感恩节在美国60刀COACH围巾-名品导购网
感恩节在美国60刀COACH围巾
作者：GU闲人来源： 09:10:09
这次到美国东部旅游，恰巧赶上感恩节，商场促销力度还是很大的，捡到了便宜，给亲们秀一秀喽！Coach是美国著名皮革制品奢饰品品牌。Coach总部位于纽约，是首屈一指的主营男女精品配饰及礼品的美国企业。经过多年的持续发展，“COACH” 品牌已经成为与LOUIS VUITTON ，GUCCI（古奇），FENDI（芬迪），PRADA（普拉达）等品牌齐名的世界级奢侈时尚产品品牌。
这次到美国东部旅游，恰巧赶上感恩节，商场促销力度还是很大的，捡到了便宜，给亲们秀一秀喽！Coach是美国著名皮革制品奢饰品品牌。Coach总部位于纽约，是首屈一指的主营男女精品配饰及礼品的美国企业。经过多年的持续发展，“COACH” 品牌已经成为与LOUIS VUTON ，（古奇），（），（）等品牌齐名的世界级奢侈时尚产品品牌。
OSHKOSH Bgosh儿童 14.58 USD
男款GEOX 126
[健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][健乐士][ES][ES][ES][ES][ES][ES][ES][ES][ES][ES][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][阿玛尼][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][寇驰][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][猜猜][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][麦考林][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][新秀丽][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][芬迪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪][春纪]查看: 7184|回复: 32
经济学人：围脖的力量（中国）
本帖最后由 福禄寿禧 于
22:31 编辑
The power of microblogs围脖的力量Zombie followers and fake re-tweets僵尸粉和围脖谣言The state is responding to microblogsand the rumours they start政府对围脖和由此产生的谣言做出回应Mar 17th 2012 | BEIJING AND SHENYANG | from the printedition·& && && &·& && && &IN THE year15AD, during the short-lived Xin dynasty, a rumour spread that a yellow dragon,a symbol of the emperor, had inauspiciously crashed into a temple in themountains of central China and died. Ten thousand people rushed to the site.The emperor Wang Mang, aggrieved by such seditious gossip, ordered arrests andinterrogations to quash the rumour, but never found the source. He wasdethroned and killed eight years later, and Han-dynasty rule was restored.公元15年，在短命的新朝时代，谣传称一条象征皇帝的黄龙坠进中国中部的一个寺庙殒命，上万民众蜂拥到那个地点。皇帝王莽对这谣言感到非常震惊，下令抓捕并审讯以平息谣言，但一直无法找到谣言的根源。八年后汉朝中兴，王莽下台并被杀死。The next ruler,Emperor Guangwu, took a different approach, studying rumours as a barometer ofpublic sentiment, according to a recent book “Rumours in the Han Dynasty” by LuZongli, a historian. Guangwu’s government compiled a “Rumours Report”,cataloguing people’s complaints about local officials, and making assessmentsthat were passed to the emperor. The early Eastern Han dynasty became known forofficials who were less corrupt and more attuned to the people.史学家吕宗力的新书《汉代的谣言》中说，随后的统治者光武帝采取了一种不同的方法，他把流言视作民众情绪的晴雨表给与关注。光武朝政府编撰《谣言报告》，记录人民对地方官员的抱怨，作出评估并呈送给皇帝。东汉早期的官员给人的印象较为清廉和更加亲民。Modern China’s Communist Party rulersmake use of both these methods in the era of microblogs, or weibo, the variousChinese equivalents of Twitter, which is blocked in China. It is hard tooverestimate how much the arrival of weibo has changed thedynamic between rulers and ruled over the past two years. More than 250mChinese internet users have taken to microblogs for many purposes, plenty ofthem purely recreational. But a popular pastime is to spread news and rumours,both true and false, that challenge the official script of government officialsand state-propaganda organs.如今，中国的执政者共产党在这个微博（Twitter的中国版，Twitter本身在中国遭到封锁）时代上述两种方法兼用。毫不夸张的说，在过去两年间微博的出现改变了统治者和被统治者之间的互动关系。中国已有超过2.5亿互联网使用者开始使用微博，他们的目的各不相同，大多数人纯粹是为了娱乐消遣。而最流行的消遣就是传播或真或假的新闻和谣言，这对政府官员和国家宣传机构的官方说法构成了威胁。The authorities have responded in twomain ways. One has been to increase their own use of weibo as a listeningpost, a strain of governance in the spirit of Emperor G the other, morein the spirit of the dethroned Wang Mang, has been to combat rumours harshlyand to tighten controls over the microblogs and their users, censoring postsand closely monitoring troublemakers. Officials are attempting to make thesetasks more manageable by requiring that users of the most prominent microblogservice, Sina Weibo, register using their real name and identity-card number byMarch 16th. The other leading microblog, called Tencent Weibo, now alsorequires new users to register with their real name. Microbloggers can continueusing nicknames as their online identities, as long as theweibo providers havetheir real-world identities on file.It is unclear how much the real-namerequirement will affect what microbloggers say. Indeed, it remains unclear howstrictly it will be enforced, considering the booming market that alreadyexists in microblog-related trickery. For mere pennies you can buy followersfor your weibo account to makeyou look more popular (known as “zombie followers” because they mindlesslyfollow others). You can also purchase re-tweets and even comments on yourposts. Inevitably amid all this enterprise, some companies say that for a fee(of around $80), they can provide official verification for weibo accounts,apparently allowing customers to register under fake identities (the microblogsverify legitimate users for nothing).No matter how it is enforced, user verificationseems unlikely to deter the spread of rumours and information that has soconcerned authorities. Aware that they cannot ignore this new outlet for publicopinion, officials have moved to engage with it: government agencies, partyorgans and individual officials have set up more than 50,000weibo accounts,according to the Chinese Academy of Governance.This degree of online engagement