戒是应该做的必须做，不该做的不得做；自利利他的事情应该做，让自己产生困扰，让他们受到伤害的事不该做。

定是心不受环境的刺激诱惑而动摇，不受内外困扰所影响，随时随处能使自己的心处于安乐、安适、安稳的状态，不仅自安，也能安人，使得生活在同一个环境中的人都能得到同样的安定。

慧是既能提得起也能放得下，提得起责任，放得下权利，提得起是帮助他人，放得下是心无牵挂。放下以后，心中清清朗朗，提起之时，心中毫不拖累

今天应该可以结束我万恶的first year report的初稿了，心情很好。发现自己其实还是可以通宵的，昨天和前天都因为意志不够坚定，4，5点就闪回家睡觉，睡到11点才来，等于没有通。今天倒是坚持到底了，3点到5点趴桌上小睡了一会吧。

也不知道什么时候染上的procrastination的习惯，其实原本给自己的deadline是上周末，一下子拖了四天，仔细想想除了procrastination，过于的自信也是一部分原因，不管怎样现在报告要写完了，对自己的研究也有了一个新的认识，对自己也有了新的认识。

温故而知新，普通的五个字却能道出很多简单却被大部分人遗忘的真理。不停的审视过去一年的工作，不停的发现问题并解决问题，觉得自己对于research有太多的不良习惯，喜欢理所当然，一些结果不去刨根问底，自然达不到真正的理解。这些都是来年需要痛下决心改正的地方。

从窗户看出去，早上的剑桥特美，阳光洒在对面的楼上，身体告诉我清新的空气在身边流动，但是窗外的大树却没有一片树叶在动。一切都是那么的静谧，零星的点缀着鸟儿的叽喳。等忙过了这阵，调整好生活习性，开始早起吧。

刚才有点犯困，跑到tea room给自己泡杯茶，然后随手拿起了the epoch times看。

看着看着，心理泛着迷糊，为什么这个报纸报道这么多批判中国人权主义的东西啊？看得我心都寒了。。。

这时师兄进来了，我便问他道你知道最近国内人权又出了很多事情么？然后两个人bla bla了一阵。顿时师兄瞅了一眼我手上的报纸，问道，你怎么捧着大纪元（FL 功办的报纸！）在看？

“啊？大纪元？什么？”我顿时惊起。翻过正面一看果然在角落里面写着这三个小字。我之前看到epoch times一点都没有往那个方向想。看这报纸做的挺nb的，质量都赶上Times了，这一不小心被FL人士骗了！

