Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk
Author: Chai Shiew Chee
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483956.html
Date: January 31, 2010
Original article:
Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza's response on Wednesday, 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.
The term 'Web defacement', or rather the defacing of a webpage, has a completely different meaning. Web defacement is an attack on a website, typically by system hackers, who replace the website they attack with one of their own. Web defacement is illegal and carries a potential prison sentence.
'Keyboard warrior' was a term forged in the Internet age to describe someone who expresses his feelings (mostly anger), thoughts and beliefs online.
On top of this, the cyber warriors who are the main target of Mr Tan do not frequent websites. They are commonly found on online forums and chatrooms, and their very existence is to exchange views and voice thoughts, be they coherent or not.
I am not sure if Mr Tan knows the expression, but I am sure Mr De Souza is familiar with the term 'coffee shop talk', a term coined long ago to describe political comments made over coffee in traditional coffee shops.
Now in the modern age, we should understand we have the tools to express ourselves on a more powerful platform, that of the Internet, and comments will cover the whole spectrum and may even be of an extreme nature.
Having said that, it saddened me that Mr Tan took something that is fundamental to human rights and the human condition - to express one's unhappiness - and somehow married that to Web defacement, a criminal activity. This makes me wonder if it is such a heinous crime in Mr Tan's eyes to express unhappiness with government policies that it is now comparable to a criminal offence.
What is even more worrying is that Mr De Souza, a known security expert, states that keyboard warriors are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when they are not. In fact, extremists have been snuffed out and tried in court, so there is no anonymity and everyone is and will be held accountable for what he says.
Reflections:
I refer to "Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk" by Chai Shiew Chee. She first of all pointed out the misusing some terms: Web defacement. It is discribing a kind of crime or illegal behavior. As for 'Keyboard warrior', she discribed it as a behavior of people expressing their feelings. Then she showed her opinion that those so called "cyber warriors" are doing the same thing just as the act of a coffee shop talk. The only difference of between the two behaviors is that they are talking over the internet, but not in the coffee shop. She critisized that Mr Tan discribed a kind of human right as a kind of crime. At last, she clarified that the keyboard warriors are not concealing to others at all.
I am kind of agree with the idea of Chai Shiew Chee. First of all, the behavior of talking freely is legal to anyone in the world. You can never define "free talking" as a kind of crime. Second, the term "Web defacement" is discribing those hackers or those who are spreading computer virus. Some officials don't feel like listening to some civilians' true feelings, so they are abusing them as criminals. Third, as we all know that only with the opinions of people can the government really improve. In my point of view, the behavior of talking freely online should not be banned or discribed the same as those criminal behaviors. On the contrary, we should motivate people to express themselves.
Ma Xiao
Group F
the Future
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk
Title:Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk
Author:Chai Shiew Chee
Source:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483956.html
Date published:Jan 30, 2010
original article:
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza's response on Wednesday, 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.
The term 'Web defacement', or rather the defacing of a webpage, has a completely different meaning. Web defacement is an attack on a website, typically by system hackers, who replace the website they attack with one of their own. Web defacement is illegal and carries a potential prison sentence.
'Keyboard warrior' was a term forged in the Internet age to describe someone who expresses his feelings (mostly anger), thoughts and beliefs online.
On top of this, the cyber warriors who are the main target of Mr Tan do not frequent websites. They are commonly found on online forums and chatrooms, and their very existence is to exchange views and voice thoughts, be they coherent or not.
I am not sure if Mr Tan knows the expression, but I am sure Mr De Souza is familiar with the term 'coffee shop talk', a term coined long ago to describe political comments made over coffee in traditional coffee shops.
Now in the modern age, we should understand we have the tools to express ourselves on a more powerful platform, that of the Internet, and comments will cover the whole spectrum and may even be of an extreme nature.
Having said that, it saddened me that Mr Tan took something that is fundamental to human rights and the human condition - to express one's unhappiness - and somehow married that to Web defacement, a criminal activity. This makes me wonder if it is such a heinous crime in Mr Tan's eyes to express unhappiness with government policies that it is now comparable to a criminal offence.
What is even more worrying is that Mr De Souza, a known security expert, states that keyboard warriors are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when they are not. In fact, extremists have been snuffed out and tried in court, so there is no anonymity and everyone is and will be held accountable for what he says.
