Friday, 28 October 2011

小说 “笙歌” 第七章 之(6)“清醒的孤寂”


第七章 之(6)[清醒的孤寂]
莫弦音一覺醒來,驚覺現實是如此的難以接受。


劇烈的偏頭疼把莫弦音折騰得滿頭冷汗。她低聲呻吟,連轉身也感吃力。她很想弄條濕毛巾把眼睛蓋上,但無力下床,唯有用盡氣力脫了身上的 T恤,用來蒙上雙眼。
到處都是光,好比尖錐,在眼皮上找裂縫,拼命錐插,非要把她插死為止:死吧!死吧!死吧!
除了劇痛,她沒有其它感覺。大滴大滴黏滯的眼淚被逼了出來,冷冷的,沿著面額流。
__________________

她終於在時間斷層中甦醒過來,不肯定自己是死是活。口裡一點水分也沒有。舌頭貼在上顎,嘴唇龜裂。
外邊很靜。腦袋里也很靜。静得她心寒。
怎麼音樂沒啦?
哎呀,孩子們呢?
小甜豆?小東東?
小甜豆。。。 

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Why use credit cards? 干嘛要用信用卡?

Why use credit cards?
I like to use cash. Why use a credit card unless it’s to keep track of claimable business expenses, do internet shopping, or spend money that I don’t have at a criminally high interest rate?
They try to make me worry about losing cash. Sure, that might happen once or twice in an entire lifetime. But credit cards could also be lost, resulting in more hassle and greater potential losses if I fail to notice and report in time. The total value of credit card frauds due to lost cards is US$50 billion per year.
Are credit cards more convenient? Not if you live in the city with an ATM on every block. I also find it reassuring to have a couple of weeks’ worth of petty cash in my pocket: My money, in my pocket, for the time being. It feels good.
Most importantly, when using credit cards for no reason other than the persuasive power of advertisements, I know I’d be penalising the average small business operator (who must trim every penny to remain competitive), and benefit banks who have done ZILCH in the transaction except sitting there, waiting to take a cut from someone else’s labour. 
They try to bribe me with bonus points. But bonus for what? Look at all that junk. Do I really need them? Am I going to spend like an idiot in order to move some of these unneeded items from the warehouse to my home? 
Last of all, frequent use of credit cards puts me on everyone’s junk mail list, and leaves a trail of my whereabouts. And what if my ass caught fire in the next financial kaboom? With all the plastic in my wallet, it might just give off toxic fumes.
干嘛要用信用卡?
我喜欢用现金。除非是方便商务开支,或者是在网上购物,或者是为了先花未来钱而不惜付出比高利贷更冷血的利息,我看不到有任何理由用信用卡。
袋现金怕丢?信用卡也有丢的时候呀!正常人一生总会丢一两次荷包吧,如果丢的是现金,丢了便丢了。假如是信用卡,又来不及报案,可能会引致相等于信贷限额的损失。每年由于失卡所导致的损失是 五百亿 美元哦。
方便?够现金方便吗?住在城市,每一条街都有提款机。我通常喜欢袋里有大约两个星期的零用钱。自己的钱暂时在自己的裤袋里,内心非常踏实,付钱时也神气。
最重要的原因,是银行广告看多了,有理无理也刷卡的话,会无心“惩罚”了辛苦经营小生意人。对他们来说,每一分一毛也得用努力赚取。我又怎么忍心损他们而不利己,把他们微薄的利润分给坐在那里喝香槟等分钱的银行家呢?
但是刷卡可以有积分,换礼物哦!我看看那些所谓礼物,都是些对我毫无价值的垃圾。搬回家干嘛?还是少刷卡,帮帮小商人省回手续费,比做慈善捐献更实际。
最后,不刷卡可以减少个人资料给人家买卖的机会,也可以避免把行踪私隐和消费习惯泄露于奸商。还有!下次金融大灾难的时候,假如不幸屁股着火,荷包里的塑料卡,分分钟会冒毒烟,令灾情恶化,还是少碰为妙。

Friday, 21 October 2011

小说 “笙歌” 第七章 之(5)“老虎”

