light

Mine, any comments are appreciated. =============================================== It is common sense that acquiring knowledge of various academic disciplines if the best way to become truly educated. But does that mean universities must require every students to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study? In my opinion, it is improper and impracticable for every student in university to touch outside courses while they devote in their major. Acquiring variety coursers information, broadening people's knowledge rage is very useful to people, especially to student in prime education stage. For in prime education age, students' major haven't selected, and it is the time to educate students' wide hobbies, interests, and common various knowledge. So taking various courses is essential to prime education. But to university students, the question goes to another situation. University students have their own major, their special capable field, or interesting direction. it is improper to ask them spend much time on other courses which have no connection with their major. If obliging them to do so, they would probably feel no interest in their courses. Such as though culture course is very helpful for students to improve their art appreciation ability. If the student have no any interesting in it, and shows great talent in medical science. Should he be obliged to take culture course? Of cause no teacher and university will make such rule. Secondly university student should belong to adult. They should have the right to decide what courses they would study, outside their major. And they should take their own responsibility to decide their courses. If their teacher still help them to select outside courses, they would never grow up. It is true in the history and current world, there are some great giant. They showed great talent in every fields. In philosophy, mathematics, physics, art etc, they all made great contributions. Such as Aristotle, Da Vinci, Einstein, they all great genius in the history. But after all, these great geniuses are not the people, who common people cannot compare with. And in fact, in the current university courses, students have many opportunities to touch various courses. Students can select many other courses outside his major, if he want. So in a sum, the university should try to offer enough chances for students to touch course outside the student's major, the decision should be fallen to students themselves.

Sorry at previous time, I didn't see the first sticking note. Here is my issue. Thanks you for your comments and rank. ========================== Now with the science and technology development, our modern life has become very convenient. People can sleep in a comfortable plane while traveling from Asia to North America. housewife can clean their house in easier way with advance clean machine. Facing these too wise machine, some people began worry that they will prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. But in my opinion, the modern luxury and convenient life doesn¡¯t prevent our dependence at all. The speaker assert such view, he may only look at how the modern machine reduce the labor jobs of people, how convenient our lives, and how people depend machine to help them. But he failed to see, how people industriously create new tools to help us, how people industriously explorer the still unknown field, and how people use the current luxury and convenient machines to make our life better. Firstly, invention of these modern machine is the representation of people¡¯s intelligence and independent spirit. They were not born suddenly. To invent them, people did exercises, made studying, and tried numbers of times, even facing the threaten of losing life. Such as the invention of plane. Generations of scientist tried many times. At the first time when they could stay sky only few minutes, how exciting they were. And now, with the assistance of modern tools, people didn¡¯t stop working, and enjoying the present luxuries and conveniences. People are still explorering so many unknown magic, and never stop improving our life. When facing the serious SARS disease, all kinds of medical scientists worked with each other. They used the advance computer, which can make billions calculation in one minute, to help them. And they ½»»»change documents and new findings by the current fast Internet. All these created a such magic, that in tens of days, people find out the virus DNA composition and that it is Coronal Virus. All these achievements can never been imagined by people before. In the speaker¡¯s logical, rice cooking make us wait to delicious food while comfortably laying in sofa watching TV. Cars lured us depending them to travel freely. They are all evils. Then should we go to office by feet, no matter how far away everyday? And must me scrub wood to get fire? Of cause it is ridiculous. From the surface the modern convenient machine make us more dependent them. Without them people couldn¡¯t develop any work. In fact they free us, free us idea, free us from the limit of our body. People are not more dependent than before, but on the country more stronger and independent.

202. "Unlike great thinkers and great artists, the most effective political leaders must often yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise" In the history, there are many greatest political leaders. How are they to be so effective? It is really a very complex question. As a democracy political leader, no doubt he should listen to his citizen, tend to what nation want, satisfy his people and strengthen the nation ability. His primary target is to help his people healthy and wealthy. If of a nation, in which people live in poverty and are been threatening by death, the political leader of cause is not a wise leader. So a wise political leader must first know what his citizens want. And the leader must often listen to public¡¯s opinion. If he only runs in his own way, neglecting public¡¯s voice, he definitely will step in mistake way, or even opposite to public¡¯s benefit. Then he couldn¡¯t protect his people¡¯s benefit, which would lead to dissatisfying in society. With such dissatisfying going on, no use to say the well-being of the nation. But does that to mean that the effective political leaders must yield to public opinion or abandon principle for the sake of compromise? Of cause it is run to the another extreme. First of all, there are must have many different public opinions. Every people usually have different benefits, values and opinions. It is almost impossible to form a total union opinion in public. So it is impracticable for leaders to satisfy every public opinion. Secondly, sometimes public cannot see clear the situation or cannot form a correct way to settle the present problems. After all effective political leaders have more experience and long sight to future. Sometimes, they can see more wise ideas. In a sum, a leader only yielding to public or a leader deft to public opinion is neither effective leader. A leader, who can bring his people to wealthy and healthy lives, effectively settle social problem without hurting of all human beings can be cold a effective political leader. ============================= Thank you for your advice.