Chai Shiew Chee
My reflection:
I REFER to this Saturday's article'Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk' by Madam Chai Shiew Chee. It was a response to 2 articels,Mr Keith Gerard Tan's 'New ugly Singaporean'and Mr Lionel De Souza's 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.She fisrly stated the definitions of 'Keyboard warrior' and 'websited defacement', and then pointed out that,'keyboard warriors' are just using the Internet to express thier feelings and we shouldn't consider them as hackers.It is just the internet version of coffee shop talk.
I agree with Mandam Chai Shiew Chee that there is nothing wrong with keyboard warriors and thier action is totally different from web defacement. Although I don't know what is a coffee shop talk, I do understand that it is a fundamental human right to express one's unhappiness. In the 21st century, the internet provided people a new way to express thier feelings and I see nothing wrong. Maybe there is a concern that extremists might take the advantage of 'the cloak of anonymity', however, most cyber warriors are just express their feelings.
In all times, people need a way to express themselves and now they are using the internet. This article reminds me of a phenomenon of Chinese internet, the 'Cyber Manhunt'. Internet users often express thier anger of some public figures by posting thier personal or private information online.For example, if one person found out that a mayor of a small city had commited corrupt practices, then all the internent users will act togethor. In 2 or 3 day's time, the mayor's illegal income, luxury villa, underground valentine will all be revealed to the public. After that, the govenment will depose the mayor due to the pressure from public voice. What's more, the 'Cloak of anonymity' protect the cyber warriors from beening revenged perfectly.
As has been stated, the keyboard warrior did nothing wrong and we should give poeple right to express themselves freely on the internet.
Wei Lai (Roy)
31,jan,2010
Author:Chai Shiew Chee
Source:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483956.html
Date published:Jan 30, 2010
original article:
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza's response on Wednesday, 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.
The term 'Web defacement', or rather the defacing of a webpage, has a completely different meaning. Web defacement is an attack on a website, typically by system hackers, who replace the website they attack with one of their own. Web defacement is illegal and carries a potential prison sentence.
'Keyboard warrior' was a term forged in the Internet age to describe someone who expresses his feelings (mostly anger), thoughts and beliefs online.
On top of this, the cyber warriors who are the main target of Mr Tan do not frequent websites. They are commonly found on online forums and chatrooms, and their very existence is to exchange views and voice thoughts, be they coherent or not.
I am not sure if Mr Tan knows the expression, but I am sure Mr De Souza is familiar with the term 'coffee shop talk', a term coined long ago to describe political comments made over coffee in traditional coffee shops.
Now in the modern age, we should understand we have the tools to express ourselves on a more powerful platform, that of the Internet, and comments will cover the whole spectrum and may even be of an extreme nature.
Having said that, it saddened me that Mr Tan took something that is fundamental to human rights and the human condition - to express one's unhappiness - and somehow married that to Web defacement, a criminal activity. This makes me wonder if it is such a heinous crime in Mr Tan's eyes to express unhappiness with government policies that it is now comparable to a criminal offence.
What is even more worrying is that Mr De Souza, a known security expert, states that keyboard warriors are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when they are not. In fact, extremists have been snuffed out and tried in court, so there is no anonymity and everyone is and will be held accountable for what he says.
Chai Shiew Chee
My reflection:
I REFER to this Saturday's article'Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk' by Madam Chai Shiew Chee. It was a response to 2 articels,Mr Keith Gerard Tan's 'New ugly Singaporean'and Mr Lionel De Souza's 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.She fisrly stated the definitions of 'Keyboard warrior' and 'websited defacement', and then pointed out that,'keyboard warriors' are just using the Internet to express thier feelings and we shouldn't consider them as hackers.It is just the internet version of coffee shop talk.
I agree with Mandam Chai Shiew Chee that there is nothing wrong with keyboard warriors and thier action is totally different from web defacement. Although I don't know what is a coffee shop talk, I do understand that it is a fundamental human right to express one's unhappiness. In the 21st century, the internet provided people a new way to express thier feelings and I see nothing wrong. Maybe there is a concern that extremists might take the advantage of 'the cloak of anonymity', however, most cyber warriors are just express their feelings.
In all times, people need a way to express themselves and now they are using the internet. This article reminds me of a phenomenon of Chinese internet, the 'Cyber Manhunt'. Internet users often express thier anger of some public figures by posting thier personal or private information online.For example, if one person found out that a mayor of a small city had commited corrupt practices, then all the internent users will act togethor. In 2 or 3 day's time, the mayor's illegal income, luxury villa, underground valentine will all be revealed to the public. After that, the govenment will depose the mayor due to the pressure from public voice. What's more, the 'Cloak of anonymity' protect the cyber warriors from beening revenged perfectly.
