文章 - - 文章列表 - 全部

环保总局怎样才能有效保证环保政策的施行？怎样才能使禁令不在地方上成为一纸空文？

所谓“边缘学科”，是指在两种以上不同领域的知识体系的基础上、采取“跨学科的方法”（interdisciplinary approach）发展起来的综合性科学门类。因为这种研究涉及到不能纳入既有的理论框架之内的新现象，于是有人把边缘学科理解为“科学发展的前沿部门”（the frontiers of science）。又因为这种研究往往游离于不同学科的中心课题和权威话语之外，边缘科学在各个有关领域中的位置也多半是“边缘化的”（marginal branches）。而无论采取上述三种涵义中任何一种还是全部，我们都可以说：法社会学的确是十分典型的边缘学科。

对一些中国企业来说，国际金融危机爆发带来的最直接的冲击还不是需求萎缩，而是在金融衍生品交易上出现了巨额损失。前几天我们就报道了国航、东航等企业参与燃油套期保值交易导致08年亏损惨重的消息，在这之前还有中信泰富因为与国际投行对赌澳元汇率，巨亏近150亿元。为什么金融衍生品会成为中国企业的滑铁卢？在衍生品交易背后到底隐藏了什么样的秘密？

耶稣会传教士汤若望从明末到康熙年，在中国生活四十七年，曾是中国钦天监第一个洋监正，累官至太常寺少卿、光禄大夫；各种著述和译著近四十种，涉及宗教书算、天文地理、大炮制造等。曾几何时，身陷囹圄，九链加身，险被凌迟处死。后又平反昭雪，被康熙称为“鞠躬尽瘁之臣子”。弗兰茨为了写《在上苍的阴影下》，重走了汤若望的来华之路，并参考了大量的历史资料。

缪钺先生（1904-1995），字彦威，江苏溧阳人，1904年12月6日（清光绪三十年甲辰十月三十日）生于直隶（今河北省）迁安县，北京大学文科肄业。建国前后，先后任河南大学、广州学海书院、浙江大学、华西协合大学、四川大学教授，1995年1月6日逝世于成都。在魏晋南北朝史学与文学、唐宋文学、诗学、词学、古籍整理、中国古代思想史等领域均有建树.

美国国家安全局即National Security Agency，简称NSA，其任务为收集、分析、传播外国的Signals Intelligence（SIGINT），指电波类情报。NSA引以为豪的破译成就之一是二战中成功解读了日军密电，因而在中途岛战役中击败了实力更强的日本海军。

在西方宪政民主中获得胜选的政治领袖，也经常说自己是代表全体人民主政（虽然投票给他的选民只占总投票额的一部分）。表面上看，英、美与西欧的民主领袖也有民粹主义的倾向。然而，台湾的情况与西方的情况是很不同的。以炒作求取胜选的议题（如台独意识等）为手段而获得权力的台湾民粹主义的政治领袖口中的「人民」，正如王振寰、钱永祥所分析的，「指的却已经不是传统民主理论所设想的积极参与的公民，而是消极被动的、由统治者赋予集体身份的、功能在於表达认可（acclamation）的正当性来源。这种人民在组织上是由上向下动员而来，在身份上则是透过国族的召唤而成；它缺乏社会性的分化、缺乏体制性的意志形成过程、也没有机会参与政治议题的决定」

当前大部分关于地缘政治的讨论，均设想我们只能在单边主义和多边主义这两种维持全球秩序的策略之间作出抉择。

著名语言学家，政治评论家乔姆斯基09年1月24日在个人网站发表文章“奥巴马论以色列-巴勒斯坦”，《信报》专栏作家做了概述。作为犹太后裔，乔姆斯基的文章批评了奥巴马不谈以色列对加沙的侵略，坚持与以色列联盟的政策。

《论衡》中有《问孔》《刺孟》二篇,公开向孔子、孟子发难。另附毛泽东论以批评楚太子生活奢靡起首的枚乘《七发》的文章。

他在《我与地坛》里对我们说：“死是一件无须乎着急去做的事，是一件无论怎样耽搁也不会错过了的事，一个必然会降临的节日。”

