Random Thoughts - Paradigm Shifts

What are paradigms as applied in the layman’s context and how do we shift such paradigms?

I personally find that this concept has been best illustrated by Dr. Stephen R. Covey in his bestselling book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People". In fact, one of the very first topic that he covered in this book was in relation to paradigms. Simply put, a paradigm is basically the metaphorical lens which we look through when we view the world at large. Dr. Covey maintained that that if you want to make small changes in your life, you only need to change your ways. But if you want to make quantum leaps, you would need to change your paradigms.

Dr. Covey narrated a story to illustrate his case on paradigms. He got onto a quiet train one Sunday morning, where some people were asleep while others were reading the newspaper. Yet some others were chatting softly.

All of a sudden, the door to the train opened and a man got onto the train with his kids. The kids were extremely obnoxious. They were running around screaming and yelling. Dr. Covey and a few others on the train could not help but look over at the man to see if he was going to discipline them in some way, shape or form. The man, however, just sat there staring into space with a blank look on his face, almost oblivious to the way the children were behaving.

After a few more minutes of the disturbance and the man's lack of action to do anything about it, Dr. Covey felt obliged to say a few words to the man. He asked him if he was going to do anything about the obnoxious behaviour and began pointing out exactly how erratic the children were in fact acting.

The man then looked over at the children and then looked over at Dr. Covey and said "you're right, they are acting obnoxious but after all, they did just come from the hospital where their mother passed away a few hours ago."

Shocked and then instantly embarrassed, Dr. Covey's feelings immediately changed from the need to instruct the man to the need to console him and show him empathy for his loss.

What had happened was that Dr. Covey's paradigm has changed or shifted in that instance just after the man spoke. You would have noticed that the situation had remained exactly the same. The train was still silent. The children were still disrupting everyone else and the man was still doing nothing about it. What changed was the lens with which Dr. Covey was viewing these events through.

Many times, people can look at the same thing and see different things. The reason for this is that we all see the world through different paradigms. In a more generic sense, there is no event or circumstance in this world which has any intrinsic meaning until we attribute a meaning to it. The meaning we attribute to the event or circumstance then forms a paradigm for each of us. This paradigm then become part of our belief system which we will apply to other similar events and circumstances. Since we tend to attribute different meanings to the same event or circumstance, we will then react very differently to this event or circumstance after we filter it through our own paradigms and beliefs.

As I have always maintained, there are always 3 sides to any arguments, and they are yours, mine and the hypothetical right side.

佛祖说：得不到和已失去的珍贵

从前，有一座圆音寺，每天都有许多人上香拜佛，香火很旺。在圆音寺庙前的横梁上有个蜘蛛结了张网，由于每天都受到香火和虔诚的祭拜的熏托，蛛蛛便有了佛性。经过了一千多年的修炼，蛛蛛佛性增加了不少。

忽然有一天，佛祖光临了圆音寺，看见这里香火甚旺，十分高兴。离开寺庙的时候，不轻易间地抬头，看见了横梁上的蛛蛛。佛祖停下来，问这只蜘蛛：“你我相见总算是有缘，我来问你个问题，看你修炼了这一千多年来，有什么真知灼见。怎么样？”

蜘蛛遇见佛祖很是高兴，连忙答应了。佛祖问到：“世间什么才是最珍贵的？”蜘蛛想了想，回答到：“世间最珍贵的是‘得不到’和‘已失去’。”

佛祖点了点头，离开了。

就这样又过了一千年的光景，蜘蛛依旧在圆音寺的横梁上修炼，它的佛性大增。一日，佛祖又来到寺前，对蜘蛛说道：“你可还好，一千年前的那个问题，你可有什么更深的认识吗？”

蜘蛛说：“我觉得世间最珍贵的是‘得不到’和‘已失去’。”

佛祖说：“你再好好想想，我会再来找你的。”

又过了一千年，有一天，刮起了大风，风将一滴甘露吹到了蜘蛛网上。蜘蛛望着甘露，见它晶莹透亮，很漂亮，顿生喜爱之意。蜘蛛每天看着甘露很开心，它觉得这是 三千年来最开心的几天。突然，又刮起了一阵大风，将甘露吹走了。蜘蛛一下子觉得失去了什么，感到很寂寞和难过。这时佛祖又来了，问蜘蛛：“蜘蛛这一千年， 你可好好想过这个问题：世间什么才是最珍贵的？”

蜘蛛想到了甘露，对佛祖说：“世间最珍贵的是‘得不到’和‘已失去’。”佛祖说：“好，既然你有这样的认识，我让你到人间走一朝吧。”

就这样，蜘蛛投胎到了一个官宦家庭，成了一个富家小姐，父母为她取了个名字叫蛛儿。一晃，蛛儿到了十六岁了，已经成了个婀娜多姿的少女，长的十分漂亮，楚楚动人。

这一日，新科状元郎甘鹿中士，皇帝决定在后花园为他举行庆功宴席。来了许多妙龄少女，包括蛛儿，还有皇帝的小公主长风公主。状元郎在席间表演诗词歌赋，大献才艺，在场的少女无一不被他折倒。但蛛儿一点也不紧张和吃醋，因为她知道，这是佛祖赐予她的姻缘。

过了些日子，说来很巧，蛛儿陪同母亲上香拜佛的时候，正好甘鹿也陪同母亲而来。上完香拜过佛，二位长者在一边说上了话。蛛儿和甘鹿便来到走廊上聊天，蛛儿很 开心，终于可以和喜欢的人在一起了，但是甘鹿并没有表现出对她的喜爱。蛛儿对甘鹿说：“你难道不曾记得十六年前，圆音寺的蜘蛛网上的事情了吗？”甘鹿很诧 异，说：“蛛儿姑娘，你漂亮，也很讨人喜欢，但你想象力未免丰富了一点吧。”说罢，和母亲离开了。

蛛儿回到家，心想，佛祖既然安排了这场姻缘，为何不让他记得那件事，甘鹿为何对我没有一点的感觉？

几天后，皇帝下召，命新科状元甘鹿和长风公主完婚；蛛儿和太子芝草完婚。这一消息对蛛儿如同晴空霹雳，她怎么也想不同，佛祖竟然这样对她。几日来，她不吃不 喝，穷究急思，灵魂就将出壳，生命危在旦夕。太子芝草知道了，急忙赶来，扑倒在床边，对奄奄一息的蛛儿说道：“那日，在后花园众姑娘中，我对你一见钟情， 我苦求父皇，他才答应。如果你死了，那么我也就不活了。”说着就拿起了宝剑准备自刎。

就在这时，佛祖来了，他对快要出壳的蛛儿灵魂 说：“蜘蛛，你可曾想过，甘露（甘鹿）是由谁带到你这里来的呢？是风（长风公主）带来的，最后也是风将它带走的。甘鹿是属于长风公主的，他对你不过是生命 中的一段插曲。而太子芝草是当年圆音寺门前的一棵小草，他看了你三千年，爱慕了你三千年，但你却从没有低下头看过它。蜘蛛，我再来问你，世间什么才是最珍 贵的？”

蜘蛛听了这些真相之后，好象一下子大彻大悟了，她对佛祖说：“世间最珍贵的不是‘得不到’和‘已失去’，而是现在能把握的幸福。”

刚说完，佛祖就离开了，蛛儿的灵魂也回位了，睁开眼睛，看到正要自刎的太子芝草，她马上打落宝剑，和太子深深的抱着。

P.S. 这不只是一个简单的神话故事，而是个为了使各位领悟其中一个道理而设计的典故。

Simpleology - Multimedia Course on Blogging

I'm evaluating a multi-media course on blogging from the folks at Simpleology. For a while, they're letting you snag it for free if you post about it on your blog.

It covers:

• The best blogging techniques.
• How to get traffic to your blog.
• How to turn your blog into money.

I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to check it out. Meanwhile, go grab yours while it's still free.

Random Thoughts - The Arrow and the Song

(By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For, so swiftly it flew, the sight
Could not follow it in its flight.

I breathed a song into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For who has sight so keen and strong,
That it can follow the flight of song?

Long, long afterward, in an oak
I found the arrow, still unbroke;
And the song, from beginning to end,
I found again in the heart of a friend.

P.S. This poem is about friendship. Very often, you would never know if your contribution to friendship has in fact been valued at the time you showed it. And it is always to your surprise that you find one day that there are actually people who have cherished that friendship which you have shown them. This is especially so in the society of today where everyone is often too busy to share many things with friends as people of the past have used to do; we can only hope that someday we can find it somewhere, that arrow in an oak, still unbroke.

Random Thoughts - Villainy

(By Constable Ichabod Crane (casted by Johnny Depp) in the movie "Sleepy Hollow")

Villainy wears many masks, none of which are more dangerous than virtue.

