::Reflect1on::

The Road Not Taken
TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

金黄的树林里分开两条路

可惜我不能同时去涉足

我选择了人迹罕至的那一条

这最终决定了我的一生

INO, 艾诺

这是我们参加中国管理竞争大赛的团队名，下面是团队博客

http://162.105.182.16/blog/INOgroup

沸腾180

Starship Troopers

这个标题，在那部很多国人（包括我）耳熟能详的电影中被翻译成《星河战队》

然而我更喜欢小说中的直译：星船伞兵。

这原本不是一本好莱坞式的科幻小说，罗伯特·海因莱因在原书中涉及了大量关于政治和道德的讨论。例如关于责任，关于公民权。

可惜被好莱坞糟蹋了。

“我，达到法定年龄，按照我自己的意愿——
“没有受到强迫，允诺，或是任何诱惑，在被明确告知此宣誓的意义和由此带来的后果之后——
“现在加入地球联邦军队，服役期不少于两年，并且如有需要，将作相应延长，直至联邦认可为止。
“我发誓将高举和捍卫联邦宪法，针对一切地球上或别的星球的敌人，保卫所有联邦和相关地区内公民和合法居民所拥有的宪法赋予的自由和特权，并且完成我的合法上司或权力机关指派给我的任务，不管此任务是在地球上还是在别的星球，服从地球军总司令和一切职位高于我的军官和相关人员的合法命令，并且对于任何职位低于我的人作出同样的要求——
“——当完成服役期光荣退役时，或是完成服役后转为退役军官时，在我的有生之年应继续执行联邦的任务，同时享受联邦赋予我的公民权，除非被由具有同等公民权的公民组成的法庭剥夺了这种荣誉。”

一个人可以想像的最崇高的生活方式，就是将他自己的身体挡在荒芜的战场和可爱的家园之间。

生命中最宝贵的东西无法用金钱购得，为得到它们所付出的代价就是苦难、汗水和奉献……一切东西中，最宝贵的也就是最昂贵的，它的代价就是生命本身——为了获得最大价值，必须付出最高昂的代价。

有些方法经过了时间的考验，能向年轻人灌输社会道德，教会他们尊重法律。但蒙昧的伪科学阶层却拒绝接受那些方法，那些人自称‘社会工作者’或‘儿童心理学家’。

 “所有道德理论的基石都是责任，对于一个团体来说，责任的重要性相当于个人利益对于个体的重要性。没人把责任以一种他们可以理解的方式教授给那些孩子——也就是说，以责打的方式。
    相反，社会不断地给他们宣扬的是他们的‘权利’。

一个必须以死来拯救他的孩子的人有生命的‘权利’吗?如果他选择保留自己的生命，这么做是因为他有这个‘权利’吗?如果两个人处于饿死的边缘，除了吃掉对方以外没有其他任何可以继续生存的方法，那么他们中哪个人的权利是‘不可剥夺的’呢?至于自由，那些签下伟大宪章的英雄发誓以他们的生命换取自由。自由从来不是‘不可剥夺的’，必须时不时地用爱国者的鲜血来换取，否则它就会消失。

“所有社会体系都通过同一种方式来实现这个愿望，即把公民权限制在那些被认为有足够的智慧，可以公平地使用这种权利的人之内。我重复一遍，‘所有社会体系’。即使那些所谓的‘无限制的民主，也把不少于四分之一的人口排斥在公民权之外，以年龄、出身、投票税、犯罪记录等等为理由。”
    瑞得少校讥讽地笑了笑，“我一直不明白，投票的时候，一个三十岁的笨蛋怎么可能比一个十五岁的天才更明智……但那是一个‘神授普通人权’的时代。不管那么多了，他们已经为自己的愚蠢付出了代价。

在我们的系统之下，任何一个投票者或是政府官员都是一个这样的人，他已经通过志愿参加的艰苦服役表明，他能够将集体的利益摆在个人之前。这才是差别，在实际生活中，这是具有决定意义的。
    “我们的投票者可能并不聪明，他可能缺乏某些社会美德，但是，我们的投票者的平均表现却比历史上任何统治阶层好上不知多少倍。”