第七章 之(5)“老虎”
宋煥在元朗獨居,是最徹底的孤獨,
直至他遇上了「華南虎」。。。



宋煥獨居元朗可能是最徹底的孤獨。
就算被隔離監禁的囚犯,外面的世界也不過一牆之隔。他可以聽到獄卒在外面為他忙碌,安排起居飲食。獄卒的生計來自監犯。沒有了監犯,獄卒都要失業。其實坐牢的不許離開,並無選擇餘地,倒容易安分等候刑滿出獄。獄卒謹守崗位,同樣不能離開,聊天吃飯都在獄中。但他們理論上有權另選工作,奈何命運不濟,每天都要上班坐牢,心理可能更難平衡。
從前守燈塔的人,每天對著海浪,也很孤寂。但他經常會上岸補給和休假。平日晚上,熟識的燈光在遙遠的天空折亮,也會引發遐思。偶爾有船隻經過,還會帶來一陣好奇和興奮。
連沈船遇難被困荒島的人,也有異於宋煥的處境。一個人在荒島,只要還活著,便可以每天盼望。頸脖越伸越長,終有一天會給他看到一條船,帶他回家上電視做英雄,把孤島歷險記說完又說,越說越精彩。
與他們相比,宋煥的獨居雖屬自願,卻沒有回頭的餘地;也沒有盼望的空間。他眼前是條無目的地的單程路,孤零零地伸延著。只有死亡可以把它終止。
__________________

Thursday, 13 October 2011

小说 “笙歌” 第七章 之(4)“不明的大白”


第七章 之(4)「不明的大白」
瑞涯終於按耐不住,把自己有身孕的事告訴宋笙,誰知惹來晴天霹靂。。。


15記:209075日。萬事不順。一切大忌!

早餐時,我看著面前的番薯餅,突然無法按奈心裏的衝動。我受夠了!懷孕是驚天動地的大好消息,是他也有分的事,是全人類的事!我卻要像罪犯一樣偷偷摸摸,簡直荒謬!
我於是把頭一抬,向他宣布:寶貝,你究竟有沒有察覺到我有了身孕?話一出口,心頭大石當下消失。我很鎮定地微笑著,但眼眶裡滿是淚水,等著把幾個月來的委屈爆發出來。
他一副半夜三更被我從熟睡中拍醒的表情,糊塗地望著我,呆了足足半分鐘才說:你開玩笑吧?” 
我頓時百感交集:悲傷,憤怒,失望,羞辱,同湧心頭,想跳起身給他一大巴掌。千鈞一髮間,我還是把自己控制下來,忍著眼淚,重整笑容。

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

小说 “笙歌” 第七章 之(3)“情为何物(下)”

第七章  之(3)「情為何物(下)」
老馬大發愛情偉論,大家聽得津津有味


老馬昨天下午從淺水灣回來便立即趕緊做飯。飯後我們四個在空中花園各手執一杯(我喝豆漿)談天說地。尊信帶頭提到老馬與莎緹的遠程關係。我看大男人的心裡其實跟小女人同樣八卦,只不過外表假裝瀟灑而已。
尊信問的還是那個老問題:你跟莎緹這對怪人,就算不同住,也沒有必要一東一西呀!你幾十歲啦老友,每次探老婆都要跑馬拉從,捱不了多久啦!
老馬做了個蠱惑鬼臉,回答道:我們需要自我空間嘛。
我插了句:“直徑二十五公里的自我空間?
老馬說:哎呀,靚女,有愛情推動,25公里算啥?
換了別人叫我靚女,我可能會回贈一句死老坑。但老馬叫我靚女時,好像蠻有誠意,令我覺得自己的確很年輕漂亮;老實說有些輕飄飄。他既然提到了愛情兩個字,我便打蛇隨棍上:好呀!原來馬師傅知道情為何物,我今天非要請教不可了。說罷,我給寶貝笙打了個眼色。
想不到老馬竟然一本正經地解釋起來:一般人(我估計他指的一般人並不包括自己)都只會口裡歌頌愛情,不會真正思考情為何物。其實男女之情基本上是動物本能;這種自然愛欲,隨緣生滅,並不值得小題大作。他看著宋笙和我,笑道:就像你兩位的邂逅一樣。

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Bush has surpassed Galileo in Western Science?

