TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River." WORDS: 299 TIME: 0:45:00 DATE: 2009-2-3

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Manson City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The arguer points out that an agency in this region has announced plans to clean up Mason River, and the dirty water is the main reason why people around the city avoid using the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies. In the first place, this argument assumes that if the water quality of Mason River raises, more people will come for swimming, fishing and boating in the river. However, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps there are other reasons why citizens seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreational activity -- despite the water pollution. For example, this river may have a complex water environment or many swirls in the river. In such kind of river, swimming and boating must be dangerous. In addition, this river may just be close to a certain noisy market, and people who like to go fishing cannot have a good position to throw the fishhook and enjoy the peaceful environment. Therefore, the residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity due to the poor quality of the water is an unwarranted assumption. In the second place, this argument gives no data to convince me that after publishing the announcement; recreational use of the river is likely to increase. In fact, it may take a lone time to raise the water quality of this river, and the final result is not clear at this time. It has the possibility that the residents may still not be satisfied with the quality of the water after the water cleanness. Thus, without giving more imformation, there is no need to be hasty and conclude that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. In conclusion, this argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not give strong support to what the argument maintains. To strengthen the argument, more necessary data and evidence must be provided.

The speaker believes that economic and other pragmatic concers are what drive people's career decisions, and that very few people are free to choose their careers based on talents and interests. I tend to disagree; although practical considerations often play a significant role in occupational trends, ultimately the driving forces behind people's career decisions are individual interest and ability. At first glance the balance of empirical evidence would seem to lend considerable credence to the speaker's claim. The most popular fields of study for students today are the computer sciences-- fields characterized by a relative glut of job opportunities. Graduates with degrees in liberal arts often abandon their chosen fields because they cannot find employment, and reenter school in search of more practical careers. Even people who have already achieved success in their chosen field are ofthen forced to abandon them due to pragmatic concerns. For example, many talented and creative people from the entertainment industry find themselves looking for other, less satisfying, kinds of work when they turn 40 years of age because industry executives prefer younger artists who are tuned in to the younger demographic group the purchases entrertainment products. However, upon further reflection it becomes clear that the relationship between career-seekers and the supply of careers is an interdependent one, and therefore it is unfair to generalize about which one drives the other. Consider, for example, the two mainstream fields of computer science and law. In given the highly lucrative financial rewards. But, would our legions of talented progremmers, engineers, scientists, and technicians really pursue their careers without a genuine fascination, a passion, or at least an interest in those areas? I think not. Conversely, consider the field of law, in which it wolud appear that demand drives the job market, rather than vice versa. The number of applications to law schools soared during the civil rights movenment of the 1960s, and again in the 1980s during the run of the popular television series L.A.Law. More recently, the number of students pursuing paralegal and criminal-justice careers spiked during and immediately after the O.J.Simpson trial. Query, though, whether these aspiring lawyers and paralegals would have been sufficiently motivated had the supply of jobs and the financial rewards not already been waiting for them upon graduation. Another compelling argument against the speaker's claim has to do with the myriad of ways in which people earn their living. Admittedly, the job market is largely clustered around certain mainstream industries and types of work. Nevertheless, if one peers beyond these mainstream occupational areas it becomes evident that many, many people do honor their ture interests and talents -- in spite of where most job openings lie and regardless of their financial rewards. Creative people seem to have a knack of creating their own unique vocational niche -- whether it be in the visual or the performing arts; many animal lovers create work which allows them to express that love. Caregivers and nurturers manage to, find work teching, socializing, counseling, and healing others. And people bitten by the travel bug generallyhave little trouble finding satisfying careers in the travel industry. In sum, the speaker's threshold claim that it is strictly the pragmatic concerns of job availability and financial compensation that drive people's career decisions oversimplifies both why and how people make their choices. Besides, the speaker's final claim that people are not free to choose their work violates my intuition, In the final analysis, people are ultimately free to choose their work; it's just that they often choose to betray their true talents and interests for the sake of practical, economic considerations.