因为公民权是人类权利中至高无上的，所以我们必须保证，那些行使这个权利的人应该敢于付出最大代价以承担自己的社会责任，我们要求任何一个想要行使公民权以控制这个社会的人押上他的生命——必要时牺牲生命——来拯救社会的生命。由此，一个人所能承担的最大责任和他所行使的最高权利相互对应了。阴和阳，完美对称。

解放军用网络游戏训练战术
3月 25日 星期六 17:35

「解放军报」报道，沈阳军区正透过网络游戏对官兵进行战术训练，藉此提升部队的战术训练热情与质量。

据报道，沈阳军区某装甲团部队调查发现，百分之之六十七的新兵入伍前喜欢上网，玩过各种网络游戏，并熟悉网络游戏的兵力部署、火力配置、阵地编成等战术知识。

装甲团领导认为，若能把网络游戏作为战术训练的辅助方式，引导官兵从简单的「玩游戏娱乐」转变到「练战术健脑」，则既能有效地节约训练资源，又能调动官兵战术训练的热情。

为此，部队专门配置了游戏服务器，并制定「网络游戏管理细则」，规范官兵玩网络游戏的秩序。

在此基础上，装甲团部队还透过军事网络游戏建立「战术仿真对抗训练平台」，定期开展「网上战术擂台赛」、评选「战术训练标兵」等活动，组织战士与各级指挥员在网上斗智斗勇，在对抗演练中提高战术素养。

据报道，一年来，这些网络游戏高手大多成为战术训练骨干，有二十一人被师团评为「战术训练标兵」，有效地提升了部队训练质量。

25. It has recently been announced that a large shopping center may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

It has been announced that in my community there will be a vote about whether to build a large shopping center here. After comparing the potential benefits and disadvantages it may lead to my daily life, I choose to be against this plan.

Building a new large shopping center has its certain advantages. For instance, it may improve the local economy of my community. A shopping center will offer a large number of working positions, which may decrease the pressure of unemployment and stabilize the social circumstance.

While a supermarket bring benefits, however, it will introduce more disadvantages than its merits. A large shopping center is superior to local stores in acquiring cheap goods. By selling articles in a much more inexpensive price, it can easily defeat small shops. Potentially monopolistic threat will rise when the shopping center has taken dominant positions. Without competition, it may sell goods in high price with poor quality, and people living in community will be unable to refuse them. Eventually our interests might be damaged.

Compared to possible economic threat, unfavorable environmental changes are more serious as far as I am concerned. A shopping center produces large amount of wastes everyday, especially plastic bags provided to customers. Most plastic bags are hardly to degrade in soil, and they release poisonous substances which will infiltrate air and soil and threaten our lives. In addition, there is no effective way to clean this sort of pollution up to now. Accompanying the shopping center, supporting facilities such as parking lots and new highways will be established. Waste gases expelled by both customers’ cars and suppliers’ trucks may aggravate air pollution. All these factors may decrease quality of life in our community and should be avoided by all possible means.

In short, a large shopping center will surely led relative advancement to local economy, its disadvantages, however, overwhelm its potential benefits. As I concerned about better quality of life, this plan is unacceptable.

17. Some people think that they can learn better by themselves than with a teacher. Others think that it is always better to have a teacher. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons to develop your essay.

An Argument is presented for whether we should learn with a teacher. To me, the answer is indubitable: I will insist on that students should learn with a teacher. There are three reasons for me to make this decision.

An experienced teacher may assist students by effective and efficient ways to learn a course or solve a problem. If we refuse such assistance, however, we may spend much more time with less effect achieved. For instance, often when we are puzzled by complicated problems, a piece of direction from instructor may immediately enlighten us and help to find the solutions. This will not happen if we insist on self-study
 
A responsible teacher may answer questions raised by student, and illustrate why students have such questions, and provide instruction to improve. When I was in high school, I once asked my math teacher a difficult question. To my surprise, he did not directly answer the original question. However, he asked me a fundamental concept on functions instead. I failed to recall it. He then pointed out that it was my weak background knowledge caused the problem. This will not happen either if we insist on self-study.

