2013铁道版红皮——时政热点权威解读及考点预测 epub 网盘 电子书 下载 全格式

展开

展开

展开

展开

展开

在线阅读地址：2013铁道版红皮——时政热点权威解读及考点预测在线阅读

在线听书地址：2013铁道版红皮——时政热点权威解读及考点预测在线收听

在线购买地址：2013铁道版红皮——时政热点权威解读及考点预测在线购买

PDF下载地址：2013铁道版红皮——时政热点权威解读及考点预测PDF下载

展开

展开

展开

查看其它书籍精彩书评

• 颜色名称莫名其妙

  作者：loook 发布时间：2021-01-24 18:03:39

  

  左侧为文物手绘图，右侧为文物某个颜色的不同深浅

  

  桃夭色的解释，诗词文章的罗列而已

  

  百度上的实物图，与手绘版有较大色差

  买这本书其实是期望了解古代文物的配色方法，或者是古代某种颜色的由来，结果大失所望，看到的只是许许多多古诗文章的堆砌。只怪自己事先没做功课吧。

  本书左侧都是一件故宫文物手绘版，右侧是该件文物中出现的某个颜色的深浅不一四个色的解释，比如书第30页的《雍正款胭脂水粉彩花碟小碗》，右边讲解配了四个色“桃夭”，“杨妃”，“长春”，“牙绯”，其中“桃夭”色的解释如上图。不理解作者是如何将这种粉色和“桃夭”两字联系在一起的。有何根据？对桃夭的解释也仅是罗列了一些带“桃夭”两字的诗词文章，看的人一头雾水。

  

  《黄地墨彩花蝶纹盘》

  

  对“黄栗留”的解释，只跟黄鹂有关，黄鹂鸟和左边这件文物有什么干系呢？

  

  第2页的前言，通篇是摘抄古文

  

  第6页的前言，通篇摘抄别的名人说的话，甚至提到了流量明星

  展开

• Review of Jian Xu, A Material Culture Study of Bronze Weapons before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty

  作者：鵬鵬 James 发布时间：2016-10-01 05:20:44

  Published in Frontiers of History in China, vol. 11, no. 3 (September, 2016)

  http://journal.hep.com.cn/fhc/EN/10.3868/s020-005-016-0027-3#1

        Like elsewhere in the world, weaponry in China has long been regarded as the symbol of warfare and violence. Hitherto much scholarly attention has been given to the Shang (ca. 1,600-1,046 BCE) and Zhou bronze eating and drinking vessels, as well as to musical instruments, without an equivalent understanding the significance of the contemporary bronze weapons, which are extent in a surprising quantity. To fill the gap, in this groundbreaking book revised from chapters of his Ph. D. dissertation at Peking University, Jian Xu brings together the much-overlooked ritual implication embedded in the bronze weapons of early China, covering the span from the Erlitou culture (ca. 1,800-1,500 BCE) to the Western Zhou period (1,046-771 BCE).

         As the title reveals, Xu has sought to re-examine bronze weapons within the theoretical framework of material culture. Despite the fact that material culture as an interdisciplinary arena of inquiry has been widely acknowledged within Anglo-American academia, the introduction of this Western invention into Chinese scholarship is still in its infancy. According to Anke Hein, Chinese archeology has a strong typology-oriented tradition “that is based both on local traditions of historiography and antiquarianism and the nature of early Western archaeological endeavors in China, and has strongly political determinants as well.” [1] Following this parameter, in the Introduction, when Xu discusses the complex scholarship on bronze weapons of early China, two major approaches are apparent. The antiquarian approach embraces a tradition, tracing back to the Northern Song period (960-1,127 CE) when important scholarly writing took up found and collected objects under the rubric of “studies of metal and stone” (jinshi xue金石學), that is, more liberally, “studies of bronzes and stone inscriptions.” Celebrated by antiquarians for their textual and historiographic values, bronze objects’ archaeological information has been downplayed or edited out when being collected and catalogued. By contrast, the other approach focuses on archeological discoveries in situ, which marked the beginning of modern Chinese archaeology basically surrounding the 1928 excavation of the sites at Anyang Yinxu, Henan, which were led by Li Ji 李濟 (or Li Chi, 1896-1979) (p. 9). From Xu’s view, except for few like Max Loehr (1903-1988), most scholars who adopted either of these two approaches─which are confined to incomplete materials─have innate defects in their formalistic analyses. Divergent and even conflicting naming and classifying systems of bronzes weapons based on previous approaches also impede further understanding (p. 17). Departing from past scholarship, therefore, Xu adapts the American archeologist Lewis R. Binford’s (1931-2011) theory of three archaeological systematics─technological, social organizational, and ideological—modified by Binford based on the cultural anthropologist Leslie A. White’s (1900-1975) categorization of cultural systems.[2] Such a framework, as it is argued, focuses on investigating material objects as cultural products and “lies in the shared frame of thought that culture is defined by human behavior.” [3] With this multi-dimensional conceptual tool, as thoroughly analyzed by the following four chapters based on a comprehensive and systematic database, Xu treats bronze weapons as material agents through which a broader and more complex cultural system can be peeked into.

