@uvachja - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Parenting - 为人父母

@uvachja

@uvachja# Parenting - 为人父母

B*s2015-08-11 07:08

1 楼

【以下文字转载自 TVGame 讨论区】
发信人: BacktoMars (supercalifragilisticexpiadocious), 信区: TVGame
标题: 问个比较弱的关于Wii 手柄设置的问题
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat May 29 00:12:59 2010, 美东)
刚刚破解了，用USB loader玩新马
可是手柄控制键还是纵向的，怎么设置成横向操作？
谢谢!

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

2 楼

you had another busy day posting all kinds of stories to support AA, while
has not told us you own opinions yet. please do so as I am all ears.
for example, do you think if such discrimination exists? do you support race
-based quota? look forward to a good discussion with you.

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

3 楼

I am quite disappointed.
you always try to give everybody an intelligent impression , while hiding
your own fundamental opinion really well. this challenge is the best chance
to show you can deserve the credit you wish, more brainless will follow you
as you want.

race

【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】

: you had another busy day posting all kinds of stories to support AA, while
: has not told us you own opinions yet. please do so as I am all ears.
: for example, do you think if such discrimination exists? do you support race
: -based quota? look forward to a good discussion with you.

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

4 楼

uvachja发言摘要系列之一
在一片讨论中国人是否应该支持SFFA的文章中，此人提到“ 某些日本人看得都比某些
中国人清楚。“，没有前文，没有后续，这就属于恶意的搅混水。
永远有某些日本人看得比某些中国人清楚，也永远有某些中国人看得比某些日本人清楚
。推而广之，某些原始人都比某些现代人清楚，这样的话都成立。
问题是，这样的帖子有意义吗？那么他为什么要提到日本人呢？
大家都知道日本和中国的过节。那么把很多中国人对日本人的憎恶转移到这个帖子里面
，目的是什么呢？幼稚，无意的搅混水不会这样，顶多是转些不相干的，似是而非的帖
子。
to be continued

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

5 楼

uvachja发言摘要系列之二 “据说”
“据说：当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民族申请人加分
都是违反宪法的时候，当时哈佛的　ｈｏｌｉｓｔｉｃ　Rｅｖｉｅｗ　的录取方式被
称之为应该被所有学校效仿的楷模。“
毫无引用根据，只有读者文摘式的煽情。你起码得说“某法官说，某官员说，某记者说
“等。你这横出一笔，我得花多少时间查多少资料证明这是假的还是真的。好在看他的
帖子多了，自然也就不浪费时间了。他的时间多，我还要养小孩呢。
话说回来，“据说”不是不能用，最适用的场合是告诉听者有可能得到什么好处。譬如
，“据说，cosco的牛肉在减价“。但是在争论不同观点的时候，这种“据说”只会降
低自己的说服力。
大家可以留意一下，他的帖子当中有多少“据说”，和类似的“转载", "概不负责”等