遂把报纸扔到了垃圾箱内~

本文谈一点搞科研的心得。我认为包括很多真正的科学工作者在内，人们对“怎样搞科研”这个问题存在不少错误的认识。
　　
　　这种错误的认识主要有两个来源。有的人本身不直接搞科研，但是专门研究别人怎么搞科研，比如那些研究科学史或者科学哲学的人。就如同历史学家研究政治人物一样，他们总结起科学进步的方法论来一套一套的，但是完全不实用。
　　
　　更好的办法显然是听在科研第一线工作的人谈怎么搞科研。但个人的经验往往是随机分布的。比如有人可能会强调多看文献，另有人则可能会强调少看文献。至于大师们的看法，则往往追求“写意”，让人听完之后或者感到特别神，或者感到特别平常，总之是不得要领。
　　
　　你要想知道怎么搞科研，最好的办法就是自己去搞科研。尽管如此，我还是想谈一点自己的科研体会。
　　
　　当我们说“搞科研”的时候，我们说的是干什么？
　　
　　我认为真正的搞科研活动只有一个，那就是对未知的事实的 -刺探-。
　　
　　学习理论不是搞科研。
　　看最新的论文不是搞科研。
　　清洗试管瓶不是搞科研。
　　用五个小时把实验仪器搭好，再用10个小时把它们调好，不是搞科研。
　　收集数据不是搞科研。
　　把数据变成图表，不是搞科研。
　　搞科研很像 debug，但 debug 不是搞科研。
　　听报告不是搞科研。
　　作报告不是搞科研。
　　写论文不是搞科研。
　　
　 　以上这些事情是每个科学工作者每天可能80%以上的时间在做的事情，但这些事情都不是搞科研。以前我曾经听说普林斯顿某个华人教授的生物实验室，这个教 授定下的规矩是，看文献和写论文这些事情不准在工作时间在实验室做，要做回家去做。这个规矩可能很苛刻，但是它很有道理，因为那些活动不是科研活动。
　　
　　搞科研的本质是为了探索未知世界。我们不知道这个东西是怎么回事，而且别人也都不知道。我们要做的就是“问”它 - 拿它做各种实验。我认为对这个动作的描写，最恰当的词是“刺探”。我们有时候需要旁敲侧击，有时候要暴力破解，很有技巧。
　　
　　这个动作的细节大概是这样的：我们先产生一个想法，或者说一个假说，然后用各种方法去验证这个想法和假说。如果验证发现这个想法是错误的，我们就再试验下一个想法。
　　
　 　很多外行喜欢把这里说的“想法”给神秘化，称之为“灵感”。好像“想法”是如此的稀有和神圣，是上天赐予的一般。其实一个真正的科学家每天都有无数的想 法，在你没有验证之前这些想法看上去同等的宝贵，或者说同等的廉价。只有在你证明成立之后，这个想法才是真正有价值的。
　　
　　“想法” - “验证”，这个动作才叫搞科研。其他所有的活动，都是为这个动作服务的。
　　
　 　假设有一个研究生，他工作非常努力。老板交给他的任务，他每次都能完美的完成，然后向老板汇报，去领取下一个任务。他把老板称为“导师”，因为每次都是 老板告诉他做什么和怎么做，他的任务是完成。除此之外，他还发挥主观能动性，业余时间看了大量的本专业文献。你不管问他什么，他都能说出一个123来。请 问这样兢兢业业的研究生是在搞科研么？其实是他老板在搞科研。
　　
　　我看到很多人谈科研心得，谈的都是那些怎么查文献之类的“科研辅助动作”，真正的科研动作却很少有人谈。
　　
　　我最近看报道金一南，他特别推崇克劳塞维茨的《战争论》中的一句话，说好的战士“能够在黑暗中发现微光”，而更好的战士则“敢于跟随这线微光前进”。我认为这段话用于描写搞科研是再恰当不过。
　　
　　阿西莫夫有一段类似的话，也很值得借鉴：
　 　The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not “Eureka!,” but “That’s funny . . .” —isaac asimov
　　
　　“尤里卡”是个很著名的关于灵感的典故。说阿基米德为了称皇冠的重量，进浴池的时候灵感来了，于是大叫一声“尤里卡 ”。这个典故是个神话传说。搞科研不是靠这种灵感搞的。真实情况是一个科学家的“感”很多，而且乍看上去谁也不知道“灵”不“灵”。阿西莫夫说，真正有价 值的东西是你突然发现这件事有点儿意思，或者说这件事情有点儿不对。
　　
　　所以说所谓“灵感”，其实一点都不神秘。不用著名科学家，就是一般的科学工作者，也都是每天有好多想法。
　　
　　科研人员的一个基本素质是善于提问，而且是对自己的提问。这个素质比善于回答问题还重要。但提问是一个需要在一个专业内刻苦修炼才能拥有的本事。
　　
　　如果一个科研人员发现自己没想法了，他就要去找别人要想法。他在各种学术会议上想方设法地寻找想法。他向牛人和导师寻找想法。他向同事甚至是自己的学生寻找想法。科学家都特别喜欢讨论，因为讨论促进想法的迸发。
　　
　　但更多的情况是他会发现自己的想法实在太多没有办法一一验证，这个时候他就开始带研究生了。
　　
　　我自己每天真正用于这种“刺探”的时间所占的比例很小，大部分时间都是外围的辅助工作。但只有刺探行为才是真正的工作进展。如果没有刺探，其他所有的工作都算不上进展，也可以说都没有价值。
　　
　 　这种刺探行为是最刺激的。头天下班之前在计算机上提交一个任务，第二天早上上班的路上用手机收电子邮件说任务已经运行完毕。这个时候我知道昨天问题的答 案已经出来了，它就静静的躺在某个超级计算机上，等着我去把它揭晓。在我登录之前不但我不知道这个答案，所有人都不知道，但是它就在那里！
　　
　　这就是搞科研。