I wonder the third paragraph may stay from my point. ======================================= Retrospect the development of human history, there are many significant research works, which have make a great contribution to the society. But I suggest that the power for them to devote in such researches, may not the thought of making some significance contribution, but their deep interests or even idiosyncrasy fascination. Everyone must love his work, and have passion in what he is doing. And only in this way, can he make great breakthrough. If he doesn't like his research, no matter how important his research is, he won't make any discovery. With the strong passion to the work, researchers can insist on and don't give up when meet any rough troubles. And every researchers set out to do a study do not come from the thought that this study may benefit the larger society, or other alike thought, but their intriguing fascination in looking for the answer to the quibble. Such as when Newton began to find out the reason of the falling apple, he must not anticipate the significant research, but he wanted to know why. His strong feeling intrigued by the common phenomena drove him studying. Anyone, if when he set out only think about the splendor of his success, but not the trouble and perseverance, he would be defeated at first. Of cause, any study should stand on the benefit of human rate. Any research shouldn't threaten human peace, violate the moral, or destroy nature rulers. Such as the clone technology. Now numbers of people are concerning the clone science, and scientists are fascinated in these unexplored fields. Every government in different countries is putting great human resources and financing gene, clone study. If people come from the thought of exploring the truth, it is nothing to blame. And with the deep inside of these studies, the knowledge can be used to benefit people greatly. But some scientists only think about how to copy human rate, which is greatly disobey the nature discipline. And even some of them think about using this technology to get business profit. These actions will be doomed to fail. A great contribution work cannot be labeled by itself firstly. But it is decided by what it brings to people. If a director decides to make a film for he only want to make a great film, it is definitely he will make nothing. But if he wants to describe a thing truth, or express a thought from his work clearly, he will very probably make a great film.

Thanks Phase. ============================== What is the radical benefit of a society?I think there may be a paradox between your words in preious paragraph and this one. ============================== Yes, I think so also. In fact at the beging, I had planed to totally support the subject, emphasized the overall was more important than individual. With my writing going on, I felt individual also very essential. No individual, no overall at all. But on the contrary, emphasize individual too much even ignore overall's benefit, the union would be devided or in chaose. It seems it is difficult for me to analyse it clearly in limit test time. So I planed to give attention to the two sides.

Thanks for everyone's help to my essay. I will try to avoid those problems in my essay. Sorry for my poor skills in English expression. This is my essay of topic 019 ============================= To maintain a society in well-being is a hard and essential target to any government. And when governing a nation, the leader always meets the dilemma between overall and individual benefit. I think a nation should put its own overall success on the first place, but also should not lookdown the well-being of individual citizens. A nation is a union of all people, but not some people. It is firstly must protect the public benefit. Only a nation defend the majority benefit, can it be cold a democracy nation. And only it can effectively protect public benefit, will people support it. If a nation looks down the overall success, it is doomed the nation's end day is coming soon. Retrospect the history, no thrived country didn't put its own overall successfully. Take the Tang Dynasty in China for instance. At the beginning of Tang, the King built new water construction, widened river width, and drew many disciplines to help people. The science, technology and art in Tang Dynasty all developed greatly. And it bring China into a thriving time. But at the end the Tang Dynasty, the leader didn't care the public trouble, only thought about living in richness and lavish. Soon, the Tang Dynasty was overthrow. Of cause, we speak of putting overall success before the individual well-being doesn't mean any government should neglect individual, or even use it as excuse for his failure in protecting individual benefit. After all, any nation is composed by every individual. Only most individual's benefit has been gained, only could call it the overall benefit has won. And any individual disaffection must has its reason, which is very probably will be the source that will grow the overall rejection power. So any government should also often detect and research the reason of individual's dissatisfaction. It is really not easy for a government to balance the individual and the majority benefit. But these two aspects are not absolutely opposite. The group is composed by every individual, and the group represent all individual also.

