RANK IN MILITARY

http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%86%9B%E8%A1%94&variant=zh-tw

北約代號	美國陸軍 (US Army)	中華民國 陸軍		北約代號	美國陸軍 (US Army)	中華民國 陸軍
OR-9	陸軍高級軍士長 (Sergeant Major of the Army)	一等士官長		OF-10	五星上將 (General of the Army)	特級上將
	軍士指揮官 (Command Sergeant Major)			OF-9	上將 (General)	一級上將
	軍士長 (Sergeant Major)					二級上將
OR-8	一級軍士長 (First Sergeant)	二等士官長		OF-8	中將 (Lieutenant General)	中將
	二級軍士長 (Master Sergeant)			OF-7	少將 (Major General)	少將
OR-7	三級軍士長 (Sergeant First Class)	三等士官長		OF-6	准將 (Brigadier General)
OR-6	上士 (Staff Sergeant)	上士		OF-5	上校 (Colonel)	上校
OR-5	中士 (Sergeant)	中士		OF-4	中校 (Lieutenant Colonel)	中校
				OF-3	少校 (Major)	少校
OR-4	下士 (Corporal)	下士		OF-2	上尉 (Captain)	上尉
OR-3	一等兵 (Private First Class)	上等兵		OF-1	中尉 (First Lieutenant)	中尉
OR-2	二等兵 (Private)	一等兵			少尉 (Second Lieutenant)	少尉
OR-1		二等兵		OF(D)
				Student Officer	軍校生 (Cadet)

TALKING SALARY WITHOUT MENTION BENEFIT.

Recruits Say Joining Police Force Is a Test of Wills and Wallets

LIVE MAP VS GOOGLE EARTH

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qp9vmd8qqc1k&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4040443&encType=1


KmlFile


normal
#sn_icon28


highlight
#sh_icon28









sign #20

-75.31511465521064
40.06593684265509
0
394.6102828316626
4.539447555746206e-010
-20.60187050490414

#msn_icon28

-75.31472678037324,40.06633927533807,0

Photo

Zarephath, New Jersey

I drove by Zarephath when attending HIC seminar during a lunch break to Costco and got lost on the way back. the name reminids me the 撒勒法. Today I got the chance to WIKI it. Cool, there did happened something.
Zarephath is an unincorporated area of Franklin Township in Somerset County, New Jersey, United States. It is home to the Pillar of Fire Church and houses their bible school. It is named after Zarephath, the place in the bible where the "widow woman" sustained the prophet Elijah. Zarephath is a group of buildings located between the Delaware and Raritan Canal and the Millstone River.

WIKI IS COOL

Toyota Sienna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not to be confused with Toyota Sienta.
This article does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since March 2007.
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
Toyota Sienna
2nd-gen Toyota Sienna LE
Manufacturer Toyota
Production 1998–present
Predecessor Toyota Previa
Class Minivan
Related Toyota Camry Solara
Lexus ES/Toyota Windom
Lexus RX
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Avalon
Similar Chevrolet Uplander
Honda Odyssey
Nissan Quest
First generation
2001-2003 Toyota Sienna
Production 1998–2003
Assembly Georgetown, Kentucky
Body style(s) 3-door minivan
4-door minivan
Layout FF layout
Engine(s) 3.0L 210 hp V6
Transmission(s) 4-speed automatic
Wheelbase 114.2 in
Length 194.2 in
Width 73.4 in
Height 67.3 in
Second generation
2006 Toyota Sienna XLE Limited
Production 2004– Present
Assembly Princeton, Indiana
Body style(s) 4-door minivan
Layout Front-engine, front-wheel drive/Four-wheel drive
Engine(s) 3.3L DOHC 24-valve VVT-i V6 3.5 liter DOHC 24-valve Dual VVT-i V6
Transmission(s) 5-speed automatic
Wheelbase 119.3 in
Length 200 in
Width 77.4 in
Height 68.9 in
Pre-facelift 1st-gen Toyota Sienna
Pre-facelift 1st-gen Toyota Sienna

The Toyota Sienna is a minivan built in the United States for the North American market, and shares its platform and engine with the Toyota Camry. It replaced the Previa in 1998 as a more conventional front wheel drive van, and was updated for 2004 with a larger model.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 First generation (1998-2003)
* 2 Second generation (2004-present)
* 3 Awards
* 4 Models
* 5 2007 specifications
* 6 Extra features (2nd generation)
* 7 Future
* 8 In the media
* 9 External links

[edit] First generation (1998-2003)

In late 1997, Toyota replaced its unconventional mid-engined Toyota Previa minivan with the larger front wheel drive 1998 Toyota Sienna in the North American market (the Previa design is still available to the rest of the world as the Toyota Estima). The Toyota Sienna had a 3.0 L V6 engine rated at 145 kW and 284 Nm of torque. Built on an extended Toyota Camry platform, the Sienna was marketed as the "Camry of minivans".

Fuel economy was 18 mpg city and 24 mpg highway. It was built in Georgetown, Kentucky. In 2001, the Sienna got a very minor makeover, changing the rear tail lights to the newer trend of only showing red and white, and adding a VVT-i equipped engine, with 210 horsepower.

