(轉)建立自己的迷你小城市
(同時轉貼自blog http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/reching_lin/ 另外還放了CGI做個人專屬的城市連接 點閱)這是一個讓玩家自己建立屬於自己小城市的小遊戲，他們玩法十分簡單，像網頁中的城市就是一個例子，每一個新的朋友(IP)觀看這張網頁就會增加這個城市的人口數喔！
進去後按右邊的"Build my city"
http://basaras-farm.myminicity.com/
下面的額外發展有人口數的限制喔!
像發展工業要50人.發展工業: (在網址後加上 /ind ) 需人口數: 50
http://basaras-farm.myminicity.com/ind發展交通: (在網址後加上 /tra ) 需人口數: 100
http://basaras-farm.myminicity.com/tra發展安全: (在網址後加上 /sec ) 需人口數: 300
http://basaras-farm.myminicity.com/sec發展環境: (在網址後加上 /env ) 需人口數: 500
http://basaras-farm.myminicity.com/env發展商業: (在網址後加上 /com ) 需人口數: 1000
http://basaras-farm.myminicity.com/com
大家亦不彷將你們的城市的網址post上來分享一下(因為越多人看過你的城市,你的城市就越豐富)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Every business, regardless of size, must carefully identify and plan its shorts and long term goals.More importantly, every business must attempt to strike a balance between the two and make sure that one dose not dominate the other. If some businesses want to get huge profits and quick returns, for example, by pirating name brands such as Christian Dior, Chanel, and Lancome, business relations are doubtless infected thoroughly with the disease of short-sighted motives. Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that business often look well beyond short-term goals.
The desire to generate a profit lies at the heart of every business, and this desireis the chief element that prevent business from placing too much emphasis on short-term goals. In order to maintain a steady increase in profits, a company must continually upgrade its products or services, and this objective can be accomplished only by establishing long-term goals. These types of goals enable businesses to meet the future demands of their customers and not to fall behind the completition. Conversely, any business that focuses too much upon short-term srategies will not only minimize its profits, but also jeopardize its existece.
The desire to generate a profit lies at the heart of every business, and this desireis the chief element that prevent business from placing too much emphasis on short-term goals. In order to maintain a steady increase in profits, a company must continually upgrade its products or services, and this objective can be accomplished only by establishing long-term goals. These types of goals enable businesses to meet the future demands of their customers and not to fall behind the completition. Conversely, any business that focuses too much upon short-term srategies will not only minimize its profits, but also jeopardize its existece.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Issue No. 111 模擬
"A nation must maintain a highly competitive educational system--a system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries--to ensure its own economic success."
The claim in question is that if a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries. I strongly disagree for the following reasons.
First of all, a country must be good at what it already dose, not at what other countries are good at doing. Only in this way will it be competitive. For example, consider two countries, A and B. Country A is good at producing bicycles very affordably and country B is good at manufacturing computers very affordably. The intelligent thing to do, guided by the above claim, would be to have everybody in country A schooled in computer science and everybody in country B schooled in the technology of bicycles. But this is pure nonsense, at least if trade flows freely between A and B. A will make (and sell) what it is good at making, and B will do the same.
In addition, different people learn in different ways, and what is good for the people of one country might not be good for the people of another. A highly competitive education in which students compete among themselves might work in one place but not in another. Furthermore, overemphasis on scholastic competition and high grades can undermine freedom of thought, something that a country needs if it is to be economically competitive. With freedom of thought comes inventiveness and originality, which are essential ingredients in any successful economy.
Finally, the success of a country depends not just on its economic performance. Part of its success depends also on its level of culture--its awareness of its own history, its appreciation for the arts, its love of books, and so forth. However wealthy a country is, it is something less than successful if it is devoid of culture. Evidently, a successful country must also educate its citizens about its culture-- a kind of education that has little to do with achieving economic success.
In summary, I strongly disagree with the claim that if a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries. I strongly disagree because a country must be good at what it already dose, not at what other countries are good at doing. Moreover, different people learn in different ways, and what is good for the people of another country. Finally, the success of a country depends not just on its economic performance.
時間：40分鐘
字數：457
The claim in question is that if a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries. I strongly disagree for the following reasons.
First of all, a country must be good at what it already dose, not at what other countries are good at doing. Only in this way will it be competitive. For example, consider two countries, A and B. Country A is good at producing bicycles very affordably and country B is good at manufacturing computers very affordably. The intelligent thing to do, guided by the above claim, would be to have everybody in country A schooled in computer science and everybody in country B schooled in the technology of bicycles. But this is pure nonsense, at least if trade flows freely between A and B. A will make (and sell) what it is good at making, and B will do the same.
In addition, different people learn in different ways, and what is good for the people of one country might not be good for the people of another. A highly competitive education in which students compete among themselves might work in one place but not in another. Furthermore, overemphasis on scholastic competition and high grades can undermine freedom of thought, something that a country needs if it is to be economically competitive. With freedom of thought comes inventiveness and originality, which are essential ingredients in any successful economy.
Finally, the success of a country depends not just on its economic performance. Part of its success depends also on its level of culture--its awareness of its own history, its appreciation for the arts, its love of books, and so forth. However wealthy a country is, it is something less than successful if it is devoid of culture. Evidently, a successful country must also educate its citizens about its culture-- a kind of education that has little to do with achieving economic success.
In summary, I strongly disagree with the claim that if a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries. I strongly disagree because a country must be good at what it already dose, not at what other countries are good at doing. Moreover, different people learn in different ways, and what is good for the people of another country. Finally, the success of a country depends not just on its economic performance.
