没有题目

      最近一直忙大作业，伤神又伤身，已经很久没更新博客了。
      ADAMS是个让人头疼的东西，还只能用盗版，一次失败就得重装一次系统。
      做了一个关于FN SCAR的模块化枪械分析，资料真尼玛难找，好不容易找到个靠谱的还要翻墙，忍受着满屏幕的蝌蚪文和想吐的感觉，大段的翻译往PPT上贴。
      最近利比亚一直闹事情，身边的政治控又开始高呼美国一边高唱人权一边践踏人权了，连事情是法国发起的都不明白叫嚣神马啊？！烦的要死。
      最后扯一下价值观的问题，虽然有点儿玄，但自己对弱肉强食这种观点占某些人思维的主流真的很闹心。就以自己的观点来看，弱肉强食这种大家族部落法则真的不适应现代社会了，否则两次世界大战后也不会有那么多欧洲艺术家、哲学家和政治家在做那些费力不讨好的事情。法国政府每年都会有一大笔钱财投入到人道主义事业上去，去宣扬普世价值观，我认为这种推行一种不至于人人自危的规则的做法，特别是在核弹可以如法炮制的年代里，还是十分必要的。至于那些每天看好莱坞、日本动漫甚至是小电影却高喊抵制文化侵略的，不理他们便是！
     细节？那还是留给以后的时间慢慢回顾吧，没人天生就是神棍。
     当今谁能成为新的霍布斯，我想这不是一个简单的答案吧。

兵器博物馆，上课，拖课两小时，各种历史小八卦

       今天专业课，老师终于从迪拜回南京了。
       老师貌似沧桑些许了，左脸颊还有一些伤疤，据猜测应该是当年炸膛的事故。老师也是性情中人，当年丢过枪，炸过膛，打过炮，也下过乡，现在嘛，就是一老油条了。
       第一次来兵器博物馆上课，确实感受到了那种压迫感与严谨。刚进后门要查学生证，办理手续的间隙就瞥到电梯口的一把AK枪族的班用机枪，就呆呆地被放在那里，独自逞了不少威风。
       爆一个小八卦：当年研制81式步枪成功，比较成功地解决了AK-47第一发子弹发射后后续弹丸的精度问题，还请卡拉什尼科夫来瞧瞧装装逼，结果人家卡拉什尼科夫瞥一眼后就直接吐槽：我操，你这么搞木有意义啊！！！你不知道二战里头流弹打死的人最多啊，五万发子弹猜敲死一个人啊，有木有！！！AK就流弹猛，被你们这么一乱搞还玩个屁啊！！当年的专家们，现在的同学们，集体黑线。
      进了教室，首先还要去旁边的仓库取样枪：56式、QBZ-95、M1加兰德……确实感受不同。今天老师兴致挺高，一不留神就拖了两个小时的课。
      上图：

 

12.7mm 通用机枪

巾帼女英雄

 传说中的扶贫产品（不细说了）

 我同学，单身觅女友

    

My Cliché Dose of Reality

So our reality is becoming more and more ridiculous.

Like my neighbor of childhood, a really fat kid, who was always eating other kids’ ice-cream in the claim of ensuring the avoidance of their obesity, our leaders (maybe poli-corporate leaders) are playing a stupid game. Rules are made, laws are being introduced and thoughts are restricted. Politicians as they are, performance is their name. I should say I am not a good observer because I missed the excellent performance of Mr. Woo. After the review of the summary on Youku, I here ponder, several questions can be raised. (It seems that they don’t expect me to speak in Chinese, so…)

Well, too many questions in a row make us bored. Thus, save the first, tell me what will you do to stop the process of privatization? Let’s firstly come to the estate barons and other poli-corporate leaders, government staffs, military officers, do you think they will share their wealth with the farmers, workers and poor students of bad luck? In metropolises, did your speech work; can the impoverished break into an empty room just for a roof for rains and winds? Let’s simplify it; will you give your money to a strange person with nothing?

Although I have sensed your remark, some special answers are still looked forward. By the theory of Hobbes, I believed in the so-called natural laws. However, the recent years have proved the incompetence of the whole staff for the People. Alas, are you afraid of our comments? If not, why not have a chat on current problems with us? Or are the problems got off conscience just by simple psychological denial?

People, most of us thought they know what it indicated is, somehow, should be redefined. 