哈哈哈哈哈哈哈

忙碌了很长时间，终于把我可爱的自动计算GPA的javascript脚本写好了，用它就可以计算中国农业大学的GPA成绩啦:)

目前只是测试版

它不支持计算：

1、成绩里面有不及格的成绩.... 所以你计算的时候一定要确定你补考都通过了，这样才能计算出来你真实的GPA

2、成绩中含有“中等”以下评价的成绩——因为我最差的也就是“良好”，好不容易知道除了良好还有一个“中等”...但是不知道再往下是什么了，谁要是知道或者得过的更惨的成绩的话..额..是否可以借我密码一用 也算是支持我了。

另外它还没法自定义GPA的点数计算，换算都写死在程序里了，用的是经典的北大算法。

90=4.0，85=3.7，82=3.3，78=3.0，75=2.7，72=2.3，69=2.0，66=1.7，63=1.3，60=1.0。

另外优秀就当是90分 良好就算做85分 中等就算做75分 不过好像不太对...我再慢慢改吧 反正偏差不会超过0.5的

嗯，因为还有这么多的缺陷，所以充其量只能算是一个alpha版本的作品。 本来不想发布了，但是..还是先发上来吧。慢慢完善~

嗯，下面我要讲解下用法，虽然是有点复杂吧..不过我觉得应该比用手计算要来的快一些。

1、登陆进入查分系统

2、进到查成绩的页面

3、 按照在图示区域内点击鼠标右键——》选择“查看源文件”，之后会弹出来一个记事本的窗口里面有网页的源文件。

4、点击文件-》另存为...——》存储到任何一个地方就可以

5、OK，马上就要胜利了！ 现在打开http://www.darlingtree.com/gpa

6、上传你刚才另存为的那个成绩文件

7、点击“计算”GPA成绩就会出来了！

要反驳的题目：

72.In measuring electrical activity in different parts of the brain, researchers found that people who describe themselves as generally happy have more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of their brains than do other people. Therefore, a medication for stimulating the left prefrontal前额 lobe of the brain would be an effective treatment for clinical depression.

在测量大脑不同部分的电波活动的时候，研究者发现那些把自己描述成快乐的人大脑左前额部分的活动比其他人更多。因此，刺激大脑左前额部分对于抑郁症的临床治疗将会是一种有效的方法。

我的文章：

The argument concludes that a medication for stimulating the left prefrontal lobe of the brain would be an effective treatment for clinical depression. Yet, the argument contains several critical flaws. I will discuss each of these questionable facets in turn.

First of all, the argument is based on the problematic assumption that a happy people may have a more activity left prefrontal lobe. However, the evidence that the arguer provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. It has the possibility that those who describe themselves as generally happy may not be happy at all. Perhaps there are other reasons leads to an activity left prefrontal lobe. As the author did not provide more evidence, such as one people who feels happy has more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of brain than the one when is not happy. Laughing people has more activity in the left prefrontal lobe, etc.. Lacking evidence makes this is a fallacious assumption.

In addition, even if I were concede that people who feel happy have more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of their brains than people who is not. There is no evidence indicates that to stimulate the left prefrontal lobe may let people feel happy or may let the left prefrontal lobe became more activity than before. Without ruling out all other possible condition, the argument cannot convince me.

Finally, even if I were concede that one’s stimulate to the left prefrontal lobe may surely let the left prefrontal lobe became more activity than before; the argument contains no evidence that it can cure the clinical depression. In fact, this argument does not provide any solid information about which cause the depression at all.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more data about the research. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that a medication for stimulating the left prefrontal lobe of the brain may let people have more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of their brains and it can cures clinical depression.

放假前我们在制作项目的时候，用了sht系列的传感器。这个传感器正好有个计算露点的功能。可是什么是露点呢？dew point，从名字大概就能猜出这个词汇的意义——与形成露水有关。不过如果你想进一步探究下这个专业词汇的具体含义的时候——百度一下？ 有的人会这么想。芳姐前几天发表了一篇文章，写到

“不管是百度还是google，露点居然都是非法词汇，可怜的露点。”

你也可以亲自去百度或者google下这个词汇。那么为什么会遇到这种情况，遇到这种情况我们该怎么办呢？下面我来把我多年的经验一一传授给大家，已经会了的就可以直接跳过了:)