最近在看《我的青春谁做主》

觉得自己部分有点像一个人——小样
一开始总是一副只要努力什么都可以解决
以前确实很努力，但是现在也没有多努力的样子
但是还是这么相信着
光是活在这样一个fantasy里面，自信or自负？

尝试着把所有的事情都做到完美
就自己这么相信着，别人不一定吧
所以，有时候不知不觉的伤到一些人——一些觉得对自己很重要的人
小样就是这样后来闯了大祸，我也是这样越来越觉得力所不能及
不过话说低谷的地方才能最让人成长吧
我期待自己的成长，赶快结束学联的最后一个担子，好好把握难得的时光

有时候特别希望生活忒简单
拿着网球拍，拍着篮球就好像掌控了一切
眼睛盯着飞过来的网球，大力打出一个大角度，然后网前截击
或者，迅速启动，凭着技术和速度生吃上篮得分
一分一分拿下来多么简单

可是生活就是这么充满的不确定性，从而给人无数的惊喜和伤悲
路上骑车或走路，无聊的时候，会闭上眼睛，心理默数数
一、二、三、四、五，然后眼睛开始颤抖，挣扎着想要睁开
因为开始害怕，害怕撞人，撞墙，掉沟里面。。。
但是还是不停的尝试，和不确定性斗争
并且数到五之后，恐惧带来的心跳的加速给我带来一种变态的愉悦
可惜不管怎么锻炼，每次向前看去，总只能估计到几秒钟以内的情况
我想这就是为什么胳膊肘拗不过大腿吧

学着放松自己，深呼吸，车到山前必有路
不知道能做到多好，但是也算是一个新的尝试
那么就这么办吧
life is simple, you breathe in and then breathe out

最近写first year report，人都写木了，喘口气，sigh...

继n久没有开锅之后，上个星期后期终于崛起，并于这个周末达到高点，周六鸡汤，周日鱼汤。天天油水大大的，并且中西结合，也会给自己煎个牛排配着面包加火腿还有ketchup。
有吃有喝的生活真好，还有1个半月多就可以回去胡吃海喝了。

法语上了好几节课了，开始觉得难度越来越大，真是老了，语言学不动了，还好实验室有个法国哥们，有空可以烦烦人家，给自己学个愿望——坚持，坚持。

first year report也终于进入了前期准备阶段，依旧还是没有researcher的sense，对于后面的方向还是很迷茫，我也开始看出老板也在为我发愁，是的，给我安排任务我能完成，但是我始终没有能够做到自己给自己发掘任务——所谓independent research。到底少了哪根筋呢？大牛们给我指点指点。

不过确实觉得烦的时候好好休息休息对接着工作有帮助，为着方向苦闷了好几个星期，于是乎好几个星期也没有做什么太多事情，放松的心态，到了周末，自己开始重拾在实验室打发周末的习惯，觉得内心很peaceful，兴许要往好的方向发展了吧，期待了。

需要做的事情很多，需要仔细思考的事情更多，我果然是个闲不下来的人呢。

4四个多小时下来，眼睛都酸了，腰板也累了，由于一直双手合十，出了很多汗，从背到头皮酥麻的感觉依然还在。。。

我想没有谁比我更期待andy和roger在温网决赛会师了，andy是我刚开始打球的“旧爱”，roger是我现在打球的“新欢”。可能人本性中都有同情弱者的一面，不知不觉的比赛开始之前，我给自己许下的愿望却是希望andy可以赢——对旧爱的感情赢过了新欢。不过说是同情弱者，通过今天的比赛似乎觉得是一个大不敬，andy今天就想之前的好几次比赛一样，拿出了自己的best tennis，冷静，勇敢并且凶狠。roger也是一样，优雅，犀利还有冷酷。

