first time in human history, communities accumulated surplus resources. They needed leaders to redistribute this surplus and to deal with increasing conflict both within and between groups. The power of leaders grew accordingly, and with it the potential to abuse this power. Leaders could now siphon off resources and use them to create cultural elites, while disgruntled followers were less free to move away from exploitative rulers. The result of such changes was a more formalised, authoritarian leadership style and the emergence of the first chiefs and kings, as well as warlords bent on extracting resources through force.
The industrial revolution, some 250 years ago, paved the way for the final phase of leadership - the one to which academic discussions of leadership, which tend to focus on business and politics, almost exclusively refer. At the beginning of this era followers were little more than slaves, but as citizens and employees acquired more freedom to defect from overbearing leaders, the balance of power shifted away from authoritarian leaders and back to something more like the egalitarian approach of ancestral times.
So, what can evolution tell us about modern leadership?
The ancestral environment may have equipped us with innate preferences for certain characteristics in our leaders. For a start, we want them to be both competent and benevolent, because these sorts of people will be better at acquiring resources and more willing to share them. We also tend to choose leaders with certain physical characteristics. Other theories of leadership have failed to account for the importance of seemingly arbitrary attributes such as height, age, weight and health, but these make sense from an evolutionary perspective. For example, ancestral Big Men were probably quite literally that: by dint of their imposing physique, tall people would have been more effective peacekeepers and more intimidating foes.
Even today we have bias towards taller and elder leaders. In ancestral times elders were likely to have acquired specialist knowledge, and in the modern world older leaders are preferred in situations where knowledge is crucial, such as in running public corporations. Followers may also have evolved a preference for physically and mentally fit leaders in situations where strength and stamina mattered. That could be why modern voters prefer physically fit, mature atittudes and/or energetic political candidates. More controversially, evolution might explain our bias towards male leaders in most circumstances. When men and women work together, men are quicker to claim leadership roles even when women are better qualified, this revealed that groups tend to look to men for leadership when faced with a threat from another group, possibly because inter-group conflict would have been resolved by force throughout most of human history. However, we also found that in situations where there is internal conflict in a group, women are the preferred and most effective leaders. This is confirmed by a recent mock election study which found that people tended to vote for a male president when their country was at war, but a female during peacetime. A history of inter-group conflict might have predisposed men to adopt a hierarchical leadership style, while a need for social unity might have equipped women with a more egalitarian, personalised and communal style. If the predominance of male leaders in many sectors of modern life is a vestige of our past, it could be a costly one in an interconnected world in which the emphasis is on interpersonal skills and network-building.
This raises another important aspect of leadership that is often overlooked - that what constitutes good leadership varies according to the situation. The different leadership styles adopted by various organisations, nations and cultures can be understood in part by considering the specific challenges posed by their particular physical and social environment. In the Netherlands and Australia, for example, where harsh natural conditions force the authorities to collaborate closely with citizens, there is a strong egalitarian ethos. In emergencies such as wars or natural disasters, followers readily defer to the decisions of a single autocratic individual. Indeed, US voters tend to choose hawkish presidents when threatened by war.
All this suggests that leadership and followership are flexible strategies shaped by the interplay between ancient evolutionary pressures and modern environmental and cultural demands. However, there are major differences between modern leadership roles and the kind of leadership for which our psychology is adapted, and this mismatch can be problematic. For a start, our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have deferred to different leaders depending on the nature of the problem at hand. Yet today a single individual is often responsible for managing all aspects of an enterprise. Few leaders have the range of skills required, which may account for the high failure rate of senior managers. Surveys routinely show that between 60 and 70 per cent of employees find the most stressful part of their job is dealing with their immediate boss. This may be partly because ancestral leaders only acquired power with the approval of followers, whereas in modern organisations leaders are usually appointed by and accountable to their superiors, while subordinates are rarely allowed to sanction their bosses.
18.06.2008
I felt sorry for her;
working so hard for happiness,
devoted herself to the family.
She ended up with a threatened greeting,
about money and debts.