为什么会出现这种情况？

显然，愚笨的搜索引擎（其实不应该这么说 具体原因见后）误会了我们的意思，露点除了科学的含义外还有另一层含义，而这层含义往往都是与一些比较令男生感到兴奋幸福:) 的结果混在了一起。于是为了让我们far away from 黄 赌 毒，保护我们幼小的心灵，我们的搜索结果被一个叫做GFW的东西给屏蔽掉了。

那么什么是GFW呢？

GFW的全名叫做中国防火墙或者中国国家防火墙，也称为防火长城，因为一般论坛把GFW也列做了敏感的令男生能够兴奋的敏感词汇 呵呵 ，所以一般我们也用功夫网(Gong Fu Wang)来代指。

一般情况下，防火长城主要指中国政府监控和过滤互联网内容的软硬件系统，由服务器和路由器等设备，加上相关的应用程序所构成。由于中国网络审查广泛，中国国内含有“不合适”内容的的网站，会受到政府直接的行政干预，被要求自我审查、自我监管，乃至关闭，故防火长城主要作用在于分析和过滤中国境内外网络的资讯互相访问。

具体情况可以访问wiki的条目 zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/防火长城  当然了，你直接点击上面的这个链接的话你依然会“撞墙”，呵呵，那么我们如何“翻墙”呢？

如何“翻墙”

有很多种翻墙的方法，下面我介绍下最简便的方法 访问http://go2.appspot.com/ 这个网站，将你要访问的Url粘掉那个框框里面，比如你可以把上面的那个wiki的网址粘掉这里，之后点Go。然后你发现你就可以访问这个网页了:)

然后你再测试下www.google.com 同样，输入我们可爱的词汇“露点”，你会发现已经能够正常搜索到结果了——这证明Google是一点也不笨的，开发它的人智商跟我应该差不多 哈哈 玩笑玩笑。 愚笨的是我们中国的GFW。

当然了，你也可以试着搜索下什么xxx!#$%^&*()_之类的东西,额....我还是不要教坏你们为好。

好了，就是这么简单，我们终于可以翻墙出去了，好了，你可以借着这个机会好好欣赏下真正的互联网——一个没有任何限制的互联网。 你再也看不到“因为当地政策或者法规，部分结果未予显示”这行令人恼火的字眼了。

扩展知识：

https连接

细心的你也许发现了在刚才那个翻墙网站里面还有个按钮，叫做Go(HTTPS)。你如果点击这个按钮也可以翻墙，那么什么是https连接呢？

我们平时使用的互联网协议安全性很差，数据都是明文传送的，比如你现在浏览我这篇文章，你看到的东西在呈现在你得眼前之前--也即从我所租赁的服务器到你电脑这之间，传送的东西都是没有经过加密的。如果有个对你或者对我很感兴趣的人或者组织，比如FBI（但愿不是），在这个过程中截获了数据包，那么他们就能得知你在看什么。也许这个对于学生的我们来说不是很重要，不过估计我们大多也都不希望我们所写的情书被别人偷看~呵呵

https连接可以将数据加密传送，所以即使对方截获到了，也很难破译（确切来说，我也不知道能不能破译，有兴趣自己研究下）。

说了半天，到底https连接有什么实际作用呢？

首先，GFW会截获所有人的数据包，包括你发的邮件(相关文章:soildot)，如果发现你在谈论敏感问题，那么你就会被列入到政府高危的most wanted黑名单 呵呵，玩笑。

所以为了防止翻墙的时候再次“撞墙”，也就是当我们需要在一个网站里面“游荡”的时候，那么最好使用那个网站提供的Go(HTTPS)按钮。

常用的https

https://www.quake0day.com/ 这个是我的国外网站的https访问通道——这个是广告

https://mail.qq.com/ 这个是QQmail的https登陆地址

GMail可以通过设置，设置成每次都用https连接——一般给国外发信推荐使用Gmail的邮箱并打开https，免得对方收不到信。

行了，我的技巧已经和大家分享完了，如果觉得有点帮助就回个贴:)

欢迎访问

http://www.darlingtree.com/wordpress