The Matrix - Blue Pill or Red Pill

(Extracted from the initial conversation in the living room between Neo (casted by "Keanu Reeves) and Morpheus (casted by Laurence Fishburne) in the movie "Matrix")

Morpheus: I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Alice. Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
Neo: You could say that.
Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Neo: The Matrix?
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?
(Neo nods his head.)
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind.
(long pause, sighs)
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
(In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue pill.)
Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
(a red pill is shown in his other hand)
You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. (Long pause; Neo begins to reach for the red pill)
Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.
(Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water)

经典对白: 西游记

(By 至尊宝/孙悟空 - 周星驰饰)

曾经有一份至真至诚的爱情放在我面前, 我没有珍惜, 等我失去的时候才后悔莫及, 人世间最痛苦的事莫过于此....
如果上天能够给我一个再来一次的机会, 我会对那个女孩子说三个字: 我爱你.
如果非要在这份爱上加上一个期限, 我希望是.... 一万年.

蓦然回首

众里寻他千百度, 蓦然回首, 那人却在灯火阑珊处.

世界上最遥远的距离 (Reprise II)

真正的距离不是分隔两地的距离, 而是你坐在我旁边, 而不知道我爱你.

Point of Law: Hearsay Rule

The Hearsay Rule is an analytic rule of evidence that defines hearsay and provides for both exceptions and exemptions from that rule. Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined. The theory of the rule against hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable. It therefore becomes necessary to subject such forms of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal to estimate it at no more than its actual value”.

However, some statements are defined as hearsay, but may nevertheless be admissible as evidence in court. These statements relate to exceptions to the general rule on hearsay. Some exceptions to the hearsay rule apply only when the declarant is unavailable for testimony at the trial or hearing.

Hearsay exceptions that apply even where the declarant is available

1. Excited utterances: These are statements relating to startling events or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. An excited utterance does not have to be made at the same time of the startling event. A statement made minutes, hours or even days after the startling event can be excited utterances, so long as the declarant is still under the stress of the startling event.

2. Present sense impressions: These are statements expressing the declarant's impression of a condition existing at the time the statement was made. Unlike an excited utterance, it need not be made in response to a startling event. Instead, it is admissible because it is a condition that the witness would likely have been experiencing at the same time as the declarant, and would instantly be able to corroborate.

3. Declarations of present state of mind: Much like a present-sense impression describes the outside world, declarant's statement to the effect of of his or her emotions will be admissible to prove that the declarant was indeed in that state of mind. This is normally used in cases where the declarant's mental state is at issue. Present-state-of-mind statements are also used as circumstantial evidence of subsequent acts committed by the declarant.

4. Statements made in the course of medical treatment: These are statements made by a patient to a medical professional to help in diagnosis and treatment. Any statements contained therein that attribute fault or causation to an individual will generally not be admissible under this exception, unless it involves a small child as stipulated under the "Tender Years" doctrine.

5. Business records exception: business records created during the ordinary course of business are considered reliable and can usually be brought in under this exception if the proper foundation is laid when the records are introduced into evidence.

6. Guantanamo Bay exception: The military tribunals used to try some Guantanamo Bay prisoners allow any evidence, including hearsay, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".

7. Other exceptions, declarant's availability immaterial: In the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, separate exceptions are made for public records, family records, and records in ancient documents of established authenticity. When regular or public records are kept, the absence of such records may also be used as admissible hearsay evidence.

Hearsay exceptions that apply only where the declarant is unavailable

1. Dying declarations and other statements under belief of impending death:

In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may nonetheless be admitted as evidence in certain kinds of cases because it constituted the last words of a dying person.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible if:
1. it constituted the last words of a person who was dying or thought he was dying, and
2. that person was aware that he or she was dying, and
3. that person made a statement, based on their actual knowledge, that relates in some way to the cause or circumstances of his or her death.

The declarant does not actually have to die for the statement to be admissible, but they need to have had a genuine belief that they were going to die, and they must be unavailable to testify in court. Furthermore, the statement must relate to the circumstances or the cause of the declarant's own death. As with all testimony, the dying declaration will be inadmissible unless it is based on the declarant's actual knowledge. In U.S. federal courts, the dying declaration exception is limited to civil cases and homicide prosecutions. It cannot be used in any other kind of criminal proceeding.

2. Declarations against interest: Such declarations are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so predjudicial to the person making it (such as confessing to a crime or admitting liability for a tort) that they would not have made the statment unless they believed the statement was true. This differs from a party admission because here the declarant does not have to be a party to the case, but must have a basis for knowing that the statement is true.

3. Prior testimony: if the testimony was given under oath and the party against whom the testimony is being proffered was present and had the opportunity to cross examine the witness at that time. This is often used to enter depositions into the court record at trial.

4. Admission of guilt: if if a statement is made, verbal or otherwise, as an admission of guilt of the matter at hand, that statement would not be regarded as hearsay. In other words, self-incriminating statements or confessions are not hearsay.

Anamorphic illusions

Anamorphic illusions refer to optical illusions which are drawn with special distortions in order to create an impression with 3 dimensional effects when observed from one particular viewpoint.

What if Earth never had its own moon?

(By Professor Neil F. Comins of the Department of Astronomy and Physics at the University of Maine in his research findings “What if the moon didn't exist?” — 1993 Harper Collins Publication)

The earth has a substantially large moon orbiting around it, which could not have possibly bulge off due to the earth's high rotational speed or have been captured by the earth's gravity, due to the moon's large mass.

The most likely explanation for the moon's existence would be a colossal accident in space, a collision of unimaginable magnitude where a Mars-sized planet crashed into the earth around 4.25 billion years ago (the age of the Moon). The probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. Any "normal" collision would not have resulted in the formation of the moon, since the ejecta would not have been thrown far enough from the earth to form the moon. The small planet, before it collided with the earth, must have had an unusually elliptical orbit (unlike the orbit of any other planet in the Solar System), which resulted in a virtual head-on collision.

The collision of the small planet with the earth would have resulted in the ejection of 5 billion cubit miles of the earth's crust and mantle into orbit around the earth. This ring of material, the theory states, would have coalesced to form the moon. In addition, the moon is moving away from the earth (currently at 2 inches per year), as it has been since its creation. If we calculate backwards we discover that the moon must have formed just outside the Roche limit, the point at which an object would be torn apart by the earth's gravity (7,300 miles above the earth's surface). A collision which would have ejected material less than the Roche limit would have formed only rings around the earth. Computer models show that a collision of a small planet with the earth must have been very precise in order for any moon to have been formed at all.

The creation of the moon had a cataclysmal effect on the evolution of life on earth. The collision of the small planet with the earth also resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. If this collision had not occurred, we would have had an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, which is 80 times that of the earth (equivalent to being one mile beneath the ocean). Such a thick atmosphere on Venus resulted in a runaway greenhouse affect, leaving a dry planet with a surface temperature of 800°F. The earth would have suffered a similar fate if the majority of its primordial atmosphere had not been ejected into outer space. In fact, the Earth is 20% more massive than Venus and further away from the Sun, both factors of which should have lead to a terrestrial atmosphere much thicker than that of Venus. For some strange reason, we have a very thin atmosphere - just the right density to maintain the presence of liquid, solid and gaseous water necessary to life.

Assuming our earth never had any moon, scientists would first train their eyes on the geo-physical aspects of earth in the new context. It is the tides pattern that would be most significant. There would be no gravitational pull by the moon and whatever tides the earth had would depend only on the pull by the sun. The tides would necessarily be very gentle and restricted within the same range. The tide behaviour would have other far-reaching effects. Powerful tides in our world hit the ocean floor and shorelines in great force and tend to apply a sort of brake on the speed of earths rotation.

During a span of 4.5 billion years the strong gravitational pull of the moon and its effect on tides had been able to lengthen our earthly days from 6 hours at the beginning to 24 hours by slowing down the speed of rotation. Likewise, the gravitational attraction of the earth on the moon has reduced its rotational period to 29 days. A moonless earth, the Professor calculates, would have 8-hour day and a year comprising 1,095 eight-hour days. Its rotation speed would be three times higher than at of our good earth.

Such a rapid rotational period would have resulted in surface wind velocities in excess of 200 miles per hour. Winds are generated by the planet's rotation and the heating and cooling of its air. The rotation drags air along the planet's surface. The faster rotation of the moonless earth would drag air along its equatorial surface much more forcefully than on our earth. There would be much less wind movement to north and south leading to an exceptional global climatic pattern. The fast rotation would cause wind whipping at tremendous speed over the torrid zone, regularly topping 200 miles per hour, while violent hurricanes would continuously hit the surface. A similar situation exists on the Jupiter and the Saturn each having 10-hour days where storms with wind speed around 300 mph rage the surface for years and even for centuries.

Another fortuitous result of the collision of the Mars-sized planet with the Earth is the presence of the Earth's large and heavy metallic core. In fact, the Earth has the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System. This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field. This magnetic field produces the Van-Allen radiation shield, which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment. If this shield were not present, life would not be possible on the Earth. The only other rocky planet to have any magnetic field is Mercury. But its field strength is 100 times less than the Earth's. Even Venus, our sister planet, has no magnetic field. The Van-Allen radiation shield is a design unique to the Earth.

Game theory: Nash Equilibrium

We have applied game theory from a simpler Prisoners' Dilemma situation to a more realistic game model in a real-world example of strategic thinking, say choosing an information system in the followings.

For this example, the players will be a company considering the choice of a new information system, and a supplier who is considering producing it. The two choices are to install a technically advanced or a more proven system with less functionality. We'll assume that the more advanced system really does supply a lot more functionality.