5：7，7：6 ，7：6，3：6，14：16的比分，roger艰难的胜出，比赛的激烈程度让我几乎窒息。其实andy今天是很有机会拿到冠军，结束至03美网冠军以来的大满贯冠军荒，可惜的是第二个set抢七的时候没有把握即将到手的胜利却将其拱手送出。赛后采访的时候，roger安慰andy说你看我去年也是一样被nadal打败了，今年我又回来拿到了冠军，明年你也可以come back的，然后andy蛮孩子气的，眼里含着泪水的戏谑道你都拿了5个冠军了，这是第六个了。此时此刻是个人都能感受到andy心中的遗憾和委屈。roger面前他似乎总是一个千年老二，有的时候老二都算不上，他有过暴躁气馁的时候，但是站上这个战场的他，从他的眼神里面我们可以看出他是那么的determined，能够做到77局的比赛中，自己的发球局只让天王roger破发一次，这是何等的精神力量。

也不知道为什么，看了andy和Hewitt的比赛精华以及和murray的第一、二个set之后，我就特别相信这场决赛一定会是一个大战5盘的epic game。但是也没能预料到会epic成这样！估计一开始很多人跟我持不一样的观点吧。

anyway，看了今年的温网，学到了很多，努力要求自己有像andy、roger一样的strong mind，用心做好每件事情。希望roger能够在书写历史的行程上越走越远，也希望andy能够保持现有的状态，给我们更多的惊奇！

虽然之前已经知道roddick赢了murray，但是看最后的一个抢七的时候还是几乎激动得热泪盈眶。

记得刚开始打网球的时候，roddick是偶像，因为他总是显得那么的桀骜不驯，一副非常酷酷的样子，我想那个时侯“酷酷的样子”就是我对网球的理解吧。那个时候真是03年，roddick的大年，在家赢了us open，年终rank第一。但是那个时候也正是federer冉冉升起的时候，既生瑜何生亮，roddick面对federer总是提不起他一贯的傲气，仿佛一个被拔掉了利齿的老虎，慢慢的在各大赛事的半决赛中也看不到他的身影，我也开始觉得失望，然后把天王当做的偶像。

可是今年，真的感觉，曾经的那支美国雄鹰，在历经的艰辛和磨难之后要回来了。不再没有脾气般的在大赛时中被非种子选手踩，碰到抢手也能顶住压力，打出自己最好的网球。如今他在强大的压力下，凭着自己的毅力走到了半决赛并顶住观众和对手的压力拿下比赛，我相信在星期天他面对federer的时候，能够再给我们上演一场经典对决！

bbc网上贴出的roddick赛后采访有一幕让我十分感动，记者采访完他，他背着球包上楼的时候，上到一半就蹲在地上抱着头留下幸福激动的泪水。想必他真是一步一步的在向自己的梦想迈进，作为男子汗，最幸福的莫过于此了。

加油andy，加油roger，你们俩谁赢了都好，给大家展示出你们最好的网球吧。

“打出自己最好的网球”也将成为我的目标！可惜最近打球过多，有点网球肘了。疼！

昨天demo过我们的robot以后，深刻的再一次体味到了location, location, location！背后的含义。就像所有的competitive market一样，工程系open day的demostration里面各家都可以算是一个独立的竞争单元。更我们同样demo idp robot的就有三家，我们去的晚一点，只能pick剩下的最靠里面的table。心想着，我们的robot跟另外两个比起来有特色的多，应该会受到大家的格外关注，但其实这样的事情昨天下午也就发生了一次。（当另外两桌一开始他们还没有调试好，表演的时候经出错的时候，我们的robot同时也在表演，然后表现优异~~就把人家门口的人吸引过来了，然后给将来可能要来系里面读工程系的a level同学们解释我们的project并做简单答疑）。更多的情况下就是人家走到前面的table然后就开始打听，打听完了看人家的表演，然后就撤了，不管我们多么desperate的同时和对手展示，显示我们的优势。。。其实笨想着也明白，当有人在给crowd解说的时候，处于礼貌大家都不会离开，即便是留意到我们“产品”的优越性。因为这毕竟不是一个买卖筛选过程，大多数crowd想要只是project的介绍和一趟run down，除非特别感兴趣的学生想了解不同design的区别，which对于这群“小朋友”来说几率很小，会过来看看问问。此时此刻location的重要性更是不言而喻。所以一个下午从2点到5点，真的就非常无聊的一分钟一分钟的浪费着。

