長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，科學(xué)同藝術(shù)之間的關(guān)系一直是剃頭擔(dān)子一頭熱：科學(xué)熱戀著藝術(shù)，藝術(shù)卻拒科學(xué)于千里之外。

許多大科學(xué)家一生鐘愛(ài)藝術(shù)，且懂藝術(shù)，從中汲取養(yǎng)料，善養(yǎng)浩然之氣，或得到人生最大安慰。相反，能熱愛(ài)并且理解自然科學(xué)和工程技術(shù)的文學(xué)藝術(shù)家真可謂鳳毛麟角。

藝術(shù)家對(duì)自然科學(xué)望而生畏，敬而遠(yuǎn)之,原因之一是里面有一大堆高深的數(shù)學(xué)公式。其實(shí)，撇開(kāi)數(shù)學(xué)，繞過(guò)那一大堆公式，一門(mén)學(xué)科的基本思想還是可以被我們理解和欣賞的.這恰如我們雖然看不懂莫扎特樂(lè)曲的總譜，卻照樣能同它的主旋律產(chǎn)生共鳴，擊節(jié)稱(chēng)贊

rican family has become increasingly less common in the last thirty years.// Beginning in the nineteen-fifties, a wave of social change swept through American life. Almost every American family was affected. Historians say the American family has change more rapidly in the last thirty years than in any other time period. // Social historians say the most far-reaching change in the family has resulted in changes in woment’s work. Amajority of married woment in the United States no longer stay home all day to cook, Clean and raise children. They now have paid jobs outside their homes. // Changes in the family also resulted form changes in marriage traditions. During nineteen-sixties, many young men and women began to live together without being legally married. Some had children. They were a family , but not in the traditional sense. // At the same time, more people ended their marriage if it was unhappy. The rate of divorce in the United States increased by more than three times in about twenty years.

has enjoyed a reputation for superb theater since the time of Shakespeare in the 16th century. The variety ranges from the majestic Royal National Theatre to the lavish Royal Opera House. The sheer number of symphony orchestras is impressive and includes the London Symphony Orchestra, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and the English Chamber Orchestra. // Some of the most well-known concert halls in the world, such as the Royal Festival Hall, provide favorable venues for the cornucopia of performances in London. London itself is a living museum, with more than 2,000 years of history and culture. But it also boasts one of the greatest concentrations of significant museums (more than 100) of any city in the world. The jewel in this cultural crown is the British Museum, with 4 kilometers of galleries and more than 4 million exhibits.//

or top-flight researchers. Also at stake is European funding for the UK’s research universities, which totals more than a billion pounds per year. The UK’s departure from the EU may also diminish the country’s role in influencing the union’s research plans. “In almost every area of science now, you can’t be a lone wolf and do it on your own.” says Philip Jones, research director of the university of East Anglia. “You have to work with others. And the EU provides the potential.”

a man -- whose natural talents have destined him for more than obliging obscurity. George Washington, we are told, was a leader who would have preferred to have been a farmer. Thomas Jefferson, a writer. Martin Luther King, Jr., a preacher. These men were roused from lives of perfunctory achievement, our legends have it, not because they chose their own exceptionalism, but because we, the people, chose it for them. We -- seeing greatness in them that they were too humble to observe themselves -- conferred on them uncommon paths. Historical circumstance became its own call of duty, and the logic of democracy proved itself through the answer.

Neil Armstrong was a hero of this stripe: constitutionally humble, circumstantially noble. Nearly every obituary written for him has made a point of emphasizing his sense of privacy, his sense of humility, his sense of the ironic ordinary. And yet every aspect of Armstrong’ s life made clear: On that day in 1969, he acted on our behalf, out of a sense of mission that was communal rather than personal. The reluctant hero is also the self-sacrificing hero.

s international organization. When ti was created more than 60 years ago, the United Nations reflected humanity’s greatest hopes for a just and peaceful global community. It still embodies that dream. We remain the only world institution with the legitinacy and scope that derive from global membership, and a mandate that encompasses development, secutiry and human rights as well as the envoronment.

