light 34 had just taken off from Los Angeles for New York last Friday morning when the pilot's voice resounded through the cabin. We all know how soothing a ritual that can be: the generic tone of mellow understatement that is so reassuring a tool of modern pilots. The writer Tom Wolfe traces it to Chuck Yeager, the daring war ace and low-key test pilot with the "poker-hollow West Virginia drawl" emulated by successive generations of pilots.
2004/2/12 我在旅蘇州一小鎮中的某工業區的台商當顧問一周 感慨頗深 主人們說些所謂千年古鎮 我們生活在廠區後面的宿舍 一樓餐廳 二三樓為員工宿舍 四樓為台幹宿舍 他們真的以廠為家每天除了一小時午休晚上十點半之後再回房睡覺 早上董事長室窗外是大馬路 行人有清潔人 販者 穿現代的保暖衣 我在室內看紐約時報在銷遣和挖掘其服役史 由於INTERNET被SENSOR 所以
朱養民是在雷震的《自由中國》上面鼓吹組黨運動的老作家之
一，著有《七論反對黨》。; 曾長期居住美國馬里蘭州。; 2000年2月3日去世。. ...
www.asiademo.org/author/zhuyangmin.htm - 3k -
19991109a_朱養民_以「合一」 ...Next Previous This Month 1999.11.9 a 以「合一」的理念解決兩岸的敵視
僵局朱養民. 引言 本文主旨是促請中共第三代領導層，在探求
解決兩岸敵視僵局方案時，要埋葬為台灣一再拒絕的封建「統
一 ...
www.asiademo.org/1999/11/19991109a.htm - 6k - 頁庫存檔 - 類似網頁[ www.asiademo.org 的其它相關資訊 ]
岫廬集2003-06-27 〈岫廬集〉. 《朱養民先生》. 黃崑巖／著. 我至今很懷念朱養民
先生，他是不折不扣的中國學究。任何人一見到他就會知道魯迅，老舍，
甚至於我至今還欽仰不已的典範，前新竹中學的老師蘇森墉所描述的大陸
學究 ... 看到他們的國際會議廳的氣勢，以及一九五一年韓戰爆發時僅有一座橋跨過的漢江，現有三十八座，仁川國際機場則停滿了各國的飛機在爭豔，回到中正機場，卻見不到幾架飛機，停在地上的幾架多半是華航與長榮的。
中正機場的沒有生氣是我們國際圈子縮水的縮影。回抵國門更覺空談擴展國際舞台，我們面對並不是簡單的障礙。非武裝地帶，英文叫Demilitarized Zone，簡稱DMZ。世界這麼大紛爭這麼多，散佈在全世界的DMZ一定不少。例如，塞浦路斯是一個島國，北邊的土耳其族群與南邊的希臘後裔勢不兩立，鬥殺慘案頻仍，現在以聯合國維和部隊把兩造分隔，所以那裡一定有DMZ。以色列佔領的敘利亞的高蘭高地，以及黎巴嫩南部都有維和部隊監視兩邊，那裡也就有DMZ。
但政治歷史上最有名的，莫過於分隔東西兩德達四十年之久的一條，以及把朝鮮半島切成兩半，接近北緯卅八度線的另一條。
Indecorous questions persist about Dr. Robert Atkins, the diet doctor who popularized eating fat to lose weight, even nearly a year after his death. indecorous [Show phonetics]adjective FORMAL
behaving badly or rudely
MANAGERIAL BREAKTHROUGH FOR ENGINEERS
2004/2/11 Wendsday
五點多起來 上internet 昨夜稍番英文版 One Heros and Hero Worship 讀
很謝謝Gary 當然這提供更詳盡的計分方式 包括 interactions或產品競爭力的分析等 還有它指出key製程等 (我已黃博之後談過key processes的保密措施等)
他我將今晨的一些筆記與大家分享
亞洲華爾街日報The Swedish car maker is recalling all S60, S80 and V90 models made in the past year, due to a steering fault. 泰碩電子公司去是五千萬的損失 現在我們要問 為什麼 還會有這種所謂的失敗成本 工廠的失敗學為何
早餐與Gary談南洋大學 新加坡管理大學 工作重疊(多能工作) learning by doing
與Dr黃談其工作七成大陸 二成台灣 一成mnc (多國籍企業公司)accounts
工廠operations和其營運作為一 model
BUSINESS有其assumptions
bom(bill of materials)的建構及意義
工廠的諸報表建立(和差異分析 為什麼Ivy說這種報告 可能束之高閣?)