       

        Dealing specifically with Binford’s first dimension, Chapter One probes bronze weapons’ stylistic developments, ornaments, and metallurgic information. It begins with Xu’s methodological reflection on Gustav O. Montelius (1843-1921)’s typological paradigm, which has long remained dominant, and seems continue to be so, in the field of Chinese archaeology. Covering archaeologically excavated burials, public and private collections, the bronze weapons concerned are classified as the dagger-axe (戈 ge), spear (矛 mao), halberd (戟 ji), axe (斧鉞 fu yue), sword/dagger (短劍 duan jian), knife (刀 dao), arrowhead (矢鏃shi zu), helmet (胄 zhou), and armour (甲 jia). According to Xu’s formal analysis, stylistic changes of weapons serve to differentiate whether a specimen was intended as a utilitarian instrument, or as a “sign” which is highly decorated. Xu argues that the interaction of two elements─functional and non-functional─played a crucial role in dynamic changes of bronze weapons before the Easter Zhou. While the functional element features utilitarian designs intended for military use and killing, and the non-functional element features superfluous ornamentation such as graphic carvings and inlaid turquoise, one can find that neither of the dual natures of weapons can completely rule out the other.

        In order to reveal the role of bronze weapons in social stratification, Chapter Two reconstructs the burial contexts of excavated specimens. With emphasis on their material contents and spatial distribution, the burials include such well-known sites as the pre-Shang Yanshi Erlitou (Henan), the Shang cemeteries at Panlongcheng in Wuhan (Hubei), Xin’gan Dayangzhou in Jiangxi; also Western Zhou cemeteries at Zhangjiapo near Xi’an city (Shaanxi), Mapo and Beiyao in Luoyang, to name only a few. Although all of these burials’ occupants were aristocrats, some were even kingly elites, but the variety of combinations of bronze weapons with other excavated objects within burial space has yet to be intensely studied. Take the burials of Panlongcheng (M1, M2, M11) as an example, although scattered in separated places, bronze ritual vessels and weapons were mostly found outside the coffin on the second tier of the tombs, thus suggesting that they share the intended value for the deceased. In general, when compared with the widespread combination of dagger-axes and spears, the rare combination of axes and knives from late Shang tombs indicates the occupants’ higher ranking (p. 146). On the other hand, bronze specimens’ variations in type, quantity and combination also indicate chronological, cultural, and regional differences.

        Under the influence of White’s cultural neo-evolutionism, Binford tends to view material tools’ dynamic mechanics as a focal part of humans’ technological means in his treatment of social processes. Therefore, Binford’s technological-cultural orientation, as Xu rightly puts it, fails to recognize objects’ religious/ritual expression and cultural relativism (pp. 149-150). Building on his criticism regarding Binford’s defect, Xu’s three case studies presented in Chapter Three follow the perspective of cognitive and contextual archaeology [4]─two theoretical syntheses of New Archaeology readily available to his interpretation for bridging the material and symbolic aspects of archaeological finds. (1) With the focus on willow-leaf shaped swords, he shows the ways in which the roles that bronze weapons played in different cultural zones—signifier of cultural identity, valuable items, or prestigious goods—express diverse social values. (2) Inspired by Katheryn Linduff’s studies of gender in Chinese archeology, particularly the case of Fu Hao from late Shang Anyang, Xu points out that, except for those from the tombs at Tianma-Qucun, bronze weapons were also buried with female occupants, suggesting that weapons did not necessarily express masculinity in the Shang and Zhou cultures (pp. 160-161). (3) The Chinese archaeologist Guo Baojun 郭寶鈞 (1893-1971) has keenly proposed the “beaten tomb (毆墓 ou’mu)” hypothesis, according to the Rites of the Zhou (Zhouli), to explain why many bronze dagger-axes’ and halberds’ blades were found broken during his excavation of the Western Zhou cemetery at Xincun, located in Xunxian, Henan (p. 162). Based on Guo’s widely-acknowledged interpretation, Xu further argues that, compared with the late Shang period, the deliberate destruction of dagger-axes and halberds became more evident and widespread among Western Zhou burials, and probably thereby developed into a regular worship practice.