Technology of human beings has developed greatly. It solved many problems, and made many actions possible, which we couldn't image before. But we must admit when solving problems, technology mostly often creates more problems, and sometimes the new problems may threaten our lives. When we look back our history, technology changed our lives greatly. It makes our lives modern and convenient. But if we retrospect our history, we will find it also created many new problems. Such as the invention of car. The car offers convenience to people. People can drive a car to go to office in short time, or to go out to enjoy nature beauty. But the accumulating amount of cars results much new problems. The amount of pollution air, the cramped traffic road in rash hour, and the limit park places in city, are all threatening the people's peace life. And facing the fascinating development of astronomy technology, I am afraid people would bring new pollution to space. But does it mean that to avoid the new damaging problem, we should throw off all technology or stop its progress? Of cause the answer is No. Such though is too negative. After all, if without the modern technology, we still would have many problems, and most of them might threaten and damage our lives more. If without the medicine science, many diseases would still take people's life easily away. If without the modern technology that can detect the earthquake quickly, the damage created by a earthquake would be greater, and the salvage would be delayed. Secondly, with the development of technology and science, we can resolve problems endlessly, even the new problems. We should have the confidence. The development of people is an escalating process, in the procedure: find problem, resolve problem, find new problem, and resolve it again. For example, facing the new pollution resulted from the car; scientists are trying to develop the new vehicle droved by clean power, such as the sun energy. And many laboratory products have appeared. And I think when we develop technology, if we put more thought and think it comprehensively, we can try to avoid the possible damage. For example, though the nuclear power plant can supply amount the electric power and is more modern than the traditional electronic station. But considering the danger, the damaging radiation and the problem to resolve the waste of nuclear, countries are now very careful in using nuclear power. And many nations begin to explore more clear and safe energy considering their environment. Some nation use wind energy, and some use water energy which are more safe and clean. There is an old saying that when the God give you a thing he will take something from you. All together, comparing the benefice and the damage, which brought by technology, the benefit is more.

196"Technology creates more problems than it solves, and may threaten or damage the quality of life." ==================================== Technology of human beings has developed greatly. It solved many problems, and made many actions possible, which we couldn't image before. But we must admit when solving problems, technology mostly often creates more problems, and sometimes the new problems may threaten our lives. When we look back our history, technology changed our lives greatly. It makes our lives modern and convenient. But if we retrospect our history, we will find it also created many new problems. Such as the invention of car. The car offers convenience to people. People can drive a car to go to office in short time, or to go out to enjoy nature beauty. But the accumulating amount of cars results much new problems. The amount of pollution air, the cramped traffic road in rash hour, and the limit park places in city, are all threatening the people's peace life. And facing the fascinating development of astronomy technology, I am afraid people would bring new pollution to space. But does it mean that to avoid the new damaging problem, we should throw off all technology or stop its progress? Of cause the answer is No. Such though is too negative. After all, if without the modern technology, we still would have many problems, and most of them might threaten and damage our lives more. If without the medicine science, many diseases would still bring people's life easily. If without the modern technology that can detect the earthquake quickly, the damage created by a earthquake would be more greatly, and the salvage would be delayed. Secondly, with the development of technology and science, we can resolve problems endlessly, even the new problems. We should have the confidence. The development of people is an escalating process, in the procedure: find problem, resolve problem, find new problem, and resolve it again. For example, facing the new pollution resulted from the car; scientists are trying to develop the new vehicle droved by clean power, such as the sun energy. And many laboratory products have appeared. And I think when we develop technology, if we put more thought and think it comprehensively, we can try to avoid the possible damage. For example, though the nuclear power plant can supply amount the electric power and is more modern than the traditional electronic station. But considering the danger, the damaging radiation and the problem to resolve the waste of nuclear, countries are now very careful in using nuclear power. And many nations begin to explore more clear and safe energy considering their environment. Some nation use wind energy, and some use water energy which are more safe and clean. There is an old saying that when the God give you a thing he will take something from you. All together, comparing the benefice and the damage, which brought by technology, the benefit is more.

Thanks Erin. Your advice is very useful. It is true that "the media report what people are interested in, and what people are interested in isn't always the most significant thing happening in the world." But I find it is difficult to find an example to support the idea. Because most news we get, are from headline. It really exists that a very significant affair may ignored by media. But in this case, we can not know it either. So when I try to use this idea, I failed to offer a example.

193"It is not the headline-making political events but the seldom-reported social tranformations that have the most lasting significance." What I thought ================================= The headline political events are always the significant political events of the world. Such as the War to Iraq, the war to the terrorism, or the election of president, are always on the headline news. To win the mounts of readers, newspaper will report much significant events or what would allure much public interesting. It is true that governors may try to forbid some political events, which would have some negative influence to their lead. But in a more democratic newspaper or the anti-government medium, they will still been reported on the headline. =================================