C*d2015-08-11 07:08

6 楼

你这么热衷于Blum不要告诉我1978年和2013年的高院opinion都没读过吧。
专门开贴说别的ID，没人理还一次次自己顶。
以下是Powell 1978年的opinion:
The experience of other university admissions programs, which take race into
account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First
Amendment, demonstrates that the assignment of a fixed number of places to a
minority group is not a necessary means toward that end. An illuminating
example is found in the Harvard College program:
In recent years, Harvard College has expanded the concept of diversity to
include students from disadvantaged economic, racial and ethnic groups.
Harvard College now recruits not only Californians or Louisianans but also
blacks and Chicanos and other minority students. . . .
In practice, this new definition of diversity has meant that race has been a
factor in some admission decisions. When the Committee on Admissions
reviews the large middle group of applicants who are "admissible" and deemed
capable of doing good work in their courses, the race of an applicant may
tip the balance in his favor just as geographic origin or a life spent on a
farm may tip the balance in other candidates' cases. A farm boy from Idaho
can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer.
Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person
cannot offer. . . . [See Appendix hereto.]
In Harvard College admissions, the Committee has not set target quotas for
the number of blacks, or of musicians, football players, physicists or
Californians to be admitted in a given year. . . . But that awareness [of
the necessity of including more than a token number of black students] does
not mean that the Committee sets a minimum number of blacks or of people
from west of the Mississippi who are to be admitted. It means only that, in
choosing among thousands of applicants who are not only "admissible"
academically but have other strong qualities, the Committee, with a number
of criteria in mind, pays some attention to distribution among many [p317]
types and categories of students.
App. to Brief for Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford
University, and the University of Pennsylvania, as Amici Curiae 2-3.
In such an admissions program, [n51] race or ethnic background may be deemed
a "plus" in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the
individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats
. The file of a particular black applicant may be examined for his potential
contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive when
compared, for example, with that of an applicant identified as an Italian-
American if the latter is thought to exhibit qualities more likely to
promote beneficial educational pluralism. Such qualities could include
exceptional personal talents, unique work or service experience, leadership
potential, maturity, demonstrated compassion, a history of overcoming
disadvantage, ability to communicate with the poor, or other qualifications
deemed important. In short, an admissions program operated in this way is
flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of
the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the
same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the
same weight. Indeed, the weight attributed to a [p318] particular quality
may vary from year to year depending upon the "mix" both of the student body
and the applicants for the incoming class.
This kind of program treats each applicant as an individual in the
admissions process. The applicant who loses out on the last available seat
to another candidate receiving a "plus" on the basis of ethnic background
will not have been foreclosed from all consideration for that seat simply
because he was not the right color or had the wrong surname. It would mean
only that his combined qualifications, which may have included similar
nonobjective factors, did not outweigh those of the other applicant. His
qualifications would have been weighed fairly and competitively, and he
would have no basis to complain of unequal treatment under the Fourteenth
Amendment. [n52]

【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】

: uvachja发言摘要系列之二 “据说”
: “据说：当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民族申请人加分
: 都是违反宪法的时候，当时哈佛的　ｈｏｌｉｓｔｉｃ　Rｅｖｉｅｗ　的录取方式被
: 称之为应该被所有学校效仿的楷模。“
: 毫无引用根据，只有读者文摘式的煽情。你起码得说“某法官说，某官员说，某记者说
: “等。你这横出一笔，我得花多少时间查多少资料证明这是假的还是真的。好在看他的
: 帖子多了，自然也就不浪费时间了。他的时间多，我还要养小孩呢。
: 话说回来，“据说”不是不能用，最适用的场合是告诉听者有可能得到什么好处。譬如
: ，“据说，cosco的牛肉在减价“。但是在争论不同观点的时候，这种“据说”只会降
: 低自己的说服力。

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

7 楼

1978年的我以前没读过，但是最近的几次判决都读了。
你这个行为符合搅混水的定义。转来一大托，自己的观点却没有。
但是如果你想用转来的这陀來证明uvachja的“据说。。。”是对的话，你还是再读读
吧。

into
a

【在 C*****d 的大作中提到】

: 你这么热衷于Blum不要告诉我1978年和2013年的高院opinion都没读过吧。
: 专门开贴说别的ID，没人理还一次次自己顶。
: 以下是Powell 1978年的opinion:
: The experience of other university admissions programs, which take race into
: account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First
: Amendment, demonstrates that the assignment of a fixed number of places to a
: minority group is not a necessary means toward that end. An illuminating
: example is found in the Harvard College program:
: In recent years, Harvard College has expanded the concept of diversity to
: include students from disadvantaged economic, racial and ethnic groups.