最近好累

location is the key啊！

某日，一友人跟我说了这样一句让我觉得十分有意思的话——“我发觉讲英文的时候跟讲中文的时候，能够说出来的话非常不一样。尤其是L词的使用，比如，和同学见面的时候赞美男生、女生的衣着打扮，或者是用英文写日志的时候用i love you来表达对父母的爱都是很容易而且也很自然能够说出来的话语，然而讲中文的时候，说出这些话的时候一定是红着脸，憋着气，哆哆嗦嗦……”

仔细想想自己有时候何尝也不是这样呢？跟英国同学出去玩的时候时常会说"do you get a new hair cut? I love it", "I love your dress", 跟好友聊天（中国人）如果用英文的时候也能说出赞美之词及L词（没有八卦不要多想）...。于是乎我开始诧异，两种不同的语言，英文更愿意表达出自己的情感，而中文却更吝惜溢美之词，然自己的情感含蓄起来，是因为语言本生的特性，还是植根于背后文化的差异？抑或是我们在语言之间转换的时候，潜意识的自己所处的文化大背景也有了转换？

如果仅归咎于语言上的差异，显然这个理由非常的乏力，虽然不同的语言在表达不同的场景时有各自的优势，但是我们总能找到一种方式能够让两种不同语言表达的内容几乎一致，那凭什么认为英文可以说出来的东西，中文却说不出来呢？接着思考如果仅是文化的缘由，虽然觉得这个有点道理，但是我依然觉得不能被完全说服。其实很明显的反例（朋友的话及我自己的感受）告诉我们，即便是在海外留学一年了的我们，经历了culture shock和culture blending，按理说文化上已经达到愿意表达上述感情的程度，但是还是只能用英文说出而不能用中文。这样看来能够说明问题的也只能是转换思维一说了，不知不觉中，从孔子开始变成为我们民族根性的“儒，中庸”都渗入了我们的语言，“告诫”我们一旦使用祖宗的语言的时候，也要拿出老祖宗的心态，对万事万物保持一个中庸的心态，除非特殊情况，切记吝惜溢美之词和滥恶之言，把自己的感情严严实实的包裹起来，一切都显得那么婉约。一旦我们说上他国的语言，某种程度上逃离了这个束缚，很有意思的事情也就发生了。语言、文化还真是一个有意思的东西啊

嗯，就想到这里吧。要工作了不能开小猜了。想观影变形金刚2的同学做好心理准备，很长而且情节乏善可陈，但是其实这种商业片也就是看场面了，mm很hot。

今早看小西的space说他8月份要订婚了，看到那里我觉得我都要choking了。。。太意外了，也很莫名的嫉妒呢。。。单身太久了？祝福小西啊！我要喝喜酒

以很多朋友都要毕业为由，给自己放了两个星期的假。没有像之前那样卖力的干活，兴许已经卖力不起来了。很难安下心来，潜意识里面对于各类的social活动感到厌倦。从前的大学生活能够过得那么的简单，非常知足的三点一线的拉着，来到剑桥之后发现俨然不知不觉的走上了一个新的生活方式。简单的生活中，多了一味很浓的配料——social。一个我心理喜欢安安静静一个人看看书，呼吸呼吸早晨的新鲜空气；一个我拉扯着整个身体扎入人群中，生怕错过了什么，生怕，生怕离开了群体。周三从温布尔顿回来，周四坐在实验室乖乖干了一天活，到了晚上却又因为一个想法计划着周末。anyway，一直都在求索一个问题，我到底想要什么，答案总是让我觉得自己很贪婪（其实我始终坚持我是一个更加喜欢简简单单的人）。浮躁兴许就是年轻的代价吧。