        Made with precious material that was strictly control by the ruling elites, jade weapons in early China, given their scarcity and ritual significance in burials, are taken up in a comparative study of contemporary bronze weapons in Chapter Four. Archeological data demonstrate that several types of stone or jade weapons dating to the late Neolithic period, such as the axe, dagger-axe and knife, predate the bronze counterparts and had an impact upon their early designs. Most distinctive are jade axes featured in ritual practices of the Liangzhu culture, developed in the Lower Yangzi region around 3,400-2,300 BCE. Jade weapons, particularly the dagger-axe, had gradually declined in quantity and size by the Eastern Zhou (ca. 770-255 BCE), along with their shifting role from the ritual emblem to ornament-oriented accessory (p. 205). The stylistic and symbolic interaction between jade and bronze weapons, as Xu suggests, constitutes a parallel development to understanding the diversity of social and ritual symbolism in the Chinese Bronze Age.

        Even without a concluding chapter, Xu has convincingly shown us that bronze weapons before the Eastern Zhou as a whole deserve being equally perceived and treated as ritual artifacts in their own right. By challenging the preoccupied dichotomy between ritual artifact and utilitarian instrument, this book also offers a close study of objects driven by a shared academic agenda in fields of Early China in particular and Chinese archaeology in general. Although why the Eastern Zhou has been excluded from his discussion remains to be specified, and a critical reader may raise questions of how and why the end of the Western Zhou, alongside political turmoil and ritual reform, marks a radical impact on bronze weapons, Xu is fully aware of the potential bias brought by archaeological evidence. Theoretically and practically, this book incorporates pioneering Western conceptual tools into Chinese scholarship and its local contextual analyses, thus making a welcomed attempt in the rising Chinese New Archaeology.

  Footnotes:

  [1] Anke Hein, “The Problems of Typology in Chinese Archeology,” Early China 2015.18, 3.

  [2] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” American Antiquity 28.2 (Oct., 1962): 217-225. White divides culture as a whole into three categories: technology, social system, and philosophies, see Leslie A. White, The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Society (New York: Grove Press; London: Evergreen Books Ltd, 1949): 392.

  [3] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeological Systematic and the Study of Cultural Process,” American Antiquity 31.2 (Oct. 1965): 203.

  [4] For theoretical developments and practices of these two archaeological syntheses within the wave of New Archaeology, see Ian Hodder and Hudson Scott, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), especially chapter 2 “Processual and system approach” and chapter 8 “Contextual archaeology”; Colin Renfrew and Chris Scarre eds., Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998); Colin Renfrew, “Towards A Cognitive Archaeology: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society,” in Ian Hodder ed., Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012): 124-145; Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London: Thames & Hudson, 2012): 381-420.

  展开

• 值得被看见的，新古典绘本的可能性

  作者：郑有仇 发布时间：2023-11-23 11:48:09

  实际上我在一天之内看了两版《牡丹亭》绘本。这是第二本。好在两版风格气韵立意手法都相距甚远，没有同质化的弊病，属于谁也不会取代谁谁也不能覆盖谁的并存状态，所以对市场和读者而言，是一件好事。

  但就艺术审美与标准而言，我个人更喜欢这一本。

  【陌生的经验】

  虽然过去我对《牡丹亭》这个古老的故事并无了解，但当我们决定去看一本由中国古典文本改编的绘本时，多少还是会怀有一些隐秘的预期，这预期中当然包含长久以来我们对古典文本图像化的某种既定方向的刻板印象。对创作而言，刻板印象是客观存在且可供利用的文化心理，本身谈不上好坏。有些创作者会遵从这种预期，在预期的框架之内发展自己发展作品——但满晨（抱歉，我老想管她叫尘螨）的《牡丹亭》显然是超出这种既定预期的，我不知道这是有预谋的设计还是作者已然形成的习惯路数——总之它确实引起了我的兴趣，说是兴奋也不为过。

