Compare这个动词后面可以接to或者with， 那么compare to 和compare with是不是可以互换呢？我们来看看它们到底有什么区别。 Compare to 用来强调两个不同事物间的相似之处。 麦林韦氏词典的网页（http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compare）上举了莎氏比亚的一句诗：shall I compare thee to a summer's day? 这里compare to有比作的意思，是用来做比喻的。另外还举了一个例子：The singer's voice has been compared to that of Elvis. 这句里虽然不是比喻，但还是“比作”的意思，强调的是两者的相同。 Compare with 用来将两个事物间相同的特征进行比较，看它们是相同还是不同，一般是为了强调两者的不同。 Sales increased 10% in the summer compared with the previous season. 因此可以看出，compare to 一般用在文学作品中，是为了让语言更生动，更形象。而在科技写作中我们比较实验组和对照组的时候，我们是为了强调两者之间的差异，无一例外是需要用compare with的。 Compared with mice inoculated with control cells, mice inoculated with YAP-deficient cells had smaller primary tumors and fewer metastatic lesions. 麦林韦氏词典的网页上还有这样两个例子： tall compared to meeasy compared with the last test这里有“相对于”的意思，看起来表达这层意思的时候“compare to” 和“compare with”都是可以的。注意这里tall和easy都没有用比较级 (taller, easier)。但是这个用法在科技论文中应该不太用得到，因为科技写作要求准确，我们不会说Rats on the high fat diet are fat compared to rats on the regular diet. 而是会说 Rats on the high fat diet gained significantly more weight than rats on the regular diet. 或者 Compared with rats on the regular diet, rats on the high fat diet gained significantly more weight. 所以只要记住科技论文中描述组别之间的差异用compared with就可以了。 其实很多英语母语的作者也会把这两个词用错，已经发表的文章中应该用compare with 而用了compare to的比比皆是，但是这也不表明这两个词可以互换使用。至少在标准英语里还是将它们区分开来的。当然，英语是个不断变化的语言，有些非常规的用法用的人多了可能变成常规用法，也许将来有一天compare to和compare with之间的界限会越来越模糊甚至消失，我们就可以随意选择了。 （此文由LetPub编辑原创，转载请注明来自LetPub中文官网： www.letpub.com.cn/index.php?page=sci_writing_35 ） 进一步了解， 请点击查看： www.letpub.com.cn SCI论文英语润色 │ 同行资深专家修改 │ 专业翻译 │ SCI论文语言改写服务 │ 格式排版整理 │ 联系我们 相关资源： 科技论文写作辅导材料
3/9/2014 Sunday 10:16:35 PM Lifestyle Design---Day 24 My lifein the United States Today’s Morning Nourishment I enjoy: Revelation: 21:5 And He who sits on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said,Write, for these words are faithful and true. 21:6And He said to me, They have come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, theBeginning and the End. I will give to him who thirsts from the spring of the water of life freely. 21:7 Hewho overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he willbe a son to Me. Praise the Lord, today the churches in New Jersey had a blending gathering in our newmeeting hall. We are so happy that the Lord has made us together, made us one!Though we be many, yet we all are one, and thus within, in life we all are one.We stand as one in each locality, for all to see, and our actual oneness withall saints declare. What a joy to have this blessed oneness! As most of the brothers and sisters who attended the gathering, I was also touched bythe video showing the history of our church. He is the Alpha and the Omega, He first initiated the desire of a new meeting hall in the leading brothers, during theprocess, He leads all saints through, and fulfill all the needs, finally, Heperforms the promise, and gives us the new meeting hall. How faithful andtrustworthy too, my dearest Lord. The universe and all therein Thy faithfulness avow. Furthermore,Lord’s desire is not merely blesses us outwardly, or gives us a physical newmeeting hall. His utmost purpose is to build of His body---the church. Weshould treasure what Lord gives to us, but we ought to bear in mind that we arehere for His purpose; we are not those only live in the human history; we arethose and should be those live in the divine history. Lord Jesus, may Your namebe sanctified; Your kingdom come; Your will be done, as in heaven, so also onearth. “He who testifies these things says, Yes, I come quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! Thegrace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.” What should be improved today: Exercise to live before the Lord through consistent pray, do not be bothered or live in front of others. “And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone” What new life hacks learnt today: Only be with the best! “You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with----Jim Rohn” Take a look at your inner circle of friends. You need to surround yourself with people whom you can learn from andbe encouraged by. As iron sharpens iron, your network of friends is a greatresource for brain picking. Num. Date Books To Be Read In The Coming Days Progress 1 Saturday, March 01, 2014 Economix: How Our Economy Works (and Doesn't Work), in Words and Pictures Paperback by Michael Goodwin Currently reading it 2 Sunday, March 02, 2014 The Cartoon Guide to Calculus (Cartoon Guides) by Larry Gonick 3 Monday, March 03, 2014 The Cartoon Guide to Statistics by Larry Gonick 4 Tuesday, March 04, 2014 The Cartoon Guide to Physics by Larry Gonick 5 Wednesday, March 05, 2014 A Conversation, Book 1: English in Everyday Life, 4th Edition by Tina Kasloff Carver 6 Thursday, March 06, 2014 A Conversation Book 2: English in Everyday Life (Full Student Book) (Third Edition) by Tina Kasloff Carver 7 Friday, March 07, 2014 The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition by William Strunk Jr. (Author), E. B. White (Author), Roger Angell 8 Saturday, March 08, 2014 Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer by Roy Peter Clark 9 Sunday, March 09, 2014 The ONE Thing: The Surprisingly Simple Truth Behind Extraordinary Results Hardcover by Gary Keller
Having heard from K-wave 107.9FM, I noticed this exists. As much as we know about evolution, we know little about the opposite theory, creation. We ough to know both to be an educated person. You gonna have a balanced view. Let evolution coexists peacefully with creation, part of modern education programs. Don't you think? Creation Museum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the museum in Kentucky . For other creation museums, see Creationist museum . Creation Museum Established May 28, 2007 Location Petersburg , Kentucky , USA Coordinates 39°05′10.5″N 84°47′00.5″W Type Christian apologetics ministry Accreditation None Visitors 254,074 (2011) Owner Answers in Genesis Nearest car park On site (no charge) Website creationmuseum.org The Creation Museum , located in Petersburg, Kentucky , is operated by the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) to promote a Young Earth creationist explanation of the origins of the universe based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative . The 60,000-square-foot (5,600 m 2 ) museum cost $27 million – raised entirely through private donations to AiG – and opened on May 28, 2007. In addition to the museum proper, the facility also houses a special effects theater, a planetarium , and a gift shop , and serves as the headquarters of AiG. The museum employs approximately 300 people in total, and all permanent employees must sign a statement of faith affirming their belief in AiG's principles. In August 2013, AiG officials estimated that almost 1.9 million people had visited the museum, with yearly attendance surpassing 250,000 in each year of the museum's operation. Since its opening, the museum has added attractions such as a petting zoo , a zip line and sky bridge course, and a bug exhibit. Consistent with its Young Earth creationist ideology, the museum's exhibits depict the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs , maintain that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old , and dispute the idea that life arose via the process of biological evolution . These and other ideas presented in the museum contradict scientific consensus , and scientists and educators have objected to the effects the museum and AiG's teachings could have on science education. Proponents of other religious beliefs about the universe's origins – including Old Earth creationism , theistic evolution , and intelligent design – have also been critical of the museum, claiming its rejection of scientific consensus damages the credibility of Christianity and its adherents. Despite these and other criticisms, tenets of Young Earth creationism enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States, contributing to the museum's popularity. Both supporters and opponents of the museum have generally praised the aesthetic quality of its displays – which include representations of biblical people and events, fiberglass and animatronic dinosaurs, videos, and explanatory signage – but some critics have noted discrepancies in appearance between the museum's models and the fossil record. The museum is not accredited by the American Alliance of Museums , and some scientists and museum professionals have argued that it does not fit the formal definition of a museum. Contents 1 Beliefs 2 History 2.1 Planning and approval 2.2 Construction 3 Opening 4 Attendance 5 Displays and exhibits 5.1 Design and acquisition 5.2 Arrangement 5.3 Expansions 6 Workforce 7 Controversy and criticism 8 In the media 9 See also 10 References 11 External links Beliefs See also: Creation–evolution controversy A piece of a Torah scroll of Genesis 4:21 to 10:13 from Iraq on display in the museum The Creation Museum's displays and exhibits portray a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative , the Young Earth creationist viewpoint advocated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Christian apologetics ministry that owns and operates the museum. It holds that God created the universe and everything in it in six literal, 24-hour days approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago , which contradicts the current scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that living organisms descended from a common ancestor via the process of evolution . According to the AiG web site, the purpose of the museum to exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer, to equip Christians to better evangelize the lost, and to challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. AiG Executive Director Ken Ham stated, I want to make it clear that we don't want to be known primarily as Young Earth Creationists. AiG's main thrust is on biblical authority. Believing in a relatively young Earth is a consequence of accepting the word of God as an infallible revelation from our Creator. Prior to the museum's opening, about 2,000 educators signed a statement authored by the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon) calling the museum part of a campaign by the religious right to inject creationist teachings into science education. The National Center for Science Education collected over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum ( Kentucky , Indiana , and Ohio ) on a statement calling the