A respectable teacher may not only offer help to students in academic field, but also affect his or her students morally by noble personality. Professor Chen, a world famous mathematician, has won respect from all his students by his modesty, honesty, and patience. His students said that Professor Chen gave them directions on both their study and conduct. This will not happen either if we insist on self-study.

In short, a good teacher is a great wealth to students, and to choose self-study is to choose to desert this fortune. That is why I insist on learning with a teacher.

 

 

发信人: iamzilu (谁把我家当阵地我就把阵地当成家), 信区: THUExpress
标  题: 伟哉！下跪的人
发信站: BBS 水木清华站 (Wed Mar 23 11:10:13 2005), 站内

当我听说我们中的一员宁愿用人的尊严换取我们说话的权利的时候，我知道，现实的课堂给
我们上了一堂新课。这堂课无论是在六教明亮的教室里还是在主楼地下的机房里都是学不到
的，甚至在历史书上，政治课本里也不会有——现实，只有冷冰冰的现实，硬梆梆的水泥地
，熟视无睹的眼神，一片寂静的悲凉——纵然偶尔一缕阳光就让我们感到现实到底是美好了
一些。
实际上造成这样的境况的，不是哪一个人，不是哪一个群体、党派，恰恰是我们自己。我们
都知道对孩子的溺爱导致的结果是什么，却从来没有人想到过对成年人的长达55年的放纵意
味着什么，或许是不敢想吧。所以说有什么样的人民就有什么样的政府。我们可以说这样的
政府不是我们选出来的，我们为什么要对它负责，但是当我们意识到不对的时候，我们为什
么没有站出来说“不”呢？我们为什么要放弃这样的权利？

我们从小就被告知，我们生活在一个自由的国家，这样的国家尊重我们的自由尊重我们的尊
严，实行的是民主制度，可是我们是否真正的理解过什么是自由什么是民主呢？我们从小就
被灌输：民主不是万能的。“民主”国家实行的是真正的不民主云云...小学生都知道金钱
不是万能的，可是连幼儿园的小朋友都知道父母手里的零花钱是多么的重要。民主，不是手
段，不是用来换取其他怜悯的交换物——就像没有任何人真地愿意拿贞操和尊严来换取别的
东西一样——既然我们鄙视，至少是反对通过出卖肉体来换取金钱、地位，那我们为什么能
接受通过缄默配合来换取所谓的“安定团结的大好局面”呢？二者有何本质不同？我们对西
方民主自由的鄙视，源自我们知道他们的制度如此的不完美，如此的不公平，可是我们是否
有想过，我们自己的制度又在多大程度上是完美的呢？美国人可以自豪地对全世界讲“我们
的制度不是最完美的但是是全世界最好的”，而我们现在是否有勇气向台湾同胞说我们的制
度比他们更好更完善更能保证我们的权利？明知道不足却不愿意一行动来改变，这就是我们
之所以有今天。

86年前的今天，我们的前辈以德先生和赛先生两杆大旗撑起了一个新的时代，而今天我们却
羞于谈起民主，甚至认为民主不过是西方毒害我们自己的一盞鸩酒，我不能说这是一种退步
，但这至少表明了我们丧失了一个时代的精神。我们从来没有意识到，民主与自由，宛如空
气、水、知识、感情一样，使我们不可缺少，他人无法给与的生命中的必要元素。当我们放
弃了对他们的珍惜与追求，我们就只能默默地承受一切——这就是咎由自取。就像我们可以
因为任何其他微不足道的原因，选举出一个废物一样。

3月16日，他们活埋了水母，但是水母还没有死——至少有人还在为他做点什么，不光是等
死，bless，幻想别人的恩赐，有人还在为他下跪，为自己下跪，为我们所有人，所有把水
母，把自由，看得比某些事物更加珍重的人下跪。我们昨天的下跪，预示着明天的站立。中
国的人民的站起来，不需要任何人的宣告。