[edit] Second generation (2004-present)

In January 2003, the second generation Sienna was shown at the Detroit Auto Show. Production shifted to Princeton, Indiana, and the Georgetown plant was retooled to build the second generation Camry Solara. The new Sienna had a 3.3 L engine from the Camry. The new Sienna offered features such as a fold-flat 60/40 third-row seat, eight passenger seating, backup sensors, rear view camera, kid view mirror, available all wheel drive, a navigation system, and a more luxurious XLE Limited model. Fuel economy is 19 mpg city and 26 mpg highway.

In July 2005, changes for the 2006 model year were announced. The front fascia, side molding, and rear taillights were redesigned. The measurements for horsepower and torque were changed to the SAE's new specifications (to 215 hp and 222 ft·lbf.). Optitron gauges were added to LE, XLE, and Limited trims. The "XLE" prefix in "XLE Limited" was cut off. Power driver's seat memory option was also added to XLE and Limited trims. Bluetooth capability and power-folding third row seats were also added as options. Side and curtain air bags were changed to standard for all models. The optional rear seat audio system has been discontinued. For 2007, new wheel designs, as well as a new standard 3.5 liter V6 putting out 266 hp became available. Full list of changes are available at SiennaClub.org[1].

[edit] Awards

2004:

* Car and Driver's Five Best Trucks Van Award
* Edmunds Editor's Most Wanted Van and Edmund Consumer's Most Wanted Van
* Rated "Double Best Pick" by IIHS PDF

[edit] Models

The 2006 Toyota Sienna is available in:

* CE ($23,775 USD MSRP)
* LE ($25,280 USD MSRP)
* LE AWD ($28,895 USD MSRP)
* XLE ($29,725 USD MSRP)
* XLE AWD ($32,930 USD MSRP)
* Limited ($36,180 USD MSRP)
* Limited AWD ($38,380 USD MSRP)

(Prices are for 7-passenger models only).

[edit] 2007 specifications

* Engine: 3.5 L DOHC 24-valve dual VVT-i V6 - 2GR-FE
* Output: 266 hp (200 kW) at 6200 RPM and 248 ft·lbf (336 N·m) at 4700 RPM (SAE Net)
* Transmission: 5-speed electronically controlled automatic transmission
* Drivetrain: Front wheel drive, all wheel drive available on LE, XLE, XLE Limited (CE in Canada)
* Turning Diameter: 36.8 ft (11.2 m)
* Brakes: Power-assisted ventilated front disc, rear drum with anti-lock braking system (ABS), with 4-wheel disc brakes on XLE Limited, all wheel drive models or with available Vehicle Stability Control system and Brake Assist

[edit] Extra features (2nd generation)

* If the gas filler door is open, the sliding door on that side will not open all the way. This feature prevents the slider from hitting the gas door.
* If the window on a sliding door is open, the door is prevented from opening fully. This prevents a possible pinch situation if an occupant has an arm out the window, etc.

* All trim levels and package options are capable of daytime running lamps (DRL). With the installation of an ordinary USD $0.25 fuse, vehicles can enable the DRL feature.
* The rear wiper will not pull out and remain out the way unless you remove the plastic cap covering the drive end of the pivot arm. A long running standard feature of Japanese vehicles, it allowed for easy washing and drying of the window. However, the feature is present on the front wipers where no poking hazard exists.
* The Navigation display doubles as an entertainment display, if the parking brake is engaged and the vehicle is not in motion. It can view the same video programs as the rear entertainment display.

[edit] Future

The Sienna will be redesigned for the 2010 model year. There have also been rumors of a Hybrid Synergy Drive version.

[edit] In the media

* A yellow Toyota Sienna taxi is featured in the game show Cash Cab.

* A blue 2005 Toyota Sienna is the family minivan in the movie "The Pacifier".

* You can also steal a 2004/2005 Toyota Sienna in True Crime: New York City

[edit] External links

* Toyota USA Sienna site
* YahooAutos-2006 Toyota Sienna
* AutomobileMagazine-2005 Toyota Sienna (review)
* Toyota Canada Sienna site (English)
* Toyota Canada Sienna site (French)
* SiennaClub.org


[hide] v • d • e Toyota light truck timeline, North American market, 1980s-present
Type 1980s 1990s 2000s
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Compact SUV RAV4 RAV4 RAV4
FJ Cruiser
Crossover SUV Highlander Highlander
Mid-size SUV 4Runner 4Runner 4Runner 4Runner
Full-size SUV Land Cruiser Land Cruiser Land Cruiser Land Cruiser
Sequoia Sequoia
Minivan Toyota Van Previa Sienna Sienna
Pickup Toyota Pickup Toyota Pickup Toyota Pickup Tacoma Tacoma
T100 Tundra Tundra
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Sienna"

Categories: Articles lacking sources from March 2007 | All articles lacking sources | Articles which may be biased | Toyota vehicles | Minivans | Front wheel drive vehicles | All wheel drive vehicles | 1990s automobiles | 2000s automobiles

Jacobs Engineering Set to Acquire Edwards and Kelcey

Jacobs Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire Edwards and Kelcey
Thursday March 22, 8:00 am ET

PASADENA, Calif., March 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (NYSE: JEC - News) announced today that they signed a letter of intent to acquire Edwards and Kelcey, a 1,000-person firm headquartered in Morristown, N.J.

ADVERTISEMENT
Founded in 1946, Edwards and Kelcey is a nationally recognized engineering, design, planning, and construction management firm serving public and private clients in the fields of transportation, planning/environmental, communications technology, buildings/facilities, and land development. The company has 25 regional offices and is ranked 71st among the Top 500 U.S. Design Firms by Engineering News-Record (ENR).