擬潔淨區的workplaces和測試辦公的重新安排
conveyor的附加價值和效率幹部的培養和訓練(含大陸)
組織架構清楚 有二級的人和主管接手工作
中午QA QC共十七人 分兩位在讀書
黃博在苦思QFD之四表格
中午看日本面對金融危機的竹中學者大臣HARD LANDING 這遠比CALD只收的SOFTLANDING 更常用 如談航空業的
soft landing noun [C usually singular]
when a person or vehicle comes down from the air to the ground without difficulty or damage
所以國興電視翻譯成快速或緩慢登陸 是錯誤的 他講五勝一和
午發現自掃垃圾
除了謝謝Gary為我們蒐索到的QFD教材之外
提醒除了要準備專為某顧客和產品編輯的全方位品管手冊++
有QC的spreadsheet for control之外 還要有製造的 它要含蓋total cycle time 和first pass yield 以及inventories 等最起碼的indicator
QC 的SPREADSHEET中要補充全HEAT PIPE生產線的DEFECT CODES 系統 要標明嚴重等級 要將各站以檢驗為主的計畫改成以SPC為主 重要的PROCESS要考慮作FAILURE MODES and EFFECTS ANALYSIS (FMEA 這可以從Juran Quality Handbook的index找 或請Gary幫忙google一下)
我們今晚七點半起要向各位介紹The Leader’s Hanbook一書中的<<日常管理>>一章
黃博士有空隨即找我談QFD未盡事項
++HEAT PIPES CONTROL INDEX Manual Recommendations
公司的經營和品管政策
Engineering specifications
IBM specifications
Record retention and configuration management
Incoming Inspections and suppliers management
Equipment Documentation and capability studies
Process Flow charting and plant layout
Operators instructions
Manufacturing reports (including Key Performance Indice)
Outgoing quality control
Quality assurance and reliability requirements
Test and inspection code summaries
Customer deviation control
Although Apple and Linux do have an advantage because
they have lower market share, they are also more difficult to attack
because they have a much different security model than Windows. On
Windows, one wrong click and you are infected. On Mac or Linux,
another layer of authorization is required, even from an Admin
account. My question is why would Microsoft create such an ineffective
security model for an operating system for millions of networked
computers?
Ahhh, the eternal search for the organizational consultant's holy
grail: "Just do it this way, and you're guaranteed optimum results!"
is 40 years old, in the best moment of his life, very active, very productive,
"Obey the law that reveals,
and not the law revealed."
-- Henry Thoreau
2004/2/10 Tuesday
昨夜撐到十點半 很睏 倒床就睡 早七點起 兩段翻譯到四十分 與黃博士喝豆漿 蛋 餃 小 包未來得及 dr是Case Reserve University 了解點Clevend鋼鐵城和他十年寒窗的辛苦
九點鐘工廠限電 江蘇省整年周二周四 生產線自行調成夜班
泡茶 打掃人員 清潔
翻讀JURAN QUALITY HANDBOOK
發行newsletter談planning and control integration
*yk帶張立忠 上海sales經理來聊 談emachine的談價方式和supply 他希望找r&d的人才 自言connector過去損失浪費五千萬 希望游萬億group能加入
amp對於上海頭 一月只補助三千人民幣
!點半開始上課 放兩段百五十元鞋和honda 點任督兩脈 qfd和control spreadsheet 建議inventories和shopfloor分駐不同之地 一樓和二樓整頓一”翻”
yk聯絡james 他兩年未見 他碰到有整學期實習學生可利用(廣東工業大學) 因派員參加大陸之顧問公司的課程 主題有四績效管理 流程改善 文件建立
jerry談其母類固醇 先天風濕的問題 其安家計畫竟然是美周回去一次 dr作產品性能比較
黃博士找台灣juran quality handbook竟然只賣兩千五百 簡直不可思義到極點