museum's exhibits scientifically inaccurate materials and expressing concerns that students who accept its premises as scientifically valid would be unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level and need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis. Lawrence M. Krauss , who signed the DefCon statement; Eugenie Scott , executive director of NCSE; and Alan I. Leshner , chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science , all told the Associated Press that AiG was within its rights to open the museum, but expressed concerns about its effects on science education. We're not talking about free speech. We would not protest the museum. However, we are concerned that we not mislead young people inadvertently or intentionally about what science is showing, Leshner said. Although the museum's displays contradict scientific consensus, a Sunday Independent columnist concluded in 2007 that there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum, citing as evidence the fact that the $27 million museum was entirely privately funded, and a Gallup public opinion poll showing that almost half of Americans agreed with the statement God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. We're not out to convert people to believing in Intelligent Design. We're not out to convert people to not believe in evolution. And we're not out to just convert people to being Creationists. We're Christians.” —Ken Ham, Cincinnati Magazine (June 1, 2005). Robert C. Newman, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation and co-author of What's Darwin Got to do with It? A Friendly Conversation about Evolution , identified three major creationist positions: Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism , and theistic evolution. According to Newman, Young Earth creationists hold to a literal view of Genesis 1, interpreting the days as 24-hour days and putting the age of the earth only in thousands of years, while Old Earth creationists hold that the earth, created by God, is billions of years old and that God intervened at various times to guide the process of creation and theistic evolutionists that God guided the process of evolution without miraculous interventions. AiG's stance in favor of Young Earth creationism has garnered criticism from individuals who adhere to the other two interpretations. In a press kit released in connection with the Creation Museum's opening, geologist Greg Neyman , founder of the Old Earth creationist organization Old Earth Ministries, wrote: Those who will benefit least from the museum are the non-Christians, who are firmly grounded in their belief through modern science that the Earth is billions of years old. They will see the museum, and recognize its faulty science, and will be turned away from the church. This will increase the already widening gap between the unchurched and the churched. This gap is the direct result of young Earth creationism. Roman Catholic theologian John F. Haught , a theistic evolutionist, claimed the museum would cause an impoverishment of religion, adding, It's hard for me to come up with a single reason why we should be doing this. It's theologically problematic to me, as well as scientifically problematic. Theistic evolutionist Michael Patrick Leahy , editor of the online magazine Christian Faith and Reason , argued that the museum makes all Christians who don't accept evolution look stupid, undermines the credibility of all Christians, and gives the growing movement of militant atheism... an easy opportunity to misrepresent all Christians as 'irrational'. Although the intelligent design movement is often associated with creationism, in a 2005 interview with The Kentucky Post , Ham said of the movement, They are not a Christian movement, they are not about the Bible. It's not even against evolution, not really, because they don't tell you what that intelligence is. It could open a door for Muslim belief, for Hindus, for New Age. We are telling you unashamedly that the word of the Bible is the way. In 2006, AiG Communications Director Mark Looy told the Post that intelligent design advocates want nothing to do with us. History The front of the Creation Museum From the time AiG was founded in Florence, Kentucky , in May 1994, ministry officials planned to open a museum and training center in the area. In an ABC News interview, AiG founder Ken Ham – a native of Queensland, Australia – said, Australia's not really the place to build such a facility if you're going to reach the world. Really, America is. In a separate interview with The Sydney Morning Herald ' s Paul Sheehan , Ham explained, One of the main reasons moved was because we are within one hour's flight of 69 percent of America's population. The museum is located in Petersburg, Kentucky , 4 miles (6.4 km) west of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport . Planning and approval In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km 2 ) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338 from agricultural to recreational use to facilitate the construction of what was then called the Genesis Park-Museum and Family Discovery Center. An organization called Concerned Citizens of Boone County argued that the offices and mail order business proposed as part of the center were inappropriate for the rural location proposed for construction. The secular humanist organization The Free Inquiry Group claimed the rezoning and construction conflicted with a portion of the county's comprehensive plan to build a proper museum at Big Bone Lick State Park , an internationally known geological site containing fossil remains of mastodons , sloths and giant buffalo located 4 miles (6.4 km) from the proposed site. The Free Inquiry Group also expressed concern that the museum's promotion of a creationist worldview would undermine the exhibits at Big Bone Lick. In October 1996, the Boone County Planning Commission recommended approving the rezoning by an 9–4 vote after Answers in Genesis' agreed to limit the museum's hours of operation and construct buildings with designs that blended in with the surrounding countryside, but the Boone County Fiscal Court voted 4–0 against the proposal in December. Ken Ham , founder and executive director of Answers in Genesis In June 1998, AiG announced plans to seek rezoning of an alternate 47-acre (0.19 km 2 ) site south of Interstate 275 in Boone County from residential to industrial. The proposed project included the ministry's headquarters, an educational center, and the renamed Creation Museum of Natural History. AiG noted that rezoning the area from residential to industrial was consistent with the county's 25-year projection. The Kentucky Post reported that, The public comments on the proposal steered clear of the religion-vs.-science debate that generated much of the opposition in 1996, but county officials expressed concern that building public water and sewer infrastructure to support the site would attract further growth to the rural area. In response, AiG proposed to construct an on-site well and package waste water treatment plant . AiG also agreed to change the entrance to the facility from Deck Lane to Bullitsburg Church Road, limit its development to 25 acres (0.10 km 2 ), and submit a proposed building design so planners could review how well it fit in with its proposed surroundings. Following these concessions, the Planning Commission's zone change committee recommended approval of the rezoning by a 3–2 vote, but the full commission rejected the proposal by a vote of 9–5. After the Boone County Fiscal Court unanimously refused to overturn the Planning Commission's ruling in November 1998, AiG filed suit in the Boone Circuit Court. AiG Executive Director Ken Ham explained the rationale for the lawsuit: The county had told us weeks ago we would have to provide that infrastructure, so we agreed to that, and now they say they can't rezone the property because it doesn't have necessary infrastructure in place. This is a type of Catch-22 and shows the clearly arbitrary nature of their decision. The terms of all of the commissioners on the Boone County Fiscal Court expired in January 1999, and the new members of the court agreed to negotiate with AiG to settle their litigation. As part of those negotiations, AiG agreed to refile its rezoning request to change the designation from residential to public facilities, a lower-impact designation than industrial. The Kentucky Post reported that the fiscal court received 562 letters and a petition with 2,670 signatories supporting the revised proposal. In March, the zone change committee again recommended the change by a 3–2 vote, but the Planning Commission rejected it by a vote of 8–6. The Fiscal Court overturned the Planning Commission's decision in May by a 3–1 vote. In June, a group of property owners near the proposed construction site filed suit against the Boone County Fiscal Court and AiG, charging that fiscal court commissioners met with AiG officials outside the context of a public meeting and that Commissioner Robert Hay should have recused himself from the vote because he had a conflict of interest by virtue of appearing in promotional materials for the museum. AiG countersued, seeking to recover its legal costs. In February 2000, a circuit court judge dismissed the claim against AiG. Announcing that his clients would not appeal, attorney Jay Fossett explained, they don't have the same war chest as Answers in Genesis. Construction A view of the museum's exterior grounds In May 2000, AiG announced that it had completed the purchase of the rezoned land for an undisclosed price and expected to begin construction on the Creation Museum and Family Discovery Center in March 2001. At the time, AiG planned a 30,000-square-foot (2,800 m 2 ) museum, which they believed would cost $14 million and open by mid-2002. In June 2000, the ministry selected the Cincinnati -based firm of A. M. Kinney Associates as lead architect for the project, noting that the firm would donate a significant portion of its services. At a March 17, 2001, groundbreaking ceremony, AiG announced that it had raised $4 million for the museum's construction. The Kentucky Post reported in May 2001 that a Michigan -based construction company had donated its services to excavate the construction site. After independent studies projected that more patrons would visit the museum than AiG had believed, plans for the museum were altered, expanding it to 50,000 square feet (4,600 m 