時間：40分鐘
字數：457
Friday, December 21, 2007
Issue No. 114 模擬
"The most effective way for managers to assign works is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This way, each worker completes a small portion of the task but contributes to the whole."
It is sometimes difficult to discuss people's views about whether the most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts, because it is such a multifaceted question. While the first reaction of some people may be to disagree with this statement, I feel it is worthy of deeper consideration. In my opinion, there are three reasons to agree with this statement.
First of all, breaking a complex task down into its parts and assigning each part to a certain worker (or group of workers) takes advantage of the fact that different people have different skills. For instance, the complex task of putting up a high-rise building might require as many as hundred sets of skills, or trades such as electricians, pipe fitters, insulators, and crane operators. One part of the job would call for qualifications in electrical work, still another in crane operating, and so forth.
In addition, by providing a complex task into its component parts, the very job of overseeing this task becomes that much more manageable. For example, in delegating different parts of the job to different groups of works, it becomes that much easier for the supervisor to schedule and monitor the output of each group. If one part of the job is behind schedule, the supervisor will know which group to single out as being responsible for the delay. Beside, of another part is ahead of schedule, then he will know which group to praise. Indeed, in delegating different portion of the job to those in charge of the various trades, the supervisor dose not have to get bogged down with trying to "micro-manage" the details of the task.
Finally, when a task is broken down into its parts and each part is assigned to a certain worker (or group of workers), it is easier to complete the job on time. Consider, again, the construction of a high-rise building, and how long it would take if the electrical work could not begin until the plumbing was completed, and the heating ducts could not be installed until the electrical work was completed. Consider, by contrast, how much faster it would be when the wiring, plumbing, and heating ducts could be installed at more or less the same time by the different trade workers. It is when a complex task is broken down into clearly distinctive parts that it becomes possible to plan for having different trade workers working on different parts of the job at the same time.
In summary, for the reasons and example just cited, I firmly believe that the most effective way to manage a complex task is to divide it into its component parts. The approach makes the most of the fact that different people have different skills. Furthermore, it also makes the task of managing much easier. Finally, this approach to a complex task shortens the time it takes to complete the task.
時間：45分鐘
字數：526
It is sometimes difficult to discuss people's views about whether the most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts, because it is such a multifaceted question. While the first reaction of some people may be to disagree with this statement, I feel it is worthy of deeper consideration. In my opinion, there are three reasons to agree with this statement.
First of all, breaking a complex task down into its parts and assigning each part to a certain worker (or group of workers) takes advantage of the fact that different people have different skills. For instance, the complex task of putting up a high-rise building might require as many as hundred sets of skills, or trades such as electricians, pipe fitters, insulators, and crane operators. One part of the job would call for qualifications in electrical work, still another in crane operating, and so forth.
In addition, by providing a complex task into its component parts, the very job of overseeing this task becomes that much more manageable. For example, in delegating different parts of the job to different groups of works, it becomes that much easier for the supervisor to schedule and monitor the output of each group. If one part of the job is behind schedule, the supervisor will know which group to single out as being responsible for the delay. Beside, of another part is ahead of schedule, then he will know which group to praise. Indeed, in delegating different portion of the job to those in charge of the various trades, the supervisor dose not have to get bogged down with trying to "micro-manage" the details of the task.
Finally, when a task is broken down into its parts and each part is assigned to a certain worker (or group of workers), it is easier to complete the job on time. Consider, again, the construction of a high-rise building, and how long it would take if the electrical work could not begin until the plumbing was completed, and the heating ducts could not be installed until the electrical work was completed. Consider, by contrast, how much faster it would be when the wiring, plumbing, and heating ducts could be installed at more or less the same time by the different trade workers. It is when a complex task is broken down into clearly distinctive parts that it becomes possible to plan for having different trade workers working on different parts of the job at the same time.
In summary, for the reasons and example just cited, I firmly believe that the most effective way to manage a complex task is to divide it into its component parts. The approach makes the most of the fact that different people have different skills. Furthermore, it also makes the task of managing much easier. Finally, this approach to a complex task shortens the time it takes to complete the task.
時間：45分鐘
字數：526
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Issue No.121 模擬
"Technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together."
It is always a controversial issue whether technology separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. From my point of view, technology has done more to bring people together than to separate or alienate them. Therefore, I disagree with the statement. Here are some reasons why.
First of all, technology has brought about a revolution in the way we communicate with each other through the use of cellular phones and the Internet. Thanks to these new mediums of communication, people are brought closer together. With access to cellular phones or the Internet, I am now only seconds away from communicating with distant friends. With access to these devices, the geographical distance between acquaintances matters much less than it did in the past. I can still maintain close contact with my family and friends, even if they are on the other side of the world. Evidently, technology makes people become closer than ever.
In addition, technology has given us the means to travel great distances in relatively short periods of time for a relatively cheap price. Imagine having to travel overseas to visit your parents had you all lived a mere hundred year ago. Think of both the time and money such a trip would have cost! Now compare the difficulties of this trip a century ago with the relative ease and comfort of the same trip today. The technical innovations in transportation, as well as in communication, have only served to bring us closer together.
In summary, I strongly disagree with the worn-out idea that technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. To the contrary, technology improves our ability to talk to each other. Also, it improves our ability to travel and see each other. Apparently, technological innovations in both transportation and in communication that were noted in the preceding paragraphs unite people in different locations.
字數:331
時間:31分鐘
It is always a controversial issue whether technology separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. From my point of view, technology has done more to bring people together than to separate or alienate them. Therefore, I disagree with the statement. Here are some reasons why.