As has been stated, the keyboard warrior did nothing wrong and we should give poeple right to express themselves freely on the internet.
Wei Lai (Roy)
31,jan,2010
Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it
Author: Chua Xin Rong
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483952.html
Date: January 30, 2010
Original article:
Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it
I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Mr David Goh, 'Have more IP schools'.
He advocates increasing the number of places in the integrated programme (IP) to ensure that top performing O-level students enter top junior colleges (JCs). I feel that it is fairer to ensure that students with the highest academic ability get to enter top JCs, and offer IP places only to those who can gain more from the IP than the O-level track.
Mr Goh's argument rests on the assumption that top performing O-level students are necessarily those with the highest academic ability. This leads him to conclude that it is unfair that a top scorer in the O levels cannot enter the JC of his choice.
While I do not deny such occurrences, it is worth pointing out that it is now relatively easy for a student to be a top performer in the O levels. This occurs because the O levels are marked on a bell curve, and with many academically talented students skipping the O levels, the remaining ones taking these exams face less competition. In other words, an excellent O-level score is no longer the best proxy for academic achievement, so this is not a sufficient reason to argue for a need to provide extra places for these students.
However, this argument assumes that academic ability at Primary 6 correlates exactly with academic ability at O level. Mr Goh is right in pointing out that the IP puts a lot of pressure on Primary 6 pupils, since the Primary School Leaving Examination determines their entry to these schools. After which, they may have an easier path to one of the top JCs than a late bloomer who performs well only come the O levels.
In that case, instead of reflexively opening more places in the IP to reward these late bloomers, perhaps the criteria for promotion of these IP students should be made stricter, to ensure that entry into JC is based on strong academic performance in secondary school, rather than in primary school.
We should not increase IP places merely to satisfy people. The IP has restrictions of its own - students who are more inclined towards the polytechnics are denied these choices, and IP students interact with a much smaller group of people than their non-IP counterparts. In that respect, these IP students may understand less of the concerns facing those who are not their six-year IP mates, which may hinder their interaction with others in the future.
Chua Xin Rong(Ms)
Reflections:
I refer to ‘Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it’ by Ms Chua Xin Rong. She does not agree with the idea to have more IP schools for the benefit of the top performing O-level students. There are three reasons: 1. the top performing O-level students may not have the highest academic ability correspondingly; 2. It will put a great deal of pressure to Primary 6 pupils who are going to have the Primary School Leaving Examination, but the great scores in PSLE do not mean high academic ability, either; 3. Students will be restricted to interacting with a smaller group of people by IP.
Generally, I agree with Ms Chua not to enlarge the IP programme. As far as I know, IP provides the students with an opportunity to skip the O-level Examinations, so that they can spend their 4 years-from Sec3 to JC2-engaging in broader learning experiences. I think it is an honour and an advantage for the students who are given an IP place and deserve it. If there are less IP students, the majority, non-IP students, will be under less pressure and have more chance to attend the top junior colleges through their hard work. It is also good for young people to get in a new school and make more friends, instead of staying in the same place all six years. On the other hand, too many IP places may not ensure the high quality of IP students. Those who are not excellent enough can get to a top junior college more easily. Besides, without the pressure of O-level Examinations, IP students do not have to be as hard-working as the non-IP students, which might make them lose their competitiveness in the future A-level Examinations.
Zhang Ningxin(Joy)
January 31, 2010
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483952.html
Date: January 30, 2010
Original article:
Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it
I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Mr David Goh, 'Have more IP schools'.
He advocates increasing the number of places in the integrated programme (IP) to ensure that top performing O-level students enter top junior colleges (JCs). I feel that it is fairer to ensure that students with the highest academic ability get to enter top JCs, and offer IP places only to those who can gain more from the IP than the O-level track.
Mr Goh's argument rests on the assumption that top performing O-level students are necessarily those with the highest academic ability. This leads him to conclude that it is unfair that a top scorer in the O levels cannot enter the JC of his choice.
While I do not deny such occurrences, it is worth pointing out that it is now relatively easy for a student to be a top performer in the O levels. This occurs because the O levels are marked on a bell curve, and with many academically talented students skipping the O levels, the remaining ones taking these exams face less competition. In other words, an excellent O-level score is no longer the best proxy for academic achievement, so this is not a sufficient reason to argue for a need to provide extra places for these students.