Again, in this case, we can express all this compactly in a payoff table. Basically, the table would indicate that if both the company and supplier choose the technically advanced information system, each earns $20 million in profits from the system, but if the company chooses the advanced system and the supplier does not choose to produce it or vice versa, then both earn nil profits for the period under consideration. However, if both choose the proven information system, then both earn only $5 million of profits each.

We see that both players can be better off, on net, if an advanced system is installed. But the worst that can happen is for one player to commit to an advance system while the other player stays with the proven one. In that case there is no deal, and no payoffs for anyone. The problem is that the supplier and the user must establish a compatible standard, in order to work together, and since the choice of a standard is a strategic choice, their strategies have to mesh.

Although it looks a lot like the Prisoners' Dilemma at first glance, this is a more complicated game. We'll take several complications in turn:

1. By observing the table carefully, we would notice that there are no dominated strategies in this game. The best strategy for each participant depends on the strategy chosen by the other participant. Thus, we need a new concept of game-equilibrium that will allow for that complication. When there are no dominant strategies, we often use an equilibrium conception called the Nash Equilibrium, named after Nobel Memorial Laureate John Nash.

2. Nash Equilibrium occurs when there is a set of strategies with the property that no player can benefit by changing his / her strategy while the other players keep their strategies unchanged. In this case, this set of strategies and the corresponding payoffs constitute the Nash Equilibrium.

3. The Nash Equilibrium is a pretty simple idea: we have a Nash Equilibrium if each participant chooses the best strategy, given the strategy chosen by the other participant. In the example, if the user opts for the advanced system, then it is best for the supplier to do that too. So (Advanced, Advanced) is a Nash-equilibrium.

4. If the user chooses the proven system, it's best for the supplier to do that too. There are as such two Nash Equilibria. It may seem easy enough to opt for the advanced system which is better all around, but if each participant believes that the other will stick with the proven system, then it will be best for each player to choose the proven system. This is a danger typical of a class of games called coordination games -- and what we have learned is that the choice of compatible standards is a coordination game.

5. We have assumed that the payoffs are known and certain. In the real world, every strategic decision is risky -- and a decision for the advanced system is likely to be riskier than a decision for the proven system. Thus, we would have to take into account the players' subjective attitudes toward risk, in other words their risk aversion, to make the example fully realistic.

6. The example assumes that payoffs are measured in money. Thus, we are not only leaving risk aversion out of the picture, but also any other subjective rewards and penalties that cannot be measured in money. Economists have ways of measuring subjective rewards in money terms. To simplify the analysis, we assume that all rewards and penalties are measured in money and are transferable from the user to the supplier and vice versa.

7. Real choices of information systems are likely to involve more than two players, at least in the long run. The user may choose among several suppliers, and suppliers may have many customers. That makes the coordination problem harder to solve. Suppose, for example, that "beta" is the advanced system and "VHS" is the proven system, and suppose that about 90% of the market uses "VHS." Then "VHS" may take over the market from "beta" even though "beta" is the better system. Many economists, game theorists and others believe this is a main reason why certain technical standards gain dominance.

8. On the other hand, the user and the supplier don't have to just sit back and wait to see what the other person does. They can sit down and talk it out, and commit themselves to a contract. In fact, they have to do so, because the amount of payment from the user to the supplier also has to be agreed upon. In other words, unlike the Prisoners' Dilemma, this is a cooperative game, not a non-cooperative game. On the one hand, that will make the problem of coordinating standards easier, at least in the short run. On the other hand, Cooperative games call for a different approach to solution.

Game theory: Prisoners’ Dilemma

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that deals with the analysis of games (i.e., situations involving parties with conflicting interests). It is a mathematical method of decision-making which involves searching for the best strategy contingent upon what another player will or will not do. Typically, a competitive situation is analyzed to determine the optimal course of action for an interested topic. It is generally taught in mathematics classes such as applied combinatorics, and in economics classes such as industrial organization. In addition to the mathematical elegance and complete "solution" which is possible for simple games, the principles of game theory also find applications to complicated games such as cards, checkers, and chess, as well as real-world problems as diverse as economics, property division, politics, and warfare.

Game theory has two distinct branches: combinatorial game theory and classical game theory.

Combinatorial game theory covers two-player games of perfect knowledge such as go, chess, or checkers. Notably, combinatorial games have no chance element, and players take turns.
In classical game theory, players move, bet, or strategize simultaneously. Both hidden information and chance elements are frequent features in this branch of game theory, which is also a branch of economics.

The Prisoners’ Dilemma is a non-zero sum problem founded in game theory initially discussed by Albert W. Tucker. Tucker's invention of the Prisoners' Dilemma example did not come out via a research paper, but in a classroom. In 1950, while addressing an audience of psychologists at Stanford University in his capacity of visiting professor, Tucker created the Prisoners' Dilemma to illustrate the difficulty of analyzing certain kinds of games.

Tucker’s actual Prisoners' Dilemma example is as follows:

Two burglars, Bob and Al, are captured near the scene of a burglary and are given the "third degree" separately by the police. Each has to choose whether or not to confess and implicate the other. If neither man confesses, then both will serve one year on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. If each confesses and implicates the other, both will go to prison for 10 years. However, if one burglar confesses and implicates the other, and the other burglar does not confess, the one who has collaborated with the police will go free, while the other burglar will go to prison for 20 years on the maximum charge.

The strategies in this case are those of whether to confess or don't confess. The payoffs or penalties in this case, are the sentences served. We can express all this compactly in a payoff table which has become quite standard in game theory. Basically, the table would indicate that if they both confess, each gets 10 years, but if Al confesses and Bob does not, Bob gets 20 and Al goes free, and vice versa. However, if both do not confess, then both get 1 year each.

A dilemma arises in deciding the best course of action in the absence of knowledge of the other prisoner's decision, as in what strategies are "rational" if both men want to minimize the time they spend in jail. Each prisoner's best strategy would appear to be to turn the other in. Al might reason as follows: "Two things can happen: Bob can confess or Bob can keep quiet. Suppose Bob confesses. Then I get 20 years if I don't confess, 10 years if I do, so in that case it's best to confess. On the other hand, if Bob doesn't confess, and I don't either, I get a year; but in that case, if I confess I can go free. Either way, it's best if I confess. Therefore, I'll confess."

But Bob will presumably reason in the same manner. Therefore, given that both of them confess, both will go to prison for 10 years each. Yet, if they had acted "irrationally" and kept quiet, they each could have gotten off with one year each.

What has happened here is that the two prisoners have fallen into something known as "dominant strategy equilibrium".

A dominant strategy is defined as follows:

If we were to allow an individual player in a game to evaluate separately each of the strategy combinations he may face, and, for each combination, choose from his own strategies the one that gives the best payoff. If the same strategy is chosen for each of the different combinations of strategies the player might face, that strategy is called a "dominant strategy" for that player in that game.

Therefore, dominant strategy equilibrium occurs if, in a game, each player has a dominant strategy, and each player plays the dominant strategy, then that combination of the dominant strategies and the corresponding payoffs are said to constitute the dominant strategy equilibrium for that game.

In the Prisoners' Dilemma game, to confess is a dominant strategy, and when both prisoners confess, dominant strategy equilibrium occurs. In this case, the individually rational action results in both persons being made worse off in terms of their own self-interested purposes. This revelation has wide implications in modern social science. This is because there are many interactions in the modern world that seem very much like this, from arms races through road congestion and pollution to the depletion of fisheries and the overexploitation of some subsurface water resources. These are all quite different interactions in detail, but are interactions in which individually rational action leads to inferior results for each person, and the Prisoners' Dilemma suggests something of what is going on in each of them.

A number of critical issues can be raised with the Prisoners' Dilemma in view of its simplified and abstract conception of many real life interactions, and each of these issues has been the basis of a large scholarly literature:

1. The Prisoners' Dilemma is a two-person game, but many of the applications of the idea are really many-person interactions;

2. We have assumed that there is no communication between the two prisoners. If they could communicate and commit themselves to coordinated strategies, we would expect a quite different outcome;

3. In the Prisoners' Dilemma, the two prisoners interact only once. Repetition of the interactions might lead to quite different results;

4. Compelling as the reasoning that leads to the dominant strategy equilibrium may be, it is not the only way this problem might be reasoned out. Perhaps it is not really the most rational answer after all.

The Prisoners' Dilemma has wide applications to economics and business. Let’s take an example of two firms, say A and B, selling similar products. Each must decide on a pricing strategy. They best exploit their joint market power when both charge a high price; each makes a profit of $10 million per month. If one sets a competitive low price, it wins a lot of customers away from the rival. Suppose its profit rises to $12 million, and that of the rival falls to $7 million. If both set low prices, the profit of each is $9 million. In this case, the low-price strategy is akin to the prisoner's confession, and the high-price akin to keeping silent. Let’s term the former cheating, and the latter cooperation. In this case, cheating is each firm's dominant strategy, but the result when both cheat is worse for each than that of both cooperating.