First of all, technology has brought about a revolution in the way we communicate with each other through the use of cellular phones and the Internet. Thanks to these new mediums of communication, people are brought closer together. With access to cellular phones or the Internet, I am now only seconds away from communicating with distant friends. With access to these devices, the geographical distance between acquaintances matters much less than it did in the past. I can still maintain close contact with my family and friends, even if they are on the other side of the world. Evidently, technology makes people become closer than ever.
In addition, technology has given us the means to travel great distances in relatively short periods of time for a relatively cheap price. Imagine having to travel overseas to visit your parents had you all lived a mere hundred year ago. Think of both the time and money such a trip would have cost! Now compare the difficulties of this trip a century ago with the relative ease and comfort of the same trip today. The technical innovations in transportation, as well as in communication, have only served to bring us closer together.
In summary, I strongly disagree with the worn-out idea that technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. To the contrary, technology improves our ability to talk to each other. Also, it improves our ability to travel and see each other. Apparently, technological innovations in both transportation and in communication that were noted in the preceding paragraphs unite people in different locations.
字數:331
時間:31分鐘
Monday, December 10, 2007
Issue No.137 模擬
"Instead of relying on the advice of outside experts, organizations should place greater value in the advice that can come only from their own highly experienced employees."
The issue is whether organizations should place greater value on the advice only from their own highly experienced employees rather than on the advice of outside experts. For the following reasons, I strongly disagree with the company they work for.
First of all, although the employees can be just as capable as the outside experts, what they lack is objectivity. Just as an author is not very capable of reviewing his/her own works, he/she needs independent outside editors to review the works impartially. If the situation involved the opinion of inexperienced outside people against the opinion of the employees, of course, the outside opinion should be discounted. However, as experts, they should be just as technically knowledgeable as the employees of the particular organization should. Presumably, the experts have studied the particular industry or organization and are able to comment on facts or figures objectively.
In addition, employees are attached to the company they work for and are less able than experts to view current company prospects effectively. For example, if a company is doing its share as the dominant industry leader, its employees are unwilling to believe the news and/or try to put a good spin on the bad news. Their jobs and livelihood are at stake if the company is losing money; therefore, they cannot see the complete picture as clearly as an outside expert who gives advice based on the facts.
In conclusion, independent experts are more capable of giving more realistic advice, whether good or bad in nature, than employees can, since employees tend to be optimists. Besides, most employees are not very effective in looking at the plain facts and figure; they bring biases and emotions into the picture.
時間:29分鐘
字數:311
The issue is whether organizations should place greater value on the advice only from their own highly experienced employees rather than on the advice of outside experts. For the following reasons, I strongly disagree with the company they work for.
First of all, although the employees can be just as capable as the outside experts, what they lack is objectivity. Just as an author is not very capable of reviewing his/her own works, he/she needs independent outside editors to review the works impartially. If the situation involved the opinion of inexperienced outside people against the opinion of the employees, of course, the outside opinion should be discounted. However, as experts, they should be just as technically knowledgeable as the employees of the particular organization should. Presumably, the experts have studied the particular industry or organization and are able to comment on facts or figures objectively.
In addition, employees are attached to the company they work for and are less able than experts to view current company prospects effectively. For example, if a company is doing its share as the dominant industry leader, its employees are unwilling to believe the news and/or try to put a good spin on the bad news. Their jobs and livelihood are at stake if the company is losing money; therefore, they cannot see the complete picture as clearly as an outside expert who gives advice based on the facts.
In conclusion, independent experts are more capable of giving more realistic advice, whether good or bad in nature, than employees can, since employees tend to be optimists. Besides, most employees are not very effective in looking at the plain facts and figure; they bring biases and emotions into the picture.
時間:29分鐘
字數:311
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Issue No. 142 模擬
"Employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor because they have little basis for judging or understanding their supervisor's performance."
The assertion in question is that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor's performance. I disagree with this assertion for the following three reasons.
First of all, employees are in fact competent to evaluate the performance of their supervisor. It is nonsense to suggest that they have little basis for judging a supervisor's performance. More than anybody else, it is the people working directly "below" the supervisor who are in a position to assess his performance. Obviously, it is they who are most familiar with the work environment overseen by their supervisor. With a first-hand understanding of their jobs, they are perfectly competent to judge him on such relevant matters as team leadership and clarity of communication.
In addition, a formal evaluation of a supervisor reflects how is viewed by his subordinates. These evaluations do more than provide information for his employers: they also provide him with valuable information as well - such as guidance on how he might improve himself as a supervisor. Even those evaluations that he deems mistaken or unfair can prove to be important, if only for the simple reason that they alert him to a misunderstanding between his subordinates and himself that should be cleared up.
Finally, a formal evaluation of a supervisor gets the employees to think about their relation to their supervisor in a fairly intelligent way. With an official way in which to communicate their concerns in writing, they have to articulate them in a constructive way. Moreover, without any official mechanism by which to communicate their grievances, their talk may turn into vicious gossip. Besides, with a means to communicate their concerns at their disposal, they have less reason to whine that "Nobody listen to us."
In summary, I disagree with the assertion that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor. First, the argument is simply false that they have no basis for the supervisor as to how he might improve himself in the job. Finally, with an official mechanism of communicating in place, the employees are encouraged to criticize in a constructive way.
字數:377
時間:35分鐘
The assertion in question is that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor's performance. I disagree with this assertion for the following three reasons.
First of all, employees are in fact competent to evaluate the performance of their supervisor. It is nonsense to suggest that they have little basis for judging a supervisor's performance. More than anybody else, it is the people working directly "below" the supervisor who are in a position to assess his performance. Obviously, it is they who are most familiar with the work environment overseen by their supervisor. With a first-hand understanding of their jobs, they are perfectly competent to judge him on such relevant matters as team leadership and clarity of communication.