晚餐談歐洲和名牌等 談新台幣和ray等
出去 看得見星空 與警衛聊天 問車間調頂的廣告意思 談文字 九年國教
附近有許多噴織機等公司 沿路最盡頭為水處理公司 唯一極暗處office
八點半先回宿舍 發現有網路
2004/2/9吳江的黎里
半夜聽到聲音 以為是發電機 七點醒來 原來是冷氣機 譯兩段simon
早上simon帶稍為看工廠
與jarry(他對粉末冶金很熟悉 除了通包之外 午餐嫌狗亂跑 要求廚師)和ivy談其工作 ivy談更多 中午 再認識gary和allan休息其間出去到這吳江的黎里工業園區走走 這是柳亞子的故里 以此為榮 隔壁是一wiring的電子公司 右為製鞋廠 有人負責掃園區 門口一老婦在賣小橘子
基本上工廠的作業說明書已有 simon喜歡戰情指揮辦公室 我要求台幹等每天一時半之後共同參加討論會
查DOCUMENTATION CENTER的某些資料
與Gerry談thermal core的某些產品報導 含waranty one vs three years
讀HA SIMON 20002出版品 不勝感慨
2004/2/8
taxi到長榮 前座少婦一路手機 往後坐 一覺醒來機場已到
香港機場讓台灣羞愧 台灣還許多假花
帶雨傘 到香港機場才放棄
候機室只一人 擺的藝術品是同一人的雕塑讀英雄與英雄崇拜 一百六十年前的演講 三十七年前的人人文庫
收獲良多 少年時讀它 或許只是讀點故事 這些年來語文能力大進 當然學到許多新東西 曾虛白先生的翻譯還很不錯 當然早有何欣的注解本
一隊人馬上陣 機上機長說明 他的中英文都很遭 很令人啼笑皆非 只能說語文能力非關飛行大事 他竟無法說出確切抵港的時間
華航將原先的兩班次合併 所以滿滿的 餐飲是豬排飯 以前這太乾!社 現在成佳
有沒預期到今還是不能直航 我九六年搭國內班機 以為這些都為此準備 沒想到 現在台獨二十百分點以上 是統派的四五倍
空姐多染髮 一像杜比洋哇 取餐會蹲下來 有幾絲青髮 不知是真是假
發現電影介紹有一段很適合學英文
辦台胞加簽 一路標示清楚 只收一百五港必幣約二十一美元
遇到品質協理simon 他做過鞋廠 futaba光學尺 運用 這兒大夥來兩月多
空中小姐多留長髮 後梳成 刊物多全國統一 去年十一月的
五點起飛 七點出浦東機場 規模硬體等還不錯 sign系統不佳 等車有gate號碼 又有不同柱號 多人室內吸煙 yk和黃博來接機 yk留在上海 周二可能與james來 我說雖然工業區和鎮上過八點已無東西 還是去四川火鍋 四人點許多菜 又有酒 才百二十九元 幾乎台灣的三分之一以下的錢
這兒還多是用外地工 供宿舍 常停電 工廠員工月薪約六百元 說東莞基本薪約三百 談如何吸引幹部 據說供方市場 每notebook用兩根 就二億
外頭三輪車有機動和人力
這兒是江蘇
機上大公報 一官方報 比較衝擊得是一日本十九世紀煙盒 白鳥黑鳥交錯的漆製品 簡直是Escher的先聲 Brosky談蘇惡詩人
我在機上讀Carley談先知穆罕默德和師人但丁
另外的書寫方式是重新用自己的話來說 也許這就是Emerson所謂的代表性人物
我談yk的有人緣等等 結交日本人等
泰碩的休假 利用周日
Passengers who begin their trips with the post-9/11 security routine — removing their shoes, conscientiously discarding nail clippers — are unlikely to respond well to a pilot bent on religious proselytizing. These days, it is particularly incumbent on the person in the cockpit to stick to cruising altitudes and arrival times. Diversions from the script are really not welcome, unless it's to point out that the Grand Canyon can be seen on the right.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-1/text/simon2.html
SEHR, volume 4, issue 1: Bridging the Gap
Updated 8 April 1995
editors' note
What you are not holding in your hands is the culmination of the diligent work of thirty-six busy scholars from a wide spectrum of academic disciplines, the support and assistance of many friends and teachers and colleagues at each unexpected stage of the year-long evolution of the project, and hundreds of (mostly electronic) exchanges between the authors and the editors of the Stanford Humanities Review. The final product could not have seen daylight without the committed effort of all parties involved, too numerous to mention individually. So let us start by simply expressing our gratitude to everyone who helped at each point along the way.