  或许跟动画人的身份有所关联，满晨的处理颇具现代性（无怪有短评抱怨“太现代了”）——它的确很“现代”，对另有期许的读者难免形成冒犯，但并非缺陷。事实上这种不拘泥于某类古典范式的多元材质与跨媒介拼贴感的后现代气息着实带来了一场别开生面的体验。身为读者，翻开书扑面而来的间离与陌生感让我为之一振，兴趣大增。绝不会有昏昏欲睡之感。换句话讲，很提神。这是直接而诚实的体验，正如有人感到被冒犯一样。

  当然，回到创作角度，有新意不等同于妥帖。直观且主观的体验未必经得起推敲。所以在读完两版绘本后，我也在检省与自问——这样画，好吗？刨除个人喜好之后，从艺术本身出发，这样的处理是否合衬？创作当然需要敏锐的直觉与热情，但仅有这些，往往就意味着结果的不可控。

  牡丹亭的故事涉及生死，但死亡并非终点，死而复生就如在现实与梦境之间、诗与画之间、灵魂与肉身之间穿梭游走，轻盈而不滞重。这种如梦似幻的意境，以跨越今古、媒介、艺术风貌的呈现，形成相得益彰的内外呼应，增添了不少层次和意趣。故事虽有悲情的部分，但气质并不哀婉。满晨在气质、色彩、版式、手法上的活泼灵动，也暗合了杜丽娘个性中的好奇、浪漫和灵活洒脱的青春气。

  【不成熟的好处】

  我并不认为满晨的《牡丹亭》是成熟圆融的作品，但她和所有开始展露天分并尚存表达热情的年轻作者一样，有着未臻至圆满的、可爱可贵的饱满和冲动。那种生猛、鲜活、有话就要说、有歌就要唱、有音乐就要起舞以及还未学会如何老奸巨猾地藏住马脚和偶尔因缺乏控制力和分寸感导致的意外，让老油条们忍不住想要敲打的逆鳞和剪掉的枝蔓……是已然成熟的创作者会怀念甚至羡慕却难以重回的特质。

  在我看来，成熟与不成熟并不意味着绝对的好与坏。他们都有两面性。我们在不成熟的时候渴望成熟，但在成熟时又必将失去不成熟。我们几乎没有办法同时享有各自的好处。正如我所喜爱的漫画家克里斯韦尔，他在《吉米科瑞根》之后的作品眼见得都更加完美以及成熟了，但更加“完美”就等同于更好吗？我认为不成熟时期的好，恰恰是源于很多不得体。当我们变得得体之后，我们就会丧失不成熟时期的趣味和魅力。

  我相信满晨也会和一切有追求的创作者一样，向着成熟和圆满的路上不断前进和发展，这几乎是不可避免的。但在这条路上如果有人对你的不成熟流露恶意或不予认可（假使他说得全对），你要知道，它并不是可憎的。

  【绘本的叙事意识】

  满晨的绘本，有叙事意识。她不是一个只关注如何画得好看的人。对于节奏，她是敏感的自觉的。书中呈现的所有元素——从字到画到版式到色彩到形状，都包含在她的叙事意识之内。这或许是身为绘本作者应有的职业道德与艺术素养，但事实上并非国内绘本创作者普遍拥有的能力。

  她重视角色的表演、情绪的代入，但不局限于人物为载体。

  我喜欢杜丽娘死前为自己画像，长卷逐渐收束卷起，而伊人逝去那一幕。有缓慢静谧的哀伤。待画像由书生再度打开，逐渐舒展，仿佛希望萌芽、生长，灵魂在阴阳两界、在人面与画像之间遥相呼应起来，让人感动。

  我也喜欢63页杜丽娘特写中支楞起来的那撮头发。它看上去有些突兀，甚至滑稽。然而在哀伤的氛围之中，这样的一笔，带来更多层次。有种不自知的脆弱和令人怜惜的童稚。在我看来这是成熟作者即使作出也会修剪掉的枝蔓。不管有意无意，恰恰是这样的东西，让满晨的牡丹亭气质变得不那么虔诚。这种恰到好处的“马脚”，也于暗处悄然营造了小姐杜丽娘个性中存在的俏皮与鲜活。