In addition, a formal evaluation of a supervisor reflects how is viewed by his subordinates. These evaluations do more than provide information for his employers: they also provide him with valuable information as well - such as guidance on how he might improve himself as a supervisor. Even those evaluations that he deems mistaken or unfair can prove to be important, if only for the simple reason that they alert him to a misunderstanding between his subordinates and himself that should be cleared up.
Finally, a formal evaluation of a supervisor gets the employees to think about their relation to their supervisor in a fairly intelligent way. With an official way in which to communicate their concerns in writing, they have to articulate them in a constructive way. Moreover, without any official mechanism by which to communicate their grievances, their talk may turn into vicious gossip. Besides, with a means to communicate their concerns at their disposal, they have less reason to whine that "Nobody listen to us."
In summary, I disagree with the assertion that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor. First, the argument is simply false that they have no basis for the supervisor as to how he might improve himself in the job. Finally, with an official mechanism of communicating in place, the employees are encouraged to criticize in a constructive way.
字數:377
時間:35分鐘
Sunday, September 02, 2007
隨筆
我從來都不知道我是這麼的害怕寂寞；一直以來我承認我是很喜歡吵雜人多的感覺，但是我也一直認為我自己也不會排斥寂靜的時刻，悠閒的坐在窗邊看著人來人往的大街、看著自己喜歡的書或沉澱一下自己繁雜的心靈，一切都是這麼的自在，至少我是這樣認為；但是我不知道是不是壓力抑或是雜亂的心情，一切都不像預期般；當寂寞無預警的開始，凌亂的心情只想坐在電視前，漫無目的地從第一台轉到最後一台，再從最後一台轉回第一台，如此週而復始的持續循環；或是坐在電腦前沒有意識般的看著螢幕發呆，接著當你意識到這一天就這樣混阿晃的過去了，本來該做的事卻未完成的罪惡感忽然油然而生，當寂寞與罪惡感交織的產生，感覺就像一股巨大無形的壓力，壓的胸口無法呼吸，但卻又不知該如何宣洩，一股腦的氣就像是顆不定時炸彈，只想往路過的人砸過去；我一直都不知道我竟然會被寂寞如此的敏感，寂寞，我認識你了。
Friday, August 31, 2007
Issue 1
There are essentially two forces that motivate people: self-interest and fear.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your experience, observation, or reading.
Views differ greatly when it comes to the issue of whether there are essentially two forces which are self-interest and fear that motivate people. While some people consider that everyone is selfish, others hold the view that people have good side. My personal experience and actual observations of life have led me to strongly maintain that self-interest and fear are essentially to forces that motivate people.
First of all, economist has said that everyone is self-interest, and it can make economy have optimal situation. Although people might think that the man who is selfish is not popular, they do not actually know what their daily life is full of selfish behaviors. Even the easier thing in daily life like buying, no one wants to buy expensive thing if it can be got cheaper one. Someone might say that there are still lots of people who donate their fortune and do not get gain any reward. At first glance, it seems that these people do not want get any repay, but after deeply though it can be found that they are still the selfish people. For example, lots of corporations contribute fund to build the hospital. It seems that they really want to contribute to their country. However, more money they donate, more reduction of tax they can get. Furthermore, administering a hospital is also a way to make money.
In addition, people are not only motivated by self-interest but also by fear. It is instinctive for people to avoid any dangerous situation or hazard. Even infant knows that using crying to express fear and avoid it. Furthermore, people fear beast so that they build the house. People fear hungry so that they cultivate rice. In society with legal system, the reason why people legislate against violent is a good example to demonstrate that people are motivated by fear.
In summary, on the basis of the reasons presented above, I must wholeheartedly agree that self-interest and fear are essentially to forces that motivate people. We can say that the best reason to explain every human does is self-interest and fear.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your experience, observation, or reading.
Views differ greatly when it comes to the issue of whether there are essentially two forces which are self-interest and fear that motivate people. While some people consider that everyone is selfish, others hold the view that people have good side. My personal experience and actual observations of life have led me to strongly maintain that self-interest and fear are essentially to forces that motivate people.
First of all, economist has said that everyone is self-interest, and it can make economy have optimal situation. Although people might think that the man who is selfish is not popular, they do not actually know what their daily life is full of selfish behaviors. Even the easier thing in daily life like buying, no one wants to buy expensive thing if it can be got cheaper one. Someone might say that there are still lots of people who donate their fortune and do not get gain any reward. At first glance, it seems that these people do not want get any repay, but after deeply though it can be found that they are still the selfish people. For example, lots of corporations contribute fund to build the hospital. It seems that they really want to contribute to their country. However, more money they donate, more reduction of tax they can get. Furthermore, administering a hospital is also a way to make money.
In addition, people are not only motivated by self-interest but also by fear. It is instinctive for people to avoid any dangerous situation or hazard. Even infant knows that using crying to express fear and avoid it. Furthermore, people fear beast so that they build the house. People fear hungry so that they cultivate rice. In society with legal system, the reason why people legislate against violent is a good example to demonstrate that people are motivated by fear.
In summary, on the basis of the reasons presented above, I must wholeheartedly agree that self-interest and fear are essentially to forces that motivate people. We can say that the best reason to explain every human does is self-interest and fear.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Argument 2
The following appeared as part of the business plan of the Capital Idea investment firm.