2 ) and pushing the cost estimates to approximately $25 million. AiG staff moved into the Creation Museum's office space in late 2004. In January 2007, AiG responded to favorable visitor projections by adding another 10,000 square feet (930 m 2 ) to the museum at an additional cost of $2 million. The changes included adding 7,000 square feet (650 m 2 ) to the museum lobby, doubling the size of the cafeteria, and redesigning two exhibits to occupy two stories of the building instead of one. On April 1, 2007, AiG officials reported that they owed no debts on the facility's $27 million construction cost but noted that they needed to raise an additional $3 million to cover other costs such as increasing staff. All funds for the museum were privately raised. Opening The exterior of Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum in 2007 About 5,000 of the museum's charter members were given preview tours of the facility in the week before it opened to the public on May 28, 2007. The opening date was chosen to draw in visitors on vacation during the Memorial Day holiday. Approximately 4,000 patrons visited the museum on opening day, and the event was covered by both national and international media outlets. The Orlando Sentinel wrote that the majority of the media coverage had a mocking undertone, similar to that found in reporting on the 2001 opening of Orlando 's Holy Land Experience theme park. In a blog post on the AiG web site, Ham called the opening not just a historic event in America, but a historic event in Christendom. About 200 protesters attended a Rally for Reason organized by Edwin Kagin , the Kentucky state director of American Atheists , at a farm across the road from the museum. An airplane flew over the museum pulling a banner with the words, Thou shalt not lie. Kagin told the Cincinnati Post , We acknowledge fully their absolute right to teach anything they want. They can teach things fall up if they wish. But we don't want people to think no one cares, no one opposes this. During the week of the museum's opening, AiG ran a 30-second television commercial promoting the museum in six metropolitan areas: Cincinnati , Indianapolis , Columbus , Dayton , Lexington , and Louisville . Although groups from churches and Christian schools were anticipated as visitors, Ham said the museum would not try to attract tour groups from public schools , explaining, I suspect by intimidation and threats of lawsuits, I doubt whether public school students, as an official tour, would come. Steve Rissing, a biologist and board member of Ohio Citizens for Science, said that a lawsuit over separation of church and state would be likely if public schools used public tax money to bring students to the museum. The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau used the museum's opening as part of their overall strategy to appeal to the religious meeting market. Julie Calvert, vice-president of the Cincinnati USA Convention and Visitors Bureau, estimated that meetings with religious sponsors accounted for 20% of the conventions held in the Greater Cincinnati area in 2006. Tom Caradonio, president of the Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau, said of a group of 20 religious group planners who toured the area in early 2007, I think every single person looked at it and said there would be some way they would work in the Creation Museum. In 2007, the bureau reported that a record $325 million in visitor spending – a 23% increase over the previous year – and attributed the increase to the region having more attractions, including the Creation Museum. In August 2007, Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Palentological Society, criticized the bureau for describing the museum on its web site as a 'walk through history' museum that will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture. The bureau initially defended its use of the language, saying that they used whatever language was supplied by each attraction featured on the site, but Phelps complained that, as a tax-supported institution, the bureau should not use language that claimed museums intended to turn people against religion. Within a week of the complaint, the bureau had updated the museum's description on the web site to read, A walk through history via the pages of the Bible -- exploring how scripture provides an eyewitness account of the beginning of all things. Attendance AiG had projected that the museum would have 250,000 visitors in its first year of operation, but ministry officials said that number was achieved in just over five months. In October 2007, the Kentucky Department of Transportation erected four signs along highways near the museum bearing Kentucky's Unbridled Spirit logo and directing motorists to the museum's location, prompting concern from some residents about the separation of church and state . The Cincinnati Post reported that AiG paid $5,000 each for the signs, which are available to any cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural, educational or entertainment center in the state that attracts at least 10,000 visitors per year in a rural area or 70,000 visitors per year in an urban area. The Post quoted Barry W. Lynn , executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State , as saying it was a close call as to whether the signs violated the separation of church and state. To deal with the larger crowds, AiG proposed adding 663 new parking spaces to the 500 already available at the museum, moving the museum's highway entrance, and adding canopies to the front of the building. The expansion – projected to cost about $500,000 – also included the construction of a 14,400 square feet (1,340 m 2 ) maintenance building and a 19,200 square feet (1,780 m 2 ) lake to capture and hold runoff from the overflow parking area, preventing it from polluting nearby Garrison Creek. The Boone County Planning Commission approved the plan after AiG agreed to do a traffic study of Bullitsburg Church Road and construct a left-turn lane if necessary, paint the maintenance building to blend into its surroundings, and not use the area under the canopies as a stage for outdoor performances. In its first year of operation, 404,000 people visited the Creation Museum. In December 2008, the museum partnered with the Cincinnati Zoo to offer a discount package that included tickets to the zoo's Festival of Lights and the museum's Bethlehem's Blessings performances. Less than three days later, the zoo ended the promotion, citing numerous complaints. An AiG press release expressed disappointment with the zoo's decision, but quoted Ken Ham as saying, Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents, and so being 'expelled' like this is not a huge surprise. AiG decided to continue offering the discounted price on its Bethlehem's Blessings tickets and Ham promised, Our museum will continue to promote this excellent zoo on our website and also in the printed material we pass out inside the museum. On April 26, 2010, AiG recognized a Dayton, Ohio , man as the Creation Museum's 1 millionth visitor, presenting him with a gift basket and a lifetime membership to the museum. In 2012, Cincinnati CityBeat reported that, from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012, Museum attendance had dropped to 254,074, a 10% drop from the previous year and the fourth straight year of declining attendance. AiG officials cited the poor economy and high gas prices as reasons for the decline. On July 1, 2012, the Museum raised admission prices by $5 to $29.95 per person. In June 2013, AiG senior vice president Mike Zovath told the Lexington Herald-Leader , We're pretty happy with the way attendance is playing out, noting, The 250,000 number has been our business model all along, and we've exceeded it every year. In August 2013, Ken Ham estimated that attendance at the museum since its opening was approaching 1.9 million. Displays and exhibits The Creation Museum proper encompasses 60,000 square feet (5,600 m 2 ). In its 78-seat planetarium , visitors view a show written by AiG's staff astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle that presents creationist cosmologies as alternatives to the Big Bang Theory of the origins of the universe. In the 200-seat theater – which features special effects such as seats that vibrate and jets that spray the audience with mist – a film depicts two angelic beings who proclaim, God loves science! Outside the main structure is a 5-acre (0.020 km 2 ) lake. When the museum opened, the exterior grounds contained approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) of walking trails, but by the end of its first year in operation, AiG had added additional trails. The museum also includes a restaurant and a medieval-themed gift shop. Writing in the journal Argumentation and Advocacy , authors Casey Kelly and Kristen Hoerl point out that raditionally, a museum's identity has rested upon its display of objects presented as material evidence of the natural and human history of our planet, but note that physical remnants are not available as evidence for events described in the Book of Genesis ... Consequently, the Creation Museum demonstrates the materiality of creationist thinking through its display of objects that are, by and large, created for the museum or manufactured recently. The Creation Museum is not accredited by the American Alliance of Museums (AAM), and Gretchen Jennings, editor of Exhibitionist , a bimonthly journal published by the National Association of Museum Exhibition , argued that creationist museums like the Creation Museum are not museums at all. In a 2013 blog post, Ken Ham maintained that, while the Creation Museum is not AAM accredited, it meets the definition of a museum found on the AAM web site. Kelly and Hoerl note that the Creation Museum would not meet the AAM's standards for accreditation because it lacks an accessioned collection of artifacts. Design and acquisition In January 2002, AiG announced that Patrick Marsh would lead the design of exhibits for the Creation Museum. At the time, Marsh was design director for a Tokyo -based company that designed theme parks and resorts; previously, he designed the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal Studios Florida . Marsh said AiG officials initially told him of their plans for a small museum with an exhibit budget of only $6,000, but Marsh convinced them to aspire to more sophisticated exhibits that would cost many, many millions