一切都来得那么的快，就在一瞬间，突然意识到——一年认识的一半的朋友，很多都还来不及见个面就要各奔东西了，而我还将留在这里。这一年认识了很多朋友，现在唯一的希望就是，虽然只是短短的做了一年的校友，但是这一年的感情以后能够得以好好的维系，就像之前说的，我喜欢简简单单，不想脑海里留下一堆名字，一堆熟悉的面庞，却要让他们慢慢消逝，然后再用新的替上。但是，也许这个将无法避免吧，至少从小学到初中，再到高中，再到大学，总有那么一些。。。

简述下一直都没有来得及说说的两周的生活吧。圣约翰学院五月舞会，圣约翰学院军乐演奏（见上一篇），afternoon punting on the river cam, 孔珺生日bbq，hannah's farewell picnic at darwin college, night punting in the river cam, 四人对拼龙舌兰shots到high，温布尔顿梦幻一日游，london观看play+n顿聚餐。。。（期间还包括跟老板和advisor开会，出了点问题，到现在还是忐忑不安）

兴许看到了都会觉得剑桥真的好混啊。是吧，兴许每个学校在leaving time的时候都是那么的混呢。抑或leaving time只是自我辩护？此时此刻脑袋里面翻滚得厉害，是意犹未尽？还是在reshuffle然后回到现实？我想我会在也必须要在两个星期内找到答案。

The strategic goal and direction of an overseas merger or acquisition should be clearly defined and that the long-term development of the enterprise and the enhancement of its competitiveness should be regarded as top considerations in making overseas M&As.
NOT BECAUSE IT'S CHEAP!

最近3+人说做梦梦到我了，有的还梦到我爹娘了。。。奇了怪了？难道我释放了什么诡异场？

上海要成为金融中心，现在天津也来搞个PE中心：http://tech.sina.com.cn/chuangye/hg/2009-06-15/10083178820.shtml。

中午还在跟张博讨论了会经济学该不该看，有没有用，确实最近的经济学的教材还有理论貌似都还是几十年前凯恩斯，亚当斯密他们理论的形变。有很多出名的经济学家，但是不知道谁会成为最后那个里程碑似的人物。

The Nobel laureate speaks on the crisis in the economy and in economics

THE London School of Economics was once so popular among young American scholars that British students used to joke that LSE stood for “Let’s See Europe”. A distinguished sightseer, Paul Krugman, returned to the LSE on June 8th to give the annual Lionel Robbins memorial lectures. Mr Krugman, who gave the Robbins lectures 21 years ago, tried to answer two big questions in the course of his three talks. Why did economists not foresee calamity? And how will the world economy climb out of recession?

The immediate cause of the crisis, “the mother of all global housing bubbles”, was spotted by many economists. That house prices had risen too far was obvious, even if policymakers had seemed less sure. The surprise was that the bursting of the bubble would be so damaging. “I had no idea it would end so badly,” said Mr Krugman.

One big blind spot was the financial system. The mistake was to think “a bank had to look like something Jimmy Stewart could run”, with rows of tellers taking deposits in a marble-fronted building. In fact a bank is anything that uses short-term borrowing to finance long-term assets that are hard to sell at a push. The shadow banking system was as important to the economy as the ordinary kind, but was far more vulnerable. Its collapse was the modern re-run of the bank failures of the 1930s, said Mr Krugman.

The excess borrowing that did for shadow banks threatens consumers, too. They are scrambling to save more as house prices plunge. Their mortgage debts loom larger because of vanishing inflation. This urge to shore up wealth is self-defeating in aggregate, as it curbs spending and incomes. It also renders conventional monetary policy impotent, as the interest rate that prevents too much saving is below zero.

