G*C
2 楼
CS方向的？那里可以查到呢？
总体的或者分progam的都可以。
谢谢
总体的或者分progam的都可以。
谢谢
e*e
3 楼
一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
Thanks!
找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
Thanks!
g*j
4 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: gshjj (各输己键), 信区: Military
标 题: Science and religion aren't friends zz
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Oct 14 16:37:26 2010, 美东)
By Jerry A. Coyne
Religion in America is on the defensive.
Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by
exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of
Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end
, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with
material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on
the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our
personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now
know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying
the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking
gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is
still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-
belief.
But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are
many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant,
theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-
back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the
argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each
devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually
improving dialogue.
As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith
are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that
irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of
inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they
may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion
only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.
Irreconcilable
"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible.
After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of
the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the
existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science,
doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people
can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that
meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of
marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No,
the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their
ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.
Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority
rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional
— unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always
asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?" I can think of
dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old
ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen.
Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us
distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first
principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person
to fool."
Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was
laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success
. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives,
without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking
proclaimed, science wins because it works.
Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and
others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths
embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our
universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about
the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered
prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations
and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief
, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than
relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation,
dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.
And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way
of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who
has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make
him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the
Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of
evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent
with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can
you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?
The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different
faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians
believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for
eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son
are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the
messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide,
religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable
history of religious warfare and persecution.
In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as
continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is
no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a
multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith,
then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it'
s a vice.
But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith —
it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While
only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American
scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book,
Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is
a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their
acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief
in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are
evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in
Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in
accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a
2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science
disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in
favor of their faith.
'Venerable superstition'
In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other
superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling
science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the
most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially
powerful.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally
valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also
gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it
is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its
inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression
of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks
on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention,
sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and
religious persecutions.
And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not
yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't
magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be
without the fog of superstition!
Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at
The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his
website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.
发信人: gshjj (各输己键), 信区: Military
标 题: Science and religion aren't friends zz
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Oct 14 16:37:26 2010, 美东)
By Jerry A. Coyne
Religion in America is on the defensive.
Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by
exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of
Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end
, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with
material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on
the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our
personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now
know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying
the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking
gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is
still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-
belief.
But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are
many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant,
theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-
back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the
argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each
devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually
improving dialogue.
As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith
are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that
irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of
inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they
may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion
only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.
Irreconcilable
"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible.
After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of
the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the
existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science,
doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people
can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that
meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of
marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No,
the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their
ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.
Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority
rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional
— unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always
asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?" I can think of
dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old
ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen.
Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us
distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first
principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person
to fool."
Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was
laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success
. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives,
without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking
proclaimed, science wins because it works.
Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and
others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths
embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our
universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about
the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered
prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations
and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief
, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than
relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation,
dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.
And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way
of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who
has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make
him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the
Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of
evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent
with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can
you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?
The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different
faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians
believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for
eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son
are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the
messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide,
religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable
history of religious warfare and persecution.
In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as
continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is
no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a
multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith,
then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it'
s a vice.
But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith —
it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While
only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American
scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book,
Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is
a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their
acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief
in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are
evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in
Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in
accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a
2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science
disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in
favor of their faith.
'Venerable superstition'
In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other
superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling
science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the
most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially
powerful.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally
valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also
gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it
is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its
inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression
of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks
on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention,
sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and
religious persecutions.
And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not
yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't
magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be
without the fog of superstition!
Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at
The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his
website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.
w*4
5 楼
要回国出售古筝：敦煌 694TT 天真元韵，买来之后一共就没弹多少次，保养的很好。
原包装和琴包都在，附带筝架一对，指甲若干副，调音器一个，调音扳手一个，筝谱架
一个。
$500，湾区当面交易，有意者请站内，谢谢！
有一点小问题：拆琴码把古筝装箱的时候，因为拧反了方向，把最下面那根弦崩断了，
现在正在国内买弦带过来，2月10号能带过来，如果担心弦的话可以留尾款。
论坛有附件大小限制，所以烦请查阅http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/msg/4857973721.html中的图片。
原包装和琴包都在，附带筝架一对，指甲若干副，调音器一个，调音扳手一个，筝谱架
一个。
$500，湾区当面交易，有意者请站内，谢谢！
有一点小问题：拆琴码把古筝装箱的时候，因为拧反了方向，把最下面那根弦崩断了，
现在正在国内买弦带过来，2月10号能带过来，如果担心弦的话可以留尾款。
论坛有附件大小限制，所以烦请查阅http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/msg/4857973721.html中的图片。
a*e
6 楼
这个世界就是这样的.