can beawkward for authorities used to a comfortable buffer from public opinion. WhenWang Lijun, the former police chief of the region of Chongqing, sought shelterat an American consulate last month, the story broke fast on microblogs.Responding to the online frenzy, a Chongqing government weibo account claimedthat Mr Wang was on medical leave receiving “vacation-style treatment”, acomically implausible euphemism that immediately went viral. The news on March15th that Mr Wang’s erstwhile patron, Bo Xilai, had been sacked as partysecretary of Chongqing marked the first time a high-level purge has beencommented on in real time by microbloggers.Authorities keepa close eye on online troublemakers, but rely on internet companies to fenceand supervise their own playgrounds. The big microblogs employ hundreds ofmonitors to remove content they know will be unacceptable to the authorities.Yet the task of quashing rumours is a Sisyphean one. Rumours can run especiallyrampant in China because, even as citizens now have more social space in whichto live, the country lacks sufficiently reliable institutions, such as anindependent press and judiciary, to play the role of referee. It is left toofficials and the state media to implore netizens to be responsible.Who you gonnacall ?In this task, officialdom has someallies. One is Dianzizheng, the online alias of a 43-year-old rumour-hunter. Anemployee of a state media outlet by day, at night he tries to debunk viralfalsehoods using a Dell computer in his apartment in Shenyang, in China’snorth-east. He spoke to The Economist on the conditionthat his real name and his employer were not identified. Among the rumoursDianzizheng claims to have played a part in refuting are a story that organharvesters were targeting subway stations for victims, and that 10,000 peoplehad beaten up policemen in the southern province of Fujian. He also tries totrack down the sources of rumours, though with little success. His enemies haveat their disposal armies of zombie followers and fake re-tweets as well asmarketing companies, which help draw attention to rumours until they are spreadby a respected user with many real followers, such as a celebrity. Dianzizhengsays real-name registration should help him and his fellow rumour-hunters, butaccepts that it is unlikely to be decisive.“We have a saying among us: you onlyneed to move your lips to start a rumour, but you need to run until your legsare broken to refute one,” he says, in a tone that is cheerful and tireless. Heis motivated, he says, by the national interest. “I believe there is a hugerisk to the country if rumours go unchecked.” Perhaps so. Mr Lu, the historian,argues that the problem faced by the emperor Wang Mang in hunting down rumours2,000 years ago was not the rumours themselves, but the truth that theyreflected: a nervous public. In the age of weibo, it may be thatthe wisps of truth prove more problematic for authorities than the clouds offalsehood.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------该文的中文译本网上已经有人做了，我就不再继续，下面是留言翻译------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 16th, 01:55Rumor runs every minute everywhere. No sign of nationsdisturbed by it in history. The last sentense appears to be pure assumption,yet quite revealing at the same time.谣言无时无处不在。没有任何证据显示它曾经能对国家构成威胁。最后一句完全是臆断，同时也能反映出很多问题。 March 17th, 03:55Why do so many western media outlets like Economist inthis article often relate modern China to ancient times? Ridiculous. Likeparalleling the actions of today's presidential administrations to actions doneduring the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. The tie in is far too vague to bemeaningful for analysis.It also makes China seem as if it is some unchangingChina. Far better to focus on current issues, and tie into the history that isrelevant.为什么这么多西方媒体像经济学人这篇文章一样，把现在中国和古代联系起来，真搞笑，就像把今天我国政府的行为和独立战争和内战时候的举止联系起来一样。这根本就没什么联系，对分析毫无意义。这让人觉得中国看起来和从前没什么区别。我们应该多关注现代的事情，而且只联系相关的历史。 March 17th, 04:20It's because they expect (maybe hope for) some kind ofmajor transition in Chinese politics that they relate the present to periods ofChina's history that saw major political transitions.Some (maybe the same) people make similar comparisonswhen looking at modern America, e.g. comparing the erosion of civil libertiessince 9/11 to the era preceeding the end of the Roman Republic (in this casethey see both as negative developments).这是因为他们期待（或许是希望）中国政策的某些重大变动，因此他们将古代历史和当代中国联系起来。某些人（或许是同样的这些人）在分析当代美国时做同样的比较，将9/11之后的民众权力衰减和古罗马共和国末期联系起来（在这里他们同样认为都是消极的变化）。 March 18th, 01:04Good points. I tried posting a longer response yesterdaybut it did not seem to get posted because of a technical glitch. I will write abriefer one now.Drawing historical parallels is good. The issue isthat far to many western papers draw tenuous ones with modern China, and onlythose to imperial or Maoist China, rather than look at the whole spectrum ofhistory (as you do with Roman times and now in the US).It would be more valid to find the right historicalcontexts rather than make it seem like today's China is like ancient.这观点犀利。我昨天尝试发一个评论但因为某些技术原因没有成功，现在我简要谈一谈。寻找历史和现实的相似点是好事。问题是很多西方媒体观察不足，他们只选取封建王朝或者毛时期的历史，而不是全面看待（就像你看待古罗马时期和当代美国一样）龙腾网