On a superficial level the Prisoners' Dilemma appears to run counter to Adam Smith's idea of the invisible hand. When each person in the game pursues his private interest, he does not promote the collective interest of the group. But often a group's cooperation is not in the interests of society as a whole. Collusion to keep prices high, for example, is not in society's interest because the cost to consumers from collusion is generally more than the increased profit of the firms. Therefore companies that pursue their own self-interest by cheating on collusive agreements often help the rest of society. Similarly cooperation among prisoners under interrogation makes convictions more difficult for the police to obtain. One must understand the mechanism of cooperation before one can either promote or defeat it in the pursuit of larger policy interests.

Would the Prisoners be able to extricate themselves from the Dilemma and sustain cooperation when each has a powerful incentive to cheat? The most common path to cooperation arises from repetitions of the game. In the above example, one month's cheating gets the cheater an extra $2 million. But a switch from mutual cooperation to mutual cheating loses $1 million. If one month's cheating is followed by two months' retaliation, therefore, the result is a wash for the cheater. Any stronger punishment of a cheater would be a clear deterrent.

This idea needs some comment and elaboration:

1. The cheater's reward comes at once, while the loss from punishment lies in the future. If players heavily discount future payoffs, then the loss may be insufficient to deter cheating. Thus, cooperation is harder to sustain among very impatient players.

2. Punishment won't work unless cheating can be detected and punished. Therefore, companies cooperate more when their actions are more easily detected (setting prices, for example) and less when actions are less easily detected (deciding on non-price attributes of goods, such as repair warranties). Punishment is usually easier to arrange in smaller and closed groups. Thus, industries with few firms and less threat of new entry are more likely to be collusive.

3. Punishment can be made automatic by following strategies like "tit for tat," which was popularized by University of Michigan political scientist Robert Axelrod. In this case, you cheat if and only if your rival cheated in the previous round. But if rivals' innocent actions can be misinterpreted as cheating, then tit for tat runs the risk of setting off successive rounds of unwarranted retaliation.

4. A fixed, finite number of repetitions are logically inadequate to yield cooperation. Both or all players know that cheating is the dominant strategy in the last play. Given this, the same goes for the second-last play, then the third-last, and so on. But in practice we see some cooperation in the early rounds of a fixed set of repetitions. The reason may be either that players don't know the number of rounds for sure, or that they can exploit the possibility of "irrational niceness" to their mutual advantage.

5. Cooperation can also arise if the group has a large leader, who personally stands to lose a lot from outright competition and therefore exercises restraint, even though he knows that other small players will cheat. For example, Saudi Arabia's role of "swing producer" in the OPEC cartel is an instance of this.

The Best of all the Lost Arts

(Taken from Mark Twain's Notebook, 1902)

Honesty.

Archimedes Principles

Assume if you will a plastic toy boat loaded with cast iron toy sailors sailing in a tub of water. If all the toy sailors were to fall overboard, the level of water in the tub would theoretically lower.

This is because while in the boat, the toy sailors will displace water which is equivalent to their combined weight, whereas once they are submerged, the toy sailors will displace water which is only equivalent to their combined volume.

This phenomenon will hold true for all items whose densities are greater than that of water which is 1 gm/cm3.

Proverbial question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The proverbial question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is mainly associated with medieval theology of the Scholastic school, the best-known representative of which being Saint Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century Christian philosopher (and a Dominican monk).

In those times, the Symbol of the Church was considered to be more important than that for which it stood for. This is because at that time, the commonners were not considered to be capable of understanding the underlying truth and therefore the commoners should accept the Symbol of the Church as the truth. This was however exactly the opposite of Aristotle's philosophies.

The Pope, on observing that Aristotle's philosophies governed in concepts of science and logic becoming stronger competition to the power of the Church, unofficially appointed St. Thomas to be the first official psychologist, a person who supposedly studied the nature of the soul of man. St. Thomas was charged with the responsibility of coming up with logic and reason, the same tools used by Aristotle, to keep the Church in its position of power.

The answer to the proverbial question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" essentially hinges on one's understanding of the nature of spirit. Angels, as it was believed, were pure intelligences and as such not material, but limited. Therefore, they could have location in space but not extension; rather like a point which in theory has position but no magnitude. Thus an angel could not occupy space, like a needle point but could be located on a needle point.

As such, if an infinite number of angels could fit on the head of a pin, then an angel would have no material substance and would therefore definitely be a purely spiritual, non-spatial and non-material entity. If, instead, only a finite number of angels could fit on the head of a pin, then the spiritual universe would not be much different from the physical universe.

Nowadays, this proverbial question often appears when ridiculing theologians.

缘份

百年修得同船渡 ,
千年修得共枕眠 .

The Practice Briefing Notes – Comings and Goings

(Excerpts of dialogues with Alan Shore (casted by James Spader) taken from the television series “The Practice - Comings and Goings (Season 8, Episode 20))

(Conference Room at Crane Poole & Schmidt)

District Attorney: It was an assault. The fact that it took place during a professional hockey game doesn’t meanthis guy . . .
Hannah Rose: Oh, come on, Jeffrey. You have 4,000 reported assaults every year—less than half lead to charges.
District Attorney: Hannah, if you were still here, you’d prosecute.
Hannah Rose: I certainly would not.
District Attorney: He repeatedly punched a defenseless man. He doesn’t get some special exemption because he did it during a sporting event.
Alan Shore: That’s just simply not true. We grant such exemptions all the time.
Hannah Rose: Excuse me a minute.
(Soto voce to Alan Shore) New guy?
Alan Shore: It would be illegal to run somebody down and flatten ‘em, yet in football? Boxers try to knock each other unconscious—the actual intent of the sport is assault. Imagine throwing a hard object a hundred miles per hour at somebody’s head. That’s grounds for attempted murder. But if the victim crowds the plate? Fighting is part of hockey.
(to Hannah Rose) May I speak for a second?
District Attorney: You are speaking.
Alan Shore: Oh. Sometimes I become so rapt with my own words, it feels more like a listening experience. Look, we’re gathered here today because of the media. I suspect if the firestorm died down, so would your urge to be Javert. Suppose this man were severely punished by the League? How ‘bout we get our justice that way?
District Attorney: First of all, I’m not the commissioner of the league.
Alan Shore: I’m offering you the chance to be. Name your punishment. Name it.
District Attorney: Out of the play-offs. And the next two years.
Alan Shore: Done.
District Attorney: Done? How are you . . .
Alan Shore: I’ll meet with the commissioner. My client will be suspended for two full seasons, plus play-offs.
District Attorney: (Chuckles) I hate to break your momentum, but the player’s union will never let . . .
Alan Shore: Yes, they will.
District Attorney: Because you say so?
Alan Shore: Because I say so. Congratulations, Mr. District Attorney. You’ve just helped to change hockey for the better. By the way, I may need to invoke the power of your office a little. Not to worry.

(Nods, and then gathers up his papers)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Conference Room at Crane Poole & Schmidt)

Hockey League Commissioner Burke: There is no precedent for a two-year suspension. And even if I were to sanction that, I can assure you, the player’s union wouldn’t. If you only knew . .
Alan Shore: What would they do? Pull your jersey over your head and pummel you?
Burke: Mr. Shore, the idea of . . .
Alan Shore: Mr. Burke. You will suspend Mr. Sears for two years. In consideration for that . . . Forgive me, I’m parched.
(Takes a sip of water from his glass)
In consideration for that, I’ve worked it out with the D.A. for the League not to be criminally prosecuted.
Burke: The League? How are we liable for that . . .
Alan Shore: Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 274, Section 2, Aiding and Abetting. “Anyone who assists, encourages or promotes an assault can be charged as a principal.”
Burke: We don’t do that.
Alan Shore: You don’t do that? (Smiles knowingly)
Burke: No, we don’t.
Alan Shore: In your highlight videos, you show the brawls. You also show them on the big jumbo Trons between periods. A Gordie Howe hat trick is considered to be a goal, an assist and a fight.
Burke: We penalize fighting.
Alan Shore: But you don’t ban it. Every other professional sport does. If a player fights in football or baseball, he’s gone. In your sport, he gets a standing ovation.
Burke: Mr. Shore, I’m sure you’re a fine attorney, but you have no appreciation for what hockey is, its history, its tradition . . .
Alan Shore: I have enormous appreciation for your sport, Mr. Burke. In fact, I have season tickets. Hockey is Bobby Orr. Hockey is Bobby Hull; Stan Mikita; Wayne Gretzky. Hockey is speed, finesse, skill and power. None of which has anything to do with mayhem. Hockey is being debased with thuggery, that your league not only condones, but encourages.
Burke: And you think if we just change the rule, it will stop?
Alan Shore: Yes. In college hockey, it’s banned. The players don’t fight. In the Olympics, it’s banned. They don’t fight. It can absolutely be legislated out. You choose not to do so. And with all the vicious muggings happening on the ice today, you are daring a district attorney to prosecute the League. I have that district attorney, Mr. Burke. Mr. Sears will be suspended for two years. You need to have appreciation for your sport, Mr. Burke. We need your league to rise up and mirror the dignity of the game itself. Tell your players, “No more fighting.” And if they still insist on violence, lt them beat up their coaches, like the basketball players.

世界上最遥远的距离 (Reprise)

世界上最遥远的距离, 不在地球的两极;
而是我在你面前, 你却说你不再爱我.