删空了自己的博客，因为不知道应该表达什么。

在辽阔的天空下我越来越沉默，没有了欢快的声音没有了黑暗的声音没有了一切声音，终究归于沉默。

回过头来看看自己，那些曾经的理想，现在都在哪里？

在很小的时候我说，我长大之后要做科学家。

在初中的时候我说，我要考THU。

而现在，我不知道有什么好说的。

曾经有个人在水木上说：THU招来了全中国最聪明的人，然后让他们放羊。

这句话我是深以为然的。

想起在高中的时候，在高三最痛苦的时候，我时常想象在THU的情景。

那时候的自己，依稀记得THU白色的二校门，大片大片绿色的草坪。

曾经想在那样子的地方，和那样的人聚在一起，会是怎样一种感觉。

然而现在，我在这里，我已经发不出声音。

理想的翅膀一片一片地飘落在地上，余留下来的只有现实的悲哀与沉默。

申请了香港科大的exchange。

和众人一起准备着托福。

内心的最深处依然留有那些最美好的东西，希望和理想。

然而在这里，我已无话可说。

我曾经想，如果我的智商和毅力允许的话，我最希望的工作其实是像数学史上那些发光的名字一样。我不需要豪宅香车，美女佳酿。一支秃笔，一摞稿纸，一间小屋，方程和变量闪耀着最美丽的理性的光辉。

这是我心中最为浪漫的生活。

然而我已经失去了它。

　　“熊希龄卖国，杀！唐绍仪愚民，杀！袁世凯专横，杀！章炳麟阿权，杀！”
　　这是1912年5月20日，二十三岁的戴天仇在上海《民权报》发表一篇只有24个字的短论《杀》，却一连用了四个“杀”字，端的是杀气腾腾。年轻气盛的戴天仇只是为了反对当时初生的民国政府向四国银行团借债，熊希龄是财政总长，唐绍仪是国务总理，袁世凯是临时大总统，章太炎大概是赞成这一举措，被捎带上的。
　　两天后，上海公共租界便以“任意毁谤”的罪名拘捕了戴天仇。虽然他第二天就被保释，但公共租界巡捕房以“鼓吹杀人罪”提起公诉。
　　戴天仇后来以戴季陶之名为人所知。他于1912年3月在上海租界创办《民权报》，“日作千言，洋洋洒洒”，“措词激烈，读之令人兴奋”。从4月16日起，他在报上接连发表十篇《胆大妄为之袁世凯》，19日和20日连载《袁世凯罪状》，4月26日起又连续发表六篇《讨袁世凯》。仅文章标题就让现在的人开了眼界。
　　但在当时，戴天仇被捕后，上海日报公会马上就提出抗议:“查言论自由，凡文明之国无不一律尊重，即报章之中有措词稍涉激烈者，亦宁置之而不为过。”“此次无故逮捕是何理由，根据何种法律？”当然，最值得一提、也是最不可思议的是，被戴声讨的唐绍仪竟以国务总理的名义致电上海，公开为戴天仇说话，他的理由很简单:“言论自由，为约法所保障。”无论在这之前，还是在这之后，恐怕都没有比唐绍仪此举更能感动民族言论史的一幕了。
　　5月23日、24日，《天铎报》以《戴天仇被捕记》、《戴天仇被捕再志》为题连续报道了这一件事。6月13日，租界会审公廨公开作出宣判:“共和国言论虽属自由”，但“该报措词过激”，涉嫌“鼓吹杀人”，最后以“罚洋三十元”结案。而据胡道静《上海的日报》所说，戴天仇一出狱，即在编辑室墙上大书:“报馆不封门，不是好报馆。主笔不入狱，不是好主笔。”  

Reference Tool On Web Finds Fans, Censors
After Flowering as Forum, Wikipedia Is Blocked Again

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 20, 2006; A01



BEIJING -- When access to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, was disrupted across China last October, a lanky chemical engineer named Shi Zhao called his Internet service provider to complain. A technician confirmed what Shi already suspected: Someone in the government had ordered the site blocked again.