more. Kurt Wise was hired as scientific consultant for the museum and also played a major role in designing the exhibits, including the 52 professionally made videos. Some of the exhibits used in the museum, including a 50-foot model of a rockfish , were purchased in a public auction from the Columbus Center, a science center in Baltimore, Maryland , that ceased operation in 1999. A private collection of toy dinosaurs and another containing 10,000 minerals are among the donated items displayed at the museum. The Kentucky Post editorial board, while lamenting the fact that the museum's premise contradicted scientific consensus, conceded that, Answers in Genesis is a sophisticated operation, and it has built a state-of-the-art museum complete with animated dinosaurs, the latest in video technology, handsomely landscaped grounds and a large paid staff. Lawrence Krauss opined that the museum's exhibits were comparable to those of very fancy natural history museum. He stated that , I'd give a 4 for technology, but added he'd also give it 5 for propaganda and As for content, I'd give it a negative 5. In his 2007 review of the museum for the National Center for Science Education, Daniel Phelps noted that some of the museum's dinosaur models reflected an incorrect or obsolete understanding of their physical appearance, including an Iguanodon whose skin texture differed from that indicated by the fossil record, an outdated tail-dragging Tyrannosaurus , and a cycad tree that looked like a giant pineapple. An exhibit showing humans coexisting peacefully with vegetarian Tyrannosaurus Dinosaurs are prominently featured in many areas of the museum. While some are animatronic, many were sculpted from fiberglass by Pennsylvania taxidermist Buddy Davis. Prior to the museum's opening, Ham declared, We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back. ... They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people. Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star. In his review of the museum for The New York Times , columnist Edward Rothstein opined, It is a measure of the museum’s daring that dinosaurs and fossils — once considered major challenges to belief in the Bible’s creation story — are here so central, appearing not as tests of faith, as one religious authority once surmised, but as creatures no different from the giraffes and cats that still walk the earth. Near the museum's lobby, a diorama depicts two ancient age children playing near a stream, unmolested by nearby dinosaurs. The Henderson Gleaner noted that exhibits showing the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs which contradicts the prevailing scientific viewpoint that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans evolved earned the museum notoriety among skeptics and anticipation from believers. In a May 2000 Associated Press report, Ham noted the drawing power of dinosaur displays, Dinosaurs are incredibly popular. Kids are fascinated by them. So are parents. Kelly and Hoerl wrote that, By adopting the formal structure of the nature and science museum, including the display of dinosaur fossils, the Creation Museum provides a site where Young Earth Creationists can take their children to see the dinosaurs without compromising their beliefs. Of a large Tyrannosaurus near the entrance of the museum, Looy said, We call him our missionary lizard. When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. Dinosaurs were featured prominently in AiG's 2012 billboard advertising campaign which targeted metropolitan areas in 25 states. Commenting on the ad campaign, Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education lamented, I think it's a real shame that there aren't science museums that are competing in the same way, with the same sort of advertising with the same sort of budgets. Arrangement Visitors to the museum are directed through a series of sequentially arranged rooms. Kelly and Hoerl explain that the museum constructs an argument chain in which claims from previous rooms provide support for subsequent claims. The first room in the sequence contains a diorama of two archeologists uncovering the skeletal remains of an indistinct creature. Two actors meant to represent the archeologists are displayed on television screens mounted nearby; one explains that he believes that the creature died in a local flood millions of years earlier, while the other surmises that the creature died in the biblical Great Flood about 4,300 years earlier. This room is immediately followed by a second room of placards explaining various natural phenomena using two distinct starting points – mainstream science and the biblical narrative, respectively. From here, visitors enter an L-shaped corridor that begins with mannequins representing the Old Testament prophets Moses , David , and Isaiah , while audio recordings of passages from the Book of Psalms are played nearby. Further down the corridor, placards detail historical arguments against a literal interpretation of the Bible and conclude that The elevation of human reason above God's word is the essence of every attack on God's word. The walls near the corridor's exit contain existentialist questions such as Am I alone?, and Why do I suffer?, paired with illustrations of human conflict and suffering. A wrecking ball labeled millions of years smashing the brick foundation of a church After leaving the corridor, visitors enter a room designed to resemble a decaying urban alley full of graffiti and littered with newspaper clippings about the legalization of abortion , same-sex marriage , and euthanasia . An accompanying placard concludes: Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to... relative morality, hopelessness and meaninglessness. In the final room in this series, video screens depict the purported results of abandoning a literal interpretation of the Bible. In one, a teenage girl is on the phone with an abortion clinic. In another, a teenage boy rolls a marijuana joint while staring at a computer screen; a narrator informs the viewer that the boy is looking at pornography . In the center of the room, a wrecking ball labeled Millions of Years damages the foundation of a church building. Nearby sits a wheelbarrow full of bricks meant to symbolize the reparative work of AiG. The second series of rooms depict a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis , arranged around the concept of The Seven C's of History: creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, and consummation. At the entrance to this area, a flat panel television displays a CGI animation of millions of particles converging to create an adult human male, the biblical Adam . Subsequent creation dioramas show Adam naming animals in the Garden of Eden and Eve being created from Adam's rib. Accompanying placards maintain that the special creation of Adam and Eve conveys God's desire for families to consist only of opposite sex couples and their offspring. The exhibit on corruption shows Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil , resulting in the fall of man . Further exhibits depict the aftermath of this event: animals being killed to make garments for Adam and Eve, Cain killing Abel , and Methuselah warning of God's coming judgment. Black-and-white photographs also show examples of modern suffering, such as the Holocaust and the explosion of an atomic bomb . According to accompanying placards, after the fall, some animals became carnivores , and competition for resources drove some creatures to extinction . An April 2006 report in the Chicago Tribune noted that this area also features noxious odors and increased temperatures, and AiG General Manager Mike Zovath told the paper that the intent was to make it the most uncomfortable place in the museum to show how original sin has corrupted the universe. The catastrophe, an allusion to the Great Flood recounted in Genesis chapters 6 through 9, is represented by animatronic figures constructing Noah's Ark and an interactive exhibit that allows visitors to select frequently asked questions about Noah's Ark and have them answered audibly by an animatronic Noah. Kelly and Hoerl describe the interactive Noah as remarkable, noting: Noah is imbued with human affect and individuality, including complex physical features and detailed bodily movements; his speech patterns, facial expressions, and bodily gestures are in near-perfect sync with his eye, mouth, and head movements; and his hair, skin tone, and musculature closely imitates real human features. The catastrophe displays are further enhanced by CGI animations of the Great Flood covering the Earth as observed from both outer space and a period-specific settlement. The post-flood world is presented in the next room as a time when man began to rely solely on human reasoning, resulting in confusion. Displays argue that dependence on human reasoning leads to racism and genocide , with one sign bearing a quote from Stephen Jay Gould noting that racism increased exponentially following the acceptance of the theory of evolution . A diorama claims that the Tower of Babel explains the dispersal of people after the flood and the rapid divergence of languages during that period. In his review of the Creation Museum, Daniel Phelps wrote of this exhibit, Races apparently begin with Noah's sons and are dispersed after the Confusion of Tongues at the Tower of Babel. After Babel, Ham's descendants go to Africa, Shem's to Arabia and Asia, and Japheth's go to Europe.Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon are claimed to originate from these refugees from Babel and became cave dwellers. PZ Myers , an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris , also commented on the exhibit on his blog Pharyngula after his August 2009 visit to the museum with more than 300 members of the Secular Student Alliance : With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham. In response, Ken Ham posted on his blog that The 'Confusion' section (dealing the Tower of Babel) in the Creation Museum teaches that all the people groups on earth today are descendants of the three sons of Noah—obviously so, as Noah’s family was the only family to survive the Flood, but, referencing the book Darwin's Plantation (since retitled as One Race, One Blood ) that Ham co-authored, he adds, dark-skinned people (“black” people) are certainly not 'the cursed offspring of Ham.' In fact, it is only one of Ham's sons who was cursed (and not Ham himself)—the younger son Canaan... And this 'curse' of Canaan has absolutely nothing to do with skin shade! We do not teach that 'all races stemmed from the children of Noah'—as we explain, there is only one race biologically of human beings (as we are all descendants of two people, Adam and Eve)—different people groups, but not different 'races.' A display suggesting that evidence from Mount St. Helens supports Young Earth creationism The final three C's – Christ, cross, and consummation – are presented in a single room where visitors wait before entering a theater to view The Last Adam , a film where actors representing Mary, the mother of Jesus , and an unnamed Roman soldier describe their experiences during the crucifixion of Jesus . After the Seven C's area, a video introduces the next section of the museum by stating that Scientists are developing a series of models to explain how the Flood and its aftermath could have shaped the world today. Large fossils displayed in glass cases are purported to have been formed as a result of the Great Flood . Large placards illustrate geological models developed by creation scientists at AiG, the Discovery Institute , and the Institute for Creation Research . After viewing a display claiming that the Grand Canyon could have been carved in a matter of hours by receding flood waters, just as volcanic mudslides carved canyons in softer rock in the aftermath of the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens , chemist William Watkin declared, Everything they said about sediment deposition, about Mount St. Helens … anyone in first year geology would say 'wrong from top to bottom'. The tour continues in the Dinosaur Den, which contains models of dinosaurs with attached signage explaining their lives and features from a young Earth creationist viewpoint. The Dragon Theater, the last exhibit space on the tour, posits the relatively recent extinction of dinosaurs and speculates that Medieval dragon legends may have been inspired by actual encounters with dinosaurs. Visitors exit the tour through the museum's gift shop , which contains both souvenirs and AiG print and multimedia publications. The gift shop generated $5.6 million in gross revenue in 2011. Expansions In 2008, AiG added a petting zoo to the museum's exterior grounds. AiG added an exhibit about natural selection , the process by which changes that give members of a species a survival advantage become more prominent within the population of that species, in 2009. The exhibit features models of finches , the birds Charles Darwin observed before proposing the theory of evolution in 1859. Models of bacteria and live blind cave fish are also part of the exhibit. Ken Ham stated that creationists accept that natural selection allows species to change over time, but disagree with the scientific consensus first posited by Darwin that it allows one species to evolve into another. A 2013 expansion project added a bug exhibit, a zip line and sky bridge course, and a lobby display suggesting that ancient stories of monsters and dragons may have been accounts of human encounters with dinosaurs. The bug exhibit features a collection of beetles, butterflies, and other bugs that were donated by a museum supporter. An animatronic character dubbed Dr. Crawley tells visitors that, due to the variation and complexity of bug species, they could not have evolved naturally but must have been created by God. Of the zip line course, Zovath explained, It should be three to four hours of non-stop fun for visitors. We're also going to have some information about the different trees and plant species, so there will be a little bit of educational value as well, but it's mostly an adrenaline rush. John Gerner, a leisure consultant, told the Associated Press that the expansions are actually in line with what we would see at a science museum. Workforce The museum employs about 160 people with another 140 working at the attached Answers in Genesis headquarters. To help the museum's mission to evangelize, a chaplain is on staff for visitors in need of spiritual guidance. Each permanent employee must sign a statement of faith indicating that he or she believes in young Earth creationism and the other teachings of Answers in Genesis. These include Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, the only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, the great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event and no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. When applying for work a written statement of one's beliefs is required along with résumé and references. In 2007, The Kentucky Post reported that the Creation Museum employed between 10 and 20 security guards armed with .40 caliber Glock handguns and three certified law enforcement canines . When asked about the level of security, AiG Security Director Jeff Hawkins commented, You try to raise the level of security according to the level of the property you're protecting. We really feel that we will be a high-profile cultural property, which requires a different level of security. You try to strike a balance between providing a good, safe environment and not overdoing it, and not underdoing it. Prior to the museum's opening, AiG requested that the Boone County Sheriff's Department grant its security force additional police powers. AiG officials said the grant was necessary to give their guards access to additional training and equipment; they maintained that the ministry did not seek arrest powers for their guards and that they would allow the sheriff's department to specify which additional powers would be given. Sheriff Mike Helmig denied the request because the officers did not have the training required of his department's law enforcement officers. AiG said the decision illustrated their point – their guards could not access the training without being granted police powers, and they could not be granted police powers without the training. After being refused by the sheriff's department, AiG petitioned then- governor Ernie Fletcher to grant the additional powers, but received no response. Controversy and criticism The Creation Museum has been the subject of controversy ever since it was proposed, because the exhibits are based on a young Earth creationist view of the origins of the universe and life. National Center for Science Education (NCSE) director Eugenie Scott characterized the Creation Museum as the Creationist Disneyland . The Guardian called the facility quite possibly one of the weirdest museums in the world. Physicist Lawrence Krauss has called on media, educators, and government officials to shun the museum and says that its view is based on falsehoods. Krauss said that the facility is as much a disservice to religion as it is to science. Writing about the forthcoming opening of the museum on behalf of Old Earth Ministries, Greg Neyman said that today, the church is comprised of many individuals who accept an old Earth and is already moving away from young Earth creationism. The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, Ohio , joined others, both secularists and Christians, at protests at the museum's opening. He said in anticipation of those protests my brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace understanding call into question the whole Christian concept and make us a laughing stock . Lisa Park, a professor of paleontology at University of Akron was particularly disturbed by the museum's depiction that war, famine and natural disasters are the result of a belief in evolution. She stated: I think it's very bad science and even worse theology… and the theology is far more offensive to me. I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message. I find it a malicious manipulation of the public. The museum is critical of evolutionary theory that links dinosaurs with the origins of birds . The second room of the creation museum for example displays a model prehistoric raptor , stating that the species was featherless and had no connection to birds; this is a reference to Genesis 1, which states that birds were created before the advent of land animals. Biologists and paleontologists, however, point out that the recent discovery of a Velociraptor forearm bearing quill knobs, distinct structural parts of bones into which feathers are anchored, provides further evidence that the species did indeed have feathers. In 2010, A. A. Gill reported that the museum was a breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul. He stated, This place doesn't just take on evolution—it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most '-onomies' and all '-ologies', including most theology. On February 11, 2011, a Louisville blogger named Joe Sonka was denied entry to a date night at the museum with a male friend, where there would be a presentation on Biblical marriage. While Sonka was not homosexual, he had organized a fundraiser through his blog to send the most flamboyantly gay couple imaginable to this dinner and planned to disrupt the evening. Security guards were made aware of the situation and denied Sonka and his friend entrance. Mark Looy, the museum's Communications Director, later said that everyone is welcome at the museum. The group that the two men were part of sought refunds for the $71 total admission fee for the unused tickets—the museum refused to refund them the money, but they invited the group to come back, as long as they do not make a scene. In the media Robert Winston visited the museum during its construction to film footage for a three-part documentary titled The Story of God . The God of the Gaps, the third part of the documentary which aired on BBC One in December 2005, features footage of the incomplete museum, as well as brief interviews with Ken Ham and Patrick Marsh. After these interviews, Winston states, I admit I was dismayed by what I saw at the Ken Ham museum. It was alarming to see so much time, money and effort being spent on making a mockery of hard won scientific knowledge. And the fact that it was being done with such obvious sincerity, somehow made it all the worse. The documentary also featured excerpts from an hour-long debate between Winston and Ham over the relative merits of creationism and evolution that was aired on radio station 700 WLW in Cincinnati. Bill Maher visited the Creation Museum as part of his 2008 documentary Religulous . In February 2007, a crew filming footage for comedian Bill Maher 's anti-religious documentary Religulous toured the museum.