However, this argument assumes that academic ability at Primary 6 correlates exactly with academic ability at O level. Mr Goh is right in pointing out that the IP puts a lot of pressure on Primary 6 pupils, since the Primary School Leaving Examination determines their entry to these schools. After which, they may have an easier path to one of the top JCs than a late bloomer who performs well only come the O levels.
In that case, instead of reflexively opening more places in the IP to reward these late bloomers, perhaps the criteria for promotion of these IP students should be made stricter, to ensure that entry into JC is based on strong academic performance in secondary school, rather than in primary school.
We should not increase IP places merely to satisfy people. The IP has restrictions of its own - students who are more inclined towards the polytechnics are denied these choices, and IP students interact with a much smaller group of people than their non-IP counterparts. In that respect, these IP students may understand less of the concerns facing those who are not their six-year IP mates, which may hinder their interaction with others in the future.
Chua Xin Rong(Ms)
Reflections:
I refer to ‘Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it’ by Ms Chua Xin Rong. She does not agree with the idea to have more IP schools for the benefit of the top performing O-level students. There are three reasons: 1. the top performing O-level students may not have the highest academic ability correspondingly; 2. It will put a great deal of pressure to Primary 6 pupils who are going to have the Primary School Leaving Examination, but the great scores in PSLE do not mean high academic ability, either; 3. Students will be restricted to interacting with a smaller group of people by IP.
Generally, I agree with Ms Chua not to enlarge the IP programme. As far as I know, IP provides the students with an opportunity to skip the O-level Examinations, so that they can spend their 4 years-from Sec3 to JC2-engaging in broader learning experiences. I think it is an honour and an advantage for the students who are given an IP place and deserve it. If there are less IP students, the majority, non-IP students, will be under less pressure and have more chance to attend the top junior colleges through their hard work. It is also good for young people to get in a new school and make more friends, instead of staying in the same place all six years. On the other hand, too many IP places may not ensure the high quality of IP students. Those who are not excellent enough can get to a top junior college more easily. Besides, without the pressure of O-level Examinations, IP students do not have to be as hard-working as the non-IP students, which might make them lose their competitiveness in the future A-level Examinations.
Zhang Ningxin(Joy)
January 31, 2010
Monday, 25 January 2010
Disaster relief - the S'pore way
name:Xu Jiawei (Joyce)
article title: Disaster relief - the S'pore way
source of article:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_481592.htmlname of article writer: Sudesh Maniar
date of article: Jan 25, 2010
Original Article:
Disaster relief - the S'pore way
I REFER to last Saturday's commentary, 'Is Singapore doing too little for Haiti?' by Ms Chua Mui Hoong. She criticised the Singapore Government for not making a bigger contribution to Haiti after the earthquake when we had contributed far more to disaster relief and humanitarian assistance efforts after the 2004 tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.
As a responsible member of the international community, the Singapore Government has consistently made contributions to international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in our region and beyond. Singaporeans are familiar with the contributions we have made over the years, especially to the many countries hit by the tsunami in 2004, and after the Sichuan earthquake.
Last year, we provided humanitarian assistance in the form of cash, supplies and equipment after Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan; Cyclone Aila in Bhutan; Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the Padang earthquake in Indonesia; the cyclone in Fiji; the earthquake and tsunami in Samoa and Tonga; as well as for victims of the civil war in Sri Lanka; and food aid for internally displaced people in Pakistan.
As a responsible government, we have to examine the considerations and priorities when deciding how much and what type of assistance Singapore can provide after each disaster. Singapore is not in the league of major donor countries, nor do we aspire to be one. Among other things, we have to consider the nature of our relations with the affected country and whether we can provide aid which will add value to the relief efforts when deciding what to contribute, as we have limited resources and cannot respond to every disaster in the same way.
Hence, we had responded with more significant contributions when Indonesia suffered the devastation of the tsunami and various earthquakes - because it is a neighbour with longstanding and close ties and we were in the position to deploy our military and civil defence assets so that they could carry out effective missions.
The amount or type of humanitarian assistance given by the Singapore Government is not intended to match the scale of a disaster. In the case of massive disasters in countries beyond our own region, our contributions often cannot be more than a show of moral support and a gesture of sympathy to the affected country.