It is unfair, but makes sense.
It is unfair, but makes sense.
V*o
7 楼
哥，这个也算洗啊。
r*e
8 楼
收到据信的信里会说收到多少可以fund多少的吧。我收到的说过。
【在 G**C 的大作中提到】
: CS方向的？那里可以查到呢？
: 总体的或者分progam的都可以。
: 谢谢
【在 G**C 的大作中提到】
: CS方向的？那里可以查到呢？
: 总体的或者分progam的都可以。
: 谢谢
e*7
9 楼
多找两个broker问一下即可，估计差不多。这个bond应该是和商品价值挂钩的
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
: 找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
: 代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
: 我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
: Thanks!
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
: 找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
: 代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
: 我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
: Thanks!
d*r
10 楼
那叫啥？
q*g
11 楼
一般一个bond 500美金就可以了吧，我们进口的时候超过 quarter million的时候也都
是500美金啊，没听说有问题啊
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
: 找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
: 代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
: 我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
: Thanks!
是500美金啊，没听说有问题啊
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
: 找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
: 代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
: 我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
: Thanks!
V*o
12 楼
横吧
e*e
13 楼
我问过了，就是因为价值过高。
一般的bond是$500多，但是这个价值太高普通bond不能cover，所以要特别申请，最后
就这么多了。你说的quarter million的500多bond哪买的？
【在 q****g 的大作中提到】
: 一般一个bond 500美金就可以了吧，我们进口的时候超过 quarter million的时候也都
: 是500美金啊，没听说有问题啊
一般的bond是$500多，但是这个价值太高普通bond不能cover，所以要特别申请，最后
就这么多了。你说的quarter million的500多bond哪买的？
【在 q****g 的大作中提到】
: 一般一个bond 500美金就可以了吧，我们进口的时候超过 quarter million的时候也都
: 是500美金啊，没听说有问题啊
d*r
14 楼
大体同意。但今天gap down，还是可以称洗。
我看大势本周无虞。
我看大势本周无虞。
q*g
15 楼
中西部一个我们常用的中国货代公司买的
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 我问过了，就是因为价值过高。
: 一般的bond是$500多，但是这个价值太高普通bond不能cover，所以要特别申请，最后
: 就这么多了。你说的quarter million的500多bond哪买的？
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 我问过了，就是因为价值过高。
: 一般的bond是$500多，但是这个价值太高普通bond不能cover，所以要特别申请，最后
: 就这么多了。你说的quarter million的500多bond哪买的？
V*o
16 楼
哥是拍脑袋想的?
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 大体同意。但今天gap down，还是可以称洗。
: 我看大势本周无虞。
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 大体同意。但今天gap down，还是可以称洗。
: 我看大势本周无虞。
j*g
17 楼
我知道的是bond是500多，但是不知道cover多少价值。
d*r
18 楼
今天需要收在2796以上，则趋势未终结
【在 V***o 的大作中提到】
: 哥是拍脑袋想的?
【在 V***o 的大作中提到】
: 哥是拍脑袋想的?
e*7
19 楼
这个应该是cover 5万一年的.
【在 j******g 的大作中提到】
: 我知道的是bond是500多，但是不知道cover多少价值。
【在 j******g 的大作中提到】
: 我知道的是bond是500多，但是不知道cover多少价值。
l*q
20 楼
大智慧网站也是这么说的。。。
给几个pick?
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 今天需要收在2796以上，则趋势未终结
给几个pick?
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 今天需要收在2796以上，则趋势未终结
j*g
21 楼
这个cover关税五万，其实货值上百万！
除非你duty超20%
除非你duty超20%
d*r
22 楼
中小版/创业版还可一博。磁体，医药。
【在 l****q 的大作中提到】
: 大智慧网站也是这么说的。。。
: 给几个pick?