March 16th, 06:42Various individuals own different opinions. In the ageof WeiBo or Twitter, what is the truth or false, I think nobody could explainexactly.每个人的观点不尽相同。在围脖或者Twitter时代，什么是对什么是错，我认为没人能说清楚。
March 16th, 07:28Reminds me of a South East Asian nation that jailpeople for speaking their minds. So their citizens resort to rumours instead.这让我想起来某个东南亚国家，他们会因为人民说出自己的想法而将他们投进监狱。因此他们的人民开始散布各种传言取而代之。 March 16th, 21:49Which country is that?这是哪个国家？ March 16th, 23:39[Which country is that?]Singapore. You can say anything you like among friendsand even strangers. But you cannot do so in print or in the Internet where itcan go viral.新加坡啊。你可以和朋友甚至陌生人说任何事情。但是你不能出版或者在网络上发行——会被过滤掉。 March 17th,03:32You are clearly behind times, mate.Ever heard about the Temasek Review and the OnlineCitizen websites? They tear the government down like there's no tomorrow. Theyeven have their own facebook page.Ever since the watershed elections of 2011 where thegovt won just 60% of the votes (but almost all the seats in parliament becauseof the constituency system), things have changed a lot.哥们，你out了。听说过《淡马锡评论》《公民网络》吗？他们激动得差点把政府给拆了，现在他们甚至有了自己的非死不可主页了。2011年的关键选举，政府只赢得了60%的选票（但是因为选举制度的原因，议会席位基本上都赢下了），自此之后有了很大变化了。 March 17th, 05:51[Ever heard about the Temasek Review and the OnlineCitizen websites? They tear the government down like there's no tomorrow. Theyeven have their own facebook page.That's good to hear. China watches what Singapore doeswith regard to governance and social engineering. I notice China has adoptedwith modifications many of Singapore's methods without making a fanfare of it.Singapore, by first putting in onerous restrictions onInternet access to and participation in sensitive subjects, was able toregulate the eventual relaxation of its regulations. Most participants anywayhave the comprehension mentality of a ten year old. They come up short in writingemotional pieces that start revolutions. The really angry poor oppressed masses(any left?) in Singapore do not know how to use the media. Singapore is toosmall for them to do any serious harm.Not so in China with about half its 1.3 billionpopulation yet to cross the poverty line of $2 a day. There is more than enoughliterature from Western pundits why China will crash eventually on account ofthis, and of course brought about by their Trojan Horse, the Internet. Theywish. Restrictions on the Internet will last longer in China until there comesa time when the authorities are persuaded that most people think like ten yearolds and don't give a damn about political systems so long as they have enoughto eat, clean water, warmth and shelter, and enough security that all of thosewill not disappear overnight.听说过《淡马锡评论》《公民网络》吗？他们激动得差点把政府给拆了，现在他们甚至有了自己的非死不可主页了。这是一个好消息。中国密切关注着新加坡在政府管理和社会管控上所作的努力。我注意到中国悄无声息地略微修改，然后采纳了很多新加坡的方法 March 17th, 05:57[Ever since the watershed elections of 2011 where thegovt won just 60% of the votes (but almost all the seats in parliament becauseof the constituency system), things have changed a lot.]Your new found Internet freedom is less than a yearold. Be careful. The government is testing you as you are testing them. Whenyou cross the line, kapow.2011年的关键选举，政府只赢得了60%的选票（但是因为选举制度的原因，议会席位基本上都赢下了），自此之后有了很大变化了。你要小心了，互联网自由这个新生命还不到1岁呢。你在试探政府的同时，政府也在试探你。如果你越界了，砰。 March 18th,02:08The internet freedom has been around for almost 10years. Temasek Review has been releasing essays condemning government policiessince then. The ministers except the Prime Minister have facebook accountswhere they post their activities and anyone can comment and chat with them.They are real people and not fake accounts.Singaporeans aren't dumb as to cross the line. Most ofthose who take up arms on the internet submit academic and sound essays onconstructive criticism. Even satirical humour on facebook and many other siteshave been ignored by the government. The only punishment is reserved forinciting racial and religious discord.A large number of people in the north america stillseem to think Singapore is an extremely oppressive state when things have beenliberalised so much.互联网自由已经出现快10年了。从那时起《淡马锡评论》就开始刊登批评政府政策的文章了。除了总理之外的其他部长都有非死不可的账户，这样他们可以将他们的工作发表在上面以便其他人讨论以及和他们交流。他们都是真人而不是什么假的账户。新加坡人不会默默忍受。大多数人都站出来，以建设性的批评态度提交合理建议。政府不追究非死不可和其他网站上的讽刺性流言。唯一的禁区是不得煽动宗族和宗教分歧。
March 16th, 13:23nothing could stop the will of people to seek truthand freedom.任何事情都无法阻止人民探寻真相和自由 March 16th, 16:39truth is whatever you choose to believe.真相不过就是你相信的。March 17th, 02:04There are most assuredly such things as objectivetruths.Subjectivism is a lazy, pathetic philosophy.客观真相是最可信的。而主观主义则是一种偷懒、可悲的人生思维。
March 16th, 13:27People will always seek what is true and rumours whenthe truth is not interesting enough. We live in an age where news is no longerprovided on 'The News', but is that better??
人们总想去寻找真相，而当真相不够有趣时谣言就产生了。我们生活在一个信息不再从“新闻”获取的时代，这真的很好吗？
March 16th, 13:41Internet rumours are the greatest head game in thisworld. Singapore might have good idea about rumour makers.网络谣言是世界上最大的欺诈游戏。新加坡或许对于如何对付造谣者有好的建议。译注：head game。唯一能够查到的英英注释Noun. deception by creating illusory ideas