C*d2015-08-11 07:08

8 楼

Powell的这段opinion是所谓the Harvard plan的基础，
说的就是鹤立鸡群前面“据说”的意思，
之后也一直被用作只要不定quota,申请过程中考虑race不违宪的依据。
要再读读的是你吧。

【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】

: 1978年的我以前没读过，但是最近的几次判决都读了。
: 你这个行为符合搅混水的定义。转来一大托，自己的观点却没有。
: 但是如果你想用转来的这陀來证明uvachja的“据说。。。”是对的话，你还是再读读
: 吧。
:
: into
: a

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

9 楼

这个观点根本不是“判定ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民族申请人加分都是违反
宪法“，相反，这个观点是在支持AA，支持考虑种族。因为这是1978年，当时支持AA是
当时民意所在。
但是"当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民族申请人加分都
是违反宪法的时候“ 这是发生在最近几年。
你再读读uvachja的原话“据说：当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬
性给少数民族申请人加分都是违反宪法的时候，当时哈佛的hｏｌｉｓｔｉｃ　Rｅｖｉ
ｅｗ　的录取方式被称之为应该被所有学校效仿的楷模。“
uvachja在不说明时间的前提下，希望读者误解1978年的观点发生在最近，而且还是在
判决AA的时候。当然，这种模糊战略不是他的第一次了。
你还能找到比1978年更老的观点，我看好你。

【在 C*****d 的大作中提到】

: Powell的这段opinion是所谓the Harvard plan的基础，
: 说的就是鹤立鸡群前面“据说”的意思，
: 之后也一直被用作只要不定quota,申请过程中考虑race不违宪的依据。
: 要再读读的是你吧。

C*d2015-08-11 07:08

10 楼

还是78年的judgement:
For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of
the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner's special
admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the
Medical School must be affirmed. For the reasons expressed in a separate
opinion, my Brothers THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE
REHNQUIST, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS concur in this judgment.
看不懂英文？生活在平行时空？
当时U of C用的就是硬quota，被判违宪，
opinion里举例Harvard Plan，作为正面例子。

【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】

: 这个观点根本不是“判定ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民族申请人加分都是违反
: 宪法“，相反，这个观点是在支持AA，支持考虑种族。因为这是1978年，当时支持AA是
: 当时民意所在。
: 但是"当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民族申请人加分都
: 是违反宪法的时候“ 这是发生在最近几年。
: 你再读读uvachja的原话“据说：当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬
: 性给少数民族申请人加分都是违反宪法的时候，当时哈佛的hｏｌｉｓｔｉｃ　Rｅｖｉ
: ｅｗ　的录取方式被称之为应该被所有学校效仿的楷模。“
: uvachja在不说明时间的前提下，希望读者误解1978年的观点发生在最近，而且还是在
: 判决AA的时候。当然，这种模糊战略不是他的第一次了。

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

11 楼

只好陪你在这挖1978年的坟。
uvachja原话“据说：当年美国最高法院判定　ｑｕｏｔａ　录取方式或硬性给少数民
族申请人加分都是违反宪法的时候，当时哈佛的　ｈｏｌｉｓｔｉｃ　Rｅｖｉｅｗ
的录取方式被称之为应该被所有学校效仿的楷模。“
“硬性给少数民族申请人加分都是违反宪法“是在几年前判决UMich案的时候。有这样
极度模糊时间背景的吗？把1978年的观点挪到现在。
英文我学过，生活在美国很多年了，不在平行时空，也不在1978年。

【在 C*****d 的大作中提到】

: 还是78年的judgement:
: For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of
: the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner's special
: admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the
: Medical School must be affirmed. For the reasons expressed in a separate
: opinion, my Brothers THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE
: REHNQUIST, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS concur in this judgment.
: 看不懂英文？生活在平行时空？
: 当时U of C用的就是硬quota，被判违宪，
: opinion里举例Harvard Plan，作为正面例子。

f*n2015-08-11 07:08

12 楼

好，学习方舟子，这场“据说“的讨论我赢了。如果没有别的跳梁出來，我要准备系列
之三了。
感慨一句，人一定要被骗过很多很多次，才能发觉uvachja的精妙的语言艺术。
我和他也毫无恩怨，只是看到这位假装公正，客观和博学，不断地去愚弄和挖苦别人，
和影响别人的判断，才跳出来的。如果他愿意诚恳展示自己的观点，我真的是充满尊重
。我理解每个人角度不同，立场不同。