The support from Singapore for Haiti need not be demonstrated just by the Government. Singaporeans who want to make a contribution can do so through the Red Cross and other groups, and indeed many have. The Singaporeans who have gone to Haiti on relief missions amply demonstrate their compassion for the victims of the earthquake.
Sudesh Maniar
Director, Public Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
My reflection:
I refer to ‘Disaster relief- the S’pore way’ by Sudesh Maniar. He said that Singapore government has made a suitable contribution to Haiti’s earthquake after considerate the situations and priorities. Due to the limitation of the resources and the responsibility to its people, Singapore government cannot give the same amount of humanitarian assistance to every disaster and the assistance is also not match the scale of the disaster.
I agree that Singapore is a relatively small country and do really has limited resources so that Singapore is not intent to be in the league of major donor countries. I was very glad to see both Singapore government and Singaporeans contribute generously to China, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. in the past year. However, I cannot really understand why Singapore government makes contribution according to region instead of the degree of the disaster. It seems Singapore government thinks carefully about the neighbor relationship and the priorities before giving out the humanitarian assistance. I am just wondering: how to tell the priorities? Are the lives in the neighbor countries more precious than those in the remote area? Moreover, I believe government is always leading its people actions. I can still remember the blood donation and the fund raising for Indonesia and Philippines that organized by NTU Red Cross last year. However, till now I still didn’t see any actions taken in NTU for the massive earthquake in Haiti. Is it just a coincidence that students are too busy with their academic work?
25 Jan 2010
article title: Disaster relief - the S'pore way
source of article:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_481592.htmlname of article writer: Sudesh Maniar
date of article: Jan 25, 2010
Original Article:
Disaster relief - the S'pore way
I REFER to last Saturday's commentary, 'Is Singapore doing too little for Haiti?' by Ms Chua Mui Hoong. She criticised the Singapore Government for not making a bigger contribution to Haiti after the earthquake when we had contributed far more to disaster relief and humanitarian assistance efforts after the 2004 tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.
As a responsible member of the international community, the Singapore Government has consistently made contributions to international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in our region and beyond. Singaporeans are familiar with the contributions we have made over the years, especially to the many countries hit by the tsunami in 2004, and after the Sichuan earthquake.
Last year, we provided humanitarian assistance in the form of cash, supplies and equipment after Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan; Cyclone Aila in Bhutan; Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the Padang earthquake in Indonesia; the cyclone in Fiji; the earthquake and tsunami in Samoa and Tonga; as well as for victims of the civil war in Sri Lanka; and food aid for internally displaced people in Pakistan.
As a responsible government, we have to examine the considerations and priorities when deciding how much and what type of assistance Singapore can provide after each disaster. Singapore is not in the league of major donor countries, nor do we aspire to be one. Among other things, we have to consider the nature of our relations with the affected country and whether we can provide aid which will add value to the relief efforts when deciding what to contribute, as we have limited resources and cannot respond to every disaster in the same way.
Hence, we had responded with more significant contributions when Indonesia suffered the devastation of the tsunami and various earthquakes - because it is a neighbour with longstanding and close ties and we were in the position to deploy our military and civil defence assets so that they could carry out effective missions.
The amount or type of humanitarian assistance given by the Singapore Government is not intended to match the scale of a disaster. In the case of massive disasters in countries beyond our own region, our contributions often cannot be more than a show of moral support and a gesture of sympathy to the affected country.
The support from Singapore for Haiti need not be demonstrated just by the Government. Singaporeans who want to make a contribution can do so through the Red Cross and other groups, and indeed many have. The Singaporeans who have gone to Haiti on relief missions amply demonstrate their compassion for the victims of the earthquake.
Sudesh Maniar
Director, Public Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
My reflection:
I refer to ‘Disaster relief- the S’pore way’ by Sudesh Maniar. He said that Singapore government has made a suitable contribution to Haiti’s earthquake after considerate the situations and priorities. Due to the limitation of the resources and the responsibility to its people, Singapore government cannot give the same amount of humanitarian assistance to every disaster and the assistance is also not match the scale of the disaster.