March 16th, 14:20&party organs and individual officials have setup more than 50,000 weibo accounts, according to the Chinese Academy ofGovernance.&That's nothing. Have you seen how many TE accountsthey have?“据来自中国国家行政学院的信息，党的宣传机构及工作人员注册的围脖帐户超过了50000个”。这算什么。你知道他们注册了多少个TE（？这是嘛，我不懂）账户吗？March 16th, 19:30Hahahaha笑
March 16th,14:27RUMORS ARE RELATED TO NOT OPEN INFORMATION socialenvironment .if the true information can spread fast and efficiently ,whyshould they make rumors .谣言的产生源于社会信息的不公开。如果真实的信息能够迅速和有效地传播，人们为什么要制造谣言？ March 16th, 14:55Rumor says 911 is a inside job, what is your smartcomments on that?谣言说911是自己人干的，对此你有什么睿智的看法？
March 16th, 15:21Many fakers are causing mischiefs. All bloggers shouldregister with validated identity cards.很多骗子只不过是恶作剧。围脖应该实名制。 March 17th, 04:06Many truth-tellers are causing mischief, for thefakers in power.说教者在恶作剧，因为是骗子在掌权。
March 16th, 15:46This article itself is a rumor, I didn't register sinaweibo with the real identity, but still can use it normally.这篇文章本身就是个谣言，我在注册新浪围脖时根本不需要登记有效证件，仍然能够正常使用。 March 17th, 04:07When did you set up your Sina Wiebo account by theway? Have you been contacted about registering your real name (according to thearticle registration should be by yesterday)?你是什么时候注册你的新浪围脖账户的？你是否被通知登记你的真实姓名？（据文章所说昨天之前必须都要进行登记）
March 16th, 16:01Following Topical 'Tweets' and Facebook posts are atheoretical way to hear the street pulse of the Kingdom.But be careful of how you read it.It is like drinking water from a fire hydrant. Abillion posts a day can overwhelm any listener to the point of gobbledygook.从Tweets和非死不可的文章中获取信息理论上可以探听到街头巷议。但是你要注意怎样去理解它。这就好比你从消防栓喝水。每天十亿条的信息量，任何一个接收者都受不了。
March 16th, 16:07I have weibo, and I don't even have a national IDcard. this article is pure rumor, that author probably claim to have 10000facebook friends anyways.我有围脖，尽管我连身份证都没有。这篇文章纯属扯淡。
March 16th, 16:16Rumours happen in any environment. In the Internetage, they just happen to spread faster.When the Internet became common in America around thelate 90's, a great many urban legends were circulated. These range from therelatively benign such as a Neiman Marcus cookie recipe that cost $250, all theway to people having their kidneys stolen at parties.Obviously even in a free media environment theserumours can still go viral (especially now that doctoring photographs andvideos is so easy). It is up to the recipient of these rumours to ascertainwhether or not they've been had. But if people have willingly signed on tofollow certain tweets or weibo-ing they have a higher propensity to believethings without first using a critical filter. In other words they areself-selected to be more gullible especially to the soruces they follow.Too bad. Or maybe good. If enough stupid people gethurt, the stupid gene may pass on a little less frequently. Mankind will besaved. This is why I advocate religious freedom.谣言和环境无关，它无处不在。在互联网时代，它们恰好得以更快地传播而已。90年代末互联网在美国迅速普及时，大量都市传言就出现了。相对无害的有什么价值250美元的点心制作秘籍、人们在聚会时被偷去肾脏（这是假的啊，有阵子还吓着我了）等等。毫无疑问即便是在自由的媒体环境中谣言仍然能够广泛传播（尤其是现在PS和视频伪造如此容易），因此听者自身要有鉴别能力。但是如果人们一旦选择粉某些Tweet或是围脖，他们就有很高的几率不经鉴别地相信。换句话说，他们自愿选择更容易被他们所粉的诱导。这太糟糕了，也可能是好事。当足够多的蠢货被伤害后，愚蠢的基因会更少见，人类得到救赎。这也是我拥护信仰自由的原因。
March 16th, 16:22Transprancy is certainly one of the most powerfultools to deal with false rumors, but conspiracy theories will always be around,when a rumor is debunked, which is often refered to as &faceslapping&, you always see people who still hold onto the originalassertion, either on ground of conspiracy or simply ignorance of the existenceof evidence. Americans should know this quite well considering the number ofpeople who still think Obama isn't born in the country, is a muslim or 911 wasan inside job (ok I admit I am tempted to consider the last one).Sometimes you just need to have some education andcommon sense, or the awareness of what you don't understand. I've seenridiculous rumors like it costs $1 billion to launch each LM rocket, whichanyone with knowledge of the subject can see was calculated by multiplying thegross launch weight by the per kg payload cost, but the majority of peoplesimply doesn't understand rocket launches and you end up getting a debate oncorruption and shutting down the space program to save taxpayer money, the USspace program is unfortunately a victim of this type of rumors信息公开无疑是对付谣言得最有效武器之一，但阴谋论无处不在。但一个谣言被揭穿后，常常形容为“扇了一耳光”，你可以看到他们仍然根据阴谋论或者纯粹无视证据的存在而顽固坚持原有的断言。美国人应该能更好理解这个：因为有这么多人仍然相信奥巴马不是出生在美国；是个穆斯林；911是自己人干的（好吧我承认我倾向于相信最后这个）。有时候你只需要有一些了解一些知识和常识。我曾看到过一些可笑的传言说什么每一次联盟号火箭发射需要耗费10亿美元，而其实任何有点科学常识的人都可以自己简单根据有效载重量X单位重量成本计算出来，但大多数人不理解火箭发射，然后就得出结论，吵着说什么腐败啦应该停止航天项目节约纳税人的钱啦，美国宇航项目很不幸地成为谣言的受害者。 March 16th, 23:49The space shuttle program was closed down because theshuttle flights had already exceeded their design life. If you can come up witha compelling reason why the very expensive &beyond the moon manned spacemissions& need to be done when unmanned mission could get the same dataI'm sure the authorities will listen.美国宇航项目的停止是因为已经达到它们的设计年限。如果你能给出令人信服的原因，为什么在无人工程可以完成同样的任务时，如此昂贵的“人类登月宇航项目”仍然运作，那我可以肯定他们会有兴趣听的。March 16th, 16:27This is what ultimately people do in the absence of afree and objective press in their nation.