That creates a role for fiscal policy. If zero interest rates cannot get consumers to spend, then governments must spend instead. That remedy comes from economics so the discipline is not without merit. The trouble is, “the analysis we’re using is decades old”. It dates back to Keynes, one of the few economists whose reputation has been burnished by the crisis. (Another is Hyman Minsky, whose main insight was that stability leads to too much debt, and then to collapse.) Most work in macroeconomics in the past 30 years has been useless at best and harmful at worst, said Mr Krugman.

As for the economy, the road back to health will be long and painful. The big lesson from past bubbles is that recovery is export-led, which is not helpful “unless we can find another planet to export to”. Otherwise, recovery will have to wait for savings to be rebuilt, and that will not happen quickly. Higher inflation than before the crisis might help, he said.

突然想到一个无聊的推理
绿坝一出来是不是会要导致Mac，还有水货机的需求量增加呢？
苹果应该拍手叫好啊

奥巴马真是会演讲啊，什么时候可以练就这种口才~还是英语~

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Following is a text of President Barack Obama's remarks, as prepared for delivery, at a Wisconsin town-hall meeting about health-care reform on Thursday.

Thank you. It is wonderful to be back here in Green Bay. I want to thank Southwest High School for hosting us today, and I want to thank Laura for sharing her story. It takes courage to do that, and it takes even more to battle a disease like cancer with such grace and determination.

Laura's story is incredibly moving. Sadly, it is not unique. Every day in this country, more and more Americans are forced to worry not simply about getting well, but whether they can afford to get well. Millions more wonder if they can afford the routine care necessary to stay well. Even for those who have health insurance, rising premiums are straining their budgets to the breaking point - premiums that have doubled over the last nine years, and have grown at a rate three times faster than wages. Desperately-needed procedures and treatments are put off because the price is too high. And all it takes is a single illness to wipe out a lifetime of savings.

Employers aren't faring any better. The cost of health care has helped leave big corporations like GM and Chrysler at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts. For small businesses, it's even worse. One month, they're forced to cut back on health care benefits. The next month, they have to drop coverage. The month after that, they have no choice but to start laying off workers.

For the government, the growing cost of Medicare and Medicaid is one of the biggest threats to our federal deficit. Bigger than Social Security. Bigger than all the investments we've made so far. So if you're worried about spending and you're worried about deficits, you need to be worried about the cost of health care.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend almost 50% more per person on health care than the next most costly nation. But here's the thing, Green Bay: we're not any healthier for it. We don't necessarily have better outcomes. Even within our own country, a lot of the places where we spend less on health care actually have higher quality than places where we spend more. Right here in Green Bay, you get more quality out of fewer health care dollars than many other communities across the country. And yet, across the country, spending on health care goes up and up and up - day after day, year after year.

I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage - they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan.

But in order to preserve what's best about our health care system, we have to fix what doesn't work. For we have reached a point where doing nothing about the cost of health care is no longer an option. The status quo is unsustainable. If we do not act and act soon to bring down costs, it will jeopardize everyone's health care. If we do not act, every American will feel the consequences. In higher premiums and lower take-home pay. In lost jobs and shuttered businesses. In a rising number of uninsured and a rising debt that our children and their children will be paying off for decades. If we do nothing, within a decade we will spending one out of every five dollars we earn on health care. In thirty years, it will be one out of every three. That is untenable, that is unacceptable, and I will not allow it as President of the United States.

Health care reform is not part of some wish list I drew up when I took office. It is central to our economic future - central to the long-term prosperity of this nation. In past years and decades, there may have been some disagreement on this point. But not anymore. Today, we have already built an unprecedented coalition of folks who are ready to reform our health care system: physicians and health insurers; businesses and workers; Democrats and Republicans. A few weeks ago, some of these groups committed to doing something that would've been unthinkable just a few years ago: they promised to work together to cut national health care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade. That will bring down costs, that will bring down premiums, and that's exactly the kind of cooperation we need.

The question now is, how do we finish the job? How do we permanently bring down costs and make quality, affordable health care available to every American?

My view is that reform should be guided by a simple principle: we fix what's broken and build on what works.