What Does "Throwing the Baby out with the Bath Water" Mean? "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" is an expression that implies that an entire idea, concept, practice or project doesn't need to be rejected or discontinued if part of it is good. The baby, in this sense, represents the good part that can be preserved. The bath water, on the other hand, usually is dirty after the baby is washed and needs to be discarded, just like the parts of the concept that are bad or useless. Origins of the Phrase There are many ideas on the possible origins of this expression. Many people incorrectly attribute the expression to English or Irish origin. The phrase was first recorded in 1512, and used by a German writer, Thomas Murner, in his verse book, Die Narrenbeschworung. From Germany, the expression became commonly used in the United Kingdom and then in France. The idea of throwing the baby out with the bath water might be inspired by the relatively few baths taken by people in Europe before the 16th century. Baths were often thought to be unhealthy, and they were difficult to prepare, because the bath water had to be drawn and heated. The difficulty of preparing bath water often meant that the same water might be used for a whole family’s bath, and the baby was frequently bathed last. At this point, the bath water might be quite dirty and might obscure view of the baby. A mother wouldn’t want to mistakenly discard the baby with the dirty, murky water — not that this was likely to occur. The Good and the Bad Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn’t likely to occur, but the expression of it has been a metaphor for the dichotomy existing in an idea or practice that is both good and bad. In such cases, the good can be kept while still getting rid of the bad. Some people might be inclined to get rid of everything and start over, and this expression is often used by people to encourage the preservation of the good parts. Expresses an Opinion The expression can be highly subjective, because individuals might define what constitutes good and bad in very different ways. Someone who disapproves of human cloning, for instance, might feel that other types of cloning also are bad and that all attempts at cloning should be rejected. Another person who disagrees with human cloning but supports research into other types of cloning might say that rejecting all types of cloning is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. This phrase points out a logical fallacy. The assumption is that if something is bad and it belongs to a group, then everything in that group must be bad. A related expression might be that “one bad apple spoils the bunch.” When applied to this example, the phrase would express the idea that discarding all of the apples would waste any good apples that were in the bunch. Legal Applications In some cases, it is necessary for a system to practice throwing the baby out with the bath water. In some criminal justice systems, for example, an illegally obtained confession or an illegal search can mean that any evidence resulting from these is not admissible. This is often referred to as “fruit of the poisoned tree.” Under certain laws, any evidence arising from a violation of the justice system is considered tainted and cannot be used. source: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water-mean.htm
一、 With 函数的用法 With specifies that in expr occurrences of the symbols x, y, ... should be replaced by x0,y0,... . 关于 With 函数，有两点必需注意 : 1 、在 With 函数中出现的局部变量必需赋初值， With 是不合法的。 2 、在 With 函数中出现的局部变量不可在 expr 中再被赋值。 例 1 ： In := With ] With::lvws: Variable x in local variable specification {x} requires a value. Out = With ] 例 2 ： In := With Set::setraw: Cannot assign to raw object 5. Out = 4 二、 Module 函数的用法 Module specifies that occurrences of the symbols x, y,... in expr should be treated as local. Module defines initial values for x,... . 关于 Module 函数，有一点必需注意： Module 中的局部变量 {x,y,...} 会相应地被重先定义为 {x$nnn,y$nnn,...} （这里 nnn 代表某一整数，随使用次数变化），同时， expr 中出现的所有 x,y,... 都会相应地被 x$nnn,y$nnn,... 所替代。 例： In := Module ] Module ] Module ] t$115 t$116 t$117 三、 Block 函数的用法 Block specifies that expr is to be evaluated with local values for the symbols x, y,... . Block defines initial local values for x,... . 关于 Block 函数，有一点必需注意： 与 Module 一样同样定义了一组 {x,y,...} 的局部变量，但没有 {x,y,...} 被 {x$nnn,y$nnn,...} 替代这一步。因此局部变量如果没有在 Block 中赋初值，则使用全局变量的值代替。 例： In := i=2; In := Block Out := 2+a In := Module Out := a + i$16 四、三个函数的共同点 三个函数都各自定义了一组局部变量，对局部变量的使用不会导致全局变量的值的变化。 例： In := x = 3; With Module Block x Out = 4 Out = 25 Out = 36 Out = 3 五、三个函数的不同点 1 、在 With 函数中出现的局部变量必需赋初值，且在 With 函数中出现的局部变量不可在 expr 中再被赋值，其它两个函数没此限制。 2 、在 Block 函数中，若定义的局部变量没有被赋初值，则使用全局变量的值，而在 Module 函数中，由于局部变量都被重先定义为新的量变，因此不可能使用全局变量。 如上例所述： In := i=2; In := Block Out := 2+a In := Module Out := a + i$16 3 、在运行 With 时，不管 expr 执不执行， x 、 y 的初值 x0 、 y0 都得首先代入到 expr 中，而 Module 和 Block 是首先执行 expr ，然后再代初值。 例： In := {With ], Module ], Block ]} Out = {Hold , Hold , Hold } 4 、在速度方面， With 的运行速度最快，其次是 Block ，最后是 Module 。 例： In := Do , {10^5}] // Timing Do , {10^5}] // Timing Do , {10^5}] // Timing Out = {0.078, Null} Out = {0.094, Null} Out = {0.25, Null}
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/apes-with-apps/?utm_source=techalertutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=070512 Apes With AppsUsing tablets and customized keyboards, bonobos can become great communicators By Ken Schweller / July 2012 Share on print Share on email Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on stumbleupon Share on google_plusone Share on reddit More Sharing Services 18 Page 1 2 3 4 5 // View All Photo: Gregg Segal Can we talk? Kanzi, a 31-year-old bonobo, can converse with humans by selecting “lexigram” symbols on his Motorola Xoom tablet. Have you ever watched a toddler play with an iPhone? Most likely, the child was completely captivated and surprisingly adept at manipulating the tiny icons. Two-year-old Teco is no different. Sitting with his Motorola Xoom tablet, he’s rapt, his dark eyes fixed on the images, fingers pecking away at the touch screen. He can’t speak, but with the aid of the tablet app I created for him, he’s building a vocabulary that will likely total several thousand words. What’s more, he’ll be able to string those words together into simple sentences and ask questions, tell jokes, and carry on conversations. Such talents wouldn’t seem exceptional in a human child, but Teco is an ape— a bonobo, to be precise . To the uninitiated, bonobos look very much like chimpanzees , but they are in fact a separate species with distinct physical and behavioral traits. More collaborative and sociable than their chimp cousins, bonobos also seem to be more adept at learning human language. And they are endangered, found in the wild only in the Democratic Republic of the Congo . Recent estimates put the wild bonobo population at between 10 000 and 50 000. Fewer than 150 live in captivity. Along with the chimpanzee, they are our species’ closest relatives. For more than three decades, researchers have been working with a small group of bonobos, including Teco, to explore their amazing cognitive and linguistic abilities. Teco’s father, Kanzi, is the group’s most famous member : Anderson Cooper has interviewed him, and he’s played piano with Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel. Animal lovers worldwide have marveled at his ability to communicate by pointing to abstract symbols. He recognizes nearly 500 of these “lexigrams,” which he uses to make requests, answer questions, and compose short sentences. The spoken words he understands number in the thousands. Even so, many people question these abilities. Indeed, for more than a century scientists have debated whether apes could ever truly comprehend human language. Many researchers argue that language is the exclusive domain of humans, and several influential studies in the 1980s concluded that supposedly “talking” apes were merely demonstrating their capacity for imitation, with lots of unintentional cuing by the animals’ handlers. Linguist Noam Chomsky has likewise argued that the human brain contains a species-specific “ language acquisition device ,” which allows humans, and only humans, to acquire language. But the bonobo research I’ve been involved with, led by primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh at the Bonobo Hope Great Ape Trust Sanctuary , in Des Moines, strongly suggests otherwise. Today, the wide availability of touch screens, tablet computers, digital recording, and wireless networking is giving researchers the world over powerful new ways to study and unambiguously document ape communication. The results of these studies are in turn helping to spark a renaissance of technology-aided research into primate development and cognition and shedding light on the origins of culture, language, tools, and intelligence. Using tablets and customized keyboards, bonobos can become great communicators By Ken Schweller / July 2012 Share on print Share on email Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on stumbleupon Share on linkedin Share on reddit More Sharing Services 11 Page 1 2 3 4 5 // View All Photo: Gregg Segal Programming language: When Kanzi presses a lexigram on the touch screen, the computer speaks the word and shows a corresponding picture. It’s a typical workday, and Panbanisha, Kanzi’s younger sister , is sitting before a 42-inch touch-screen display. She’s doing a match-to-sample task: When she presses a green button in the middle of the screen, the computer’s text-to-speech synthesizer says “apple,” and then the lexigram for the word apple appears on screen, along with two other lexigrams, for dog and sorry . Panbanisha touches the one for apple . After five correct responses, she gets to pick a short video to watch. She selects one of her favorites: a clip from Tarzan the Ape Man . Our research group is using tasks like this to measure the bonobos’ vocabularies. We estimate that Panbanisha, like her brother, understands several thousand words. These match-to-sample experiments are enabling us to determine the exact number and should also help dispel criticisms that the bonobos are simply displaying the “ Clever Hans effect .” Clever Hans was a horse that became renowned at the turn of the last century for solving arithmetic problems, telling time, and reading and understanding German. Later it was revealed that his trainer was subconsciously nodding whenever the horse tapped out the correct answer. Hans was indeed clever—clever at reading subtle cues from his trainer, not at adding and subtracting. To avoid the Clever Hans effect, the bonobos aren’t encouraged to use sign language, because it leaves too much open to interpretation. Instead they “talk” to us almost exclusively with lexigrams; the computer helps remove any ambiguity. One day, for instance, Savage-Rumbaugh was using the match-to-sample program to familiarize Panbanisha with new words. The computer’s synthesized voice spoke the word “carrot” and then its screen displayed the lexigrams for carrot, carry , and potato . Panbanisha was about to hit the lexigram for carrot , but Savage-Rumbaugh, who’d misheard the word as “carry,” told the ape she was mistaken. The ape, though, knew better and selected the carrot lexigram anyway. For more free-form communication, the apes can use their lexigram program, which displays up to 600 symbols on screen . The bonobos can tap multiple keys to construct a sentence, and each sentence they write is time-stamped and recorded for further analysis. In 1971 a primatologist named Duane Rumbaugh (Savage-Rumbaugh’s ex-husband) came up with the idea of teaching language to apes by displaying abstract geometrical symbols on a computer screen. The first set of 120 symbols was then designed by Ernst von Glasersfeld , who also coined the word lexigram. Each symbol represented a noun, verb, adjective, or name. The lexigram lexicon was later expanded to 384 symbols, which were displayed on a keyboard. Researchers also used (and sometimes still use) a folding poster-board keyboard when greater mobility was required. The latest version of the keyboard is created with software on a touch screen. These keyboards are easier to update and much less expensive to make than their hardware predecessors. Written in Java, the program will run on any