Who and why were mysteries, Shi recalled, but the technician promised to pass his complaint on to higher authorities if he put it in writing.

"Wikipedia isn't a Web site for spreading reactionary speech or a pure political commentary site," Shi, 33, wrote a few days later. Yes, it contained entries on sensitive subjects such as Taiwan and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, but users made sure its articles were objective, he said, and blocking it would only make it harder for people in China to delete "harmful" content.

Shi was hopeful the government would agree. When the site was blocked in 2004, he had submitted a similar letter, and access had been quickly restored. Since then, the Chinese-language edition of Wikipedia had grown, broadening its appeal not only as a reference tool but also as a forum where people across China and the Chinese diaspora could gather, share knowledge and discuss even the most divisive subjects.

But today, four months after Shi submitted his letter, Wikipedia remains blocked.

The government has declined to explain its actions. But its on-again, off-again attempts to disrupt access to the site highlight the Communist Party's deep ambivalence toward the Internet: The party appears at once determined not to be left behind by the global information revolution and fearful of being swept away by it.

Officials tolerated Wikipedia at first, perhaps because it seemed to be exactly what the party had in mind when it began promoting Internet use 11 years ago -- an educational resource that could help China close its technological gap with the West, encourage innovation and boost economic growth.

But as the Chinese Wikipedia flourished, the authorities apparently came to see it as another threat to the party's control of information, and an example of an even more worrying development. The Internet has emerged as a venue for people with shared interests -- or grievances -- to meet, exchange ideas and plan activities without the party's knowledge or approval.

With 111 million people online and 20,000 more joining them every day, the landscape of Chinese cyberspace resembles a vast collection of new and overlapping communities. Although Chinese write less e-mail than Americans, they embrace the Internet's other communication tools -- bulletin boards and chat rooms, instant-messaging groups and blogs, photo-sharing and social networking sites. A popular feature of the Chinese search engine Baidu lets users chat with others who have entered the same keywords.

Studies suggest this digital interaction is changing the traditional structure of Chinese society, strengthening relations among friends, colleagues and others outside family networks. In a multinational survey, a much larger percentage of Internet users in China than anywhere else said online communication had increased their contact with people who shared their hobbies, professions and political views.

The Communist Party polices these emerging Internet communities with censors and undercover agents, and manages a Web site that it said received nearly a quarter-million anonymous tips about "harmful information" online last year. But the methods the party uses to control speech and behavior in the real world have proved less effective in cyberspace, where people get away with more, and where the government is often a step behind.

When authorities catch up, citizens often have already weakened the party's grip on public life and succeeded in expanding civil society. They have organized charity drives for rural schoolchildren and mobilized students for anti-Japanese protest marches. And they learned to work together to write an encyclopedia.

"Wikipedia is special because other places don't have this kind of discussion, at least not such an intellectual discussion. It's a place where people with different backgrounds interact," said Shi, a prolific contributor to the Chinese Wikipedia. "But that wasn't even our goal. Our goal was just to produce an encyclopedia."

Meeting of Minds

Created by volunteers who write and edit articles in a collaborative process, Wikipedia is the Web's largest reference site, and it boasts editions in more than 200 languages.

The Chinese one, launched in May 2001, was blank for more than a year before Michael Yuan, a graduate student in mathematics at Beijing University, stumbled across it in a Google search. Yuan said he was enchanted by the English edition, and saw it as "an interesting place to study, hold discussions and share the pleasure of learning and writing." When he noticed the Chinese site was empty, he set out to build it.

On Oct. 30, 2002, Yuan created the first entry, a one-sentence definition of "mathematics." He was soon joined by Sheng Jiong, a Shanghai native studying law in Singapore, who wrote on the "People's Republic of China."

In the beginning, the Chinese edition was heavy with science and technology. The Norwegian mathematician Kirsten Nygaard was added before Sun Yat-sen, the father of modern China. But as months passed, people from around the world began to submit articles on a variety of subjects, including wine and cars, history and politics.