In the middle of the 18th century, Carl Linnaeus coined the term Homo Sapiens. By giving ourselves this name, we declared that the most outstanding characteristic about our species is the ability and propensity to think. At the time, having emerged from a long dark history of superstition and religious suppression, Europe was doing a lot of thinking, and had produced many momentous figures. Their critical and adventurous faculties were leading the world into a dramatically different age.
From Copernicus to Galileo, then Newton to Einstein, numerous talented thinking monkeys had used their brains to help us better understand the physical environment and ourselves. This way of thinking may not be perfect. But it was extremely useful and generally valid in everyday life, and remains very much so, just as Newtonian science. Observation, curiosity, a tenacious experimental spirit, critical and uncompromising analyses had contributed to the overwhelming success of modern science since Galileo, the effect of which we still enjoy and suffer today.
Galileo risked being barbecued alive for suggesting the earth goes around the sun because objective evidence said so. He was lucky; he only spent his last years under house arrest. But the spirit of Galileo illuminated an intellectual dimension that the Holy Fathers could no longer keep in the dark. 
911 had finally put a stop to that tradition, officially and publicly. Bush might therefore claim to have surpassed Galileo as the most significant figure in modern science. The Nobel committee, having awarded Obama a Peace Prize, might as well give Bush one in Physics.
A very well informed world of Homo sapiens which witnessed the free fall of three towers, defying known scientific understandings, continues to believe in the official story. Except a brave group of 1500 or so American scientists and engineers, most people are willing to see the sun orbiting the Earth because Washington says so. Some in the scientific community even attempt mumble jumble rationalisations to justify the obviously impossible. Well, many of the brightest men did the same in Galileo’s days, but they had the excuse of not yet having called themselves Homo sapiens.
The scientific (or unscientific) queries surrounding 911 are plain and basic. I will not repeat the numerous objective and irrefutable arguments already presented by others. Those who are interested can do their own research. www.911truth.org is by far the best starting point. 
I wish to put forward a few common sense questions for those who don’t wish to be bothered by scientific principles:
1. The first two towers collapsed by free fall, ostensibly due to explosions caused by the airplanes, with remarkable symmetry, leaving the neighbours fortuitously intact. Can the collapse be simulated in an experiment? This is a significant discovery for engineering because future demolition can be made MUCH cheaper (hey, just a couple tanks of airplane fuel splashed all over the place and wham!) if we can understand and master this phenomena. 
Is it being studied in any of the civil engineering labs around the world? Why are we ignoring this opportunity of a lifetime to come up with a new cheap way of controlled demolition that no longer requires painstaking “controlling”?
2. Perhaps it was a freak accident, although TWO freak accidents happening at the same time could itself rewrite statistics and probability. Never mind. 
But there was a third building! Building 7 (the 3rd tower that also collapsed by free fall, something that 85% of Americans are no longer aware of because the media are quiet about it in the spirit of Orwellian Minitrue) was not hit by a plane. It caught fire, somehow, and fainted. It collapsed in the same fashion, by free fall.
The Holy See — sorry, correction, Washington — said it collapsed due to office fire. Well, no towering inferno has ever fallen like this in our entire history. Is anyone in the universities curious enough to analyse this unprecedented structural behaviour with significant implications? 
3. Finally, forget Newtonian science. It might have died. Forget Einstein. We are now in the Age of Bushian science. What about social regulations, something that Bush would have nothing against? 
Three landmark grade skyscrapers in New York collapsed in an apparently impossible manner ten years ago. Some said it was due to a peculiar structural design fault. Has the building code been revised since? Were the designers sued in litigious America? What about other buildings designed and built on similar principles? If they caught fire like WTC Building 7 — a definitely possibility — will they collapse likewise? Has anything been done to safeguard or reinforce these structures to prevent recurrence? You’re talking about possibly saving lives — American lives!
So far, no other building elsewhere in the world has collapsed in a free fall fashion due to “office fire” — the official reason. Does that mean American design and engineering should not be responsibly exported until they have a better idea (expressed in accordance with the fact-seeking conventions of Western science) why Building 7 collapsed?
Western science is much more than a set of theorems and principles. It’s a way of objective thinking that refuses to compromise. This intellectual approach had emerged from a long struggle against the deadly drip of the Church, but can it survive the sophisticated strangling of the modern Church and its powerful propaganda machine? If not, isn’t Bush the latest defining figure in Western science, possibly surpassing Galileo, Newton, and Einstein in a reverse sense?

小布什对科学的影响超过了伽利略 http://guo-du.blogspot.hk/2011/10/blog-post.html
______________________________________
Published 2 October 2011 on Guo Du Blog

小布什对现代科学的影响超过了伽利略?