reasonably up-to-date desktop or laptop. The keyboard software can also be wirelessly shared among several computers so that more than one researcher can communicate with a single bonobo. For easier translation, the researcher’s keyboard displays the English word just below each lexigram. Or the researcher can type in a word or sentence in English, and the software does its best to translate it into a meaningful string of lexigrams. For example, there is no lexigram for pizza , so the program translates that word into the three-lexigram sequence for bread cheese tomato , a description the bonobos came up with themselves. Photo: Gregg Segal BABY TALK: Two-year-old Teco, shown with the author and researcher Susannah Maisel, uses a simplified 25-lexigram app. His first lexigram was grape. One of the newest improvements to the keyboard software allows new lexigrams to be defined on the fly. Unlike the original lexigrams, the newer symbols aren’t limited to abstract shapes; they often include the English word, too, to make it easier for human users to understand. Here’s an example: Let’s say one of the bonobos has a toothache. There is no lexigram for toothache , so the researcher calls up a standard English keyboard on screen and types in “toothache.” A second later, a new lexigram spelling the word in colorful letters appears on the bonobo’s keyboard, and when the animal taps the key, the computer’s flat, synthetic voice says “toothache.” The researcher can then explain the link between what the ape is feeling and the new lexigram. Being able to add new lexigrams at will lets us reinforce new words, when the word and its meaning are fresh in the ape’s mind. If the bonobo didn’t have a toothache, it would be nearly impossible to explain the concept. Another way the keyboard can be used is in picture mode. By pressing a lexigram key, the user can call up an image of the object, action, or concept that the lexigram describes. I’ve spent many an hour watching the bonobos use the touch-screen keyboards, and they are incredibly good at operating them. Indeed, over the years, they’ve adapted to whatever new computer technology we’ve introduced. Before the touch screen, they used off-the-shelf gaming joysticks to control the computer cursor. The apes mastered that device in no time and soon graduated to using the joystick for its intended purpose: Kanzi is an expert at Pac-Man , while Panbanisha prefers “Sesame Street” video games. Of course, studies of ape language didn’t start with the advent of computers. Beginning in the early 1900s, several attempts were made to teach chimpanzees to speak human languages. Such efforts proved largely fruitless, however, because chimps cannot produce human vocal sounds. Experimenters then turned to sign language. In the 1970s, for instance, the psychologists Beatrix and Allen Gardner reported in Science that they had raised a female chimp named Washoe to use and understand 85 signs. What’s more, she could combine signs in novel and meaningful ways. For example, she referred to the refrigerator as “open food drink,” even though the scientists themselves never used that phrase. David Premack, a psychologist, and Ann Premack, a science writer, adopted another approach: They used colored plastic tokens to represent different words and concepts. In a series of experiments, a chimpanzee named Sarah learned to use the tokens to answer sometimes quite abstract questions about objects and their relations. For example, she was taught that a blue triangle token represented an apple; when she was later shown the token and asked what shape and color the object was, she replied that it was round and red, not triangular and blue. Almost as soon as affordable computers came on the market in the 1960s, primatologists eagerly applied them to their work. As mentioned earlier, Duane Rumbaugh designed a computer-controlled lexigram keyboard for what came to be known as the Language Analogue, or LANA, Project . Lana is also the name of the first chimpanzee to use Rumbaugh’s keyboard. It consisted of three aluminum panels, each about 30 by 60 centimeters, mounted side by side on the wall of Lana’s cage. Each lexigram was embossed on a small square Lucite key, which was inserted into slots on the panel. The panel itself was connected by patch cords to a DEC PDP-8/E, an early minicomputer ; its magnetic core memory could store a whopping 12 000 words. When a key was pressed, it glowed. The computer monitored the sequence of lexigrams Lana pressed and projected them above the keyboard. Lana learned to use dozens of lexigrams. She could put these symbols in a grammatical sequence to generate sentences, sometimes quite complex ones. To request a treat from her trainer Tim, for instance, she might press the lexigrams for Lana want Tim give MM . Image: Bonobo Hope Great Ape Trust Sanctuary TRUE MEANING: The 600 or so lexigrams that the bonobos use to communicate represent nouns, verbs, adjectives, and other parts of speech. The newer icons incorporate the spelled-out word, to make it easier for human users to understand. The latest version of the lexigram software also allows new symbols to be created on the fly. To view the complete set of lexigrams, see the interactive lexigram keyboard created by the Bonobo Hope Great Ape Trust Sanctuary. As you hover over each symbol, its English-language meaning will pop up. Click on the image for a larger view. Work with Kanzi and his fellow bonobos has taken our appreciation of ape language to a new level. Interestingly, Kanzi was never taught to use human language : He acquired it as children do, by being exposed to it. The process began when he was only 6 months old, while researchers were trying to teach lexigrams to his mother, Matata, a bonobo who had been raised in the wild. Baby Kanzi always accompanied Matata during her training sessions and so was in the perfect position to eavesdrop. For two years, nobody suspected that Kanzi was paying even the slightest attention to the lexigram training, although he clearly liked the lights on the keyboard and the blinking projections above. It was only when Matata was taken away for a few weeks for breeding that researchers discovered how much Kanzi had picked up. After searching in vain for his mother, he spontaneously began using her keyboard to communicate with his caretakers. What is more, he understood the spoken words that the lexigrams represented, and he could locate their representations on the keyboard. That event marked a paradigm shift in ape language studies. Previously, researchers had worked from a behaviorist psychology tradition , which held that mental events are products of reinforced training. So a scientist would show a chimp an apple, say “apple,” and then make the sign for the word apple . If the chimp signed back with apple , he’d be rewarded with an apple. Kanzi showed us that bonobos don’t really learn language that way; neither, of course, do people. It now appears that 2-year-old Teco will equal or maybe even surpass his father and aunt in linguistic ability. Since birth, he has been totally immersed in human language—and to a much greater extent than Kanzi and Panbanisha have been. I built Teco his first toddler’s keyboard app on the Motorola Xoom tablet with just a handful of oversize lexigrams: grape, dog, go, cereal, and milk . He’s since graduated to a 25-lexigram keyboard. At the age of 4 months, Teco recognized his first lexigram. Savage-Rumbaugh recalls that on the day it happened, the baby bonobo had been eating grapes. When the researcher told him she would give him a grape, he reached out his hand and touched the grape lexigram. She waited briefly and then asked him if he was ready for the grape. This time, he touched the grape symbol, but with his mouth instead of his hand. What these and other incidents add up to is a rich picture of bonobo behavior. In the wild, the bonobos live in the rain forest of the Congo Basin , where, until the fairly recent arrival of logging crews, they had no natural predators and enjoyed an abundance of food. As a result, bonobos have gentle dispositions and are extremely sociable and collaborative. They are typically eager to interact with humans—and thus quite receptive to adopting human language and culture. What we now believe is that language, rather than being a uniquely human trait, is something other species can develop to varying degrees under the right circumstances—not to our level of sophistication but certainly to the point where we can communicate intelligently with them. Photo: Jay Benedict/Buena Vista University I, ROBO-Bonobo: This squirt-gun-packing mobile robot, built by the author and his students, is designed to let the bonobos have fun with their visitors. Click on image to enlarge. If you’re worried that the bonobos I work with are spending too much time staring at computer screens, rest assured: They have plenty of opportunity for more natural interactions and for just goofing around. One of the first projects I worked on was a 60-centimeter-tall mobile robot, dubbed Robo-Bonobo , which the apes can control using a wireless joystick. The bot, about the size of a small garbage can, is mounted on wheels and has an onboard camera and an animatronic chimp head that can be raised and lowered. The idea is to provide the bonobos with a safe way to interact with visitors and have some fun—the robot comes equipped with a squirt gun. Of course, there’s also a scientific purpose: to study the apes’ ability to solve problems that require them to take another observer’s perspective. My students have gotten very creative in developing new high-tech tools for this research . They’ve developed dozens of computer games, including puzzles and mazes, as well as a program called Keyboard Trainer , which helps people learn the hundreds of bonobo lexigrams. Students love working with the bonobos. On one visit, we watched Panbanisha tapping on a touch screen. Seeing us, she grabbed her poster-board keyboard and used the lexigrams to invite her visitors to have some juice. We all stopped working and sat down outside her glass enclosure to enjoy a drink together. These days, much of my effort is directed toward finding better ways to document experiments and collect data. For example, it’s helpful to know who exactly is using a particular touch-screen keyboard, whether human or bonobo. My colleagues and I are considering using thumbprint or retinal scanners, RFID bracelets, or face-recognition software to identify who’s at each computer. We’re also exploring ways to allow the apes to control their own environment—using their keyboards to open doors and windows, access vending machines, control cameras, and so on. And we’re writing lots of apps for use with the bonobos’ wireless and GPS-enabled tablets, which will allow us to collect data in the field. One app we’re working on will let the apes alert security guards to any suspicious activity outside their enclosure, like the presence of wild dogs or other intruders. Where might all this research lead? Beyond showing to what extent apes can use language, we anticipate that our studies will also shed light on people’s development and use of language, the impact of culture on cognition, and the cognitive structures that must be in place for language to blossom. Our work also has implications for how to handle sentient animals such as apes in captivity. If apes can communicate with their keepers, for instance, they can ask for changes to their environment that would make it better suited to their needs. Such possibilities suggest that apes’ cognitive abilities are a lot closer to humans’ than anyone imagined just a short time ago. But maybe that shouldn’t be so surprising, given the genetic similarities between the various great apes , a formal grouping that includes humans. While the bonobo species still survives, we believe it’s our obligation to learn as much as we can about these extraordinary animals. They are fascinating in their own right, and they are also a window into our not-too-distant evolutionary past. By studying them, we learn ultimately about ourselves. To Probe Further For more about the author, Ken Schweller, see the Back Story, " The Magic Word ." For more information about the bonobos and great ape language studies, see the website of the Bonobo Hope Great Ape Trust Sanctuary .