David Fincher’s The Social Network, which tells the story of Facebook, is fast and intelligent and mean, a sort of screwball comedy without the laughs. It’s written by Aaron Sorkin, whose credits include The West Wing and A Few Good Men, and based on a novelised history by Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires. As long as it stays with the details of its tale – the faces, the clothes, the dialogue, the rooms, the parties, the sleek restaurants – the movie seems both restrained and sure-footed, willing to leave the thinking and the conclusions to us. But its larger plot movements are strangely dedicated to an insistence on two intriguing but evasive fables. One says that genius needs humiliation to get it going: so much so that the humiliation may be more important than the genius, a nicely faux-democratic message. The other says you can only make real money, money beyond dreams as distinct from just a lot of ordinary money, if you don’t care about wealth at all. Genius doesn’t calculate, even when it’s a computational genius.The film’s best line appears in a long, intense, information-crowded conversation before the credits. Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg, a student at Harvard, is sitting in a bar with a girl from the far less classy Boston University and boasting about his implausible chances of getting into one of Harvard’s fancy and exclusive social clubs. Once he’s in, he says, he’ll be able to introduce her to a better class of people than the ones she knows. For some reason the girl, Erica Albright, played by Rooney Mara, doesn’t take kindly to this suggestion, and the mood goes from lousy to worse. Finally she gets up and leaves, telling him that he will go through life believing that people don’t like him because he’s a nerd. This won’t be true. They won’t like him because he’s an asshole.Zuckerberg trots back to his dorm room and proves by inventing Facebook that Erica is absolutely right. No, that’s not quite the film’s line of argument, but it is largely what it shows us and a late attempt at a revision of Erica’s line lends it a weird retrospective authority. Just before the movie ends, a woman lawyer who has been present at the depositions regarding various suits against Zuckerberg and what he stole from or owed to whom, looks at our lonely hero, forlorn and with only his computer to befriend him, and says: ‘You know, you’re not really an asshole, you’re just trying so hard to be one.’ Then comes a truly mawkish moment. Zuckerberg hesitates, then types onto his Facebook page a version of the request that millions are now making and receiving every day: will Erica be his friend? No answer, film ends. Just as we’re wondering whether this little scene wouldn’t have been too soppy for David Selznick let alone David Fincher, a text crawls up the screen telling us how much Zuckerberg settled for: $65 million in one case, an ‘undisclosed amount’ in another. Facebook, the text informs us, is worth 26 billion. This is just a grand old American story after all. Nice guys finish last and assholes finish rich. If you’re feeling sentimental, you can ask the key, corny question. Yes, but are they happy?Of course a lot happens between Erica’s insult and this ending, and what humanises Zuckerberg in the movie is the possibility that he’s so angry not because Erica has upped and left him, but because she had the last word and she’s smarter than he is. He can’t have this. When he gets back to his room, he drops a few sexist and ethnic slurs about Erica onto his blog for all who care to see, toys with inventing a web-game where people – I mean male students – are invited to compare pictures of girls with pictures of animals, and then settles for devising another game called Facemash. This involves hacking into the records of the university’s residence halls, collecting photographs of all the female students, and putting them up on the screen in pairs. The game is really subtle. The guys just say which of the two girls is ‘hotter’, and chortle away. The game is so successful that before the night is over Harvard’s computer system has crashed and Zuckerberg is famous.Enter the Winklevoss brothers. These are two athletes, rowers, members of an elite that will never admit Zuckerberg even into its environs, who are looking for a programmer for an idea they have: a computer-based social network trading on the snob value of Harvard’s name, an extended electronic version, in other words, of the system Zuckerberg was describing to Erica. They contact Zuckerberg, who says he’ll work with them but does nothing but stall them for a month or two. Meanwhile he invents his own social network, and calls it The Facebook – later he drops the ‘the’. He and his friends, notably Eduardo Saverin, played by Andrew Garfield, who puts a little money into the venture, start to include other universities in the system, including places on the West Coast, and well before the end of the movie, the network has gone international. The Winklevoss brothers learn about it just after they have narrowly lost a race at Henley. Close but no cigar; just the news that the locals too have Facebook.Did Zuckerberg steal the Winklevosses’ idea? They think so, and the $65 million they received in the settlement suggests there was something ($65 million, to be precise) in the thought. Zuckerberg’s position is that he so transformed a lame, provincial project that he can’t possibly be taken as having nicked it: this would be like saying Shakespeare stole Macbeth from Holinshed, or Newton stole gravity from the apple. The case of Saverin is rather different. At the centre of the movie, with flashbacks radiating out from it, is the room where the depositions are being heard in the two cases. Saverin lent Facebook more and more money, and was CFO of the company. However, once Zuckerberg had met the charismatic Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake), and moved to California, Saverin was edged out, and the film pictures him as the model of East Coast caution trumped by West Coast cool. Parker is the real-life inventor of Napster, a music-piracy system whose failure did more damage to the recording industry than even its success could have done, and what Zuckerberg likes about him is not just his savoir-faire, the sort of fast style that makes the poshest Harvard club look like a garden party, but his sense of risk and the future. Saverin too is suing Zuckerberg, ostensibly for cheating him out of the continuing profits but in movie terms for betraying the only friend he has.The acting in the movie is quite wonderful, very disciplined and focused. Timberlake as Parker is charming, funny, reckless, even dangerous, but also nervous, an ex-nerd who hasn’t entirely forgotten his past. The film’s second-best moment, after Erica’s early line, comes when Parker announces at a party, as everything is being filmed, that soon all our lives will instantly be on the internet. Two minutes later the police burst into the apartment and take him off for snorting cocaine. Did somebody set him up? Saverin out of envy and revenge? Zuckerberg because he thought Parker was putting the company at risk?Garfield is good as Saverin: sympathetic, decent, but limited, and easily made to feel inferior, a nice guy who won’t finish last but won’t be near the front either. The triumph of the movie is Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg. He manages that stolid, stubborn, stupid look that clever people often have, and when his expression changes, which is not often, we may think he is getting angry. But then Eisenberg’s closed manner robs us of any confidence that we can read any of his expressions. This is the whole trick of the performance. We can’t gauge the expression, yet our curiosity forces us to do something with a face that is held so long and so often in front of our eyes. So we keep guessing. Was that almost a smile, and if so, what did it mean? Contempt? Some milder form of amusement at the idiocy of others? Some of our guesses are irresistible, and might even be right. Zuckerberg’s social awkwardness, presumably real enough at one stage, has become a style, a mask, an aggressive pose. His confidence in his own intelligence, and his conviction that he owes nothing to anyone, least of all any sort of obligation to be nice to them, come across very clearly whatever expression is on his face, and his only weakness, it seems, is a defensive impatience: he just can’t afford to think anyone else has a mind that matters. He is a monster of sorts, and like all monsters, a mirror of something that humans want or need or fear. Certainly it’s as a monster that he is compelling, and that’s why the attempt to reduce him to a little boy lost, just a nerd after all, is so craven, a shameless reaching out for the Oscar-worthy stereotype.