I agree that Singapore is a relatively small country and do really has limited resources so that Singapore is not intent to be in the league of major donor countries. I was very glad to see both Singapore government and Singaporeans contribute generously to China, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. in the past year. However, I cannot really understand why Singapore government makes contribution according to region instead of the degree of the disaster. It seems Singapore government thinks carefully about the neighbor relationship and the priorities before giving out the humanitarian assistance. I am just wondering: how to tell the priorities? Are the lives in the neighbor countries more precious than those in the remote area? Moreover, I believe government is always leading its people actions. I can still remember the blood donation and the fund raising for Indonesia and Philippines that organized by NTU Red Cross last year. However, till now I still didn’t see any actions taken in NTU for the massive earthquake in Haiti. Is it just a coincidence that students are too busy with their academic work?
25 Jan 2010
Sunday, 17 January 2010
17,Jan,2010 by Bob : Haiti quake aid effort still slow
name: Ma Xiao (Bob)
article title: Haiti quake aid effort still slow
source of article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8464274.stm
name of article writer: (Didn't find)
date of article: 16:40 GMT, Sunday, 17 January 2010
Summary:
Haiti has just experienced a catastrophic earthquake, which was classified as the magnitude of 7.0. Soon after the earthquake, countries around the world are doing what they can do to help the sufuring Haitians. However, after so many days, the aid effort is still slow to meet the needs of the earthquake victims. First of all, the disaster leads to an increase in violence. And these crimes are slowing the aid efficiency down. Second, the airport is too crowded and there is hardly place for the supplies to get in. It is because that the earthquake blocked many major roads to the airport and distroyed most parts of the airport. It makes the rescue much more difficult. Fuel shortage is also becoming more and more severe. Actually, up to 80-90% of buildings in Leogane were distroyed and there is still lots of people who haven't got aided. US Government claimed that they will be supporting Haiti to recover from the earthquake.
Comments:
According to the passage, I found out that the damage of the earthquake in Haiti was devastating. There are still many people who are suffuring the loss of property， pain of losing friends and family. But thanks to the kind heart of the people around the world, the rescue is carrying on gradually. My country has also experienced big catastrophe, so I can totally understand the feeling of the people in Haiti and the world. Earthquake distroys the buildings, kills many people, however, it can never kill the good wish and stronge faith in our heart. With the help around the world, if people make up their minds of rebuilding their hometown, we will soon see a great, new country -- Haiti.
article title: Haiti quake aid effort still slow
source of article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8464274.stm
name of article writer: (Didn't find)
date of article: 16:40 GMT, Sunday, 17 January 2010
Summary:
Haiti has just experienced a catastrophic earthquake, which was classified as the magnitude of 7.0. Soon after the earthquake, countries around the world are doing what they can do to help the sufuring Haitians. However, after so many days, the aid effort is still slow to meet the needs of the earthquake victims. First of all, the disaster leads to an increase in violence. And these crimes are slowing the aid efficiency down. Second, the airport is too crowded and there is hardly place for the supplies to get in. It is because that the earthquake blocked many major roads to the airport and distroyed most parts of the airport. It makes the rescue much more difficult. Fuel shortage is also becoming more and more severe. Actually, up to 80-90% of buildings in Leogane were distroyed and there is still lots of people who haven't got aided. US Government claimed that they will be supporting Haiti to recover from the earthquake.
Comments:
According to the passage, I found out that the damage of the earthquake in Haiti was devastating. There are still many people who are suffuring the loss of property， pain of losing friends and family. But thanks to the kind heart of the people around the world, the rescue is carrying on gradually. My country has also experienced big catastrophe, so I can totally understand the feeling of the people in Haiti and the world. Earthquake distroys the buildings, kills many people, however, it can never kill the good wish and stronge faith in our heart. With the help around the world, if people make up their minds of rebuilding their hometown, we will soon see a great, new country -- Haiti.
A world away, foster parent hold out hope
A world away, foster parent hold out hope
Fates unknown for medically fragile kids restored in U.S., returned to Haiti
name: Xu Jiawei (Joyce)
article title: A world away, foster parent hold out hope
unknown for medically fragile kids restored in U.S., returned to Haiti
source of article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34883851/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/
name of article writer: Linda Dahlstrom
date of article: Jan. 16, 2010
Summary:
This article talks about the feeling of an adoptive mother’s feeling after the Haiti massive earthquake. Sarah Gammons-Reese has a blended family with five biological children and nine adopted. She has also nurtured four children from Haiti so far with three of them having been sent back. Sarah Gammons-Reese has formed a formed a group called The Medical Advocacy Team which helps to arrange care for medically fragile children from Haiti who are almost impossible to survive if staying there. The children stay in the foster families in the U.S. and receive medical care until they recuperate and would be sent back to their own families. Sarah Gammons-Reese is one of those foster families who love deeply these kids and letting them go at last. However, the magnitude-7 earthquake in Haiti in 12th shocked her and made her in a terrified state searching her familiar faces from the news including her newly adopted child who hasn’t been brought home. Looking back the process of taking children away to undergo medical treatment and sending them back then their being in a huge earthquake, Sarah Gammons-Reese is doubting the meaning of it.