In making the announcement, Edwards and Kelcey CEO Kevin McMahon stated, "We are excited about the prospect of joining Jacobs and believe that this offers many benefits to our staff and clients. Our combined engineering and construction services practice will be more comprehensive with a broader geographic presence and access to more services, specialists, and experts for current Edwards and Kelcey and Jacobs clients. There is little duplication of markets, clients, or geographies. Our combined leadership teams are complementary and are excited about the opportunity to join forces to provide more comprehensive services to our existing clients."

Jacobs Group Vice President Allyn Taylor added, "The addition of Edwards and Kelcey is very strategic for us. Their firm significantly increases the size of our transportation practice; enhances our service offering in transportation, particularly in specialized areas such as toll roads, bridges, airports, traffic, and major transit systems; and adds critical mass to our U.S. operations in other infrastructure areas such as urban development and telecommunications."

Jacobs, with over 45,000 employees and revenues approaching $8.0 billion, provides technical, professional, and construction services globally.

Any statements made in this release that are not based on historical fact are forward-looking statements. Although such statements are based on management's current estimates and expectations, and currently available competitive, financial, and economic data, forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain. We, therefore, caution the reader that there are a variety of factors that could cause business conditions and results to differ materially from what is contained in our forward-looking statements. For a description of some of the factors which may occur that could cause actual results to differ from our forward-looking statements please refer to our 2006 Form 10-K, and in particular the discussions contained under Items 1 - Business, Item 1A - Risk Factors, 3 - Legal Proceedings, and 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. We also caution the readers of this release that we do not undertake to update any forward-looking statements made herein.

For additional information contact:
John W. Prosser
626.578.6803

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20051021/LAJACOBSEGLOGO )

photosynth

http://labs.live.com/photosynth/view.html?collection=sanmarco/index1.sxs

Chick flick

Chick flick - 專演給女生看的電影
The term chick flick is slang for a movie that appeals mainly to women or young girls, either by design or popular consensus. The term is relatively new – dating back to that bumper crop of women's movies in the 1980s and 90s that included classics like Beaches and Pretty Woman. The concept of movies designed to appeal specifically to women has existed since the early days of cinema and has been known by other colloquial terms, including "women's pictures". However, women's films such as Brief Encounter, Gone with the Wind and many classic 50s melodramas such as Now Voyager and several directed by Douglas Sirk, it might be argued, are sufficiently different in tone and content to be seen as a sub-genre of women's film.

Film critic and chick Molly Haskell suggested that chick flicks are very different from the women's films of the 40s and 50s in that they now "sing a different tune". She feels that they are "more defiant and upbeat, post-modern and post-feminist".

One key element of chick flicks is a respectable female lead struggling with a romantic predicament. Another prevalent theme centers on the close relationships among female friends. Due to the focus on romance or relationships, chick flicks are typically categorized as romances or romantic comedies.

Several chick flicks have been patterned after the story of Cinderella or other fairy tales (e.g. The Princess Diaries, A Cinderella Story, Ever After, Pretty Woman and Roman Holiday), or even Shakespeare in the cases of "She's the Man" and "10 Things I Hate About You"; a large number are adapted from popular novels (e.g. The Devil Wears Prada) and literary classics (e.g. Little Women).

Other examples include: Terms of Endearment and Steel Magnolias.

i carry your heart with me

i carry your heart with me
(i carry it in my heart)
i am never without it
(anywhere i go you go,my dear;
and whatever is done by only me
is your doing,my darling)
i fear no fate
(for you are my fate,my sweet)
i want no world
(for beautiful you are my world,my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;
which grows higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)


EE Cummings

PC-cillin 2007 review

I just have this PC security suite installed and am having same issue as other previous reviews mentioned:" CPU usage!!" Man this software have my PC work hard, I am really happy about it because that PC-cillin have the PC work hard that mean I get what I am paid for the PC. And secondly, I also noticed that the HD is working very hard now. The chance is good for me to retired my workhorse P-III.
I have been refuse Norton for a long time since my office PC crawled by norton on every PC. I have heard lots of good words about the PC-cillin, so I uninstalled the outdated zone alarm firewall,spy sweeper to get the PC-cillin installation done. Now, I am not sure I made a right decision.

前肯德基CEO的離職告白

大眼睛、說話快、個性直的吳美君，二十九歲就擔任美商玩具公司美泰兒總經理，三十六歲進入肯德基，一年後升任董事總經理。去年年底，她將離開肯德基的消息一出，讓人震驚。她最膾炙人心的是以創新的廣告「這不是肯德基」，重新燃起消費者對於肯德基的瘋狂熱情；到「你真內行」的廣告文案促銷薄皮嫩雞，讓原味雞的佔比從十％，成長到六十％，產品銷售業績成長十倍，全球總裁David Novak因此以台灣的案例向全球分享。在台灣獨特研發出的蛋塔系列，光是二○○五年就賣出三千二百萬顆。

他為什麼離職？看一位勇敢樂觀CEO接受《天下》雜誌的獨家專訪，真誠分享。美君是我的朋友，許多人看了這篇報導，深深感動，並佩服她的勇氣。我也相信不經歷練、不長智慧，在新春前夕，這或許是送給讀者的最好文章。