07年1月发布的《意见》指出，今后，国内大型公共建筑尤其是政府投资的大型公共建筑，将鼓励建筑设计方案国内招标，避免盲目搞国际招标。来自各地的情况表明，当前国内一些大型公共建筑工程，特别是政府投资为主的工程建设中暴露出诸多亟待解决的问题，包括：不顾国情和财力、片面追求外形、忽视城市地方特色和历史文化等。《意见》明确鼓励建筑设计方案国内招标，提出“政府投资的大型公共建筑，建设单位应立足国内组织设计方案招标，避免盲目搞国际招标”。组织国际招标的，必须“给予国内外设计单位同等待遇”。“大型公共建筑”一般指建筑面积2万平方米以上的办公建筑、商业建筑、旅游建筑、科教文卫建筑、通信建筑以及交通运输用房。

用“社会保障”来为现行农村土地制度作辩护，内含着这样一个前提：随着中国经济与财政持续增长，国家有能力将全体农民的社会保障彻底地从土地上剥离出来，并成为国家对农民承担的义务。

“这样就还要回到格瓦拉。数十年过去了﹐祇能承认﹐还是格瓦拉的语言最传神。他说﹕他一族的血统记号﹐是每逢出现不义就愤慨得发抖 －－在某种意义上﹐格瓦拉的话是萨依德的先导。确实﹐民族和亲戚﹐就应该如此划分。我懂了格瓦拉的魅力为什么经久不衰﹐他是真正的人道主义者 －－ 留意着他人苦痛而生活的人。

其实这是一件简单的事。祇是由于精英们都选择了不吃亏的阳关大路﹐所以实践它﹐需要罕见的学识和勇气。在河这边﹐人们早就放弃了幻想和等待﹐已经很难看见谁还在翘首盼望。这时路上出现了人影 －－ 也许我看花了眼﹐但这确是王小强新着给人的印象。对岸突然亮起一道焰火﹐沉默的人感到了喜悦。那个影子的背后会有更多的人跟上来么﹖人们彼此问着﹐心里又点燃了希望。”

本文把国内电影美学的发展概括为三个阶段：提出问题阶段、理论准备阶段和框架建设阶段。从80年开始为提出问题阶段，从84年开始为理论准备阶段，从93年开始为框架建设阶段。本文认为，由于有了前两个阶段，我们完全有理由、有条件立即开始电影美学理论框架的建设工作。这不仅是国内电影美学研究进程的一种期待和指向，而且也是中国电影对于中国电影理论的一种期待。

中国乡村社会目前正在经历一个从治理性危机到伦理性危机的转换过程。

在社会与政治为中心的书写中，佛学也罢，佛教也罢，它在思想史或学术史上的意义，似乎只能借助它的社会功能来判断，因此近代佛教或佛学史的研究课题，就过分地注目于宗教在社会政治史上的表现。于是，进一步引出的问题是这样的：宗教史或思想史或学术史，能否以及如何摆脱社会史政治史的时间表与人物表？

《章太炎说文解字授课笔记》（以下简称《笔记》），是太炎先生1908年4月至9月在日本讲授《说文解字》的课堂实录，根据钱玄同、朱希祖、周树人（鲁迅）三人现场所记和事后整理的笔记整合在一起编排。

1962年，奥登在《马萨诸塞州评论》发表《诗人与城市》，文章开头写到，“在我们的时代，如果一个年轻人天资贫乏，他就可能想去写作。”