Being outdoor at 2pm these days was foolish, but I did it three days in a roll. Going out at 4:30pm was stupid, because the heat (wave) was still strong. Sure, you could take a subway to escape the heat, but you would re-enter the heat (wave) if the ride was short. However, the air temperature dropped quickly after the sun fell behind the horizon, and even Tsinghua campus seemed likable. (Or is it because of the hand-made dumplings sold at its dining hall?) LH, thanks for being such a good friend. The cake with dates was indeed very good!
Dear Secretary: Low-octane gasoline (such as 40# gasoline) can be compression-ignited. The results of engine test shows that the internal combustion engine efficiencyof using low octane gasoline is almost 40% higher than usingregular gasoline (10% higher than using diesel, because of its good volatility , more complete combustion). Low-octane gasoline does not contain aromatics, so it is clean, free of anti-knock agent, so it is environmental-friendly, and the greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced when we use it. I hope to cooperation with the U.S. oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, automobile companies, such as General Motors or Ford, and the U.S. Department of Energy, to promote the application of this new technology.I have foundthat there is no a window of the companies for me. This technical is myown invention. I am look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely! ZHOU June 18, 2011 Asking for cooperation to promote application of low-octane gasoline (40# gasoline for example) Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy. Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.Asking for Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy.
110221-文章LWLCW-PLA11.pdf www.elsevier.com/locate/pla Optimal convergence in naming game with geography-based negotiation on small-world networks Run-Ran Liu a,∗, Wen-Xu Wangb, Ying-Cheng Lai b,c, Guanrong Chen d, Bing-Hong Wang a,e a Department of Modern Physics and Nonlinear Science Center, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei Anhui 230026, China b School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA c Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA d Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e Research Center for Complex System Science, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology and Shanghai Academy of System Science, Shanghai 200093, China a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 15 September 2010 Received in revised form 21 November 2010 Accepted 5 December 2010 Available online 7 December 2010 Communicated by R. Wu Keywords: Naming game Convergence Small-world networks Geographical distance We propose a negotiation strategy to address the effect of geography on the dynamics of naming games over small-world networks. Communication and negotiation frequencies between two agents are determined by their geographical distance in terms of a parameter characterizing the correlation between interaction strength and the distance. A finding is that there exists an optimal parameter value leading to fastest convergence to global consensus on naming. Numerical computations and a theoretical analysis are provided to substantiate our findings. 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Z.J. Zhang, X.L. Wu, M. Lu, On the uniqueness of strong solution to the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with damping , J. Math. Anal. Appl., 377 (2011),414-419. Abstract In this paper, we show that the Cauchy problem of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with damping has global strong solution for any and the strong solution is unique when . This improves earlier results. Corrections to YJMAA 15436 I am glad that after two times of corrections, the errors found in the above PDF files were gone with the wind.
希望做人文社会科学研究（HSSR）的同行也看看。 Essay Nature 427, 297 (22 January 2004) | doi:10.1038/427297a 标题： Turning points - A meeting with Enrico Fermi 作者： Freeman Dyson , Freeman Dyson is at the Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA. 副题： How one intuitive physicist rescued a team from fruitless research. 正文： One of the big turning points in my life was a meeting with Enrico Fermi in the spring of 1953. In a few minutes, Fermi politely but ruthlessly demolished a programme of research that my students and I had been pursuing for several years. He probably saved us from several more years of fruitless wandering along a road that was leading nowhere. I am eternally grateful to him for destroying our illusions and telling us the bitter truth. Fermi was one of the great physicists of our time, outstanding both as a theorist and as an experimenter. He led the team that built the first nuclear reactor in Chicago in 1942. By 1953 he was head of the team that built the Chicago cyclotron, and was using it to explore the strong forces that hold nuclei together. He made the first accurate measurements of the scattering of mesons by protons, an experiment that gave the most direct evidence then available of the nature of the strong forces. At that time I was a young professor of theoretical physics at Cornell University, responsible for directing the research of a small army of graduate students and postdocs. I had put them to work calculating mesonproton scattering, so that their theoretical calculations could be compared with Fermi's measurements. In 1948 and 1949 we had made similar calculations of atomic processes, using the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and found spectacular agreement between experiment and theory. Quantum electrodynamics is the theory of electrons and photons interacting through electromagnetic forces. Because the electromagnetic forces are weak, we could calculate the atomic processes precisely. By 1951, we had triumphantly finished the atomic calculations and were looking for fresh fields to conquer. We decided to use the same techniques of calculation to explore the strong nuclear forces. We began by calculating mesonproton scattering, using a theory of the strong forces known as pseudoscalar meson theory. By the spring of 1953, after heroic efforts, we had plotted theoretical graphs of mesonproton scattering. We joyfully observed that our calculated numbers agreed pretty well with Fermi's measured numbers. So I made an appointment to meet with Fermi and show him our results. Proudly, I rode the Greyhound bus from Ithaca to Chicago with a package of our theoretical graphs to show to Fermi. When I arrived in Fermi's office, I handed the graphs to Fermi, but he hardly glanced at them. He invited me to sit down, and asked me in a friendly way about the health of my wife and our new-born baby son, now fifty years old. Then he delivered his verdict in a quiet, even voice. There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics, he said. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither. I was slightly stunned, but ventured to ask him why he did not consider the pseudoscalar meson theory to be a self-consistent mathematical formalism. He replied, Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory because the forces are weak, and when the formalism is ambiguous we have a clear physical picture to guide us. With the pseudoscalar meson theory there is no physical picture, and the forces are so strong that nothing converges. To reach your calculated results, you had to introduce arbitrary cut-off procedures that are not based either on solid physics or on solid mathematics. In desperation I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations? I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, Four. He said, I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. With that, the conversation was over. I thanked Fermi for his time and trouble, and sadly took the next bus back to Ithaca to tell the bad news to the students. Because it was important for the students to have their names on a published paper, we did not abandon our calculations immediately. We finished them and wrote a long paper that was duly published in the Physical Review with all our names on it. Then we dispersed to find other lines of work. I escaped to Berkeley, California, to start a new career in condensed-matter physics. Looking back after fifty years, we can clearly see that Fermi was right. The crucial discovery that made sense of the strong forces was the quark. Mesons and protons are little bags of quarks. Before Murray Gell-Mann discovered quarks, no theory of the strong forces could possibly have been adequate. Fermi knew nothing about quarks, and died before they were discovered. But somehow he knew that something essential was missing in the meson theories of the 1950s. His physical intuition told him that the pseudoscalar meson theory could not be right. And so it was Fermi's intuition, and not any discrepancy between theory and experiment, that saved me and my students from getting stuck in a blind alley.
标签: with