“Across town in the Park Hill district, the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club have all had business increase within the past two years. Capital Ideal should therefore invest in the Roxy Playhouse , the Slice-o’-Pizza, and the Divot Golf Club, three new business in the Irongate district. As a condition, we should require them to participate in a special program: Any customer who patronizes two of the business will receive a substantial discount at the third. By motivating customers to patronize all three, we will thus contribute to the profitability of each and maximize our return.”
In this plan, the writer recommends that Capital Idea should invest in the Roxy Playhouse, the Slice-o'-Pizza, and the Divot Golf Club, three new businesses in the Irongate district, and participate in a special program. In support of this recommendation, he points out that in the Park Hill district, the same businesses have all had account increases within the past two years. While the plan seem to be somewhat convincing at first glance, a deeper investigation will reveal that the recommendation does not take into account the unique condition of every district. Doubtless, faulty analogy makes the argument problematic in several respect.
First of all, the writer cites that the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club across town in the Park Hill district have all had business increases within the past two years. However, he forgets to compare difference between two districts. Whether it is a residential district or industrial estate, different type of ditrict has totally different strategy of investment. For example, Park Hill district might be a residential district. Thus, the residents are going to have fun at those entertaining businesses, and make those businesses increase. Yet, if the Irongate district is a industrial estate, the final result would be reverse. Needless to say, no one wants to have fun there. According to this assumption, it is not a good idea to invest in the Irongate district.
In addition, the author also recommends that any customer who patronize two of the businesses will receive a substantial discount at the third. Nevertheless, not every customer has enough money to consume three of their businesses. For instance, playing golf needs some equipments which are not afforded for everybody. Furthermore, each of business has their own customer, some are teenages and some are elder. The younger might rather go to theather than play golf. On the other hand, the elder might not like eat pizza because of teeth. Therefore, deeper investigation is nescessery to support this recommendation.
In summary, the writer should reconsider his plan, and look for more evidence to support his position. He uses incredibly circumstantial evidence to make a plan on investing three new businesses in the Irongate district. Only one district booming last two year does not mean it will success everywhere. Therefore, it does not makes me find this plan well-reasoned.
“Across town in the Park Hill district, the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club have all had business increase within the past two years. Capital Ideal should therefore invest in the Roxy Playhouse , the Slice-o’-Pizza, and the Divot Golf Club, three new business in the Irongate district. As a condition, we should require them to participate in a special program: Any customer who patronizes two of the business will receive a substantial discount at the third. By motivating customers to patronize all three, we will thus contribute to the profitability of each and maximize our return.”
In this plan, the writer recommends that Capital Idea should invest in the Roxy Playhouse, the Slice-o'-Pizza, and the Divot Golf Club, three new businesses in the Irongate district, and participate in a special program. In support of this recommendation, he points out that in the Park Hill district, the same businesses have all had account increases within the past two years. While the plan seem to be somewhat convincing at first glance, a deeper investigation will reveal that the recommendation does not take into account the unique condition of every district. Doubtless, faulty analogy makes the argument problematic in several respect.
First of all, the writer cites that the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club across town in the Park Hill district have all had business increases within the past two years. However, he forgets to compare difference between two districts. Whether it is a residential district or industrial estate, different type of ditrict has totally different strategy of investment. For example, Park Hill district might be a residential district. Thus, the residents are going to have fun at those entertaining businesses, and make those businesses increase. Yet, if the Irongate district is a industrial estate, the final result would be reverse. Needless to say, no one wants to have fun there. According to this assumption, it is not a good idea to invest in the Irongate district.
In addition, the author also recommends that any customer who patronize two of the businesses will receive a substantial discount at the third. Nevertheless, not every customer has enough money to consume three of their businesses. For instance, playing golf needs some equipments which are not afforded for everybody. Furthermore, each of business has their own customer, some are teenages and some are elder. The younger might rather go to theather than play golf. On the other hand, the elder might not like eat pizza because of teeth. Therefore, deeper investigation is nescessery to support this recommendation.
In summary, the writer should reconsider his plan, and look for more evidence to support his position. He uses incredibly circumstantial evidence to make a plan on investing three new businesses in the Irongate district. Only one district booming last two year does not mean it will success everywhere. Therefore, it does not makes me find this plan well-reasoned.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
有感
我愛你這三個字對我來講是意義非凡的；在我的觀念中，喜歡這個字眼感覺就像是小時候對於純純的愛會用的，而帶給我的意義會是欣賞、羨慕抑或是欽佩，但是它並不帶有任何的承諾，就像是歌迷之於歌手、粉絲之於偶像般輕鬆、自在，任何的一舉一動都不會破壞平衡，更不用說所謂的壓力；但是我愛你卻是我一直以來非常謹慎使用的，兩個句子更是有天壤之別的差距；對家人那是輕而易舉、毫不思考就可以脫口而出的，因為那代表著不僅僅是心理上的渴望，更是義無反顧、無悔無尤的關懷、奉獻，以及共同的進步；它代表的不僅僅是一句句子，更是一個甜蜜的承諾；說這麼多我只是想讓你知道，對我來說我並不是不經大腦思考就脫口而出的，至少我也是經過相處後，使我更加的堅定，雖然我不知道我是否有這個能耐實現，但是我願意用時間去證明；最後我只想對你說一句，我愛你。
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Argument 1
Restaurant. Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there because it is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city.But the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location , has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year's. Clearly, the fomer site is a better business location, and the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to its new address."
In this article, the writter says that the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to the new address.In support of this argument, he points out that while Hippocrene Plumbing Supply has apparently benn quite successful by opening a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant, the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location , has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year's. However, I do not think the argument is logiclly convincing because some of the premises on which its conclusion rests are highly questionable. Here are some reasoms why.