The original idea that eventually resulted in this special supplement dates back several months. We initially planned to include a "target article," with peer commentary and author response, in Constructions of the Mind -- Issue 4:1 of the Stanford Humanities Review that we were editing on Artificial Intelligence and the Humanities. Constructions of the Mind was intended be a forum for intellectual exchange between AI researchers, in the business of building "intelligent artifacts," and those in traditional humanities disciplines, who, independent of computational expertise, represented centuries of scholarship on the nature of intelligence and humanity. As part of that work, we wanted to present a "roundtable discussion" between a well-respected exemplar of the Artificial Intelligence research paradigm, and a group of those who, although we believed they had valuable contributions to make, would otherwise be liable to remain silent on this important topic. In brief, our hope was to encourage and facilitate an exchange between natives of far-away cultures who hardly ever spoke to one another, even if we didn't quite know what sort of an outcome to expect from such an encounter.
Our first idea for a target article was a "position paper" on the foundational assumptions of Artificial Intelligence, and we approached Professor Herbert Simon to ask for such a contribution. When one of the editors (Güven Güzeldere) visited Carnegie Mellon University in May 1993, the project took a different turn. In place of a standard defense of AI, Professor Simon offered to contribute a paper questioning the foundational assumptions of the "other side": i.e., a proposed reconstruction of literary criticism from a Cognitive Science/Artificial Intelligence perspective. Intrigued by Prof. Simon's idea, and convinced that his suggested "experiment in communication between the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences" was worth pursuing, we quickly set about eliciting appropriate peer commentary.
Within a few short weeks we received a very encouraging response. Although we had expected on the order of ten commentaries, we received close to forty submissions, all engaging Prof. Simon's article in substantive ways. The replies came in many different flavors-from those that branded his proposal to "bridge the gap from the cognitive side" as hostile and imperialistic, to those that applauded it as a welcome guide to their own territory.
Encouraged by the sheer level of enthusiasm, we decided to take up the challenge and to proceed with the enlarged debate as a self-standing project. Prof. Simon kindly reviewed all the commentaries we sent him, in a very timely manner, producing a detailed response that covered all the issues that had been raised. In the end, what had started out as one proposed section of a forthcoming issue of the Stanford Humanities Review grew into a manuscript the size of a full issue on its own. It was at this point that we decided to publish this roundtable discussion-on "bridging the gap between sciences and the humanities," with special focus on Cognitive Science and Literary Criticism-as a special supplement, alongside the main issue, Constructions of the Mind.
We hope you find the discussion thought-provoking and inspiring.
Many people helped us in different ways at each stage of the project. We would especially like to thank:
Herbert Simon, for offering us his paper for the "experiment in communication between the two cultures";
and the thirty-five commentators, who made the experiment possible;
Wanda Corn and Charles Junkerman, for being unfailing advocates of the Stanford Humanities Review;
George Dekker and John Etchemendy, for advice and support (financial and otherwise);
John Perry, for many words of wisdom, and for the "rollicking" blurb on our brochure;
Fred Dretske, for suggesting and encouraging the idea of a separate supplement;
Murat Aydede, Niklas Damiris, and Helga Wild, for camaraderie, and ever-present support throughout the year;
Barry Greenhut, for putting up with us through every new idea in the design of the supplement, and staying up all night to help us wrestle with the Xerox "DocuTech";
Geoff Nunberg, for showing us how to put punch in a text;
Gregor Kiczales and everyone in the Embedded Computation Area at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, for providing crucial resources to bring the project to fruition in its final stage, and Susi Lilly for making sure everything happened as it was supposed to happen; and,
Brian Smith, for being present, all along.
Stefano Franchi
Güven Güzeldere
of gaps, bridges, and close encounters of one of a kind:
an introduction
Stefano Franchi & Güven Güzeldere
What could literary critics and cognitive scientists have to say to each other? Their fields seem disparate, not only in objects of study and methodology, but still more deeply in terms of intellectual temperament. And yet the encounter could prove fruitful to both parties.
Cognitive science tries to provide an explanation of higher human cognitive functions, providing models of skills and abilities that are usually considered typical manifestations of human intelligence-the ability to solve certain types of mathematical problems, for example, or the sophisticated competence required to play complex games like chess. Very often, the theories elaborated to describe a specific cognitive ability (say, chess-playing) are transformed into computational models which, when implemented, can reproduce the skill in question. Thus the computer program becomes the testbed of the theory it embodies; the program's results, the best assessment of the theory's explanatory power. The performance of a chess-playing program faithfully implementing a theory of chess-playing becomes the best measure of the theory's adequacy for explaining the phenomenon itself.[1]
There is little doubt that the production of meaningful signs and their correct interpretation-in short, the manipulation of written or spoken "texts"-is among the higher, and perhaps the highest, human cognitive functions. Although cognitive science usually takes as its object the study of the thought processes underlying the actual production, as well as the interpretation, of texts, rather than the study of texts themselves, it is easy to see how its interests overlap with those of literary criticism. Criticism is concerned with the literary text-its meaning, its mode of functioning, its internal organization, its history and tradition, its internal articulation in genres and styles, its modes of production. Can the two disciplines benefit from each other's work?