Boston Legal Briefing Notes – Death Penalty

(Excerpts of dialogues with Alan Shore (casted by James Spader) taken from the television series “Boston Legal - Death Be Not Proud (Season 1, Episode 17))

N.B. Chelina Hall asks Alan Shore to assist her in Texas because her former client, Ezekial Borns, is getting executed but may be innocent of the crime.

(In a courtroom.)

A.D.A. Glenn Jackson: Ezekial Borns murdered a man in cold blood for a few dollars. He confessed to it. The Petitioner has gone up and down State and Federal courts, exhausting his appeals, losing his habeas arguments, and failing on claims of constitutional violations. Four different courts of appeal have reviewed and rejected each and every one of his arguments. Now is the time for this man to pay the penalty imposed on him fairly and legally. A Texas jury had decided that Ezekial Borns is a dangerous killer. He has forfeited his right to live. Thank you.

(Alan moves to get up. Chelina stops him to softly remind him.)

Chelina Hall: With all due respect, may it please the court.

(Alan nods.)

Alan Shore: Good afternoon. My name is Alan Shore.
Judge Christopher Serra: Mr Shore. What are new issues being raised here?
Alan Shore: The first issue before the court concerns the absence of any African-American jurors.
Judge Lance Abrams: That was previously argued and ruled on council.
Alan Shore: Yes. Before the lower courts. This bench has never considered…
Judge Christopher Serra: We’re not persuaded that the absence of a black juror is in violation of due process. What’s your next issue?
Alan Shore: I would turn the courts attention to the fact that the Grand Jury which indicted Mr Borns, similarly, was all white. This raises equal protection laws that…
Judge Christopher Serra: That issue was never raised and is therefore waived.
Alan Shore: Your Honor, Texas Law requires that the jury recommend death only in cases where they find that the defendant poses a threat, a future dangerousness to society. We maintain this is unconstitutional. Juries are supposed to find on elements of guilt and innocence based on facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Not on the basis of perceived probabilities. Moreover as a practical matter, since Ezekial Borns will remain in prison for life, he couldn’t possibly constitute a future threat to society, unless the law assumes prison breaks.
Judge Christopher Serra: That’s an interesting issue council, but uh, that also was never raised and therefore it is deemed waived. Next?
Alan Shore: May it please the court. Mr Born’s trial lawyer has recently admitted he was ineffective council. He was abusing cocaine and alcohol during the trial, and...
Judge Martha Brenford: Not legally inadequate.
Alan Shore: I believe if you examine the transcripts…
Judge Lance Abrams: Mr Shore. Representation can always be better. Especially when we play Monday morning quarterback.
Alan Shore: With all due respect, this lawyer never gave an opening statement, he never questioned several of the prosecutions witnesses, he failed to pursue a number of leads and important sentencing issues. This court right here today has recognized that many valid grounds for appeal were never raised.
Judge Christopher Serra: This court is satisfied that representation was adequate. Is there anything else?
Alan Shore: Yes. Mr Borns may be innocent. The jury disagreed. And legally that issue has been settled.
Alan Shore: The DNA evidence shows somebody else was there.
Judge Christopher Serra: But it does not disprove that your client was also there. And, your guy confessed by the way.
Alan Shore: My client has an IQ of 80; he was interrogated for 16 hours.
Judge Lance Abrams: Coercion was never raised.
Alan Shore: It was never raised because he lawyer was an inadequate hack! Though the 9 of you seem quite satisfied with his performance. With all due respect.
Judge Christopher Serra: Mr Shore? You came down here from Massachusetts?
Alan Shore: Yes. Sir.
Judge Christopher Serra: We in Texas have been living with this case for 8 years.
Alan Shore: You’ve been living with it personally? May it please the court.
Judge Christopher Serra: You first met Mr Borns, when?
Alan Shore: Yesterday.
Judge Christopher Serra: And you are proposing to us, that you know him. You know what I’d like to propose? I’d like to propose that you got a problem with the death penalty in general. Now, is that why you came here sir?
Alan Shore: I am here. With all due respect, may it please the court, because I have a problem with the State executing a man with diminished capacity. Who may very well be innocent. I’m particularly troubled, may it please the court, with all due respect, that you don’t have a problem with it. You may not want to regard my client’s innocence, but you cannot possibly disregard the fact that 117 wrongfully convicted people have been saved from execution in this country. 117! The system is hardly foolproof. And Texas! This state is responsible for a full third of all executions in America. How can that be? The criminals are just somehow worse here? Last year you accounted for fully half of the nation’s executions. 50% from 1 State! You cannot disregard the possibility, the possibility that something’s up in Texas.
Judge Lance Abrams: I would urge you to confine your remarks to your client, and not the good state of Texas.
Alan Shore: Zeke Borns never had a chance. He was rounded up as a teenager, thrown in a cell while he was still doped up on drugs, brow-beaten and interrogated, until his IQ of 80 was overcome, he confessed to a crime he had no memory of, still has no memory of, for which there is no evidence, other than two witnesses who saw him pumping gas around the time of the murder. He was given a coked-up lawyer, who admittedly did nothing. I’m now before 9 presumably intelligent people in the justice business, who have the benefit of knowing all of this. Add to that, you know DNA places somebody else at the scene, and you’re indifferent! You don’t care! Whether you believe in my client’s innocence, and I’ll assume, with all due respect, may it please the court that you don’t! You cannot be sure of his guilt! You simply cannot! And failing that. How can you kill him? How can you kill him?

(Walks away from the podium.)

Alan Shore: And I would sincerely, sincerely, sincerely, hope that you don’t penalize my client, simply because his lawyers happen to be from Massachusetts.

(He moves to sit down, then rises.)

Alan Shore: The home of the New England Patriots, who could kick ass with any football team you’ve got in the good state of Texas. May it please the court.

Boston Legal Briefing Notes - Preservation of Life

(Excerpts of dialogues by Denny Crane (casted by William Shatner) and Alan Shore (casted by James Spader) taken from the television series “Boston Legal - Finding Nimmo” (Season 2, Episode 3))

N.B. Reeling over his break-up with Tara Wilson, Alan Shore heads to Nimmo Bay in British Columbia with Denny Crane for some fly fishing and male bonding in an effort to cure his pain. When they learn that the salmon population is being threatened by sea lice produced by fish farms, Shore and Crane feel compelled to act.

(Alan comes out from the cabin with a drink in his hand and joins Denny and a fellow-guest sitting out on the deck.)

Alan Shore: Excuse me. Is it unusual to catch five cohos in one day? I mean…
Guest: I’d say you had a bit of luck
Denny Crane: Beginners luck.
Alan Shore: You’re not competitive over this sort of thing, are you Denny? Could you pass me the ashtray please? Denny passes the ashtray. Ahh. Thank you. I’d have reached for it myself but my shoulders are a bit sore from all that reeling. He looks to the guest. How many did you catch?
Guest: I didn’t fish.
Alan Shore: Ah! That would put you about even with Denny.
Guest: I’m sorry. Are you Denny Crane?
Denny Crane: Yes I am. And I’m not your father.
Guest: I’m Peter Barrett. I’m an attorney actually and I’m a big admirer.
Denny Crane: Fine. I’m still not your father.
Peter Barrett: You’re a salmon catcher, Mr Crane?
Denny Crane: Catch em in my sleep.
Alan Shore: That must be the only place he catches them.
Denny Crane: I see why Tara dumped you. I’m about to.
Alan Shore: There’s no Tara. Don’t be deceived. Denny and I are lovers.
Denny Crane: I’m a heterosexual. And I catch salmon like one.
Peter Barrett: Well, you won’t be catching them for long I’m afraid. Wild Pacific salmon are being wiped out.
Denny Crane: What are you talking about?
Peter Barrett: Sea lice are killing them. The weight of evidence points toward the fish farms.
Denny Crane: Fish farms?
Peter Barrett: The penned fish in the fish farms host the lice, which attach themselves to the baby wild salmon migrating past the pens and it’s destroying them. I’m actually here because I’m going into court in Port McNeal tomorrow to try to enjoin another fish farm from going in. Boy! Would I love to go in with the Denny Crane by my side?
Denny Crane: You one of these environmental lawyers?
Peter Barrett: Is there something wrong with that?
Denny Crane: They’re evildoers. Yesterday it’s a tree, today’s is a salmon, tomorrow it’s ‘Let’s not dig Alaska for oil cause it’s too pretty?” Let me tell you something. I came out here to enjoy nature. Don’t talk to me about the environment.
Alan Shore: All reality. None of it scripted.

(Alan and the guide are coming out of the water. Denny is sitting on chair out of the water.)

Denny Crane: Can I fish yet?
Guide: You still have a timeout. You just sit there.
Alan Shore: Alan sit down next to Denny. As you said yourself, these fish are positively majestic. Sacred even. And you shot one.
Denny Crane: Sometimes I get incompatible.
Alan Shore: Really? You’ve upset the guide. I’ll tell you this Denny. I see it now how this kind of nature can renew you spiritually. I really see it. I’ll tell you something else. In our day jobs we’re lawyers and we’re good ones.
Denny Crane: What’s your point?
Alan Shore: My point is. Given this. Given those salmon. There’s a hearing going on in Port McNeal. We need to go be lawyers now.