If time is the test,
then family is a test of forgiveness.
if sometimes our hearts get tangled
and our souls go off-sleeves.
May family bonds can set them right,
and help guide them back to the light.
I pray for her son's return of conscience.
Recently I heard 3 interesting suggestions about going green. But I must say I am reluctant to follow the practice even though all the facts are on, simply because of going far away from my daily life. I guess if the days come, I will have to learn to adapt…
**To be "entomophagic** (i.e. eating insects and bugs)
This term is kind of new as I first heard from some of my biologist friends then about 2 years later, this word appeared in NewScientist and TimeMagazine. Interesting somehow. They claimed that the global livestock sector is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. In 3rd world environment and culture, as often they don’t get enough resource and knowledge to run agriculture for necessary vegetables and meats to feed their belly. Insects and bugs are one of the easily available around their houses.
**Sleep naked**
Heh! When girls used to talk about this topic, I couldn’t stop myself to get my face flushed. I mean…How hygienic or “green” would it be when it comes to the terms of environmentally friendliness? I don’t really get it much except one of the justifications that I heard was less washing in laundry (ie less water used => more greener? The claim sounds weak to me). There was some scientific observations saying that those who have habit to sleep naked are found to be healthier blood circulation and less likely to have skin problems
**Ignore technology completely**
This is particularly emphasized concerns, by medical doctors and health professionals that, we are excessively exposed ourselves to more potentially dangerous technology which emits “maybe-deadly” waves and wastes that might contribute to pose health concerns to brain function, vulnerability to cancer and autoimmune system. At the same time, people pinpoint the issues as they require consumption of fuels and electricity where it has direct impact of extra “heat-up” to the mother earth. I’m neutral about these claims. I am wondering would it be the causes of long term addiction and abuse that lead to health problem as well as environmental problem, as technology we created from the past were accumulating without getting rid of them properly? And also because technology offers a level of convenience, people are less likely to be outdoor for adequate exercise, so would it get more obesity in next coming 10 years?
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080610/hl_time/howmuchsleepdoyoureallyn...
Q: How much sleep is ideal?
A: Studies show that people who sleep between 6.5 hours and 7.5 hours a night, as they report, live the longest. And people who sleep 8 hours or more, or less than 6.5 hours, they don't live quite as long. There is just as much risk associated with sleeping too long as with sleeping too short. The big surprise is that long sleep seems to start at 8 hours. Sleeping 8.5 hours might really be a little worse than sleeping five.
----
Continue reading in the URL.
Some pointers, from time to time. When you consider to get someone as your serious partner or someone you married wih has some changes that troubles you. Think about these.
1. Protocol
Wanna be a giver or activity sidekick?
Everytime when both of you meet up and sit together in a place, are you always the first one to act? Do you prefer to do things together?
2. Politics
Democratic or Authoritarian?
When you and your partner discuss certain things in terms of whether the matter is right or wrong, proper or improper, practical or impractical. Do you favour shared thoughts to make a final conclusion or you favour obedience without any liking to do some brain-work? Will this attitude work out in long term?
3. Television
Sitscoms or News or bit of both?
Do you want a mate who can keep up with your every day interest in what is going on in the world or a person you can run away with to avoid the world we live in? Or do you prefer someone to give you total distractions whenever you reach home after a day of tired mind?
4. Money:
Saver or Spender?
If your partner spends considerably on dating and shopping, how much you will be concerned with joint finances when you both live together. Do you want to someone to save you from financial problem or create more financial problem?
5. Stress
Freak or Peak?
How well can your partner handle with stress and failure? Helpful conversations to give comfort or give each other a space as outlet to release the mood?
6. Chit-chat
About You or Your mate?
From the beginning when you first get to know each other, have a rough idea...do you have your say more than him/hers? If one of them is usual and constantly the topic priority, it's unlikely to change. You have to be ready to consider whether being subordinate yourself to the world revolving around your mate?
7. Pets
Caring or Distant?
Although how much care given in to animals may not predict much of love on children. However, the way one treats animals will not be dissimilar to how your children might be treated. Do watch out some violent and unfriendly behaviours.