【在 l****q 的大作中提到】
: 大智慧网站也是这么说的。。。
: 给几个pick?
l*h
23 楼
大牛有没有试用过Flexport？
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
: 找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
: 代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
: 我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
: Thanks!
【在 e******e 的大作中提到】
: 一批货从加拿大进来，因为我平时不做进口业务所以没有bond。这批货总值$24万多，
: 找货代broker帮助，说因为通常的annual bond只cover $5万，耽误了好几天。最后货
: 代收了我$1300多。这个是相当于买了多个bond吗？
: 我后面还有这样一批货要进来，怎么才能省点费用？
: Thanks!
d*r
24 楼
35mins to go.
我的想法，收在2810以上就好，不然震荡将持续。
我的想法，收在2810以上就好，不然震荡将持续。
d*r
25 楼
还是觉得现在是震荡，而不是下跌。中小板/创业板尚有余勇可贾，应择机而入。
r*o
26 楼
这个人，如果不是托，就是超级反指。屡屡被市场扇耳光，还屡屡振振有词
V*o
27 楼
石头哥不要着急，至少再看两个星期。
r*o
28 楼
你一年到头喊涨，总有一天会涨的，市场不会一年到头只会单边下跌
你一年到头喊跌，总有一天会跌的，市场不会一年到头只会单边上涨。
问题是，在跟你喊的方向一致时，你就跳出来说，我喊对了，能算本事吗？？
事实很清楚，他喊洗盘了，大家赶紧买入，买入后一直跌，还算本事吗？难道不算看错
吗？
看错不要紧，人人都犯错，看错了承认错误就可以了，没必要错了还老执拗：“我不是看
错，还没到时候，过段时间再看，总会涨的……”
【在 V***o 的大作中提到】
: 石头哥不要着急，至少再看两个星期。
你一年到头喊跌，总有一天会跌的，市场不会一年到头只会单边上涨。
问题是，在跟你喊的方向一致时，你就跳出来说，我喊对了，能算本事吗？？
事实很清楚，他喊洗盘了，大家赶紧买入，买入后一直跌，还算本事吗？难道不算看错
吗？
看错不要紧，人人都犯错，看错了承认错误就可以了，没必要错了还老执拗：“我不是看
错，还没到时候，过段时间再看，总会涨的……”
【在 V***o 的大作中提到】
: 石头哥不要着急，至少再看两个星期。
r*o
29 楼
澄清一下：我从来没跟他喊的买，只是看他喊一次，反指一次，可是还每次都振振有词
。受不了
。受不了
d*r
30 楼
跟你无关嘛，不喜欢何必来看？这地方不就是大家乱喊的地方嘛
我若成为高质量反指，也对大家做出贡献了不是。
我若成为高质量反指，也对大家做出贡献了不是。
m*n
31 楼
托还是遭人忌恨的
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 跟你无关嘛，不喜欢何必来看？这地方不就是大家乱喊的地方嘛
: 我若成为高质量反指，也对大家做出贡献了不是。
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 跟你无关嘛，不喜欢何必来看？这地方不就是大家乱喊的地方嘛
: 我若成为高质量反指，也对大家做出贡献了不是。
a*e
32 楼
你们这帮人真tm恶心
股票市场，除了god，谁语言能百分百准？
只要说话就会错，只要错了，必然有帮平常从不发言的鸟人跳出了骂别人是托
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
: 托还是遭人忌恨的
股票市场，除了god，谁语言能百分百准？
只要说话就会错，只要错了，必然有帮平常从不发言的鸟人跳出了骂别人是托
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
: 托还是遭人忌恨的
d*r
33 楼
我'洗得好，可入'的看法，是对是错自然大家都会看到，不必费口舌。我可能会错，但现在我的看法就是可入。
好在我风闻本版个别人士的德行，在此我坚决不谈论个股，只谈大盘，最多说说板块，
何托之有？哈哈哈，你说一个我当托的具体行为？ 除非我是大盘的托。你还是骂我反指稍微靠谱一点。就我上面提到的两个板块，未来一个月内我还是抱有较大希望的。
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
: 托还是遭人忌恨的
好在我风闻本版个别人士的德行，在此我坚决不谈论个股，只谈大盘，最多说说板块，
何托之有？哈哈哈，你说一个我当托的具体行为？ 除非我是大盘的托。你还是骂我反指稍微靠谱一点。就我上面提到的两个板块，未来一个月内我还是抱有较大希望的。
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
: 托还是遭人忌恨的
V*o
34 楼
昨日深洗,如早了.
m*a
35 楼
昨天这个基本把裤子都洗掉了
【在 V***o 的大作中提到】
: 昨日深洗,如早了.