In July 2003, a prolific Hong Kong user known online as Lorenzarius sparked one of the site's first political debates with an essay urging people to avoid "China-centrism." He argued, for example, that the war that began when Japan invaded China in 1937 should be called the "Second Sino-Japanese War" instead of the "War of Resistance against Japan," as it is referred to by the party.

Most who responded posted objections, saying that almost all Chinese knew the war by its official name. But they also endorsed his larger point about trying to maintain a neutral point of view in Wikipedia's entries.

A few months later, another debate erupted over how contributors should resolve disputes on the site. Some advocated a system in which only the most active users could vote, but Sheng argued that all users should be treated equally. Lorenzarius concurred, and urged users to try to compromise and seek consensus before resorting to a vote.

To many educated in China, these governing principles of Wikipedia -- objectivity in content, equality among users, the importance of consensus -- were relatively new concepts. Yuan said he consulted the work of philosopher John Rawls and economist Friedrich Hayek to better understand how a free community could organize itself and "produce order from chaos."

"We had heard of these ideas, but they really didn't have much to do with our lives," said Yuan, now a computer programmer. "In school, we were taught an official point of view, not a neutral point of view. And we didn't learn much about how to cooperate with people who had different opinions."

In early 2004, state-run newspapers began writing positive articles about the Chinese Wikipedia, and the coverage fueled further growth. By February, more than 3,000 people had registered as users and there were more than 5,000 entries. By April, the site was getting nearly 100,000 page requests per day. By May, the number of definitions on the site had climbed past 10,000.

Then, on June 3, 2004, people in China who tried to visit Wikipedia saw an error page instead. The government had blocked the site on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Story of Tiananmen Square

The entry on the "June 4 Incident" in the Chinese Wikipedia runs nearly 20 pages, but when it first appeared in September 2003, it was just three sentences. Posted by an anonymous user, it said troops seized control of Tiananmen Square after it had become a "base camp for various hostile forces." It did not mention any deaths or student protesters' demands for democracy.

Two months later, people began to edit the article, inserting a phrase about the pro-democracy movement and mentioning that "many city residents" were killed. But the Wikipedia community seemed hesitant. A few people tried to break the silence, adding thousands of words all at once. But others deleted them immediately.

Then, four months before Wikipedia was blocked, Sheng posted a message saying he planned to overhaul the entry. Slowly, he began writing a more detailed and objective account, posting it piece by piece, starting with a chronology of the demonstrations and putting off the more sensitive subject of the massacre for later. Another user noted that foreign news media had reported that more than 1,000 people were killed.

The changes prompted debate even before Sheng finished the project. One user attacked the article as biased, arguing that foreigners had used the students at Tiananmen Square to subvert the Chinese government. Others urged caution because of the political sensitivity of the subject.

"Regarding the June 4 incident, I know very little," one person wrote. "At least for the present stability, I hope we don't make an issue of this."

Shi Zhao, the chemical engineer and frequent contributor, objected to using the famous photo showing a lone student stopping a column of tanks. "It seems the entire article has very little from China's point of view," he added. "It's basically all the Western point of view. Is this a neutral point of view?"

But after Wikipedia was blocked on the eve of the Tiananmen anniversary, Shi -- who describes himself as a supporter of the Communist Party -- was among the first to call his Internet service provider to complain. He also submitted an appeal.

Then without any explanation, the government restored access to the site.

The 19-day disruption caused Chinese Wikipedia use to drop and prompted hand-wringing in the community that built it. Some suggested that the site practice self-censorship to avoid being blocked again. But most opposed the idea on principle.

"It would have violated our policies, because Wikipedia is independent of any government," Shi said. "We aren't publishing political editorials, just providing information from a neutral point of view."

Instead of backing down, the site attracted more users, and the debates intensified as people tried to hammer out their differences on subjects such as the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, the one-child policy and even the Chinese Communist Party.