在18世纪中叶, 瑞典人 Carl Lennaeus 第一次用“智人”来统称人类,大家都觉得很恰当顺耳,便一直沿用下来。我们自称“智人”,当时来说也不是完全没有道理。欧洲经过了长期的宗教愚昧,当时已经从漫长的黑暗年代中苏醒过来。一代接一代的伟大思想家和科学家,正为西方的学术传统开花,改变欧洲,改变世界。
由哥白尼到伽利略,由牛顿到爱因斯坦,一代代伟大的智人学者,用他们的脑筋,智慧,勇气,孜孜不倦的研究精神,客观的分析方法,和不屈不挠的探讨精神,将西方科学发展到人类前所未见的高峰。虽然现代科学观跟牛顿定律一样,有不足之处;而科学对人类长远的影响究竟是祸是福,仍然有待时间分晓。不过在正常情况之下,现代科学的威力和所带来的方便,则无容置疑。
伽利略可以说是现代科学之父。他当年冒着被活活烧死的危险,努力证明地球不是如教廷所说的是宇宙中心。他还算幸运,最后只遭到终身软禁。但他寻求真相的无畏精神和客观方式,已经开了智人的窍,燃亮了黑暗愚昧的死角。结果一发不可收拾,最终连代表上帝的教皇也无法继续把事实扭曲和蒙蔽。
伽利略之后,是几百年的百花齐放,把欧洲科学带到前所未有的巅峰,推动了全世界。直到美国911事件,才正式告一段落。所以说小布什在西方科学历史中的地位超过了伽利略,也不为过。负责诺贝尔奖的老人家们,反正连好战的奥巴马也颁了个和平奖,那么也应该考累颁个物理奖给布什,以示对美国特别的公平。
我为何有此说法呢?
婆娑世界的“智人”,目睹 911三座高楼垂直倒塌,完全违反自然定律,竟然可以继续相信华盛顿的官方解释。除了美国有一千五百多个科学家和工程师仍然拒绝改变科学来迁就官方胡言之外,大部分人可以面不改容地相信太阳围着地球公转。人家白宫都这样说,还会假?不少有识之士,还放弃了几百年的西方学术传统,胡说八道的乱扯一通,找很多完全站不住脚的谬论来支持官方言论。这也难怪。伽利略的年代,绝大部分的知识分子,也是千方百计的证明地球是宇宙中心。不过他们当时还没有自称 “智人” 哦!
911 技术上的大量疑点,已经有很多人用浅易明白的科学文字分析得很清楚;我便不浪费时间再在这里重复了。有兴趣的人,可以上网浏览。www.911truth.org 我觉得比较全面,是埋手的好地方。
我倒想讲讲几个与科学没有直接关系的 911 现象:
1。 既然两座现代摩天大楼差不多同一时间,以同一个模样垂直倒塌,丝毫没有倾斜,骚扰邻居,效果可以说十分意外,但比较令人满意。既然无意中发现这个现象,我们可否在现代化实验室里再加以了解和分析呢?因为掌握了这个技术,将来拆卸巨大建筑物的时候,可以大派用场。只不过两箱飞机油,漏出来随便燃烧,便可以干手净脚地拆掉两大栋房子。这种技术,掌握了可以立即上市发财。
为什么到现在还没有人研究呢?美国的学者们都没有了好奇心吗?
2。 可能大厦的倒塌,还有其它万中无一的偶然巧合所造成。但两栋一起碰上这万中无一的巧合,也可以说是机会率统计学上一件可圈可点的大怪事。算啦,见怪不怪。
但倒塌的不是两栋哦还有世贸第七楼,没有给飞机撞上,只不过在旁边看热闹,也一样以垂直方式塌了下来。怪吗?根据调查,百分之八十五的美国人都不清楚有第三栋楼房倒塌的历史了,可见自由传媒的合作态度,其实十分重要。
罗马教廷 — 不对不对,是华盛顿白宫 — 解释说“第七楼”是由于惹了火上身,所以也塌了。呃,一栋现代楼房由于火灾而垂直倒塌,是人类懂得建造多层房屋以来的第一次。美国是先进国家,科学发达,难道没有一家工学研究院对这个史无前例的现象存有半点的学术好奇,决心研究研究?
3。 好!不再那么土了。二十一世纪了,不要再罗嗦牛顿定律啦。忘记爱因斯坦吧。让我们从不科学的人文角度看看911所带出的社会问题吧。
纽约的三座摩登大楼,同一天烧不了几个小时便意想不到地倒了。据说是设计上的问题。美国的结构设计,完来有这么大的一个“漏洞”, 事后有没有彻底反省,以防止事故重演呢?美国人最爱诉讼,有没有追究设计责任呢?全美国还有不少其它建筑物的设计,与世贸类似。看到了第七栋火烧几小时便倒塌的惨剧之后,有没有作出相应的检讨和加固手段呢?十年了,纽约的建筑条例有没有作出改善和修订呢?美国式的结构设计,是否仍然可以安全负责地输出到世界上其它的国家呢?
中国农村的“豆腐渣”工程,当然顶不住大地震。但烧它个一天半日,肯定不会整座垂直倒塌。是否证明技术上已经超过了美国的摩天大厦呢?
西方科学领导了人类几个世纪的发展的原因,并非单单几条公式和定律,而是它经过了长期宗教压逼所磨练出来的求知精神和不妥协的客观求证态度。这种一度令西方文化攀上历史高峰的学术态度,似乎因世贸大楼的倒塌而被逼严重倒退。所以布什对西方科学的影响,有可能比伽利略,牛顿,和爱因斯坦的都深远。

Bush has surpassed Galileo in Western Science? http://guo-du.blogspot.hk/2011/10/bush-has-surpassed-galileo-in-western.html