8. Communication
Listen or Ignore?
When there is a topic to talk about,and you have opinions you want to voice out, how frequently your mate is listening, or keep one's way and ignoring your messages?
9. Strangers
Friendly or Rude?
Politeness and respect are easily overlooked or become unnecessary when staying together for few years. Do make some observations such as how your mate treats those they do not know (eg elderly, waiters, grocery clerks) often reflects on how people in general will be treated, including you, shortly after romantic spark wears off.
10. Priorities:
Family or Work?
You can tell almost immediately where a person's preferences lie in terms of what comes first (a family member's illness or a business trip) by the choices are made when faced with an "either/or" situation. Do you care if your mate leaves on the next plane to present the such-and-such report if you or the kids are in the hospital?
11.Appearance
Fat or Fit? Branded or Non-branded? Does it matter?
Do you want your mate who is overly fussy about own's appearance and your appearance?
Those who eat sensibly, workout reasonably in exaggerated extent and those who take pride in their appearance to fill with branded outfits and chic things to ensure they do not look like alienated laughing stock in front of others?
12. Faith
Strong or Weak? Trust or Doubt?
If you want to have good faith on your mate, what do you know about his/her life mottos? What kind of goals to be achieved? Can you accept ?
What a person believes deep down is often what shapes the way in which they conduct their day-to-day affairs. Could trust hold for long term or doubts are too difficult to go away until some requirements/revelations are met?
Research at the University of Arizona last year found the average office desktop harboured 400 times more bacteria than the average office toilet seat. It also found women had up to four times as many germs around their work area as men.
British consumer magazine tested 33 keyboards at its London HQ and found four were a potential health hazard, and one harboured five times more germs than one office toilet seat.
Jennings in New Zealand carried out tests at two Auckland sites for the Herald on Sunday, an office in Ponsonby and an internet cafe in the CBD. She placed the swabs in a sealed container before incubating them overnight to allow time for bacterial growth. Her results weren't as conclusive as the overseas studies, but she found enough germs to underline the need for office hygiene.
Jennings said bacteria could be good in the right place, such as e.coli in your intestines. "But if it gets in your eye or a deep cut, those types of infections can lead to death."
Auckland medical officer of health, Dr Greg Simmons, said a dirty keyboard was a sure transmitter of diseases including gastro-enteritis and respiratory infections, such as flu. He said keyboards were prone to contamination because one-in-five men and one-in-10 women don't wash their hands after using the toilet.
Simmons said people should wash their hands for 20 seconds and dry them for the same amount of time.
He also blamed germs on office eating - a habit he was not immune to.
"I had a look at my keyboard the other day and it's filled up with a whole range of crumbs." The owner of the Ponsonby office tested by the Herald on Sunday agreed.
"A lot of us eat and work at the same time, we don't always get away, we're almost living at the desk."
Milan Usal, of The Computer Cleaning Company, was not surprised by the results. He told the Herald on Sunday workers were "in the world of desk-top dining".
One city office was so dirty every keyboard had to be cleaned three times. "It was unbelievable," said Usal.
"What should have been a three-hour job instead took all day."
Advice?
- simple, wash your hands before eating. *smiles*
Frugality serves its purpose at times.
Every centuries we have been gone through had bleak moments. First the Great War then the Depression, then the inter-war period and the nervous lead-up to the next war. As some little boy once asked his mother about the Depression era, “was everybody sad then? Sad or not, the economic hardship was more than enough to put a patch on your knee or worse.
Frugality fits in the last century as most of us started our life there, somewhere. There was a period that clothes and food were homemade. Even in period of 1940s to 1960s, “store-bought” and "going to eat-out" were for very special surprise for very special events. And things at home were like hand-me-downs were handed down, and then down again, and again. You couldn’t do this without frugality. Like a family of fourteen children and a husband out of work, a needle and thread were mandatory survival tools. It was necessary or else in critical poverty.