Because users hailed from Taiwan as well as the mainland, the most passionate fights were related to the status of the self-governing island. At one point, there was even talk about splitting the site in two, because residents of Taiwan and the mainland write Chinese with different sets of characters.

Technology bridged that divide. A student wrote a computer program to automatically convert text from one set to the other.

Slowly, a community was consolidating outside the party's purview, one that was learning to settle its own disputes, that crossed borders and tolerated those who contradicted the party's views, and that began organizing get-togethers in the real world as well as cyberspace.

It must have been disturbing to some in the party, which has long sought to dominate all organized social activity in China. In September 2004, the government blocked access to Wikipedia again.

Some blamed the decision on an influx of Internet users who were upset that the censors had shut down a popular university Web site. Others linked it to a message posted by a disgruntled Wikipedian on the losing side of an argument two days earlier.

"I have already called the police, and told them there is a lot of Taiwan independence, Falun Gong and other reactionary content here," the user wrote. "I even gave them many entries as examples. After a few days, they will come for an inspection. You'd better get ready. . . . Ha, ha."

'China's Voice to the World'

To the community's relief, the second block lasted only four days. Then, for more than a year, Wikipedia operated free of any government interference.

The encyclopedia flourished, passing the 40,000-entry mark in September, and the community thrived, growing more stable and mature. Users continued to discuss and write about sensitive subjects, branching into current events, but the rancor of the debates seemed to subside. When newcomers resorted to overheated language, veterans stepped in and cooled things down.

So the government's most recent decision to block Wikipedia was a deep disappointment. Shi Zhao submitted another appeal. Cui Wei, 25, a graduate student at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, wrote one, too.

"By blocking Wikipedia, we lose a chance to present China's voice to the world, allowing evil cults, Taiwan independence forces and others . . . to present a distorted image of China," he said. "We lose a chance to share academic knowledge with the world, and as users, a channel to gain information. . . .

"Such an act is no different than cutting off our tongues and shutting our eyes and ears. It is closing and locking up the country in the age of the Internet."

As the weeks passed, many concluded Wikipedia had been blocked for good.

In December, a message appeared on a Wikipedia page alleging the site had been "conducting anti-China activities under the flag of being neutral" and accusing its senior users of being "running dogs for American imperialism." Some suspected the note was posted by a government agent.

The number of people using the Chinese Wikipedia site has dropped, but devoted users are finding ways to access it. The community now boasts 45,000 registered users, most from the mainland. Among the site's 56,000 entries is one that explains how to get around the government's firewall.

Researcher Zhang Jing contributed to this report.

10. “When people succeed, it is because of hard work. Luck has nothing to do with success.” Do you agree or disagree with the quotation above? Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position. (9512)

 

Take a glance at those successful figures who deserved reputations and memories in the human history, and we may find that hard work is the most common characteristic among them. Is that to say, however, compared to hard work, other factors such as luck  are of no influence at all? Or it may be fairer to state that though hard work is the most significant element leading to success, luck still occasionally plays an important role?

 

An extreme but convictive example is about the lottery, which is definitely luck-dominated. How could one win a prize in a lottery through hard work? Does hard work here means to buy large amount of lottery? Many people brought only one ticket and became millionaires, and it is nothing about working hard or not---just lucky or not.

 

Moreover, there are a few successes primarily due to great luck. In a bacteria experiment, one container was contaminated, and fungi which were floating in the air landed on the substrate and promptly multiplied. Scientists discovered that the bacteria around some particular fungi were killed or disabled. This finally led to the invention of penicillin.

 

In most fields, though hard work is necessary for achievements, luck sometimes may affect the processes as well. A German scientist, after numerous failed hypothesizes and experiments, eventually discovered the structural formula of benzene in a revelatory dream. Certainly it was his hard work which spawned this inspiration, luck, however, obviously also accounted for his success.

 

Success is never simply achieved via hard work. Talent, luck, personality, and other potential factors may also contribute to it. No one can deny the importance of hard work. To deny other elements’ existences and influences, however, is not reasonable either. Success, in most situations, is a combination of multiple components. Luck, as well as hard work deserves acceptance.