Ｑ:先從肯德基離職開始談起，原因究竟是什麼？

A：我從加入肯德基不到一年多，就升總經理，是 too early。

Ｑ:那一年幾歲？

A：我今年四十二歲，三十七歲升任肯德基董事總經理。其實我二十九歲就是總經理，那時公司規模很小（銷售芭比娃娃的美泰兒公司Martell），比較容易管理，公司只有三十幾個人。

二十九歲在Martell當總經理，其實很吃力，但是很容易得到績效。三十六歲到肯德基擔任行銷總監，我已經做過行銷八年、總經理七年，我不覺得有什麼難的。

在我被Sam(百勝集團大中華區總裁周敬軾)通知接任總經理，我當時就告訴他，「你會把公司害死。我進來一年多，其實不懂餐飲業，我只懂行銷。」我一進去，他就把我當接班人培養，參加採購、展店、新產品開發….各種會議。

可是太快了，即使是培養接班人，也還沒ready。他說，你有四項特質是絕對可以做這個位置。第一、有熱情。領導人沒有熱情，就不可能領導。第二是有膽識。我做不好，我不覺得丟臉，甚至我被罵，我也勇於改錯。第三、知道如何建立一個品牌。第四、懂得如何打造團隊。

即是今天他認為我不適合這個位置，這四樣特質還是存在的。

Ｑ:為什麼今天不適合這個位置？

A：餐飲業其實是全世界最複雜的一個產業，我到底合不合適這麼一個複雜的產業？Sam是對的，我同意他的決定與看法，我不適合。

你今天給我的任務是把肯德基建立一個非常創新的品牌，我對於新產品開發、表達廣告的創意，絕對沒有問題。可是在這同時，我還要玩好多球，餐飲業要面對的採購、展店、衛生安全、產品的包裝成本…等等挑戰。我們都設有不同的委員會，幫助總經理作對的決策。

但我作對的決策之前，必須非常了解來龍去脈。在委員會中，大家各自表述之後，形成共識之後作決策。但是我的個性很特別，非常相信直覺，另一面又對於總經理的角色有所保留，如果我要幫助大家做出決定，最好不要亂用我的直覺。

二○○五年我沒有犯太多錯誤，可是去年就會變得畏首畏尾。明明我的直覺是對的，可是委員會上大家七嘴八舌，講得都有道理，最後我變得沒有信心。

Ｑ:可不可以舉例？

A：以去年的薑汁金薯蛋塔為例，我看委員會上的議程，今天要試吃哪些東西？一看到「薑汁金薯蛋塔」， 我還沒試吃，就說「這會賣，我頭給你！」因為一個甜點，怎麼可能放薑呢？你喝過陽明山的薑汁蕃薯湯，它是一個懷舊的感覺，但作成甜點，我直覺上不對。我的 表達讓研發新產品的人很挫折，大家問為什麼不能賣？首先，「金薯」這個字看不懂？再來，怎麼會把薑放在甜點裡呢？很多人不吃薑。

大家就去做市場調查。結果證明只有七％的人不吃薑。但問卷的問題是「你吃不吃薑？」，而不是「薑放在蛋塔這樣的甜點，你想不想吃？」

為什麼調查會這樣問？因為老闆脫口而出「很多人不吃薑」。就拿著老闆的問題做事。

我非常氣結的是，我沒有管理好大家對我想法百分之百的理解，不了解背後的Insight。這是許多直覺型領導人經常犯的錯誤。

報告一出來，大家就說，「安啦，上吧！」尤其二○○五年賣出三千二百萬顆蛋塔，達到肯德基從所未有的業績，大家信心滿滿。在全世界的肯德基，沒有一個甜點可以佔營業額十幾％，它是一個ambitious的業績，提高原有的銷售，而不是點了炸雞、就不吃漢堡的內部移轉的銷售。

薑汁金薯蛋塔上市之後，非常難賣，預計要賣九百萬顆，只賣了三百多萬顆。不論是庫存、業績、來客數、團隊士氣，一開年馬上受到打擊。

Ｑ:這個產品造成多大損失？

A：這很難講，有短期與長期效益。短期可能造成業績損失，長期就對蛋塔這個品項的印象就不好。消費者可以一講再講，講一輩子。

Ｑ:這個決策的錯誤，會影響你在內部的Leadership嗎？

A：當然會。我很氣自己會什麼會作這個決策。

除了這個錯誤之外，還有第二個錯誤同時發生。農曆年我們推出了多來A夢的玩具。買套餐加九九元，就可以擁有這個玩具。它的定價策略會讓我謹記一輩子。它的成本就將近九○元，所以再加上餐廳硬體的攤提成本，九九元只能剛剛cover成本，甚至會虧錢。但我很清楚，我不是要靠這個賺錢，而是要讓它吸引消費者購買套餐，圖的是增加來客數。所以價格不應該定貴。

結果財務試算出來說，你不可以定九九元，我們會不賺錢。當月利潤的百分比會不好看。但是你聽到了沒？那是百分比，而不是金額。但是我又沒辦法證明獲利率不好，但獲利會好。

我很想大聲說，放心吧，定價九九元，會很增加很多交易，玩具會賣光，沒有庫存。定價如果高，看起來單一銷售的利潤會高，但是成交量少，東西會庫存。但是我沒辦法提出證明。所以我們就去做價格測試，消費者告訴我們最佳定價就是九九元。

