Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
召集志愿者，共同绘制一张中国选区图
别问我做这个事情的目的，纯粹好玩，研究行政地图来着。
有没有报酬？没有报酬
需要做的事情：打电话给你所在居住地的人大选举办公室，问清楚你所在基层选区的范围，并在google地图上用我们事先约定好的颜色标注出来。
下图为举例说明：
希望哪位做平面设计的朋友帮我一个提供配色方案，用于标示各省的颜色
如何开始？
希望加入的朋友请在我的profile页面上给我send message，告诉我你所在的省，我会把你的邮件设为collaborator，并告诉你需要使用的颜色。
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
What will Hu Jintao achieve in his US visit, except for placing billions of dollar order?
出席白宫国宴的中方代表除了胡以外21人，分别为：
国家创新与发展战略研究会 1人
国务委员 1人
商务部 2人
政协 1人
外交部 4人
科技部 1人
财政部 2人
发改委 2人
中共中央政策研究室主任 1人
交通部 1人
中共中央办公厅主任 1人
国务院副总理 1人
胡总办公室主任 1人
驻美大使 1人
海关总署 1人
发现美最高法院大法官Stephen Breyer 在受邀名单，不知道他要找谁谈谈。
Monday, November 29, 2010
媒体、维基解密和政府
刚才看了看纽约时报和卫报在发表绝密外交文件时作的读者说明，有点意思。一感叹政府和媒体的制衡，二感叹媒体的法律意识，有些章节感觉像是出自律师之手。
其他法、德、西三家的谁来补充补充吧
这篇是纽约时报的
A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents 其中提到了事情的处理经过
“ After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.”
说他们在发表前先把将要发表的内容发给了白宫的相关官员，请他们就他们认为任何可能有损美国国家利益的内容的发表提出不同意见。相关官员在看过之后，另外提出了一些编辑要求，同时也对发表绝密文件一事进行了谴责。报方采纳了一些编辑要求，但没有全部采纳。报方还向其他媒体转达了政府所关心的问题，另外按照国务部的建议，还转达给了WikiLeaks。纽约时报计划在网站上公布约100份文件-有些经编辑，有些全文刊载。
Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest.
编辑们会努力平衡公众获得信息的权利与潜在的对国家利益危害。
On the other hand, we are less likely to censor candid remarks simply because they might cause a diplomatic controversy or embarrass officials.
对于一些可能会招致外交风波或者让官员蒙羞的直率言辞，我们不会进行审查。
Of course, most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides. WikiLeaks has shared the entire archive of secret cables with at least four European publications, has promised country-specific documents to many other news outlets, and has said it plans to ultimately post its trove online. For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.
大意是：就算我们不发表别人也会陆续发表的。纽约时报要是不发表那就是当这类信息被公诸于众时，拒绝为自己的读者做深入的报道及分析。
But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.
更重要的理由是，这些文件真实反映了政府是如何做重大决策的，这些决策事关这个国家在人力和金钱上的巨大投入。文件还透露了一些美国盟友在接受美国资助时的真正动机或暴露出来的表里不一。在政府的反对下发表这些内容是项很艰巨的任务，但认为认为美国人民没有权利知道以他们之名所行的事情是很自以为是的。
这篇是卫报的
大致意思差不多，摘录几句有意思的.
There are some cables the Guardian will not be releasing or reporting owing to the nature of sourcing or subject matter. Our domestic libel laws impose a special burden on British publishers.
鉴于信息来源的性质以及话题的性质，有些文件卫报不会发表或做报道。英国的诽谤法对于英国媒体的要求甚为苛刻。
All the publications involved have given early warning to the US government of our intention to publish. Government officials, who are aware of the general subjects we intend to cover, have not disputed the authenticity of the overall material. They have flagged up some specific, and some general, concerns.
事先也给过美国政府预警。美国政府官员清楚我们所要发表的话题，他们并没有质疑所报道材料的真实性。他们提出了些一些具体的，以及一些笼统的要求。
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Silvio Berlusconi was "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader"
在维基解密的文件中美国驻罗马大使对于贝鲁斯科尼的描述是 feckless, vain, and ineffective，大家觉得这个中文该如何翻译？我查了一下字典，貌似三个字是同义词，她是为了强调老贝是个无用的领导，还是三个词各有所指？或者应该翻译成为 "毫无责任心、空虚、无用" ？
Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi was "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader", according to Elizabeth Dibble, US charge d'affaires in Rome. Another report from Rome recorded the view that he was a "physically and politically weak" leader whose "frequent late nights and penchant for partying hard mean he does not get sufficient rest"
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A freedom and democracy we can buy
I walked around the charred building this afternoon to fulfill a citizen's obligation-show my concern and support.
Police presence, if not count in plain clothes, is less than I expected. How can things go out of control while there is no opposition force and the dictators are equipped with high precision dynamos? Yes they can control the emotion of a billion people, but they cannot control the sparkle from a welder, and a cumbersome bureaucracy.
Ten minutes walk from the site, there are vendors of chrysanthemum flowers, the nearer, the more of them. The street is still covered with flowers, each bundle of flower a non-confidence vote to a government, I perceive.
I will thank all the brave and sometime brazen vendors who made this democracy market, where people can buy a vote. And I will also praise the highly professional Shanghai policemen who kept this market in order. And I also hope on Dec 10th there will be a market of yellow ribbon for another great cause.
Isn't it the case that we used to spend too little on justice and democracy? Or the resources we should have used on a righteous society has been robbed by the Party thugs?
But Shanghai can afford the democracy, even though some lawyers and judges are brave, some brazen, but we need this bigger democracy market.
Can we buy out the Party thugs or they buy us out?
Unfortunately as many displacement cases showed, if we are to be buyed out, most probably we are burn out.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Re:
说得太好了，我可以发到我的buzz上吗？
2010/11/18 <jack.j××××@×××××.com>
他们的子女早就都在国外了,中国只是他们搜刮钱财的地方.
所以,当权的人中应该没几个想让中国好了,能维稳一天,就可
多捞一天.
以前,出一些事情,还想遮一下,一旦报导出来,总会处理一些人,
现在,脸皮都厚了,尽管报道,一旦有问责,往往语出惊人,所以
雷人语言越来越多.而且,现在他们心态好了,出什么坏事都
可变成好事.现在新闻讲的都是善后,反正一片和谐.
我相信我们能看到它崩的那一天.但对于我们来说,要准备好
不能被它一起拖向死亡.
2010-11-18 10:42
是的，但是现在土共的情况是极端集权，连上海这种有钱人（照道理有钱就该有民权）的地方也根本喘不过气来。
但土共只是貌似强大，其实浑身的穴道已经都被点到了，说不定哪一天就灰飞烟灭，大混乱对我们更为不利。
2010/11/18 <jack.×××××@××××.com>
不是53人,那些失踪的人凶多吉少.
死那么多人,抓几个包工头顶罪,下次一定还会死人.
起码换一个市长,不管他有没有责任都应该下台.至少下任市长会对消防重视些.
要是换总理,那中国就有希望了.
我觉得按照人权收入比来算的话，上海人应该是最土的人，死了53个人，都没人承担责任。
Yaozhou Zhang <> 201-11-18 10:33
Re:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)