Cognitive Science Meets Literary Criticism:
Close Encounters of One of a Kind
The present volume is aimed at setting up an encounter between cognitive science and literary criticism, and at exploring the possibilities of interaction-whether they be genuine intellectual exchanges, merely friendly handshakes, or passionate confrontations. Perhaps the most striking outcome of this encounter, at least on the face of it, is the fact that each side comes equipped with sufficient theoretical armament to offer its own territory as "conceptual ground" for the other. In preparing the volume we began with the idea of "experiment in communication between the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences." But what we had seen as a "bridge" between them was at times interpreted by each as a scaffold planted in its own soil, on which the other would sit as a kind of superstructure.
What kind of resources do cognitive science and literary criticism have such that they can be relevant for one another, if not beneficial? Cognitive science develops models of linguistic interaction which, even if regarded as too simplistic to support a full-scale generalization to something as complex as a literary work, could nonetheless prove useful in their possible application to literature. It could turn out, on the other hand, that such an application would reveal a need for internal theoretical realignments or changes of focus for cognitive science itself. The extension of cognitive science's theories to these new "phenomena" might thus be greatly enhanced if built upon the analysis of the structure of the text-the territory of many literary critics' expertise.
Think, for example, of the models of "story understanding" elaborated by cognitive scientists to explain the thinking processes that underlie the correct interpretation of short tales; it is conceivable that an application of these models to the narrative structure of short stories and novels could provide useful insights into the models' adequacy and explanatory power. On the other hand, such an application would be greatly improved if it were to take into account the work on the internal structure of narrative prose that has been carried out in the literary field. The sophisticated text analysis elaborated by the semiotic school of criticism might be particularly useful in this context. A few promising forays in this direction have been attempted already. For example, Jerry Hobbs and Patrizia Violi (Hobbs, 1990: 131-164) combine tools developed by artificial intelligence to analyze the structure of discourse with the classical semiotic framework to explicate the meaning of Gérard de Nerval's novella, Sylvie.
Furthermore, the analyses of cognitive science could gain in depth from a comparison with the work of literary critics. It is by no means obvious that the difference between the common and literary use of language is only a matter of degree. It might be argued that the experience of language provided by the poetic text, for example, is essentially different from what can be experienced in everyday linguistic interaction, since one of poetry's points is precisely to expose the essential instability of language by bringing to light both its inherent possibility of failure and its inexhaustible richness. But if these uses really are different, in what sense do they differ? Does this difference point to essentially distinct underlying processes, or rather to a deeper underlying unity that surfaces in different manifestations? Similar arguments could be developed (and indeed are developed by Simon) to show how literary criticism could benefit from comparison with cognitive science.
If we push further to investigate the possible overlaps and reciprocal exchanges between the two disciplines, however, we see that such friendly encounters have the potential to turn into "imperialistic take-over" attempts, and ultimately into belligerent confrontations. Cognitive science, for instance, when considered within the broader perspective of its own research programme, attempts to provide an explanation of all human cognitive faculties. Indeed, cognitive scientists have several times expressed their conviction that their approach would eventually broaden to encompass the "whole man, fully equipped with glands and viscera" (Simon, 1981: 65).
That is to say, cognitive science is not just interested in the analysis of literary texts, but is committed, in the long run, to coming to terms with literature itself, by trying to provide a "cognitive" account of the modes of production and fruition of the literary work of art. To renounce such a goal would amount to renouncing its aspiration to be an account of the "whole man," and to admit that its theory of cognitive functions-complete and consistent however it may be-will never do justice to some of the highest productions of the human mind (to phrase the issue in its own terms). Two possibilities, or two variations on the same theme of incompleteness, would be opened by the refusal to take up this challenge-admittedly, in the long run-of the interpretation of literature: either the best account of the thinking processes that cognitive science can ultimately hope to give is essentially incomplete-because it does not cover phenomena that seem to require "thinking"-or what it calls "thinking" is essentially incapable of expressing the wholeness of human being.
沒有留言:
張貼留言