Nowadays, it’s not the case that the habit just stopped. It was part and parcel of an entire paradigm shift that accompanied postwar economic boom times , the rising standard of living, the new quality of life, the flashy materialism of growing socio-economic status and the aspirational zeitgeist. The paradigm shift started gingerly, moved steadily and then accelerated with each passing decade, ultimately achieving a speed that only the young could enjoy.
The old paradigm valued utility, repair, maintenance and preservation. It went with words like “thrift” and “frugal”, at a time when “means” meant how much you had to go around, and “making ends meet” was the weekly challenge. I remembered that when i was an university student, food of yesterday's leftovers, it came to be a habit to keep the wallet spared to pay off monthly bills and rental fees. Something that i discovered that it wasn't common to the locals but mostly for foreign students, would do the similar too, but i would stop at two and prepare the new one to last another two.
It was replaced by a paradigm that demands the new, that involves chucking out, buying fresh, replacing old; no matter it's all finished or not. Kind of wasted so the only option is to reduce over time of the precious amount, if neccesary.
Frugal times called for frugal measures.
Talking about a period of days i was living, that you could fix anything. If you couldn’t, the bloke down the road could. And if he couldn’t, he had a mate who knew someone who’d do a foreign order in a factory during a dogwatch shift. Such blokes would improvise by fabricating, modifying or converting something into what was needed. It really wasn’t so long ago that there were hundreds of electrical, clothing, shoes fix-it shops. A little man would be standing on a dusty, cluttered glass cabinet, surrounded by old machine parts and other mostly metallic bits and bobs, and you’d take your old jug or blender or cassette recorder to him and he’d fix it, and it’d last you for another five years, which was a lifetime because time passed so slowly then, and overall you’d be well pleased.
I used to frequent those little shops, especially for mending shoes and small electronics like scientific calculators and electronic toys like sportcars and my girlfriends' musicboxes... But one day, he stopped doing that. He’d shake his head, adjust his glasses and quietly say, “It’ll cost you less to buy a new one”. And then eventually came the day when he wasn’t there anymore. He didn’t make the leap to the new arcade where the weekly rent is more than a quarter’s takings. He kind of faded away. And others. Gone.
I don’t know what year, even what decade, it was, but obsolescence slowly got built into the manufacturing equation and then into our expectations. These days we don’t expect things to last forever and are hardly even disappointing or angry when they break down. (I overheard a young person say to a companion that she resented buying expensive wedding presents for marrying couples --- she’d feel better if she knew it was an union that would last. Her friend commiserated and together they came up with the idea of a five-year anniversary present in lieu of a wedding present. That at least would be evidence of achievement, of reward for effort.)
Yes, we’ve stopped fixing things or having them fixed. We throw stuff out with the council clean-up. And not just fridges and washing machines. As same analogy in love and romance, if relationships aren’t working, we think new rather than work on the old. If a computer’s antivirus software finds a virus, it half-heartedly tries to repair it and if it can’t,it might quarantine it (the sus file gets put in the “vault”, which always seems rather like the disposing of nuclear waste), but usually it recommends that you delete it. Of course you comply, if only to avert large-scale contamination. And so the vault is to the virus as the nursing home is to the aged and so on.
So, believe or not, there's always moments that your wallet will go tight, wanting something big and exciting ; frugal measures seem practical if you strive to achieve by plans but the trend may change, like owing bank or banks, be a slave of them is one of the last resort and unavoidable situations to cope with expensive century of technology.
 | Gone | Apr 30, '08 2:54 PM
for everyone |
30.04.2008
We're searching for things that don't exist or exist to pay a price to bring them back to reality; I mean beginnings. Ends and beginnings - there are no such things. There are only middles of our choice.
Why can't we get all the people together in the world that we really like and then just stay together? I guess that wouldn't work. Someone would leave. Someone always leaves. Then we would have to say good-bye. It's painful to say good-byes sometimes. I know what I have to. In the end, I could only enjoy conversations that we find ourselves back to shape.
it's gone, fade away
taken the stars from the night and the sun
from the moment!
it's gone and a cloud of fantasy in my heart.
No despair, only a certainty. cheers.
|