(Tara is sitting at a desk talking on the phone.)

Tara Wilson: Your first logistical obstacle is the robes. Canadian lawyers appear in black robes.
Alan Shore: We should be able to borrow them.
(Alan is talking on a cell phone as he and Denny walk up to a helicopter.)
If all else fails we could stop at a costume shop. What else?
Tara Wilson: The judges are called, “My Lord.” It’s not, “Your honor” but, “My Lord”. It’s a lot like in England.
Alan Shore: What time is the motion?
Tara Wilson: According to the docket. Eleven AM. How far away are you?
Alan Shore: Twenty minutes!
Tara Wilson: Well you probably join in progress then. Good luck.
(Alan shuts his phone.)
And Alan? I miss you.

(In Judge Sean O’Bryne’s courtroom.)

George Knott: There’s just no scientific evidence that the sea lice are causing the death of wild salmon.
Peter Barrett: That is ridiculous! Sea lice wiped out the stock in Norway, they wiped out the stock in Scotland.
D.A Valarie Murrow: All we’re saying is let’s wait and do the research. This is a vendetta against the farmed fish.
Peter Barrett: This is no such thing. We have no issue with farm fish all long as they can raise their stock in an environmentally sustainable manor and not host millions of sea lice. Closed containment systems have been shown to work.
Judge Sean O’Byrne: Okay gentlemen. I’ve heard your arguments. I have your briefs. I’ll review the matter as well as the science.

(Alan and Denny march in.)

Denny Crane: Greetings! Oh Canada. Denny Crane.
Alan Shore: Good morning, my Lord. My name is Alan Shore, and Mr Crane and I are attorneys from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We seek permission to be heard on this issue as friends of the court.
Judge Sean O’Byrne: Mr Shore. We don’t wear wigs in Canada.
Alan Shore: Oh!
(Alan takes off his wig.)
Judge Sean O’Byrne: Nor do we wear waders.
Alan Shore: My Lord. We’ve just spent the last two days in your rivers. In your countryside. It is the most spectacular nature I have ever seen. And the fish! They’re enough to make one believe in a Higher Power.
Judge Sean O’Byrne: Yes. How many of the Higher Power’s creations did you torture?
Alan Shore: Fifteen. Denny didn’t catch any. I get your implication Judge, and I acknowledge the hypocrisy of a fisherman pleading for the survival of a species only so that he’ll be able to continue dragging them to shore by the lip in perpetuity. But causing a fish discomfiture and cause it to become extinct are two very different things. And when talking about Pacific Salmon! This is a species that goes back to the ice-age. One that is born in a river, migrates up to two thousand miles in the sea, then returns to the very place of birth to spawn. Against enormous miraculous odds, bringing nutrients on it’s journey to sustain the bald eagles, the grizzly bears, the wolves, even the Rain Forest’s themselves. An entire ecosystem depends on them. If Charlotte the spider were still alive today she’d be writing in her web, “Some fish”.
Judge Sean O’Byrne: Yes. Well, forgive me, but I find it insulting to be lectured by an American on the environment.
Denny Crane: Watch it Judge. We’re a super power. Don’t make us add you to the access.
Alan Shore: Being from the United States I have an expertise on the issue.
Judge Sean O’Byrne: Do you?
Alan Shore: Yes! Remember! We’re the country that’s practically wiped the grizzly bear off our maps. We got rid of bull trout. To see a Florida panther? You have to go a hockey game. We seek to count hatchery salmon as wild so the numbers go up and we can take the actual wild salmon off the endangered species list. Almost a hundred different bird and animal species have gone extinct in the last thirty years. While our national policy remains, “It’s not a priority.” I know all about economic interests trumping the environment. And truthfully, if we were talking about the Virgin Island screech owl or the Fresno kangaroo, I might not care, but this is the Pacific Salmon! The sea lice are killing them! Once they’re gone Judge, my God! They’re gone! Oh! Yes. Mindful that abroad people tend expect shock and awe when Yankees arrive on the scene, we shall leave you with two small, but lasting words.
Denny Crane: Denny Crane eh?

(Denny and Alan leave.)

All I Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarden

(By Robert Fulghum)

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be, I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sandpile at Sunday School. These are the things that I learned:

Share everything
Play fair
Don't hit people
Put things back where you found them
Clean up your mess
Don't take things that aren't yours
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody
Wash your hands before you eat
Flush
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you
Live a balanced life; learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some
Take a nap every afternoon
When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together
Be aware of wonder
Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the styrofoam cup
They all die
So do we
And then remember the Dick and Jane books and the first word you learned the biggest word of all
LOOK

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation Ecology and politics and equality and sane living. Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or work or your government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm

Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all the governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess And it is still true, no matter how old you are... when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

Random Thoughts – The Aesop Philosophy

(Extracted and reproduced in full from the Aesop Thinking)

As we refrain from further processing, our plant-derived ingredients create products that reflect the current seasons crops and, like the best wines, our results will vary from year to year. We consider this phenomenon an inherent feature of our line, and do not endeavour to synthetically disguise nature’s seasonal variations. From product batch to batch, therefore, you may note subtle shifts in aroma, colour and texture. We consider these seasonal nuances to be one of the pleasures of working with quality botanicals.

N.B. The above paragraph was extracted and reproduced in full from the philosophy essay of Aesop, an alternative beauty system of skin and wellbeing products developed for men and women seeking effective, botanical-based solutions. The entire write-up can be found under the Thinking section of the Aesop website http://www.aesop.net.au/
I have never encountered such prolific literary skills which sells an inherent weakness in a product as its strength so effectively and unabashedly. And I meant this as a compliment of the highest order.

Redemption

(By Joan of Arc)

"O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to receive thy saints? How long, O lord, how long?"

N.B. This is Joan of Arc’s last spoken line in the play “St. Joan” which was written by George Bernard Shaw in 1923.

世界上最遥远的距离

(By 张晓娴)

世界上最遥远的距离
不是生与死
而是
我就站在你面前
你却不知道我爱你

世界上最遥远的距离
不是我就站在你面前
你却不知道我爱你
而是
明明知道彼此相爱
却不能在一起

世界上最遥远的距离
不是明明知道彼此相爱
却不能在一起
而是　
明明无法抵挡这股想念
却还得故意装作丝毫没有把你放在心里

世界上最遥远的距离
不是明明无法抵挡这股想念
却还得故意装作丝毫没有把你放在心里
而是　
用自己冷漠的心
对爱你的人
掘了一道无法跨越的沟渠

Game theory: Prisoners’ Dilemma

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that deals with the analysis of games (i.e., situations involving parties with conflicting interests). It is a mathematical method of decision-making which involves searching for the best strategy contingent upon what another player will or will not do. Typically, a competitive situation is analyzed to determine the optimal course of action for an interested topic. It is generally taught in mathematics classes such as applied combinatorics, and in economics classes such as industrial organization. In addition to the mathematical elegance and complete "solution" which is possible for simple games, the principles of game theory also find applications to complicated games such as cards, checkers, and chess, as well as real-world problems as diverse as economics, property division, politics, and warfare.

Game theory has two distinct branches: combinatorial game theory and classical game theory.

Combinatorial game theory covers two-player games of perfect knowledge such as go, chess, or checkers. Notably, combinatorial games have no chance element, and players take turns.
In classical game theory, players move, bet, or strategize simultaneously. Both hidden information and chance elements are frequent features in this branch of game theory, which is also a branch of economics.

The Prisoners’ Dilemma is a non-zero sum problem founded in game theory initially discussed by Albert W. Tucker. Tucker's invention of the Prisoners' Dilemma example did not come out via a research paper, but in a classroom. In 1950, while addressing an audience of psychologists at Stanford University in his capacity of visiting professor, Tucker created the Prisoners' Dilemma to illustrate the difficulty of analyzing certain kinds of games.

Tucker’s actual Prisoners' Dilemma example is as follows:

Two burglars, Bob and Al, are captured near the scene of a burglary and are given the "third degree" separately by the police. Each has to choose whether or not to confess and implicate the other. If neither man confesses, then both will serve one year on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. If each confesses and implicates the other, both will go to prison for 10 years. However, if one burglar confesses and implicates the other, and the other burglar does not confess, the one who has collaborated with the police will go free, while the other burglar will go to prison for 20 years on the maximum charge.

The strategies in this case are those of whether to confess or don't confess. The payoffs or penalties in this case, are the sentences served. We can express all this compactly in a payoff table as follows which has become quite standard in game theory. Here is the payoff table for the Prisoners' Dilemma game:



The above table is interpreted as follows:

Each prisoner chooses one of the two strategies. In effect, Al chooses a column and Bob chooses a row. The two numbers in each cell tell the outcomes for the two prisoners when the corresponding pair of strategies is chosen. The number to the left of the comma tells the payoff to the person who chooses the rows (Bob) while the number to the right of the column tells the payoff to the person who chooses the columns (Al). Thus (reading down the first column) if they both confess, each gets 10 years, but if Al confesses and Bob does not, Bob gets 20 and Al goes free.