【在 V***o 的大作中提到】
: 昨日深洗,如早了.
r*o
36 楼
如果听他话，7月18日。现在盈利大大的
d*r
37 楼
你要听我一句，进点医药股，现在盈利确实大大地，大盘深洗yu我何干。观点未变，何在意一两天被套。
s*x
38 楼
个人打算
下周，2650 以下逐步建仓。 如果破了 2600点， 在2590-2500一线 全仓杀入。。
下周，2650 以下逐步建仓。 如果破了 2600点， 在2590-2500一线 全仓杀入。。
d*r
39 楼
感觉山雨欲来啊，不是向上就是向下，大动作该来了。我押向上。
d*r
40 楼
嗯，有点冒进。下跌休整后还要向下，2610附近能否形成双底决定这是真摔还是假摔。
我个人相信这是假摔，不过没有依据，一切看后面的事实决定，所以这是瞎猜。创业版
强势惊人。
我个人相信这是假摔，不过没有依据，一切看后面的事实决定，所以这是瞎猜。创业版
强势惊人。
d*r
41 楼
猜错了。
如果有因此损失的，我愿站内短信奉送观察了很久的牛牛两个，这两天大盘跌了个四脚
朝天，但这两位岿然不动，显然主力介入很深。只要大盘停止暴跌，牛牛表现的时候就
到了。
表示个人心意，不保证盈利。谢绝骂托，不信的不必来问。
如果有因此损失的，我愿站内短信奉送观察了很久的牛牛两个，这两天大盘跌了个四脚
朝天，但这两位岿然不动，显然主力介入很深。只要大盘停止暴跌，牛牛表现的时候就
到了。
表示个人心意，不保证盈利。谢绝骂托，不信的不必来问。
y*n
42 楼
好奇问一下，是不是就看看今天的涨幅排行榜就行了，比如逆势涨停的中超？
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 猜错了。
: 如果有因此损失的，我愿站内短信奉送观察了很久的牛牛两个，这两天大盘跌了个四脚
: 朝天，但这两位岿然不动，显然主力介入很深。只要大盘停止暴跌，牛牛表现的时候就
: 到了。
: 表示个人心意，不保证盈利。谢绝骂托，不信的不必来问。
【在 d*******r 的大作中提到】
: 猜错了。
: 如果有因此损失的，我愿站内短信奉送观察了很久的牛牛两个，这两天大盘跌了个四脚
: 朝天，但这两位岿然不动，显然主力介入很深。只要大盘停止暴跌，牛牛表现的时候就
: 到了。
: 表示个人心意，不保证盈利。谢绝骂托，不信的不必来问。
d*r
43 楼
是个好思路，但要度势。因为潜力牛是指还在上涨初期的，逢此跌势，没必要涨停吸引
眼球。
【在 y****n 的大作中提到】
: 好奇问一下，是不是就看看今天的涨幅排行榜就行了，比如逆势涨停的中超？
眼球。
【在 y****n 的大作中提到】
: 好奇问一下，是不是就看看今天的涨幅排行榜就行了，比如逆势涨停的中超？
相关阅读
有什么算peptide分子量的工具 (转载)真做化学的，你们认为xiaowei, sunney这两位是搞化学的么？paper help! molecular physicsA paper, please help me with this paper! Thanks a lot!用英文写proposal和paper的问题国内哪些高校chemical biology方向比较好诚求审稿 nano, energy, catalysisscience的abstract是不是不能有参考文献啊请教nucleoside的phosphorylation，包子酬谢旋转蒸发仪能否用于氮气保护下的有机合成paper help, please!paper help (Journal of Raman Spectroscopy)Please help me with thes three papers. Thnaks a lot!你起码还是个薄厚3篇文章撤稿了，这论文怎么办？paper help baozi thanks面试发现公司做的东西都很简单。baozi for paper help- chem asian jPaper help. Thank You酚和马来酸酐的反应