Comment: This piece of news shows us another group of people caring the refugees in Haiti after its earthquake – the adoptive parents. They are also part of the victims. In the U.S., another part of the world, there are despairing parents looking for their adopted children in Haiti. It bring me not only impression but also inspiration. They have showed so much care and feeling to those people who live far away with nothing related that somehow the distance between the first world countries and the third world countries. Especially under the financial crisis, people should be pulled out of the world of money but give their hearts to those lives in danger.
18 Jan 2010
Fates unknown for medically fragile kids restored in U.S., returned to Haiti
name: Xu Jiawei (Joyce)
article title: A world away, foster parent hold out hope
unknown for medically fragile kids restored in U.S., returned to Haiti
source of article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34883851/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/
name of article writer: Linda Dahlstrom
date of article: Jan. 16, 2010
Summary:
This article talks about the feeling of an adoptive mother’s feeling after the Haiti massive earthquake. Sarah Gammons-Reese has a blended family with five biological children and nine adopted. She has also nurtured four children from Haiti so far with three of them having been sent back. Sarah Gammons-Reese has formed a formed a group called The Medical Advocacy Team which helps to arrange care for medically fragile children from Haiti who are almost impossible to survive if staying there. The children stay in the foster families in the U.S. and receive medical care until they recuperate and would be sent back to their own families. Sarah Gammons-Reese is one of those foster families who love deeply these kids and letting them go at last. However, the magnitude-7 earthquake in Haiti in 12th shocked her and made her in a terrified state searching her familiar faces from the news including her newly adopted child who hasn’t been brought home. Looking back the process of taking children away to undergo medical treatment and sending them back then their being in a huge earthquake, Sarah Gammons-Reese is doubting the meaning of it.
Comment: This piece of news shows us another group of people caring the refugees in Haiti after its earthquake – the adoptive parents. They are also part of the victims. In the U.S., another part of the world, there are despairing parents looking for their adopted children in Haiti. It bring me not only impression but also inspiration. They have showed so much care and feeling to those people who live far away with nothing related that somehow the distance between the first world countries and the third world countries. Especially under the financial crisis, people should be pulled out of the world of money but give their hearts to those lives in danger.
18 Jan 2010
Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World！！！
name: Wei Lai (Roy)
article title: Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World
source of article: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1954190,00.html
name of article writer: Michael D. Lemonick
date of article: Friday, Jan. 15, 2010
summary: It is commonly accepted that climate change will bring endless disasters, however there is an argument saying that global warming is good for plants since plants love CO2 and will have more time to grow in high temperature. In fact, the interactions in nature makes things much more complicated. One of the latest study shows that plants will get no benifit instead of grow taller and stronger when frost comes later than usual. Another study alson implies that growth in CO2 will cause increase in plants we don't want.The understanding of the impact of climate change to plants is still not very clear because of the comlicated interactions in nature.As a conlusion, we can't say that climate change do good to the plants.
comment: Yes, of course, we cannot easily give the conlusion that climate change is bad for plants, but at least the studies showed that it has bad influence on plants sometimes.Moroever, one thing we can be certain is that global warming is threatening our lives right now, and unless we do something immediately, the 2012 may become true in the future.The probem is that how to reduce emission of Green House Gases(GHG) and How to adapt to the changing climate. the failure of the recent Copenhagen Climate Change tought us that some big coutries are not willing to reduce thier GHG for economic reasons. the most important reason is that it's none of thier business, it's the problem of the next generation, and the problem of some small counries like Maldives who are troubling by the rising sea-levels. the only way to solve this problem is to convince those big countries to act and lead the world to save our planet, and that is really difficult.