內部財務表態，你定九九元，達不到年度目標利潤（Annual operation profits）。我當場非常震撼，「一月就達不到財務目標，那我不要定九九元，我們就定價一四九元。」結果只賣到五十萬個，就停在那裡。另外五十萬個怎樣就賣不動，我們最後調成九九元。原來要加套餐，後來不用套餐就可以買。賣了半年以上，才把一百萬個玩具賣掉。

我去上EMBA，教價格的試算方式，中間有一些行銷科學的敏感性分析，你可以放積極的、或保守的假設，就會產生有不同的結果。

作行銷和作財務的腦袋本來就不一樣。財務就是很保守，不斷提醒你風險。我是行銷的腦，總是喜歡看機會與成長。我告訴自己要深思熟慮，要多聽別人意見，就定價一四九元，反過頭來要求行銷，你一定要把廣告打得很有價值，讓一四九元也賣得動。

怎麼可能？我們是速食業，又不是精品業。速食業是要物超所值，花很少的錢得到很棒的食物。

這個經歷我最想分享給大家的是，追求目標利潤是專業經理人最大的挑戰與迷思，在巨大壓力下，為了達成目標，就作一些短期的決策，而不是考慮消費者的真正需求。最後短期策略也不一定成功，更沒有贏得消費者。

Ｑ:你有沒有嘗試在年中挽回績效？

A：有。但另一個問題是去年我的廣告公司很糟。資深的創意人員都走光了，剩下的年資都不到三年。廣告公司的業務主管是一個非常為客瘋狂（肯德基精神）的人，但是作廣告不是靠業務，是靠創意。

很 可惜的是，二○○五年，廣告公司的資深人員都離職，問我有沒有關係。我還說沒關係，我給你時間找人，我相信你可以為肯德基找最好的創意人才，想最好的策 略。結果一找就找了一年，都沒找到。一直到去年八月，我終於受不了，換廣告公司。中間非常痛苦，資淺的創意人員提出來的東西當然不好，我和行銷部同仁都得 跳下去想，自己寫文案。

二○○五年，肯德基達到一四％成長，獲利是兩倍以上的成長，作得太好，就很難接受二○○六的成績。我們是以前一年成績為基數一百，然後隔年是要增加業務目標，例如要達到一百二十，去年一開年就達不到一百，六月之後才逐漸達成一百。

Ｑ:為什麼同樣是你、同樣的團隊，過去五年表現這麼好，二○○五更是高峰，去年為什麼失常？還有公司不能包容這樣的錯誤，即使過去有戰功？

A：年中以後，我就達到目標了。我是恢復信心的，主管也不是對這個市場感到失望，他是了解的。我想他是對我在這個位置上，leadership表現不好感到失望。我經常會在大家七嘴八舌之後就lost了，沒有fight for 我的信念。二○○六年的挫敗，不是我不會溝通，而是我的軟弱。

Leadership不好，不一定就是致命傷，它有情境的。如果不是在五千多人的公司，和重要主管的溝通上那麼沒有默契，換個情境，或許更能發揮。

我的優點是對於消費者需求的直覺。消費者給我一句話，我可以讀得很深，形成consumer insight。我很熱情、很愛學習新東西、free-style的思考方式、非常目標導向。

相 對的，我的優點發揮到極限，通通會變成我的缺點。我獨特有直覺能了解消費者，但我就不是很有紀律地思考，我做事很有紀律，我說的是有紀律的思考。我太勇 敢，對某些產業或團隊來說，他們是承受不起。我很直接了當，有些老闆、員工喜歡，但是不適應的人就會變得退縮。我很容易被人影響，因為我很喜歡聽新東西， 聽完之後，決策不夠堅持。深思熟慮這件事一直沒有作得很好。

○五年的成績好和○六的挫折，優點缺點都存在。只是○五年我充分發揮我的優勢，很可惜我在○六年都沒有發揮，這是一體兩面。

Ｑ:你如何決定你的下一步？過程是什麼？現在作自己的事業，會憂慮未來嗎？

A：如果你到中年，開始下半場，你的中場休息必需要安靜。上下半場中間的休息，可能是個危機。如果你思考的方向對，永遠都不嫌晚。如果不夠安靜，可能週而復始重複相同的錯誤。

我對於現在的決定感到很平靜。我來幫建鵬（先生）才六個工作天，我每天都發現公司可以改進的地方，感到興奮。

我的人生上半場打得很漂亮，事業步步高昇，我下半場是要繼續追求成功、還是意義？我認為是意義。

我離職前就一直想像，如果我離開大公司體系，現在所擁有的一切都沒有，我快不快樂？我很快就適應了。很多人在乎別人用職稱衡量他，我在乎別人認為我是一個什麼樣的人。

五年前，我先生開始這個事業，我來幫忙他，如果有所成就，可以讓他去從事傳道人的工作。他信教一年之後，在教會中受到很多人的鼓勵，說他很適合去當牧師。我離開肯德基，我的秘書說，「可能是神把你推開。」因為我原來想這一輩子都不要離開肯德基。

Ｑ:這是一個什麼樣的事業？

這個事業的名字是以法蓮SPA健康管理中心，是提供全方位養生的管理中心。我們不是賣精品，對於基督徒的生活來說，是不必要的，我們要的是健康平靜的心。這家店名是以法蓮，聖經舊約創世紀裡有一個約瑟，他有兩個兒子，大兒子叫馬拿西，二兒子叫以法蓮。因為他一生有非常多的苦難，沒想到他靠神都渡過難關。馬拿西的意思是「忘了吧！」以法蓮是「在苦難中昌盛！」