First of all, the argument wrongly assumes that the company Hippocrene Plumbing Supply and Cumquat Cafe Restaurant are analogous.Because they have totally different competors, it can not compare their profit directly.For instance, if the location now occupied by the Hippocrene Plumbing Supply is lack of wholesale outlet , comsumers might have no choice but comsumig at new opening wholesale outlet. However, if the location nearby is full of cafe restaurant, the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant has to compete with other rivals. In this situation, the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant does not make a mistake in moving to find a better business location where has less same business competors.
In addition, the editorial does not look at the economical condition surrounding the whole world. Perhaps, the whole world had ressesion or serious inflation in last year.Therefore, the Cumquat Cafe which has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year's does not mean having made a wrong decision. Furthemore, the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant just has business in new location in first year. Thus, it probably isn't popular there. Comparing to the past, the restaurant had more constantly comsumer than now.If the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant has some advertisement or discount this year, it might make restaurant more comsumers.
In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the author claims. Even if the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant's business has drop, the writter still can not clonclue that the company has made a mistake. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to consider all other possible factors that affect the companys' business and the surrounding condition near two location.
In this article, the writter says that the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to the new address.In support of this argument, he points out that while Hippocrene Plumbing Supply has apparently benn quite successful by opening a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant, the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location , has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year's. However, I do not think the argument is logiclly convincing because some of the premises on which its conclusion rests are highly questionable. Here are some reasoms why.
First of all, the argument wrongly assumes that the company Hippocrene Plumbing Supply and Cumquat Cafe Restaurant are analogous.Because they have totally different competors, it can not compare their profit directly.For instance, if the location now occupied by the Hippocrene Plumbing Supply is lack of wholesale outlet , comsumers might have no choice but comsumig at new opening wholesale outlet. However, if the location nearby is full of cafe restaurant, the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant has to compete with other rivals. In this situation, the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant does not make a mistake in moving to find a better business location where has less same business competors.
In addition, the editorial does not look at the economical condition surrounding the whole world. Perhaps, the whole world had ressesion or serious inflation in last year.Therefore, the Cumquat Cafe which has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year's does not mean having made a wrong decision. Furthemore, the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant just has business in new location in first year. Thus, it probably isn't popular there. Comparing to the past, the restaurant had more constantly comsumer than now.If the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant has some advertisement or discount this year, it might make restaurant more comsumers.
In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the author claims. Even if the Cumquat Cafe Restaurant's business has drop, the writter still can not clonclue that the company has made a mistake. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to consider all other possible factors that affect the companys' business and the surrounding condition near two location.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
[轉錄]世界上有兩種人
這世界上有兩種人
一種人的心本身就是飽滿的
只是有個最特別的位置
等著放一張最特別的椅子
給一個最特別的人坐
而另外一種人
他們的心卻是
天生就被鏤刻了一個位置
同樣等著給一個最特別的人坐
第一種人
他們本身就是完整的
他們自己就可以活得很快樂
等到那個特別的人真的出現時
他們會活得更開心
可是第二種人呢
在那個最特別的人出現前
他們都要忍受著心上的一個洞
無法停止的感受到一種空缺寂寞和蕭索
他們努力的轉移注意力
在白天和朋友狂歡出去逛街看看書看看電影
也可以暫時說服自己生活是美好的
但是每到晚上月光從窗口偷偷的流瀉進來的時候
才發現地上的陰影是多麼的破碎而不完整
你是第一種人還是第二種人
往往是天生的
就算不甘心也很難改變
誰想要天生就帶著一個缺口呢
而缺口的形狀是那麼獨特
除了真愛的人以外學業家庭友情事業是很難完全填補它的
可能可以硬塞上去吧
但是密不密合貼不貼切
自己感受的到......
第二種人又可細分為兩型
第一型叫做要坐不坐隨緣型
第二型叫做削足適履型
怎麼說
第一型的人不管天生被鏤刻的座椅是流線形還是人體工學椅
他不會為了要配合要坐的人而改變自己的形狀
若是無法完全契合
可能幾次的衝突爭執後他會收回那個人坐的權利
反正他不適合可能有更天生訂作的人
但是
第二型的人呢
他們心上也有著獨一無二的形狀
但是他們更傻他們會為了認定的人改變自己心的形狀
今天他們不輕易放人走近他們的心
可是一旦有人穿越重重關卡解開了一道道鎖
那麼那個人將是全世界擁有最大權利的人
今天不管那個人是正是方是扁是圓
第二型的人永遠會改變自己去配合那個人
有時是對自己施加壓力
有時是強迫自己削去菱角
甚至
有時是拿著刀一片片的把多餘的部分都割掉
自傲自尊驕縱任性這時候都可以不要
只為了再下一次的見面時
可以若無其事的微笑對那個人說:
"你看我們不是天生一對嗎?"
夜裏流血的痛楚動刀時內心的掙扎與恐懼
都抵不過更強大的一股愛的力量
世界上有為了自己愛的人像刻木頭一樣拿刀刻自己更傻的事嗎
沒有
但是世界上有為了愛人改變自己堅持了半輩子的個性習慣更幸福的事嗎
沒有
這是愛情
==================================================
如果
你知道身邊有朋友是第二種人
拜託不要責怪他不獨立不要責怪他沒有愛情活不下去
他若是可以也很想活得瀟灑點的
如果
你知道那個人不但是第二種人還是其中的第二型
拜託不要罵他每次交一個男(女)朋友就好像重新誕生一次
分手離開時又好像死了一次
他很辛苦的
每一次的真愛他為了對方裁切自己的心
被拋棄時被切割得零零落落的心是那麼無助與悲哀
陪伴他
安慰他
鼓勵他
讓他流光血後還有力氣長出新肉還有力量去等待下一個人
如果剛剛好
愛你的人就是這樣的一個愛情傻子
請好好珍惜他(她)吧
在別人眼裡這樣的他可能不聰明甚至還有些愚蠢
但是對他來說愛你(妳)
一切都值得
每一分每一秒都是永恆
他絕對不可能想像除了你(妳)還有別人
別讓他在離開你(妳)後剩下的是一顆破碎不堪的心.....