A dilemma arises in deciding the best course of action in the absence of knowledge of the other prisoner's decision, as in what strategies are "rational" if both men want to minimize the time they spend in jail. Each prisoner's best strategy would appear to be to turn the other in. Al might reason as follows: "Two things can happen: Bob can confess or Bob can keep quiet. Suppose Bob confesses. Then I get 20 years if I don't confess, 10 years if I do, so in that case it's best to confess. On the other hand, if Bob doesn't confess, and I don't either, I get a year; but in that case, if I confess I can go free. Either way, it's best if I confess. Therefore, I'll confess."

But Bob will presumably reason in the same manner. Therefore, given that both of them confess, both will go to prison for 10 years each. Yet, if they had acted "irrationally" and kept quiet, they each could have gotten off with one year each.

What has happened here is that the two prisoners have fallen into something known as "dominant strategy equilibrium".

A dominant strategy is defined as follows:

If we were to allow an individual player in a game to evaluate separately each of the strategy combinations he may face, and, for each combination, choose from his own strategies the one that gives the best payoff. If the same strategy is chosen for each of the different combinations of strategies the player might face, that strategy is called a "dominant strategy" for that player in that game.

Therefore, dominant strategy equilibrium occurs if, in a game, each player has a dominant strategy, and each player plays the dominant strategy, then that combination of the dominant strategies and the corresponding payoffs are said to constitute the dominant strategy equilibrium for that game.

In the Prisoners' Dilemma game, to confess is a dominant strategy, and when both prisoners confess, dominant strategy equilibrium occurs. In this case, the individually rational action results in both persons being made worse off in terms of their own self-interested purposes. This revelation has wide implications in modern social science. This is because there are many interactions in the modern world that seem very much like this, from arms races through road congestion and pollution to the depletion of fisheries and the overexploitation of some subsurface water resources. These are all quite different interactions in detail, but are interactions in which individually rational action leads to inferior results for each person, and the Prisoners' Dilemma suggests something of what is going on in each of them.

A number of critical issues can be raised with the Prisoners' Dilemma in view of its simplified and abstract conception of many real life interactions, and each of these issues has been the basis of a large scholarly literature:

1. The Prisoners' Dilemma is a two-person game, but many of the applications of the idea are really many-person interactions;

2. We have assumed that there is no communication between the two prisoners. If they could communicate and commit themselves to coordinated strategies, we would expect a quite different outcome;

3. In the Prisoners' Dilemma, the two prisoners interact only once. Repetition of the interactions might lead to quite different results;

4. Compelling as the reasoning that leads to the dominant strategy equilibrium may be, it is not the only way this problem might be reasoned out. Perhaps it is not really the most rational answer after all.

The Prisoners' Dilemma has wide applications to economics and business. Let’s take an example of two firms, say A and B, selling similar products. Each must decide on a pricing strategy. They best exploit their joint market power when both charge a high price; each makes a profit of $10 million per month. If one sets a competitive low price, it wins a lot of customers away from the rival. Suppose its profit rises to $12 million, and that of the rival falls to $7 million. If both set low prices, the profit of each is $9 million. In this case, the low-price strategy is akin to the prisoner's confession, and the high-price akin to keeping silent. Let’s term the former cheating, and the latter cooperation. In this case, cheating is each firm's dominant strategy, but the result when both cheat is worse for each than that of both cooperating.

On a superficial level the Prisoners' Dilemma appears to run counter to Adam Smith's idea of the invisible hand. When each person in the game pursues his private interest, he does not promote the collective interest of the group. But often a group's cooperation is not in the interests of society as a whole. Collusion to keep prices high, for example, is not in society's interest because the cost to consumers from collusion is generally more than the increased profit of the firms. Therefore companies that pursue their own self-interest by cheating on collusive agreements often help the rest of society. Similarly cooperation among prisoners under interrogation makes convictions more difficult for the police to obtain. One must understand the mechanism of cooperation before one can either promote or defeat it in the pursuit of larger policy interests.

Would the Prisoners be able to extricate themselves from the Dilemma and sustain cooperation when each has a powerful incentive to cheat? The most common path to cooperation arises from repetitions of the game. In the above example, one month's cheating gets the cheater an extra $2 million. But a switch from mutual cooperation to mutual cheating loses $1 million. If one month's cheating is followed by two months' retaliation, therefore, the result is a wash for the cheater. Any stronger punishment of a cheater would be a clear deterrent.

This idea needs some comment and elaboration:

1. The cheater's reward comes at once, while the loss from punishment lies in the future. If players heavily discount future payoffs, then the loss may be insufficient to deter cheating. Thus, cooperation is harder to sustain among very impatient players.

2. Punishment won't work unless cheating can be detected and punished. Therefore, companies cooperate more when their actions are more easily detected (setting prices, for example) and less when actions are less easily detected (deciding on non-price attributes of goods, such as repair warranties). Punishment is usually easier to arrange in smaller and closed groups. Thus, industries with few firms and less threat of new entry are more likely to be collusive.

3. Punishment can be made automatic by following strategies like "tit for tat," which was popularized by University of Michigan political scientist Robert Axelrod. In this case, you cheat if and only if your rival cheated in the previous round. But if rivals' innocent actions can be misinterpreted as cheating, then tit for tat runs the risk of setting off successive rounds of unwarranted retaliation.

4. A fixed, finite number of repetitions are logically inadequate to yield cooperation. Both or all players know that cheating is the dominant strategy in the last play. Given this, the same goes for the second-last play, then the third-last, and so on. But in practice we see some cooperation in the early rounds of a fixed set of repetitions. The reason may be either that players don't know the number of rounds for sure, or that they can exploit the possibility of "irrational niceness" to their mutual advantage.

5. Cooperation can also arise if the group has a large leader, who personally stands to lose a lot from outright competition and therefore exercises restraint, even though he knows that other small players will cheat. For example, Saudi Arabia's role of "swing producer" in the OPEC cartel is an instance of this.

霍家剑法之平息干戈

(霍氏家宗家传武学)

剑招看来柔弱似水，
但竟管凌厉的来势，
也无法攻入半分。
所为曲蝉之进，以其能屈，
就如无力的水面，
却能将沉重的石块弹开，
直至力尽而衰，
堕入水中。

剑主退让，意走包容。
剑法的要义是，
寓变化于平凡，
容无限于实在。
就如水之为物，
不弃涓滴细流，
始能成就浩瀚无际。

杀人者胜，
固为世俗之强。
但平息干戈者，
才是强中之强。

乎为无求，
天下莫能与之争。
唯有不求一胜，
方能永立于不败之地。

放下

在一个著名的寺院里，
住着一位非常有道行的静修道长。

他每天都要在傍晚 6时去喂他的狗。
他的狗的名字很奇怪,叫做“放下”。

每到日落时分,
静修道长就为 “放下”送饭了,
嘴里还一边呼唤着: “放下！放下！”

小弟子觉得很奇怪,就问道长:
“为什么要给狗起这个奇怪的名字,
人家的狗都叫阿黄、来福什么的,
为什么您的狗叫 ‘放下’？”

静修道长不语，
让他们自己去悟。

小弟子就观察老道长，
终于发现：
每天当道长别喂完狗后，
就不再读经书，
到院中打打太极拳，散散步。

小弟子到道长面前，
诉说了他们观察的收获，
老道长微笑地点点头说：
“你们终于明白了。
其实我在叫狗的时候，
其实也是叫自己‘放下’，
让自己放下许多事情。

因为人们不可能在一天内做完所有的事情，
你只要将一天中最很重要的事情做完就已足够了。

N.B.
在人们越来越习惯动辄高呼残酷竞争时，
其实学会“放下”的意义就越大。
正仿佛当你自觉遭遇灭顶挫折时，
不妨手搭凉棚，你一定会发现：
天并不会塌下来。
这并不是不求上进，
恰恰在于懂得放下的，
才最终会赢；
而整日忙碌不休的人，
收获的往往只是焦虑和疲惫。

追影

有一支西方的考察队深入非洲腹地考察，
请了当地部落的土著人做背夫和向导。

由于时间紧，需要赶路，
而这些土著人很吃苦耐劳，
背着几十公斤的装备物资依然健步如飞。

一连三天，
考察队都很顺利地按计划行进，
大家都很开心。

可是第四天早上，
考察队准备出发的时候，
土著人们都在休息不走了，
好说歹说就是不愿出发。

队员们很奇怪，
这几天大家相处得很好啊，
是不小心触犯了他们还是要坐地加钱？

这时，土著人的头领解释道，
按照他们的传统，
如果连续三天赶路，
第四天必须停下来休息一天，
以免我们的灵魂赶不上我们的脚步。

这个现代人也许看来很难理解的解释，
让我很受触动。

我们的生活太忙碌了，
工作和生活的压力，
让我们日复一日地在赶路，
以至于我们很少停下来思考一下，
就不断地被很多东西推着走，
或者追逐着眼前的东西而去，
而我们的灵魂早已落后，
在我们匆匆赶路的身影后面无影无踪。
没有了自己的灵魂，
我们的生活就交给了外物去控制。