I restate that we are an organization without independent military capability, and we dispose of relatively modest resources in the economic realm. Yet our influence and impact on the world is far greater than many believe to be the case, and often more than we ourselves realize. This influence derives not from any exercise of power, but from the force of the values we represent. Among these values are the maintenance of the world order and the establishment of world harmony.

無(wú)君。無(wú)父無(wú)君，特別孝愛(ài)老母，布爾喬亞之仁未能一掃空也。幼讀三百篇，不求甚解。繼學(xué)師范，遂奠教書(shū)匠之基，及壯，糊口四方，教書(shū)為業(yè)，甚難發(fā)財(cái)，每購(gòu)獎(jiǎng)券，以得末彩為榮，亦甘于寒賤也。二十七歲發(fā)憤著書(shū)，科學(xué)哲學(xué)無(wú)所懂，故寫(xiě)小說(shuō)，博大家一笑，沒(méi)什么了不得。三十四歲結(jié)婚，已有一男一女，均狡猾可喜。閑時(shí)喜養(yǎng)花，不得其法，每每有葉無(wú)花，亦不忍棄。書(shū)無(wú)所不讀，全無(wú)所獲并不著急。教書(shū)作事均甚認(rèn)真，往往吃虧，亦不后悔。如此而已，再活四十年，也許有點(diǎn)出息。

早在周朝時(shí)期，筷子便被人們用來(lái)夾取葷、蔬菜，而米飯?jiān)谀菚r(shí)則用手來(lái)取食。| 全國(guó)各地的筷子大小基本一樣，而所用的材料的種類(lèi)則各有不同，所選材料有竹子、木材、漆器、玉石、象牙、塑料、呂、銀、金等。特長(zhǎng)的竹筷通常用于廚房中。| 中國(guó)人使用筷子的方法很有藝術(shù)性，各人有各人的方法，就好像簽名一樣，不盡一致。中國(guó)人一般都能隨心所欲的用筷子夾起一粒米飯，一粒豌豆，一只滑溜溜的蘑菇或海參。| 使用筷子時(shí)，要把一雙筷子夾在大拇指和食指之間。要點(diǎn)是讓其中的一根筷子保持不動(dòng)，活動(dòng)另一根筷子，以便能像鉗子一樣夾取食物。|

與西方”為創(chuàng)校使命。| 40 多年來(lái)，中大一直致力于弘揚(yáng)中華傳統(tǒng)文化，堅(jiān)持雙語(yǔ)教育，并推行獨(dú)特的書(shū)院制度，在香港教育界卓然而立。中大校園占地134 公頃，是世界上最美麗的校園之一。| 中大的師生來(lái)自世界各地。有教職員工5200 多人、近萬(wàn)名本科生、約2000 多名研究生，其中約2500 多人來(lái)自45 個(gè)不同的國(guó)家和地區(qū)。| 中大實(shí)行靈活的學(xué)分制，不僅有助于培養(yǎng)有專(zhuān)有博的人才，而且還賦予學(xué)生更大的學(xué)習(xí)自主權(quán)。中大的多元教育有助于充分發(fā)揮每一個(gè)學(xué)生的潛能。|

Poverty, crime and education.

The paradox of the ghetto.THE poorest people in Leicester by a wide margin are the Somalis who live in the St Matthews housing estate. Refugees from civil war, who often passed through Sweden or the Netherlands before fetching up in the English Midlands, they endure peeling surroundings and appalling joblessness. At the last census the local unemployment rate was three times the national average. But Abdikayf Farah, who runs a local charity, is oddly upbeat. Just look at the children, he says.

Close to Mr Farah&39;s office is Taylor Road Primary School—which, it turns out, trumps almost every school in Leicester in standardized tests. Its headmaster, Chris Hassall, credits the Somali immigrants, who insist that their children turn up for extra lessons at weekends and harry him when they seem to fall behind. Education is their ticket out of poverty. Poor district, wonderful school, well-ordered children: in Britain, the combination is not as unusual as one might suppose.