我 對未來不憂慮，我知道我做的每一件事，都對現在的事業有幫助。我的膽識熱情可以在這裡發揮，我可以有所擔當。我的第一件事讓員工快樂，重視與關心他們的需 要，我對著七位員工說，你們要想像以後我們會有二百家店，從世俗的眼光這好像是要達到的成就，我卻是憑信心喊話，讓他們知道，這裡會更好，你們也會更好， 更重要的是有很多人可以更健康。

創業帶著恨或是愛是不一樣的。如果你創業是為了證明給別人看，「你看，我可以做得到」，心中充滿苦怨，並不會成功。企業會成功都是大同小異，就是關心顧客。

Ｑ:信仰除了幫助你走過這次的生涯轉折，還有婚姻及人生，可以分享嗎？

有一次我和EMBA的同學去唱歌，大家唱得很高興。有一秒鐘，突然憂鬱襲擊而來，我馬上起身離開。同學半醉狀態硬拉著我，因為他們太愛我。我坐下來就開始哭，感到很憂鬱。

我有一位醫生朋友，他是基督徒，覺得我需要朋友和宗教信仰。我就說有啊，因為我那時跟著Rose（Yahoo奇摩總經理鄒開蓮）上教會，但是沒有很多感受。醫生朋友就說，「還需要考慮什麼？聖誕節快到了，你想一想要不要受洗。」我打電話給Rose，二○○五年一月二日受洗。

我當時的婚姻是離婚狀態，有一對雙胞胎。受洗當天，我在台上向我老公道歉，求他原諒我。

小組裡的姊妹問我，「為什麼想來教會？」我說，「我離婚、小孩不理我、工作壓力很大，但是每個人都很羨慕我，我卻很討厭自己。」我後來追了我老公九個月，他對我說，「我一直深愛你，但我不想被傷害第二次，你不知道你離開的那一天，小孩和我媽的眼淚，多麼傷痛。」

因為信仰，我們才再次重新走入禮堂，兩個雙胞胎就是我們的花童。我分享這些的原因是，其實很多人的婚姻並不快樂，即使他們功成名就，如果不是信仰，我也是其中之一。(本文同步刊登於365期天下雜誌）

附錄:

吳美君小檔案

年齡: 54年次,42歲。

學歷:淡江大學英文系

經歷:麥肯廣告AE、奧美廣告企劃、美泰兒公司總經理、奇摩網路業務總監、台灣肯德基董事總經理

Specifying username/password in a URL

Specifying username/password in a URL

Specifying username/password in a URLIt is possible to specify a username (and password!) in a URL. For instance, when you specify an ftp: URL, your browser automatically logs in as user "anonymous" to the ftp server being connected to. You can specify a different username to use with the following syntax: ftp://username@hostname/
Assuming a password is required, your browser will then prompt you for one.
It is even possible, but inadvisable, to put a password in a URL: ftp://username:password@hostname/
This is unadvisable for several reasons. The URL being opened may be determinable by other users on the same machine on which you are browsing (as from a command line). The URL retrieved from the remote machine may be logged in some non-secure place on the remote machine. Your browser history would then also contain a copy of your password.
Microsoft is disabling support in Internet Explorer for this kind of information inclusion in HTTP and HTTPS protocol URLs.
This page last updated January 28, 2004.

美食網摘大賽: 得獎名單公布

美食網摘大賽: 得獎名單公布

Good ones from starbucks The way I see it:
many people lack of spiritual belief system and fill that void with obsessions about celebrities (or other stuff, money, title...). The celebrities are raised to the rank of gods, and these earthly gods will always fail the expectations the masses have set for them. The cycle runs thusly: adoration runs to obsession, obsession runs to disappointment, and from disappointment it is just a short emotional jump to contempt. --Donna Phillips

時代雜誌回顧二○○六 全球十大醜聞 扁家列第五名
http://www.time.com/time/topten/2006/scandals/05.html

美國《時代》雜誌在年終回顧專題中列出二○○六年全球十大醜聞，台灣總統陳水扁和其家人因涉及貪汙指控而入榜，位居第五名。SCANDALS

05 of 10
* Previous
* Next

by Madison Gray



AFP / GETTY


TROUBLE IN TAIWAN
As if it were not bad enough somebody shot and wounded Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian during his most recent political campaign, his wife, Wu Shu-Chen, is now standing accused of embezzling $450,000 in state funds. Other family members and friends have also been alleged to use their ties to him for illicit gains, most notably his son-in-law Chao Chien-ming who was arrested on charges of insider trading and embezzlement. In November, Wu was formally indicted, but the president himself seems to be wearing a constitutionally tailored Teflon suit, because despite the allegations of his connection with this and other graft, he cannot be charged with anything until his presidential term ends in 2008. Recently, lawmakers fell 28 votes short of the required two-thirds majority that would have instituted an island-wide recall vote.

http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110501+112006123100009,00.html#

GRAYS FERRY RR TUNNEL 1886

the keystone reads:1886

http://patechspot.blogspot.com/

PATechSpot

全球私募基金 富人遊戲

全球私募基金 富人遊戲

六年前，全球私募基金（Private Equity，簡稱ＰＥ）占全球購併金額只有四％，現在，這個金額已近三成了。去年，股市的平均報酬率只有個位數字，但私募基金的報酬率卻超過二成。它是全球市場的禿鷹，而今，這群禿鷹已飛臨台灣上空，尋找目標了。

Artical from Chinatimes...I gess they don't know much about the equaty fund.