But rumors, I am sure are by some of the political goo-goos. A lesson for themedia indeed.这是那些在没有自由和客观媒体报道的国家的人民做出的最终选择。对于谣言，我认为是出于某些政治企图。 March 16th, 16:40So where can I find this country with free andobjective media and nobody spreading rumors?自由和客观的媒体媒体，没人散布谣言。这么好的国家，哪里有的卖？ March 16th, 18:13In fact, 'free' and 'objective' media can be nakedlyracist. Look at this recent episode:事实上，“自由”“客观”的媒体可能是赤裸裸的宗族主义。看这篇报道： March 17th, 04:00Well that is a good question. Maybe Utopia!这是一个好问题，可能在存在于乌托邦。 March 17th, 05:14Well unfortunately it's a fact that there is no animalrights legislation in China. This reflects on the CCP more than the Chinesepeople, but again unfortunately the CCP is in the business of trying to equatethe two (ever hear them saying someone has 'hurt the feeling's of the Chinesepeople' when she criticises the CCP?)很不幸的事实是在中国没有动物权益保护法。这更多地取决于中共而不是中国人民，更不幸的是实际上中国把这两者等同起来（听过他们因为有人批评中共，而抱怨“伤害中国人民的感情”吗？） March 17th, 05:24@JaVZM2QTCSThe existence of law does not conclude much.If a society has historically been harmonious, say, noslavery or discrimination of minorities, then there is no reason for thatparticular society to have an anti-slavery law. Such a law would be a foreignconcept.Now, another society which has brutally treatedminorities and have in fact enslaved some groups of people, is finally wisingup to forbid slavery. Good for it.Now, compare the two societies. Which one would youconclude has been more brutal?Same way with animal rights.You are in fact infatuated in defaming the CCP. Tellme rationally why do you think there is more animal cruelty in China as opposeto any other country?Btw, Wen Jiabao has in fact suggested China switch toa vegetarian day once per week. Can you imagine such a discussion in the U.S.?一部法律解决不了所有问题。如果一个国家从来就很和谐，意思是说从没有奴隶制或者是对少数民族的歧视，那就没必要设立反奴役法。这是其他国家考虑的事情了。如果另外一个国家曾经残酷地对待少数民族而且奴役其他民族，那颁布一个禁止奴役法就很有必要了。现在我们来对比这两个国家，你认为哪个国家更残酷无情？动物权益保护法同样如此，事实上你已经习惯于抨击中共了。理性地告诉我，为什么你认为在中国有着比其他国家更多的虐待动物行为？顺便提一句，温事实上曾经提议中国人每周素食1天。你能想象在美国会有这种讨论吗？ March 17th, 06:47'You are in fact infatuated in defaming the CCP.'It's not defamation if it's true (point out one thingI said that wasn't true).'Such a law would be a foreign concept.'It's true that there is no reason to make laws againstthings that don't exist. But saying that the non-existence of a law againstsomething is evidence of the non-existence of the thing itself is utterlyconfused. To expand on your own (implied) example, there was no law againstslavery in the American south.'Tell me rationally why do you think there is moreanimal cruelty in China as oppose to any other country?'I never said that. There is animal cruelty in allcountries (so they all need laws against it). Are you seriously telling methere is no animal cruelty in China, and therefore no need for such laws?'Btw, Wen Jiabao has in fact suggested China switch toa vegetarian day once per week. Can you imagine such a discussion in the U.S.?'This is good lifestyle advice from Wen Jiabao. I haveno idea about the number of vegetarians in the US, or what politicians have tosay about it, but I can't see how it is in any way relevant to the lack ofanimal cruelty laws in China.事实上你已经习惯于抨击中共了。陈述事实并不是诽谤（你说说我哪点说的不对）“这是其他国家考虑的事情了。”立法禁止不存在的行为确实没有必要。但是把没有禁止某种行为的法律当作某种行为本身不存在的证据就大错特错了（你晕了没有，我理解了，而且我觉得我已经翻译得很精准了）。如果根据你的例子进行推理的话，那在美国南方就不存在禁止奴役法。“理性地告诉我，为什么你认为在中国有着比其他国家更多的虐待动物行为？”我从未说过这样的话。各国都存在虐待动物的行为（因此他们都需要制定动物权益保护法）。你真的在说美国没有虐待动物行为，所以就没必要立法保护？“顺便提一句，温事实上曾经提议中国人每周素食1天。你能想象在美国会有这种讨论吗？”温的这个生活方式的建议很不错。我不知道美国有多少素食主义者，或者有没有政治家说过什么，但是我能看到在中国因为没有动物权益保护法带来的相关后果。 March 18th, 05:21You said:&Well unfortunately it's a fact that there is noanimal rights legislation in China.&Then I told you existence of laws doesn't say one wayor the other how cruel a society is.You clearly said it was bad there is no animal rightslaw.Remember, I said, existence of does not conclude much.I didn't say existence affirms one way or the other.Then you tell me I am confused? You are confused, myfriend.你说：“很不幸的事实是在中国没有动物权益保护法”。我告诉你，法律的存在不能说明残酷与否。你清楚地说没有动物权益保护法很糟糕。记住我说的，存在与否说明不了什么。我也没有说过存在说明了什么。然后你说我弄糊涂了？是你糊涂了哥们。You said:
&There is animal cruelty in all countries (so they all need laws againstit).&How do you know?Make a rational argument what constitutes animalcruelty first. After that, try to see if you can eradicate it within your ownsociety. As long as your society is more cruel, you basically have zilchcredibility to ask others to do it.Hence, I said, you are infatuated in defaming the CCP.It's a long journey and until you have gone through it successfully, yourcriticism is basically fart in the wind.你说：各国都存在虐待动物的行为（因此他们都需要制定动物权益保护法）。你怎么知道的？先弄清楚什么是虐待动物，然后再考虑是否能彻底杜绝这种行为。鉴于你们国家有着更残酷的历史，你压根就没有信誉要求别人做任何事情。所以我说，你已经习惯于抨击中共了。在你克服掉这个毛病之前，你的所有批评都是在放屁。 March 18th, 08:31'Remember, I said, existence of does not concludemuch. I didn't say existence affirms one way or the other.'You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Isthere animal cruelty in China or not?'How do you know [there is animal cruelty in allcountries]?'You might as well ask me how I know there are peoplewho tell lies in all countries.'As long as your society is more cruel, you basicallyhave zilch credibility to ask others to do it.'You don't even know what 'my own society' is. Commentingon an article that makes no mention of the particular country you presume I'mfrom, you refer to it repeatedly. I mention China because the article is aboutChina. So who's obsessed with defamation?“记住我说的，存在与否说明不了什么。我也没有说过存在说明了什么。”你说话根本就没有立场。中国有没有虐待动物的行为？你怎么知道各国都存在虐待动物的行为？这就跟问我怎么知道每个国家都有撒谎的人一样。鉴于你们国家有着更残酷的历史，你压根就没有信誉要求别人做任何事情。你根本就不了解“你自己的国家”。在评论这篇没有提及任何特定国家的文章时，你多次臆测我所来自的国家。我提到中国是因为文章讨论的是中国。所以说谁是在习惯性地抨击？
March 16th, 17:20China's government is very oppresive concerning freespeech. They have a capitalist economy but a communist government... Those twodon't work very well together. What China should do (slowly but surely) is givetheir people more freedom and rights. As an emerging economy destined to be thebiggest in the world by 2020; it is an imperative trend to follow if they wantto make their market grow and attract investors.中国政府十分担心言论自由。他们走资本主义经济道路但又是一个共产主义政权，这两者在一起不是很协调。中国必须要做的（缓慢但确定的）是给人民更多的自由和权利。作为一个在2020年必将成为世界上最大经济体的国家，为了市场繁荣和吸引投资他们必须要顺应这个潮流。 March 16th, 19:09Sometimes I don't know which is harder to argue with,religious fanatics or ideological purists, both live in a bubble world isolatedfrom physical reality.有时候我都难以辨别究竟和宗教盲信者以及意识形态纯粹论者哪个辩论起来更难，两者都生活在脱离现实的虚拟社会里。
March 16th, 18:10This is another disgusting article by the Economist.It takes the position that the Chinese government is not interested inbettering Chinese society. PEW and other international polls have consistentlyshowed how popular the Chinese government is.