  细心的读者可能会发现，杜丽娘还是个左撇子。据说这是一个将错就错的意外。我喜欢这个意外。也期待满晨在她的创作生涯给我们带来更多有趣的意外。

  祝她越来越好。

  展开

• 动辄服务费几十万，猎头这么暴利，为何孕育不出一家独角兽？

  作者：龙火火 发布时间：2021-09-22 15:35:09

  好几年前，不少互联网公司喊着要干掉房产中介，结果房产中介依然屹立不倒，想要规范房产中介行业，与房产中介共同成长的贝壳却异军突起，把自己做成了独角兽企业。

  

  成为一个行业的独角兽，似乎是不少企业的梦想，但梦想很美好，现实却很骨干，在猎头行业尤甚。

  多年前，拉勾网CEO马德龙曾说

  “拉勾要走猎头的路，让猎头无处可走”

  ，可最后拉勾网的归宿却是被收入前程无忧囊中。

  猎头行业在国内快速发展二十多年，却鲜有公司能够做大做强，长江商学院曾做过一项调查，向EMBA的学员们问过一个问题：各位知晓哪些有名的猎头公司？结果其中只有一人能说出一家，其余皆无人知晓。

  猎头行业的特性，似乎就注定了很难能像律师事务所和房产中介一样，孕育出一家超级规模的大公司。

  

  猎头业务成单主要是靠人，这当中对于猎头的个人能力要求很高，客户更认可猎头本人而非所在企业。

  企业的品牌和助力在其中的作用并不大，很容易让猎头觉得只要自己能力强，在哪里干都不差。

  猎头特殊原因之二，在于

  业务只有成单，客户才会付费，这就导致了客户往往一单多发

  ，让不少猎头接单后寻找候选人，跟客户沟通，忙活了半天，不如后面杀出个程咬金，找到合适候选人，快速成单了。

  

  一个年薪百万的高级职位，成单后猎头可以拿到20%，也就是20万的服务费，这也造成了一种错觉，猎头行业暴利可观，一个单子下面，是无数猎头盯着，竞争激烈。

  还有一个原因，在于猎头行业不像房产行业，房产中介的客户，可能大部分一辈子只买一套房，重复率低，但

  有中高端猎头业务需求的客户，往往是重复的

  ，有一就有二，有二就有三，如果一个高级猎头，手上能够掌握一些这样的中高端猎头客户，那么猎头只要能时时帮助客户解决猎头问题，业务自然也就不愁了。

  

  看似简单，但要成为一个优秀的猎头，并不是那么容易。

  知名猎头公司FMC创始人陈勇，在猎头行业混迹二十多年，对猎头行业的痛点和难点看得门清，也曾对于猎头行业的商业模式做过不少探索和尝试，有些被证实可行，有些还在实践之中。他希望能够有更多的猎头行业朋友一起参与讨论和思考，猎头行业如何能够找到一种成熟的模式，于是写下这本《猎头之道》。

  

  这本书从猎头行业的解析、猎头的精进、猎头公司如何管理、猎头业务模式等诸方面多维度进行创新式探索，可以给猎头及需要猎头服务的职场人士不少经验借鉴。

  陈勇发现，工龄长资历浅是不少猎头的通病，即便是工作了十年，其实也就是把从业2～3年的经验重复几遍，没有长足的进步，自然也就沦为平庸的猎头。

  猎头要高效率成单必须拥有三个能力，一是掌握客户需求动态变化的能力，二是掌握候选人能力及需求动态变化的能力，三是在合适时机匹配客户与候选人动态需求的能力。

  如果猎头能掌握这三项能力，将会在猎头行业无往而不利。

  但事实上，很少有猎头能够做到这种程度，即使达到这个标准，能抓住时机，在客户和候选人都在动态变化时候及时匹配上的，不少时候也得靠运气，因为这种时机很有可能转瞬即逝，突发的任何一项外部事件，可能都会更改客户或候选人的需求，煮熟的鸭子很可能就飞了。

  

  猎头公司最大的问题，是团队之中存在排他性，友军难容。即使猎头知道他的竞争对手99%在外部公司，如果有1%的公司内部猎头竞争同一个单子，那么团队内部的矛盾就会变得难以调和。