GOD IS SCIENCE

Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins
Sunday, Nov. 5, 2006
God vs. Science
We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRIs. But are the worldviews compatible? TIME convenes a debate
By DAVID VAN BIEMA

There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God. The more familiar over the past few years is the narrower of the two: Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools.

But in fact creationism and I.D. are intimately related to a larger unresolved question, in which the aggressor's role is reversed: Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)

Roman Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone. It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush Administration science policy to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab: the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds--or, as Yale psychologist Paul Bloom has written bluntly, "Religion and science will always clash." The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God--with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith's underlying verities.

Finding a spokesman for this side of the question was not hard, since Richard Dawkins, perhaps its foremost polemicist, has just come out with The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin), the rare volume whose position is so clear it forgoes a subtitle. The five-week New York Times best seller (now at No. 8) attacks faith philosophically and historically as well as scientifically, but leans heavily on Darwinian theory, which was Dawkins' expertise as a young scientist and more recently as an explicator of evolutionary psychology so lucid that he occupies the Charles Simonyi professorship for the public understanding of science at Oxford University.

Dawkins is riding the crest of an atheist literary wave. In 2004, The End of Faith, a multipronged indictment by neuroscience grad student Sam Harris, was published (over 400,000 copies in print). Harris has written a 96-page follow-up, Letter to a Christian Nation, which is now No. 14 on the Times list. Last February, Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett produced Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which has sold fewer copies but has helped usher the discussion into the public arena.

If Dennett and Harris are almost-scientists (Dennett runs a multidisciplinary scientific-philosophic program), the authors of half a dozen aggressively secular volumes are card carriers: In Moral Minds, Harvard biologist Marc Hauser explores the--nondivine--origins of our sense of right and wrong (September); in Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast (due in January) by self-described "atheist-reductionist-materialist" biologist Lewis Wolpert, religion is one of those impossible things; Victor Stenger, a physicist-astronomer, has a book coming out titled God: The Failed Hypothesis. Meanwhile, Ann Druyan, widow of archskeptical astrophysicist Carl Sagan, has edited Sagan's unpublished lectures on God and his absence into a book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, out this month.

Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far. Most Americans occupy the middle ground: we want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless. And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony--that, indeed, science is of God.

Informed conciliators have recently become more vocal. Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden has just come out with Evolution and Christian Faith, which provides what she calls a "strong Christian defense" of evolutionary biology, illustrating the discipline's major concepts with biblical passages. Entomologist Edward O. Wilson, a famous skeptic of standard faith, has written The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, urging believers and non-believers to unite over conservation. But foremost of those arguing for common ground is Francis Collins.

Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs.

He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches. His summer best seller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate TIME arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30. Some excerpts from their spirited exchange:

TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.

COLLINS: Gould sets up an artificial wall between the two worldviews that doesn't exist in my life. Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation.

DAWKINS: I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.

DAWKINS: Yes. For centuries the most powerful argument for God's existence from the physical world was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so beautiful and elegant and so apparently purposeful, they could only have been made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is a gradual, incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, more adaptive perfection. Each step is not too improbable for us to countenance, but when you add them up cumulatively over millions of years, you get these monsters of improbability, like the human brain and the rain forest. It should warn us against ever again assuming that because something is complicated, God must have done it.

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.

DAWKINS: People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable. Physicists have come up with other explanations. One is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill. The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. The vast majority will not contain life because they have the wrong gravitational constant or the wrong this constant or that constant. But as the number of universes climbs, the odds mount that a tiny minority of universes will have the right fine-tuning.

COLLINS: This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.

COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

COLLINS: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.

DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?

COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.

DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...

COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public. [Laughs.]

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?

COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.

TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

COLLINS: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years--some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology--relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they will help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chambers. That's the opposite of saving his genes. We see less dramatic versions every day. Many of us think these qualities may come from God--especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.

DAWKINS: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propagating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nor people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn't matter. Just as people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn't cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.

COLLINS: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible--not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?

DAWKINS: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil--I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.

COLLINS: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it.

TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?

COLLINS: Let me first say as a disclaimer that I speak as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Executive Branch of the United States government. The impression that people of faith are uniformly opposed to stem-cell research is not documented by surveys. In fact, many people of strong religious conviction think this can be a morally supportable approach.

TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.

DAWKINS: For me, moral questions such as stem-cell research turn upon whether suffering is caused. In this case, clearly none is. The embryos have no nervous system. But that's not an issue discussed publicly. The issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." Absolutist morality doesn't have to come from religion but usually does.

We slaughter nonhuman animals in factory farms, and they do have nervous systems and do suffer. People of faith are not very interested in their suffering.

COLLINS: Do humans have a different moral significance than cows in general?

DAWKINS: Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning.

TIME: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?

COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

With reporting by With reporting by David Bjerklie, Alice Park/New York, Dan Cray/Los Angeles, Jeff Israely/Rome

An Old movies

I can't remember when I saw the rerun of the Alain Delon's The talented ripely on TV when the 1999 version come out. The Alain Delon's was a great movie I ever see. I was very young to see that movie...at a time there wasn't MPAA I guess. I believe it was a time that my parents not allow me to watch TV at late night. And I have to go sleep first and get up when everybody is in sleep.
So I can remember vividly about the movie when I saw the preview of Matt Demon as Mr. Ripely . However I couldn't find any among my friends that knows about the 1960 version.....The year is quite before we were born. I couldn't even remember the actor's name was 亞蘭德倫 ...of course I don't know 亞蘭德倫 is Alain Delon in English and no way to discuss it with my English speaking friend/ coworkers. But anyhow tonight I get them all.
The following is from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plein_Soleil
Delon plays Tom Ripley, who claims to have been sent to Italy to persuade his wealthy friend, Philippe Greenleaf (played by Maurice Ronet), to return to San Francisco and run his father's business. As Philippe intends to do no such thing and Tom, who is poor, enjoys living La Dolce Vita, the two essentially spend money all day and carouse all night, occasionally hanging out with Philippe's put-upon girlfriend Marge (played by Marie Lafor?t) Tom has something of a crush on Philippe, wanting his life, girlfriend, and confident, cocky personality for himself. The spoiled, arrogant Philippe soon grows tired of his friend's fawning, however, and becomes cruel and abusive to him; the last straw is when, during a boating trip, Philippe strands Tom on a rescue boat, leaving him to lie in the sun for hours.

Back on board, Philippe has suspicions and starts confronting Tom with a potential plan to kill Philippe and assume his identity. Once Marge goes ashore, Philippe confronts him again and the two casually discuss the plan. Philippe attempts to placate Tom by deliberately losing at poker. Leaving his guard down for Tom to stab him to death and throw the body overboard. It is not known when Tom concocted the plan.

Upon returning, Tom tells Marge that Philippe decided to stay behind, and goes traveling around the country using Philippe's name and money, and even affecting his manner and voice; in effect, he becomes Philippe.

When Tom murders Philippe's suspicious friend, Freddie Miles, and the police inevitably get involved, he keeps playing at his charade, switching between being himself and being Philippe, depending on what the situation demands, and almost getting caught many times. By the end, Tom thinks he has outwitted everybody, and has even begun to seduce Marge — when Philippe's body is found, tangled in his boat's anchor. The last shot is of Tom walking toward the Police just after the discovery; it is assumed he will be arrested.

[edit] Acclaim, authenticity, and influence

Plein Soleil was heralded by critics and made Delon a star. In 1962, Cl?ment and Paul G?gauff won an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for Best Foreign Film Screenplay. It has a loyal following even today, including film director Martin Scorsese.

The movie has been cited as similar to Highsmith's novel in tone, style, and especially in the characterization of Tom Ripley. Out of all the actors who have played Ripley in movie adaptations of books in Highsmith's "Ripliad" series, critics, including Highsmith herself, have called Delon's characterization the closest to her version of the character: a charismatic psychopath who lies, manipulates and kills without an ounce of remorse. As in the book, it is implied (although never stated) that he has sexual feelings for Greenleaf, and is not so much interested in Greenleaf's money as he is in being him. There are differences in plot, however; most importantly, Ripley does not get caught in the novel, escaping the police to live a life of luxury and crime (as portrayed in the book's four sequels.) Also, in the book, Greenleaf's first name is Dickie, not Philippe, and Marge is merely a friend with whom he has a casual sexual relationship, and who detests Tom and never falls for him.

In the novel, Marge is frumpy (described as having a "gourdlike figure") and insecure, and may be one in a line of Greenleaf's meaningless flings. As portrayed by Marie Leforet in Plein Soleil, she is a more compatible counterpoint to Greenleaf, and both film versions of the novel suggest in several scenes that Greenleaf's feelings for her are genuine.

In 1999, director Anthony Minghella remade Plein Soleil as The Talented Mr. Ripley, starring Matt Damon as Ripley, Jude Law as Greenleaf, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Marge.

  

老婆做月餅

 

 

PHOTO

 

 

SEPTA R7

 

 

Photo

 

googleearth application

I post this on answer tw.answer.yahoo.com and NO ＡＮＳＷＥＲ BUT

很抱歉！

問題已經被管理者強制移除，請回首頁重新連結。

問題標題：	google earth 友人中文化?
移除原因：	聊天猜謎或其他非知識交流的行為 您的問題內張貼大量內容尋求翻譯，Yahoo!奇摩予以強制移除，若情節嚴重將給予扣點或停權處分。日後請避免類似的發言，謝謝您的合作。請參考：http://tw.help.yahoo.com/know/question/question-19.html

Googleearth is previously know by keyhole data that provide aerial image in detail. Then Google mergered Keyhole, and enchance it in a very sophisticate googleearth. There was a BBS like comunity available bbs.keyhole.com then bbs.gooleearth.com...now I am not sure where Google is heading, anyway, end of introduction stuff. My question is with the potential of the google earth- free (for now!), powerful clear image in detail. Even CNN use it on their broadcasting, if anyone watch CNN. The daily Iseral vs hazebolla war is briefed on googleearth. It has been used since the Katrina last Oct. Anyway, I am off the topic again. IS there anyone interested in use it a full blown website in Chinese? Googleearth can outdo urmap's pretty easy for the image quality....the only thing lacking is the info "layers" like the urmap has. Well, looking forward to seeing new developement in big5 website.