Name registration does not mean people will have to have their real names ondisplay when they weibo. What is shown still their username. People still enjoytheir privacy.
If someone violates Chinese law, then authorities can subpoena for identifyinginformation.
Those interested in violating Chinese laws will certainly not like it.
China is in fact very open. Those get into trouble are those politicallyorganize to try to take down the government.经济学人的又一篇充满争议的文章。它的观点出发点是中国政府不想把中国搞得更好。PEW互联网调查和其他测评都显示中国政府非常受民众拥戴。实名登记不是说在围脖时必须显示实名，显示的仍然是他们的用户名，人们仍然可以享有隐私。如果有谁违反了法律，国家机关可以根据认证信息进行责任追究。那些想要破坏中国法律的人肯定不欢迎这个。中国事实上相当开放。只有那些试图推翻政府的政治组织才会惹上麻烦。 March 16th, 19:29Ahyes another CCP shill showing up to express his disgust and contempt forwestern journalism and The Economist in general, though, curiously, still readsit every week!又一个鄙视和厌恶西方媒体和经济学人的中共五毛。奇怪的是，每周还都来看。 March 16th, 20:15Ahyes, another ad hominim attack delivered to invalidate comment not in agreementor PC. Works like a wildcard for censorship.因为某些字符不符合规定，无法发送信息。 March 16th, 20:23Beinga member of the CCP is an insult? Your words, not mine =D作为一名党员是一种耻辱？是你说的，我可没说。 March 16th, 20:36I amnot sure we agree on the importance, or even definition, of free speech. One ofthe first signs of a totalitarian state / organization is to confuse&responsible& speech and free speech.我无法确定我们都认同言论自由的重要性，或许我们对它的定义都存在分歧。极权国家/组织的首要象征就是混淆“负责任”的发言和言论自由的概念。 March 16th, 20:45&Beinga member of the CCP is an insult? Your words, not mine =D&Notmy words at all. Still your words or what you think is a proper interpretationof my words.Itseems anyone in agreement with a remotely CCP stance is automatically vacuousor a CCP &shill&. No one can remotely have anything in agreement withthe CCP.Inaddition, publications that exist in a free media/free tspeech environment aresacred. We ought to think that They either make no mistakes or we must notspeak of their mistakes.Soundsa lot like censorship to me.作为一名党员是一种耻辱？是你说的，我可没说。这压根就不是我说的。这是你说的或者你认为是我所说的一种恰当的推论。看起来似乎任何稍有认同中共立场的人都是没有自主意识或者是中共的“五毛”。任何人都不能对中共的立场表示丝毫赞同。此外，媒体自由/言论自由的环境中的媒体是神圣不可侵犯的。我们必须确信他们从来不犯错误，或者我们从不指出他们的错误。对我来说这太像某种审查制度了。 March 16th, 23:31It'skind of interesting that you put quotes around &responsible& and not&free& in &free speech.& Why, are you afraid of responsiblespeech?Thegeneral problem I see with your point of view is you somehow think&totalitarian& states don't have the wisdom to know what that allmeans. That point of view is prejudiced and hubristic.你把“负责任的”引起来而没有在“言论自由”中把“自由”引起来，这很有趣。为什么，你害怕负责任？在我看来，你观点里存在的普遍问题是不知怎么地你认为“极权”国家搞不清楚这两者的意义。这种观点很偏颇很武断。 March 18th, 00:06huaren20000is not a member of the CPC... (he's not nearly capable enough)He'sactually just a Western Chinese with a tiny penis who holds a massiveinferiority complex so he goes on the Internet and thinks that he is&defending& China from &Western China Bashing& all day.Pleasedon't mistaken huaren20000 with real Chinese people.... thanks....Huaren20000不是一名党员......（他能力不够）实际上他是一各生活在西方的中国人，他的鸡鸡太小导致他非常自卑，因此他跑到网上来，整天幻想着他和“西方对中国的抨击”作斗争“捍卫”中国。不要把他和真正的中国人搞混了......谢谢...... March 18th, 00:08David,it's much easier to educate our Western audience the difference between realChinese people and the Western trolls ( etc.) thanretaliate against the Westerners.Theirconfusion is understandable, but it's much more productive to educate themrather than to retaliate in like against their ad hominem arguments.哥们，教大家如何识别真正的中国人和他们在西方的五毛（watchingchina等人）比和他们骂战更容易。他们的困惑是可以理解的。但是教育他们比跟他们人身攻击式的言论论战更有效果。
March 19th, 02:55&China is in fact very open. Those get into trouble are those politicallyorganize to try to take down the government.&Ilike it how you say China is very open but then state the people arepolitically oppressed. In the US, I can politically organise myself any-time totake down the Obama administration or the US government for that matter andnobody would be able to stop me.