A Summary for How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience

John Kenneth Galbraith, the writer of this essay, is a famous Keynesian. In the essay, Galbraith introduces five historical solutions and five current designs with a tone of irony. The answer to this question, by Galbraith, is that we should give up ignoring the existence of the impoverished.

As for how to get the poor off our conscience, the author, in the second part, brings us five historical solutions: according to the bible, the poor should be patient enough to their poverty of the current life so as to enjoy their future fortune in the next life; according to the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentharn, the greatest good for the greatest number, society does its best for the largest possible number of people, by which people can get the poor off their conscience; based on Malthusianism, poverty is caused by the way too much birth given by the poor, so the poverty is the fault of the poor and nothing related with the rich; the theory of “survival of the fittest” of Social Darwinism provides the rich an excuse that the poor and the affluence are the results of the operation of the law of nature and God; Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover believe that assistance to the poor is inconsistent with the economic design and also damages the economy, by which the rich can also get the poor out of their conscience.

However, the Roosevelt revolution, which is favored by the author, is not the end of the question of thinking about the poor. The recent years have witnessed at least five designs for avoiding considering the poor: the government’s incompetence should be the reason for the poor; helping the poor only hurts the poor; public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on the motivation of the rich and the diligent; the freedom of the affluence is reduced while that of the impoverished is not extraordinarily enhanced by taking money to help the poor from the taxes of the rich; psychological denial to the poor can also be a method to get out of the poor from the rich’s conscience. Galbraith points out that all the designs, save the last, are great inventive descent from Bentham, Malthus and Spencer. Alas, some of the designs are welcomed in the high Washington circles.

Galbraith says civil discontent and its consequences do not come from contented people. As a result, social and political tranquility should be preserved and enlarged. There may be another question here: how can we make sure the people, who we thought and considered were happy, are really content?

My Absurd Ideas

So our President visited American President two months ago. Well, I should say it was a pity because I was doing some small business then. (So I cannot spare some time focusing their Paris Hilton-&-Lindsay Lohan play. LoL) However, we still have chance here. In the coming NPC & CPPCC,I think President Hu can invite Mr. Obama to China for a short tournament to enjoy the excellent performance of our representatives. Let's be honest, we don't intend to make Mr. Obama blame his noisy colleagues when he returns. 

I am just always considering that I would send Mr. Obama to complete several missions if I were his Christian God. Although I know both of you have nothing to talk about except for spurring economy and fighting against protectionism, Mr. Obama, please have several good days with our President and archieving the following three goals for me. (No representative will ask me what I really want to say, you know.)

Firstly, Mr. Obama, this is very important. Teach him how to use a Blackberry. Give him an iPad as present, or anything you want. Whatever, get him hooked to twitter and let him watch his favorate CCTV on YouTube in HD. Just help me out the GFW. When he realizes how funny they are, he may let us all have access to them.

Secondly, prepare something for your debt before you go to China. My nation is still a traditional land so the debt-ower can be a shame. Alas, we have many poor citizens here and you owe them a lot of money. Give them some interests and calm down their angry to you. No one is a tragic without the impoverish. There is, we can surely agree, no form of oppression that is quite so great, no construction on thought and effort quite so comprehensive, as that which comes from having no money at all. Though we hear much about the limitation on the freedom of the affluent when their income is reduced through taxes, we hear nothing of the extraordinary enhancement of the freedom of the poor from having some money of their own to spend. Yet the loss of freedom from taxation to the rich is a small thing as compared with the gain in freedom from providing some income to the impoverished. So, Mr. Obama, please stop your tricks if you still want to promote your concept of freedom.

Thirdly, do not talk anything about the crazy son Kim. This is may be the simplest, or harder, perhaps. It seems that if Kim want to do something crazy, no one can stop him. Let Mr. Hu tell you that military maneuvers on foreign sea are just stupid, stupid kid’s game. Just because the Americans have been doing these things for ages don’t make it a valid practice, especially when you are in a crazy person’s backyard. 

Finally, I do expect you have some lessons with our President and corporate leaders (maybe poli_corporate leaders in our case) on constitution. After that, why not study some cases like Assange and Qian Yunhui? Okay, no matter how both of you preach greatness and fairness and “harmony”, life just sucks. 

Oh, forget my  Cliché