article title: Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World
source of article: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1954190,00.html
name of article writer: Michael D. Lemonick
date of article: Friday, Jan. 15, 2010
summary: It is commonly accepted that climate change will bring endless disasters, however there is an argument saying that global warming is good for plants since plants love CO2 and will have more time to grow in high temperature. In fact, the interactions in nature makes things much more complicated. One of the latest study shows that plants will get no benifit instead of grow taller and stronger when frost comes later than usual. Another study alson implies that growth in CO2 will cause increase in plants we don't want.The understanding of the impact of climate change to plants is still not very clear because of the comlicated interactions in nature.As a conlusion, we can't say that climate change do good to the plants.
comment: Yes, of course, we cannot easily give the conlusion that climate change is bad for plants, but at least the studies showed that it has bad influence on plants sometimes.Moroever, one thing we can be certain is that global warming is threatening our lives right now, and unless we do something immediately, the 2012 may become true in the future.The probem is that how to reduce emission of Green House Gases(GHG) and How to adapt to the changing climate. the failure of the recent Copenhagen Climate Change tought us that some big coutries are not willing to reduce thier GHG for economic reasons. the most important reason is that it's none of thier business, it's the problem of the next generation, and the problem of some small counries like Maldives who are troubling by the rising sea-levels. the only way to solve this problem is to convince those big countries to act and lead the world to save our planet, and that is really difficult.
China, Where U.S. Internet Companies Often Fail
Authors: David Barboza & Brad Stone
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/technology/16failure.html?pagewanted=1&ref=asia
Date: January 15, 2010
Summary: Although Google may pull out of China, it is not the only American Internet giant that failed there. Because of government censorship and favouritism of local firms, Yahoo, EBay and MySpace did not manage to gain great market share as they anticipated. Google came to China with great expectations, but it is defeated by its local rival, Baidu, for Baidu is the first to provide easy links to download pirated songs and movies. Yahoo, which took over a local Internet giant Alibaba, reaped a financial windfall in China at first. However, it got into trouble when it released the Chinese dissidents’ e-mails to the government. EBay lost its lead in e-commerce market, since it did not offer the service to allow live conversations between buyers and sellers as Taobao did. MySpace did not succeed in China either because of its strong rival Tencent. Some people say these American companies need to understand the Chinese market and think locally, despite the government restrictions. They should learn about flexibility and tactics from the local entrepreneurs.
Comments: It is surprising that Google is going to pull out of China, because it is quite a popular search engine among Chinese, especially the younger and better-educated people, though it is not as popular as Baidu. I do not see Google’s 33 percent market share as a failure, and actually it is doing better than any other American Internet Giants, like Yahoo, EBay and MySpace as mentioned. Google still has much space to improve, but it is leaving because of frustration with government restrictions. Google might disagree with the censorship in China, but it is not a good idea to publicly challenge it and discomfit the Chinese government. It will surely influence its business in China, so that Google will never have any chance of defeating Baidu. I think Google should rethink about retreating, for it is a great loss to both Google and China.
Zhang Ningxin(Joy)
Jan 17, 2010
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/technology/16failure.html?pagewanted=1&ref=asia
Date: January 15, 2010
Summary: Although Google may pull out of China, it is not the only American Internet giant that failed there. Because of government censorship and favouritism of local firms, Yahoo, EBay and MySpace did not manage to gain great market share as they anticipated. Google came to China with great expectations, but it is defeated by its local rival, Baidu, for Baidu is the first to provide easy links to download pirated songs and movies. Yahoo, which took over a local Internet giant Alibaba, reaped a financial windfall in China at first. However, it got into trouble when it released the Chinese dissidents’ e-mails to the government. EBay lost its lead in e-commerce market, since it did not offer the service to allow live conversations between buyers and sellers as Taobao did. MySpace did not succeed in China either because of its strong rival Tencent. Some people say these American companies need to understand the Chinese market and think locally, despite the government restrictions. They should learn about flexibility and tactics from the local entrepreneurs.
Comments: It is surprising that Google is going to pull out of China, because it is quite a popular search engine among Chinese, especially the younger and better-educated people, though it is not as popular as Baidu. I do not see Google’s 33 percent market share as a failure, and actually it is doing better than any other American Internet Giants, like Yahoo, EBay and MySpace as mentioned. Google still has much space to improve, but it is leaving because of frustration with government restrictions. Google might disagree with the censorship in China, but it is not a good idea to publicly challenge it and discomfit the Chinese government. It will surely influence its business in China, so that Google will never have any chance of defeating Baidu. I think Google should rethink about retreating, for it is a great loss to both Google and China.
Zhang Ningxin(Joy)
Jan 17, 2010
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)