“中国事实上相当开放。只有那些试图推翻政府的政治组织才会惹上麻烦。”我不知道当他的国民遭受政治压迫时你为什么能说出中国非常开放的。在美国，我能自己做出决定推翻奥巴马政府或者美国政府，而且没人能阻止我这么做。
March 19th,06:05If you try, you will get FBI boot up your behind. Iwould support Americans in nailing you.如果你这么做了，FBI会找你麻烦的。那样的话我将会支持美国人打倒你。
March 19th, 06:12No they won't. You think in terms of Tienanmen Square styleviolence. I can march with 100000 people on the street in front of the whitehouse right now telling the American government their political system is wrongand that my way of thinking is correct. I might even be able to meet politicalrepresentatives or senators in discussing them my crazy plans. I cannot do thatin China anywhere不，他们不会的。你想的是天-安-门式的暴力。我可以和1000000人一起在白宫门前聚会，告诉美国政府他们的政治制度是错的，而我的想法是正确的。我可以会见政治人物和参议员们，讨论我的计划。在中国这根本没门。
March 19th,06:12Can you explain what &liberalising politically&means?If you think making it easier for anti-Chinese governmentNGO's to operatemore freely in China, then forget it.Anything else you have in mind?你能解释一下什么是“政治自由”吗？如果你认为这就是让反华的非政府组织更便利地在中国开展活动，那就别想了。你的脑子里还有其他东西吗？
1 hour 27 mins agoLiberalising politically means instituting freedom ofreligion, information, expression, assembly and association, movement andresidence (phasing out of the hukou), and the rights to due processand private property (most importantly an end to the eviction ofpeasants without the granting of fair compensation).If you use 'Chinese' to mean the corruptpolitico-industrial oligarchs then I guess these reforms would be'anti-Chinese'. But if you use 'Chinese' to mean the Chinese people and nationthen these reforms are nothing but pro-Chinese.'Government NGO' is an oxymoron by the way.Any other questions?政治自由意味着宗教信仰自由、信息公开、言论自由、集会和结社自由、迁徙和定居自由（取消户籍制）、程序法定和个人财产所有权（结束不给农民合理补偿就强制征地的历史）。如果你的中国人指的是那些政治金融寡头，那我想这些改革也许意味着“反华”。但是如果你的中国人指的是普通百姓和国家，那这些改革纯粹是亲中。还有，政府的非政府组织是个自相矛盾的说法。还有什么问题吗？
1 hour 11mins agoBy the way check the following link out. The Chinese nationwants (and deserves) political liberalisation.看看下面的链接，中华民族需要（也应该）进行实行政治自由化。
March 17th, 00:41Itseems that the decision China made to block twitter is totally justified. Somepeople used the public hatred towards corruption and fake even worse rumoursabout officials to get more publicity. Nobody really understand their motive,money? self-satisfaction?or are they foreign spies? I have been bothered withthis since the day I started using it.
Weibo started its identity registration yesterday and all rumours will be ableto be tracked and prosecuted. People,especially youngsters are afraid that thismay become a powerful tool for the government to eliminate dissidents. That isunderstandable.
However, many of them see starting rumours anonymously online as their right,freedom of speech. I think that is ridiculous. A serious flaw in the Chineseeducation system is people do not teach the term&responsibility&anymore. More and more people tend to thinkinstinctively that absolute freedom is given and responsibility isoptional.That will only make China worse.看来中国政府封锁twitter的决定是正确的。有些人利用人民对腐败的痛恨来撒谎甚至造谣污蔑官员来赢得更多关注。没人知道他们的真正动机，是为了钱吗？自我满足，或者是国外间谍？从使用围脖那天开始我就对此感到很困惑。从昨天开始围脖进行实名认证，所有谣言将会被追踪和追究责任。人民尤其是年轻人担心这将成为政府清除持不同政见者的有力武器，这是可以理解的。或许一些人认为在互联网上匿名制造谣言使他们的权利，言论自由嘛。我认为这很滑稽。中国教育制度的一个严重缺失就是没有教给人们“责任”意识。越来越多的人本能地认为自由是绝对的，而责任是非强制的。这只会让中国变得更糟糕。
March 17th, 04:54Whydo people turn to the internet for their information in the first place? Theanswer is that they do not believe what they see on the news or read in CCPcontrolled publications (and all publications in China are CCP controlled to agreater or lesser extent).If the CCP was really interested in tackling online rumours it could do so bymaking China's media more independent. The fact that they don't do thisindicate's that their real purpose in making people register their name's is tocrack down on dissent.为什么人民首先到网上而不是其他地方寻找信息？答案就是人们不相信他们在报纸上看到和中共控制下的媒体下听到的（所有中国的媒体都被中共或多或少地控制着）如果中共想要真正追查网络谣言，他们应该让媒体更加独立。事实上他们并没有这样做，这表明他们要求实名登记的真正目的是为了打击不同政见者。
March 17th, 10:17Firstquestion for you,can you even name one respectful local news agency inHongkong?Chinesepeople have a taste for rumors it comes from both lack ofeducation and their desperation for social life. They spread the rumours evenwhen they knew it's ridiculous just for fun. It comes back to responsibilityagain.
The media is making things even worse, I knew a journalist who publiclycomplained they cannot get enough news from Weibo, maybe I was wrong, but theyare paid to dig out news on their own rather than use whisper as news!第一个问题，你能提出任何一个可信的香港的本地媒体吗？中国人喜欢谣言有两个原因：教育的缺失和他们在生活中的绝望。他们即便知道很滑稽，但是他们仍然会去散播谣言仅仅是为了取乐。这又回到责任上来了。媒体把事情弄得更糟，我知道一个记者他公开抱怨说无法从围脖上得到足够信息。或许是我错了，但是他们是因独立挖掘信息而获得报酬的，而不是听信那些传言并把它们当作信息的。
March 17th, 03:21Chineseproverb: 'Rumour stops with the wiseman'中国俗语“谣言止于智者”
March 17th, 03:28Theoffical reports are always ambiguous or even unreliable,so rumors can runrampant.News agencies serve the rulers,not citizens,that's one of our choutry'sdrawbacks.官方报道通常是含糊不清甚至不可靠的，因此谣言能这么泛滥。新闻媒体为统治者而不是人民服务，这是我们的不足。
March 17th, 03:33Ithink the most problem of rumors is that China lacks reliable institutions.Sometimes when I read information on microblog, it is hard for me to believeanything. Once we say that news with pitcure is convincing, but then therecomes with the news using PSed pitcures to spread wrong information. Actually,I have seen some people using rumors for their own sake, such as to be famousor something and believe me it is now an industry.So,being both afriad ofprivacy and rumors, I have a very conflict feeling to the real-name policy inthe microblog.我认为围脖的主要问题在于中国没有可靠的信息发布。有时我在围脖上看信息时，我根本就不相信。我们说有图有真相，但是很多新闻用PS的照片用来散播错误的信息。事实上，我发现很多人利用谣言来达成个人目的，比如让自己出名或者其他的什么，相信我这已经成了一个产业了。因此，同时顾及到个人隐私和谣言的存在，我对围脖实名制抱一种非常矛盾的态度。
翻译鼓励，再接再厉
楼主太强了，会几种语言啊。
本帖最后由 人民币 于
18:32 编辑
sf...微博这个东西好，但是我没有时间玩。微博实名制是好事，君子坦荡荡，心里充满阳光的人，负责任有担当的人，是不会计较实名制的。
喜欢楼主的头像&
别以为我没看见~&
公元15世纪短命的新朝时代龙腾网
--------------------------------------------------------------龙腾网
王莽，你究竟穿越了多少个世纪啊·······
师太，如果你不知道他说的是什么，你怎么知道他很YD呢~~~~~&
LX 你好YD啊~贫尼啥都不知道&
你的ID太亮了，虽然很多人不认识你，可他们一定看过你的书……&
据权威专家考证王莽是50到60年代的中国官员穿越过去的~~~&
翻错了，已改，一时间没注意到&
鼓励认真参与讨论
So where can I find this country with free andobjective media and nobody spreading rumors?