  比如在一家猎头公司，一位猎头顾问A发现公司系统里，有一位候选人符合客户的需求，在公司大群里询问是否有人认识这位候选人，结果却无人回应。

  A决定自己去面试候选人，结果包含往返时间一共花了5个小时，发现虽然候选人符合客户要求，但是他对客户公司的职位却不感兴趣，相当于这5个小时，白白浪费掉了。

  其实公司里的猎头顾问B对于这位候选人简历信息的深度数据十分了解，倘若A了解相关信息，直接来找B，那么只用花5分钟的时间，便知道了所有情况。

  这种就叫精准协同。

  

  那么如何能够做到高效精准的协同呢？

  答案是建立用户经验深度数据系统，除了简历上的客观信息之外，系统还需要收集候选人信息、客户信息、技能、职能、行业、地域、级别等信息，这样才能精准匹配需求。

  在FMC公司，有着一个中后台支持系统，能起到像基石一样承重、连接和稳定的作用。

  中后台系统里的支持人员，一定要是有实际业务经验的人，虽然这些支持人员并不亲自参与业务，却包揽了像招聘、人事运营、培训发展、财务、IT、市场营销、数据运营等等工作，是公司不可缺少的支柱。

  

  为了提高效率，FMC公司做了两件事，

  一是分散下沉，二是整体打通。

  分散下沉，就是把中后台人员下沉到各个业务单位，让他们对业务团队有着更深入的了解，对业务人员的代入感更强。

  而整体打通，则是物理距离上虽然分散，但管理上做到整体打通，内部进行横向，即面向当地，以及纵向，即面向职能的分工协作，则可以起到发挥连接和协同各个业务单元的作用。

  猎头行业，想要发展成熟，还有很长的路要走。在这过程之中，不断进行创新式的尝试和探索，则是必经之路，也是《猎头之道》这本书给我们的启迪意义

  展开

• 读<<宋应星和《天工开物》>>有感..

  作者：黑格尔的诡辩 发布时间：2009-10-15 23:59:27

  "乾隆设四库馆修《四库全书》时，发现宋应星的哥哥宋应升的《方玉堂全集》、宋应星友人陈弘绪等人的一些著作有反清思想，因此《四库全书》没有收入宋应星的《天工开物》。乾隆以后，也再没有人刊刻此书，因此《天工开物》在清代没有进一步流通。"

  【重政轻工的思想也是奠定了清朝从乾隆开始的衰退的重要原因吧】.

  而日本在公元1771 年，书商柏原屋佐兵卫发行了《天工开物》在日本的第一个翻刻本，从此，《天工开物》成为日本江户时代（1608—1868）各界广为重视的读物，刺激了18 世纪时日本哲学界和经济界，兴起了“开物之学”。

  公元1952 年，日本京都大学的学者们将《天工开物》全文译成现代日本语，并加译注、校注及标点，至今畅销。

  1830 年，法国著名汉学教授儒莲（1797—1873）首次把《天工开物·丹

  青》部分译成法文，并称译自中文并摘自名为<天工开物>的"技术百科全书".

  1832 年，儒莲的法文译本又转译为英文，刊发于《孟加拉亚洲文会报》卷一中。

  1847 年，儒莲的另一篇法文译文《铜合金·白铜·锣钲》（译自《天工开物·五金》章），在译成英文后又被译成德文刊于德国《应用化学杂志》。

  英国著名生物学家达尔文（1809—1882）在读了儒莲翻译的《天工开物》中论桑蚕部分的译本后，把它称之为“权威著作”。

  英国科学史家李约瑟博士把《天工开物》称为“中国的阿格里科拉”和“中国的狄德罗....

  .............

  ...........

  ........

  "一本外国人争相阅读学习的书籍,在自己的国家却被排挤和轻视.最后反而跑到外国去学习所谓的先进技术,而看不见自己宝贝".

  聊想今日,中国的崇洋媚外的思想一点未改,无数有能力有创造力的民间科技人才被埋没,反而花高薪请些被国外踢出来三教九流,技术垄断,技术禁令比比皆是.

  试想,你用的是别人技术,在竞争上谁更具主导权?你拥有的只是技术,而别人拥有的是技术思想.技术可以夺走,思想却永远是自己的.

  当然这又要撤到另外一个需要解决的问题上了.

  说实话,很佩服中国军方,武器要自己生产,航母要自己造的思想.虽然我仍然认为现在造航母是没必要的.并且中国武器工业发展缓慢的根本原因也是上面所说.

  以上拿来跟禁锢中的工科同胞共缅,只知道"外国品牌中国制造"的闲杂人等禁止跟贴,咱们暂时不是一个世界的.

  展开