In some cases, there's broad agreement on the steps we should take. In the Recovery Act, we've already made investments in health IT and electronic medical records that will reduce medical errors, save lives, save money, and still ensure privacy. We also need to invest in prevention and wellness programs that help Americans live longer, healthier lives.

But the real cost savings will come from changing the incentives of a system that automatically equates expensive care with better care - from addressing flaws that increase profits without actually increasing the quality of care.

We have to ask why places like the Geisinger Health system in rural Pennsylvania, Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, or communities like Green Bay can offer high-quality care at costs well below average, but other places in America can't. We need to identify the best practices across the country, learn from the success, and replicate that success elsewhere. And we should change the warped incentives that reward doctors and hospitals based on how many tests or procedures they prescribe, even if those tests or procedures aren't necessary or result from medical mistakes. Doctors across this country did not get into the medical profession to be bean counters or paper pushers; to be lawyers or business executives. They became doctors to heal people. And that's what we must free them to do.

We must also provide Americans who can't afford health insurance with more affordable options. This is both a moral imperative and an economic imperative, because we know that when someone without health insurance is forced to get treatment at the ER, all of us end up paying for it.

So what we're working on is the creation of something called a Health Insurance Exchange - which would allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that's best for you. None of these plans would be able to deny coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, and all should include an affordable, basic benefit package. And if you can't afford one of the plans, we should provide assistance to make sure you can. I also strongly believe that one of the options in the Exchange should be a public insurance option - because if the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down.

Now, covering more Americans will obviously cost a good deal of money at a time where we don't have extra to spend. That's why I have already promised that reform will not add to our deficit over the next ten years. To make that happen, we have already identified hundreds of billions worth of savings in our budget - savings that will come from steps like reducing Medicare overpayments to insurance companies and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in both Medicare and Medicaid. I will be outlining hundreds of billions more in savings in the days to come. And I'll be honest - even with these savings, reform will require additional sources of revenue. That's why I've proposed that we scale back how much the highest-income Americans can deduct on their taxes back to the rate from the Reagan years - and use that money to help finance health care.

In all these reforms, our goal is simple: the highest-quality health care at the lowest-possible cost. We want to fix what's broken and build on what works. As Congress moves forward on health care legislation in the coming weeks, I understand there will be different ideas and disagreements on how to achieve this goal. I welcome those ideas, and I welcome that debate. But what I will not welcome is endless delay or a denial that reform needs to happen. When it comes to health care, this country cannot continue on its current path. I know there are some who believe that reform is too expensive, but I can assure you that doing nothing will cost us far more in the coming years. Our deficits will be higher. Our premiums will go up. Our wages will be lower, our jobs will be fewer, and our businesses will suffer.

So to those who criticize our efforts, I ask, "What is the alternative?" What else do we say to all those families who now spend more on health care than housing or food? What do we tell those businesses that are choosing between closing their doors and letting their workers go? What do we say to all those Americans like Laura, a woman who has worked all her life; whose family has done everything right; a brave and proud woman whose child's school recently took up a penny drive to help pay her medical bills? What do we tell them?

I believe we tell them that after decades of inaction, we have finally decided to fix what is broken about health care in America. We have decided that it's time to give every American quality health care at an affordable cost. We have decided that if we invest in reforms that will bring down costs now, we will eventually see our deficits come down in the long-run. And we have decided to change the system so that our doctors and health care providers are free to do what they trained and studied and worked so hard to do: make people well again. That's what we can do in this country; that's what we can do at this moment, and now I'd like to hear your thoughts and answer your questions about how we get it done. Thank you

According to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index daily poll of the US, taller people live better lives, at least on average. They evaluate their lives more highly, and they are more likely to report a range of positive emotions such as enjoyment and happiness. They are also less likely to report a range of negative experiences, like sadness, and physical pain, though they are more likely to experience stress and anger, and if they are women, to worry. These findings cannot be attributed to different demographic or ethnic characteristics of taller people, but are almost entirely explained by the positive association between height and both income and education, both of which are positively linked to better lives.

o~ it seems I get lucky

全都是空的——笔记本、latex、程序还有大脑。
我能填点什么呢？