Britain has prized the ideal of economically mixed neighbourhoods since the 19th century. Poverty and disadvantage are intensified when poor people cluster, runs the argument; conversely, the rich are unfairly helped when they are surrounded by other rich people. Social mixing ought to help the poor. It sounds self-evident—and colors planning regulations that ensure much social and affordable housing is dotted among more expensive private homes. Yet “there is absolutely no serious evidence to support this,” says Paul Cheshire, a professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics (LSE).

And there is new evidence to suggest it is wrong. Researchers at Duke University in America followed over 1,600 children from age five to age 12 in England and Wales. They found that poor boys living in largely well-to-do neighbourhoods were the most likely to engage in anti-social behavior, from lying and swearing to such petty misdemeanors as fighting, shoplifting and vandalism, according to a commonly used measure of problem behavior. Misbehavior. starts very young (see chart 1) and intensifies as they grow older. Poor boys in the poorest neighbourhoods were the least likely to run into trouble. For rich kids, the opposite is true: those living in poor areas are more likely to misbehave.

The researchers suggest several reasons for this. Poorer areas are often heavily policed, deterring would-be miscreants; it may be that people in wealthy places are less likely to spot misbehavior, too. Living alongside the rich may also make the poor more keenly aware of their own deprivation, suggests Tim Newburn, a criminologist who is also at the LSE. That, in turn, increases the feelings of alienation that are associated with anti-social conduct and criminalbehavior.

Research on England&39;s schools turns up a slightly different pattern. Children entitled to free school meals—a proxy for poverty—do best in schools containing very few other poor children, perhaps because teachers can give them plenty of attention. But, revealingly, poor children alsofare unusually well in schools where there are a huge number of other poor children. That may be because schools have no choice but to focus on them. Thus in Tower Hamlets, a deprived east London borough, 60% of poor pupils got five good GCSEs (the exams taken at 16) in 2013; the national average was 38%. Worst served are pupils who fall in between, attendingschools where they are insufficiently numerous to merit attention but too many to succeed alone (see chart 2).

Mr Cheshire reckons that America, too, provides evidence of the limited benefits of socialmixing. Look, he says, at the Moving to Opportunity program, started in the 1990s, through which some poor people received both counseling and vouchers to move to richer neighbourhoods. Others got financial help to move as they wished, but no counselling. A third group received nothing. Studies after 10-15 years suggested that the incomes and employmentprospects of those who moved to richer areas had not improved. Boys who moved showed worse behavior. and were more likely to be arrested for property crime.

In Britain, this pattern might be partly explained by the existence of poor immigrant neighbourhoods such as St Matthews in Leicester. The people who live in such ghettos are poor in means, because they cannot speak English and lack the kind of social networks that lead to jobs, but not poor in aspiration. They channel their ambitions through their children.

Another probable explanation lies in the way that the British government hands out money. Education funding is doled out centrally, and children in the most indigent parts tend to get the most cash. Schools in Tower Hamlets receive 7,014 ($10,610) a year for each child, for example,compared with the English average of 4,675. Secondary schools also get 935 for each poor child thanks to the “pupil premium” introduced by the coalition government. Meanwhile Teach First sends top graduates into poor schools. In America, by contrast, much school funding comes from local property taxes, so those in impoverished areas lose out.

As the Duke University researchers are keen to point out, all this does not in itself prove that economically mixed neighbourhoods are a bad thing. They may be good in other ways—making politicians more moderate, for example. But the research does suggest that the benefits of such districts are far from straightforward. Patterns of social segregation reflect broadersocial inequality, argues Mr Cheshire, who has written a book about urban economics and policy. Where mixed neighborhoods flourish, house prices rise, overwhelmingly benefiting the rich. Spending more money on schools in deprived areas and dispatching the best teachers there would do more to help poor children. Assuming that a life among wealthy neighbors will improve their lot is too complacent.