最後
如果如果
你自己就是那第二種人中的第二型(唉)
只能跟你說......
你不孤單
現代社會中的愛情傻子也許不多了
當是當傻子碰上傻子
現代社會中的愛情傻子也許不多了
當是當傻子碰上傻子
那就會是全宇宙最大的幸福^_________________________^
一種人的心本身就是飽滿的
只是有個最特別的位置
等著放一張最特別的椅子
給一個最特別的人坐
而另外一種人
他們的心卻是
天生就被鏤刻了一個位置
同樣等著給一個最特別的人坐
第一種人
他們本身就是完整的
他們自己就可以活得很快樂
等到那個特別的人真的出現時
他們會活得更開心
可是第二種人呢
在那個最特別的人出現前
他們都要忍受著心上的一個洞
無法停止的感受到一種空缺寂寞和蕭索
他們努力的轉移注意力
在白天和朋友狂歡出去逛街看看書看看電影
也可以暫時說服自己生活是美好的
但是每到晚上月光從窗口偷偷的流瀉進來的時候
才發現地上的陰影是多麼的破碎而不完整
你是第一種人還是第二種人
往往是天生的
就算不甘心也很難改變
誰想要天生就帶著一個缺口呢
而缺口的形狀是那麼獨特
除了真愛的人以外學業家庭友情事業是很難完全填補它的
可能可以硬塞上去吧
但是密不密合貼不貼切
自己感受的到......
第二種人又可細分為兩型
第一型叫做要坐不坐隨緣型
第二型叫做削足適履型
怎麼說
第一型的人不管天生被鏤刻的座椅是流線形還是人體工學椅
他不會為了要配合要坐的人而改變自己的形狀
若是無法完全契合
可能幾次的衝突爭執後他會收回那個人坐的權利
反正他不適合可能有更天生訂作的人
但是
第二型的人呢
他們心上也有著獨一無二的形狀
但是他們更傻他們會為了認定的人改變自己心的形狀
今天他們不輕易放人走近他們的心
可是一旦有人穿越重重關卡解開了一道道鎖
那麼那個人將是全世界擁有最大權利的人
今天不管那個人是正是方是扁是圓
第二型的人永遠會改變自己去配合那個人
有時是對自己施加壓力
有時是強迫自己削去菱角
甚至
有時是拿著刀一片片的把多餘的部分都割掉
自傲自尊驕縱任性這時候都可以不要
只為了再下一次的見面時
可以若無其事的微笑對那個人說:
"你看我們不是天生一對嗎?"
夜裏流血的痛楚動刀時內心的掙扎與恐懼
都抵不過更強大的一股愛的力量
世界上有為了自己愛的人像刻木頭一樣拿刀刻自己更傻的事嗎
沒有
但是世界上有為了愛人改變自己堅持了半輩子的個性習慣更幸福的事嗎
沒有
這是愛情
==================================================
如果
你知道身邊有朋友是第二種人
拜託不要責怪他不獨立不要責怪他沒有愛情活不下去
他若是可以也很想活得瀟灑點的
如果
你知道那個人不但是第二種人還是其中的第二型
拜託不要罵他每次交一個男(女)朋友就好像重新誕生一次
分手離開時又好像死了一次
他很辛苦的
每一次的真愛他為了對方裁切自己的心
被拋棄時被切割得零零落落的心是那麼無助與悲哀
陪伴他
安慰他
鼓勵他
讓他流光血後還有力氣長出新肉還有力量去等待下一個人
如果剛剛好
愛你的人就是這樣的一個愛情傻子
請好好珍惜他(她)吧
在別人眼裡這樣的他可能不聰明甚至還有些愚蠢
但是對他來說愛你(妳)
一切都值得
每一分每一秒都是永恆
他絕對不可能想像除了你(妳)還有別人
別讓他在離開你(妳)後剩下的是一顆破碎不堪的心.....
最後
如果如果
你自己就是那第二種人中的第二型(唉)
只能跟你說......
