我承认我写这篇文章的目的是想给Hiro的书作广告，但是不妨先听听我们的故事。

（一）

07年的11月，我进入Sun实习。没有经过正儿八经的面试，当然或许也不需要，因为做的是non-technical. 留给现在的记忆是每天熄灯后 就着昏暗的台灯往excel里输名片。

不得不承认就工作内容而言，这个实习多少是无趣的。但是好在这是我的第一份实习，所以everything is new. 第一次签offer，第一次填timesheet, 第一次领到工资。manager对我很好，工作很轻松。这样又过去了半年多。

然后遇到Hiro。

（二）

08。7月。北京。Dow实习。

当时我每天7点不到就起床从学校赶到王府井，6点从王府井回学校，盘算着能不能在食堂没菜之前赶去小西门吃家园。

然后他说，我陪你在五道口吃饭吧。

于是那个夏天就这样过去了。我也离开了Sun。

后来想想，也许这是我大学时代是最最开心和无忧无虑的时光。

Read more »

Lillian：无事时闲逛bbs 又看到了毕业前看到的这篇文章 什么都不说了 大爱~~~

发信人: meihuagao (梅花糕|夜月一帘幽梦，春风十里柔情), 信区: Collection
标  题: 旅行
发信站: 北大未名站 (2009年05月19日01:58:52 星期二), 站内信件

     对于旅行的人来说，永远不缺乏的，就是闯进一个个故事，那些异乡酒吧里的咆哮、泪流，午夜街头的拥抱、亲吻，仿佛陌生的时间陌生的地点和陌生的人们，突然捏成了可以背过身去倾吐的树洞。你是主角，你是配角，甚至只是一个看客，看世界的真相，看世界不是真相的真相，你说会记得会怀念，压在唇齿间的是依然要离开。离开的时候满载沉淀，离开的时候莫大的孤伤和悲哀，莫大的不堪、耻辱和自我摧残，哭一阵，笑一阵，别人傻傻看着你，你也看着你自己。

     这样的不确定是美丽，《摩托日记》里，他们出发前的总结是：我们不安分、勇敢，以及对这个大陆无休止的爱。我们有着无休止的爱、渴求和欲望，有着去尝试那些隐藏在黑暗中的魅惑的希望和绝望。

  Read more »

zz from baidu 知道 and china daily.

如果你要揭穿某人无伤大雅的谎言，你可以说他的话不过是“tongue in cheek”罢了。

《牛津英语词典》对短语“tongue in cheek”的解释是“幽默讽刺的；没必要当真的”。如果一件事被形容成“tongue in cheek”，那说明这件事听起来似乎很严重，实际上只是开玩笑，虽然玩笑中经常含有深意。

在英语文学作品中，有关“tongue in cheek”最著名的例子也许是乔纳森·斯威夫特1729年所作的散文《野人刍议》（A Modest Proposal），斯威夫特在文中着力描写了当时的爱尔兰人一贫如洗，他用“tongue in cheek”的滑稽说法，谈到一些爱尔兰人把自己的儿女卖给有钱人吃。

Tongue in cheek这个短语早在19世纪初就有了，关于它的起源众说纷纭。有一种说法将它的来历追溯到戏院，据说当时的演员为了避免在不适当的时候笑场，就把舌头伸进腮帮子里。另一种可能是：在18世纪，当人们做愚弄人的鬼脸时，通常会把舌头伸到两腮处，体现一种滑稽的效果。

————————–

过生日收到生日礼物一定很开心吧？可打开一看，却发现似曾相识，原来是别人把你送给他的生日礼物不知道为什么又送给了你，这时送你礼物的人一定尴尬极了。To have egg on one’s face 就是用来形容这种“尴尬”的情景的。你一定要问：用“脸上有蛋”表示“尴尬”，究竟有什么来历呢？这里有两种说法。

有语源学家推测，to have egg on one’s face的用法与从前的剧院演出有关。如果台上的演员演技太业余，观众们便会毫不留情的向他们扔东西，其中就包括变质的鸡蛋。被弄的“一脸是蛋”的演员当然会尴尬了。

另一种说法更有可能。想象一下，吃完早餐后，嘴边还残留着鸡蛋，就去上班了；还和老板或某个重要人物打了招呼，后来才发现自己脸上有鸡蛋，那个尴尬劲就别提了。因此，用to have egg on one’s face来形容“尴尬”再贴切不过了！

例如：If I make a slip during the performance, I’ll have egg all over my face（我表演时如果出错，那就尴尬了）。

(中国日报网站编译)

zz from NYTimes.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

zz from VOA.

很多人都知道chase这个词解释“追赶”。Cut to the chase这个习惯用语来自好莱坞电影。很多电影里最精彩的片断是跟踪追击的场面，不论是牛仔英雄纵马追杀恶棍、还是警方飞车追捕逃犯的镜头，都相当扣人心弦，被认作是影片的重要环节。导演说: cut to the chase，也就是把摄影镜头切换到追踪场面。换句话说是进行最重要的摄制工作。但是cut to the chase也被广泛应用在商界。让我们听一个例子来琢磨用在这样的场合这个习惯用语的意思是什么。

例句-4：Okey, I’ve heard enough about all the details of this deal. Now let’s cut to the chase - how much money are you going to want me to pay.

他说：好，有关这笔交易的各项细节我已经听得够多的了，现在让我们言归正传谈关键问题。告诉我你们打算要我付多少费用?

可见cut to the chase在这儿的意思是进入关键时刻或者决定性的一步