自由和客观的媒体媒体，没人散布谣言。这么好的国家，哪里有的卖？龙腾网
——————————————————————————————————---龙腾网
没有一个国家没有谣言传播，也没有一个国家允许谣言传播~
IN THE year15AD,，这个应该译成公元15年吧
我说呢····第一句话我就震惊了····&
谢谢指正，我弄错了，已改&
鼓励认真参与讨论
15AD译错咧
是的，我弄错了，谢谢指正&
鼓励认真参与讨论
任何事情都无法阻止人民探寻真相和自由
任何防火墙都无法阻止人民探寻无码和种子
注册了一个微博，用得实在是少。
中世纪的时候，异教徒要吃火刑
21世纪的时候，意识形态不同的人要被扣屎盆子，而国家就要上黑名单
只看不发的路过
我感肯定里面有米国人龙腾网
米国人难道忘了观海同志前阵子签署的那啥互联网法案了么
经济学人越来越扯淡了
我来解析一下 经济学人 这个名称
经济学-不靠谱的外号
经济学人-华尔街欢迎你龙腾网
英国媒体-中立的外表夹带上私货龙腾网
媒体有老板-老板有政治立场，所以这家媒体必然有政治立场
写这篇文章的作者本身就是缺乏常识，信口开河的。
继续洗脑。表示欢迎。
这评论真是不错啊，楼主翻译的也很厉害，一读就懂？
持续不断的这样对弈吐槽，他们终有“开化”的一天。龙腾网
我一看到文章里有贬低毛的就来气，MD没有毛哪有现在的中国？
可惜现在最大的贬低毛的就是政府，他们怕人民学习毛泽东思想。&
我一看到文章里有贬低毛的就来气，MD没有毛哪有现在的中国？
终于弄完了，累，睡觉
微薄唯一的力量是教会人们独立思考，不盲信，不盲从。 因为我们都知道，盲信盲从的人都是可疑之人。
又有洋人和二鬼子代表中国人了。有木有筒子上去狠狠扇他一耳光，他真的很欠揍。
围脖的力量就是见证了明星中现实版的八点档和一群脑残粉丝。
不知道为什么有人把围脖捧那么高，我从09年末开始织围脖，说实话，围脖真的很水，很无聊。
这个评论里面有多少个是中国人啊。。龙腾网
在国外网站上的某些人见到稍微赞同中共的人，就立刻扣上五毛这名词~龙腾网
所有国内国外都是一样一样的,当论证不过.明知你说的对的时候,一顶五毛就能解决所有问题并能自己爽了啊.喷子就是这样活的.&
微博这种东西╮(╯_╰)╭，之前面试的时候人家还真问我有没有微博，还好我都注册了
真的？私信聊聊~&
微博实名了吗？我这么记得我注册的时候没有实名呢。。
过客不语 发表于
19:37 龙腾网
我来解析一下 经济学人 这个名称龙腾网
经济学-不靠谱的外号龙腾网
经济学人-华尔街欢迎你
经济学人原来不叫经济学人，是叫经济学家，但是和西南财经大学办的一个杂志重名了，侵犯版权，后来才把名字改为经济学人，当然，这是后来老师告诉我们的
weibo有个毛力量．
本帖最后由 yss61 于
12:41 编辑
自由，当华尔街前抗议的人民被自由的警察抓起来了，怎么看不见，听不见。龙腾网
民主，当欧洲出现春天的时候，人民被民主的警察抓起来打的时候，怎么看不见听不见了。
博爱，当美国屠杀平民，虐待战俘的时候，博爱的美国大兵，怎么不进行劝阻了。龙腾网
噢，原来，我们的词意思不一样呀。
自由就是，搞跨别人的国家，让他进入无政府状态，听从美国一切的安排 ，自由因此而存在。
民主就是，没有理由的理由，用他挣权夺利，拿管得人民死活，民主就是让人民去见主。
博爱就是，我进来了，就请把衣服脱光，让我用爱的汁液来创造我们的下一代，玩光所在国的所有男人与女人，是为博爱，所以，当上帝以博爱世人的时候，大家就要小心了。
yss61 发表于
自由，当华尔街前抗议的人民被自由的警察抓起来了，怎么看不见，听不见。
民主，当欧洲出现春天的时候，人 ...
说的好&&赞一个
站长推荐 /3
论坛新功能新鲜来袭，每个账号200J/月就能享受此功能服务无限切换你的小马甲
什么是“翻译加工厂”呢？
（由首页导航条“翻译”直接进入）翻译加工厂就是像工厂一样，把翻译工厂流水线进行。现在，让我们来参观一下，看看这个流程是怎么样的
十二星座勋章统统跳楼价，不要一万，不要五千，
只要不足1000J你就能拥有你想要的星座勋章。
Powered by}