你不孤單
現代社會中的愛情傻子也許不多了
當是當傻子碰上傻子
現代社會中的愛情傻子也許不多了
當是當傻子碰上傻子
那就會是全宇宙最大的幸福^_________________________^
Thursday, April 19, 2007
隨筆
"你有的時候真的很自私！"，被她講的當下，我就對自己承諾我不要再當個只會為自己著想的人；經過這麼多年，雖然我不知道我自己到底在旁人眼光裡到底還是不是個自私的人，但是至少我一直都很努力的讓自己多為其他人著想，至少我都試著不去計較做任何事的回報；最近卻忽然覺得我這樣做卻又是何必呢？想要表現的不自私，卻惹的一身腥；為別人想的再多，卻也未必有人領你的情；無條件的做任何事，卻也難獲得任何共鳴，到最後是不是被當成了個爛好人？為自己的利益多著想一點，讓自己多快樂一點，這有什麼錯？或許我是該多愛自己一點，或許我是該多自私點！
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Response
好吧！我真的不知道你什麼時候是開玩笑什麼時候是認真，雖然大部分我都知道你是在跟我開玩笑，像你消遣我載誰回家之類的，我都覺得無傷大雅，我並不會特別去在意，只是當你說些不理我要去找別人，或著說不跟我講而要去跟別人講的時候，雖然我也知道是開玩笑，但是心裡總是會有疙瘩，總會讓我覺得你對別人比較好；如果妳真的不喜歡做的事，就說清楚講明白就好了，吃飯、睡覺，並不是我想給你壓力，但是就是會心疼你作息不正常不規律，如果你真的不想吃，就講清楚嘛，我隨便都馬可以解決；拉其他人一把，我絕對不會說什麼，但是現在我要分身在英文，並不是說我就不用顧學校了，學校成績對出國也是同等的重要，況且我是真的希望能學到點東西；我沒辦法上到的課，我當然也會希望妳幫我，我知道的，我沒道理花時間再去問，對，說我吃醋也沒關係，就是喜歡你，我才會希望我能夠比其他人多得到點，我才會希望每天都能抱抱妳，沒有為什麼！
Friday, April 13, 2007
情緒
之前有這種情緒已經要回想到高三的時候了，那時因為我爸媽讓我感覺到自己沒有半點選擇的自由，滿腹的委屈因而爆發；雖然說這只是再大不了的小吵架罷了，但是我就是不知道為啥的做了很多的聯想，聯想的結局讓我非常惶恐，情緒的反應不知不覺的就跑了出來，幹我他媽的真是個娘砲，連我自己也控制不了，不過我也忽然感覺如釋重負，忽然體驗到漫畫裡寄生獸的主角的心境，因為情緒是不會騙人的；當時我也不由自主的想到了路嘉欣的你不懂，只能說這真是首好歌阿，路嘉欣你他媽的唱歌那麼好聽，跑去演個屁戲。
隨筆
還記得之前在高中同學的板上看到了他PO了篇內容是關於他的室友因為衛生習慣不好，再加上又不配合整理環境，因而吵架的抱怨文，當下看到的時候，本來想要回文說何必為了小事情傷和氣，有時候多做點事情並不無傷大雅，況且只要帶頭作，相信其他人也會跟進，至少當時我是這麼想的，也抱持著這個想法在做；直到最近卻得到令我心寒的結果，"我一個人在的時候，就沒有那麼髒！"，或許這是事實，但是卻是與我所抱持的想法多麼的矛盾；讓我不禁想到這次美國行的不愉快，當你攬下一個事務的時候，說不期待讚美或稱讚是騙人的，但是當你盡心盡力去籌畫，擔憂並負擔著每個人的安全，這時候卻被人潑了盆冷水，說你什麼事情都沒做，儘會在旁享受成果，那種委屈、那種無奈真的是無法用言語來表達的，你努力所做的每件事，卻被一句話給抹滅，真的當下會讓你想要說出"老子不幹了"這種話，但是，能嗎？今天姑且不談我做了哪些事，或許說真的，多做點事真的並不會花太多時間，但是當你在帶頭做的時候，卻引不起其他人的共鳴；當你不去計較順序，因著受不了而去動手做的時候，卻無法帶動風氣；做一次、做兩次、做三次......，或許之後你做就變成了理所當然，那是不是你這個人也就被冠上了好欺侮的標籤？沒關係，被所有人誤會我都無所謂，況且說真的，對我來講其實這件事並不是什麼大不了的事，但是當我所重視的人誤會了我，我就一定得站出來講話。不過說真的如果我不持續轉移思緒來想這件事情的話，我想我應該會一直胡思亂想吧！
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
隨筆
前天我帶著滿懷的期望去上了這學期的第一堂投資課；還記得之前一個同學因為上了投資課後，他就帶著小筆的資金投入了股海，那時候我們這幾個死黨都準備看這場好戲，而我這個同學也很熱血的每天都跟我們討論股市，就這樣耳濡目染的，我多多少少也認識了點這片領域，不過當時我跟我同學有做了個結論，就是覺得股市這塊不確定的因素還是太多了，對我們來講並不是穩定的賺錢方法，況且像我們這種小額的資本，根本就沒有啥投資報酬率，不過感覺投資學可以學到很多生財方法，倒是多少讓我對這門課充滿著憧憬；果然一上課教授就講了很多最近大盤的行情，不過大概是之前心中下的結論作祟，感覺上對教授所講的一點興趣都沒有，尤其在他很得意的講到他的目標是他一切的開銷都是透過股市由別人幫他買單的時候，這時我一股厭惡的感覺油然而生；對，現今生活的一切幾乎都是由他人提供，但是這是雙方都互利的情況，而股市呢，我相信股市這東西最早會存在應該是讓企業能各募集資金，等到公司獲利後，再發放股利給股東，讓雙方都能雙贏的長期投資，但是到現在卻演變成為所謂的短線交易，靠著短期的買賣，從其他股東獲取暴利，或許這是必然的演變結果，但是我就是不喜歡這種沒有任何貢獻的獲利，對我來說，這無疑的跟賭場沒什麼兩樣，菜籃族明明知道股市不知道摧毀了多少家庭，但卻偏偏還是因為碰巧的獲利，持續的將辛苦錢投入給像莊家一般擁有雄厚資本的外資；而一想到這，我就會不由自主的想到美國，只覺得台灣這樣走下去，就會變成像美國這樣極端的資本主義，我真的不喜歡那樣的感覺，或許我的想法太天真了點，我也很害怕我這樣高傲的心態會無法在社會中生存，而我也不知道我這樣的心態何時會被現實的社會給征服，但是我就是討厭這種感覺。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)