又到了一周，
我们是不是也放缓脚步，
等一等我们的灵魂？

追影

有一支西方的考察队深入非洲腹地考察，
请了当地部落的土著人做背夫和向导。

由于时间紧，需要赶路，
而这些土著人很吃苦耐劳，
背着几十公斤的装备物资依然健步如飞。

一连三天，
考察队都很顺利地按计划行进，
大家都很开心。

可是第四天早上，
考察队准备出发的时候，
土著人们都在休息不走了，
好说歹说就是不愿出发。

队员们很奇怪，
这几天大家相处得很好啊，
是不小心触犯了他们还是要坐地加钱？

这时，土著人的头领解释道，
按照他们的传统，
如果连续三天赶路，
第四天必须停下来休息一天，
以免我们的灵魂赶不上我们的脚步。

这个现代人也许看来很难理解的解释，
让我很受触动。

我们的生活太忙碌了，
工作和生活的压力，
让我们日复一日地在赶路，
以至于我们很少停下来思考一下，
就不断地被很多东西推着走，
或者追逐着眼前的东西而去，
而我们的灵魂早已落后，
在我们匆匆赶路的身影后面无影无踪。
没有了自己的灵魂，
我们的生活就交给了外物去控制。

又到了一周，
我们是不是也放缓脚步，
等一等我们的灵魂？

晚餐

你吃『晚餐』了嗎?
如果可以 , 我希望我能再吃一次『晚餐』。

我記得去年的時候, 想要待在家裡吃飯。
那或許只是我懶得出去而已吧。
我走下樓梯, 走進廚房 ,
看見老媽依舊在站在那煮飯。

這麼多年來 ,都是如此 …
我坐在客廳那看著電視 ,
等著老媽煮好飯。
老媽煮好以後, 叫我去吃飯。
我添好飯坐在飯桌前。
想叫老媽一起吃飯,
老媽說:「你先吃就好 ,我等你爸回來再吃。」
我依舊的回答說 :「喔 ,那我先吃了。」
為什麼說依舊呢?
因為就當我偶而幾次待在家裡吃飯的時候 ?
每當我問老媽, 她都是這樣的回答我。
這麼多年了, 從未變過。
而我…
卻也一直不知道為什麼。

有一次 , 我問老媽: 「為什麼你不先吃呀?」
老媽回答我說 :「你老爸 他每天在外面辛苦工作,
回來又一個人在那吃飯 , 我會不忍心啊。」
我這時候不知道說什麼了…
我那時候, 好像是默默的把飯吃完吧。

過不久 ,有天晚上, 老媽的舊病又復發了,
在晚上11 點多的時候,送往急診室。
我也是隔天回到家裡才知道的。
那天, 我總覺得少了什麼。
我那天的晚餐就隨隨便便的吃了 ,
吃完後, 我騎著車到醫院去,
我走進病房內 , 老媽就問我 :「你晚餐吃了沒阿? 」
我回答說 :「我剛剛有吃了。」
說完以後, 老媽似乎才露出安心的表情。

這時候 ,老爸把我叫到病房外,
用著很嚴肅、很悲傷的語氣跟我說 :
「你媽的病 ,大概是不會好了。」
那時候, 是我第一次看到,
老爸的眼睛紅紅的。
回到家裡 ,我發現,
原來我還記得怎麼哭泣。
我忘了我哭了多久…

過不久 ,老媽死了 …
老媽在醫院的時候,
最後跟我一句話 :「以後晚餐要記得吃喔 ,
別再隨便在外面吃了, 試試自己煮煮看。」
「不要讓你爸一個人孤獨的在那吃飯。」
說完以後,老媽死了 …

我又再一次哭了,
眼淚 …沾滿了病床上的床單 ,
似乎也沾滿了老爸
跟一旁的醫護人員。

如果可以 ….
我多麼希望老媽可以再煮晚餐給我吃。

N.B.
『晚餐 』是要跟家人一起吃, 才能叫做『晚餐』。
我地經常比藉口話自己好忙好忙好忙,
其實食一餐飯又用你幾多時間呢 ?
好好珍惜父母親及關心你的人。

Pareto's Principle (80/20 Rule)

The Pareto principle, also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity, states that for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from only 20% of the causes.

The principle was suggested by the Quality Management pioneer and thinker, Dr. Joseph M. Juran, in the late 1940s. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to a phenomenon who was first proposed by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who in 1906, created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country. He observed that 80% of all properties in Italy were owned by only 20% of the Italian population. In other words, 20% of the Italians owned 80% of the country’s wealth.

After Pareto made his observation and created his formula, many others, like Juran, observed similar phenomena in their own areas of expertise. Juran, recognized a universal principle which he called the "vital few and trivial many" and reduced it to writing. In an early work, a lack of precision on Juran's part made it appear that he was applying Pareto's observations about economics to a broader body of work. As such, the name Pareto's Principle stuck on.

As a result, Dr. Juran's observation of the "vital few and trivial many", the principle that 20% of something always are responsible for 80% of the results, became known as Pareto's Principle or the 80/20 Rule.

The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20%) are vital and many (80%) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20% of the people owned 80% of the wealth. In Juran's initial work, he identified 20% of the defects causing 80% of the problems. Experienced project managers will know that 20% of the work (the first 10% and the last 10%) consume 80% of the time and resources available. One can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.

The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds the manager to focus on the 20% that matters. Of the things the manager do during your day, only 20% really matter. Those 20% produce 80% of the results. It is critical that the manager identifies and focuses on those things. When it comes to the crunch, the manager needs to remind himself of the 20% he needs to focus on. So if something in the schedule has to slip, if something isn't going to get done, the manager must make sure that it's not part of that 20%.

Pareto's Principle, the 80/20 Rule, should serve as a daily reminder to focus 80% of the time and energy on the 20% of the work that is really important. So the wise manager should not just work smart, he should work smart on the right things.

I carry your heart with me

(By Edward Estlin Cummings)

i carry your heart with me (i carry it inmy heart)
i am never without it (anywhere i go you go, my dear;
and whatever is done by only me is your doing, my darling)

i fear no fate (for you are my fate,my sweet)
i want no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;
which grows higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)

N.B. The above poem was read out during one of the most poignant scenes in the movie "In her shoes" by Maggie Feller (Cameron Diaz) to the Professor (Norman Lloyd). The Professor, who taught college English, was especially important to Maggie. He wanted her to read to him, gently helped her understand the technique and purpose of reading and guided her through possible dyslexia. He needed a reader because he was blind. She read him "One Art," a poem by Elizabeth Bishop that was about "the art of losing," and as a woman who made a life style out of misplacing people, possessions and responsibilities, Maggie found it strangely comforting. She later did some reading on her own, setting up the powerful appearance later in the film of the e.e. cummings poem.

CERK Radio 40Mhz - Ashes To Ashes

(By the Nightcrawler Lucien Lacriox)

The cruelest evil is not some wretched entity manifested in cloven hooves and leering goat's head. The child, its soft cries - the sound of all that should be cherished and protected. The father takes the child into his heart in pure love. Unaware.

The child's innocence and purity knows no bounds, and neither does its cruelty when evil comes upon its soul.

The Legend of the Thornbird

(By Colleen McCullough, Great Britian, 1980)

There is a legend about a bird
which sings just once in its life,
more sweetly than any other creature
on the face of the earth.
From the moment it leaves the nest
it searches for a thorn tree,
and does not rest until it has found one.
Then, singing among the savage branches,
it impales itself upon the longest, sharpest spine.
And, dying, it rises above its own agony
to outcarol the lark and the nightingale.
One superlative song, existence the price.
But the whole world stills to listen,
and the gods in their heaven smile.
For the best is only bought at the cost of great pain...
Or so says the legend..

N.B. I undertstand that the Legend of the Thornbird is derived from an actual legend that exists in Welsh mythology.

刺鳥傳說

(Inspired from the lyrics of "The Legend" by Fairyland In Reality or FIR)

聽說是源至於居住於大不列顛及愛爾蘭居爾特人的古老傳說：

傳說中有一種鳥，歌聲甜美舉世無雙，然畢生僅歌唱一次。這種鳥離巢之後，就不停尋覓帶著最長刺的樹，直至尋得的時刻，牠將往樹最長、最尖的刺撞去並在極度的苦痛中引吭高歌，而牠臨死前的謳歌，超越了自身的痛楚，非但感人至深，連雲雀與夜鶯都相形失色。牠以生命為代價所換得的動人歌聲，令全世界的人均願傾聽，亦令上帝在天堂展顏歡笑。因為，唯有最深沉的痛楚，才能夠換取最美好的事物！

N.B. The above commentaries were reproduced in full from D!♥r 小妞 under the website http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1105060606370

CERK Radio 40Mhz - Trophy Girl

By the Nightcrawler Lucien Lacroix

They say no two persons are alike. Never is that more true than when it comes to our desires. Some cherish what others abhor. One man's precious cargo is another man's poison. Some prize what others revile.

Prize what you will, prize what you can, but always remember, even he who dies with the most prizes still dies.

Lt. Colonel Frank Slade's Disciplinary Hearing Speech

(By Lt. Colonel Frank Slade (casted by Al Pacino) during a discplinary hearing for the expulsion of Charlie Simms, a young and innocent scholarship student, from the school for not whistle-blowing on his classmates)

(S = Lt. Colonel Frank Slade; T = Mr Trask, the headmaster of Baird School)

S: This is such a crock of shit.

T: Please watch your language, Mr. Slade, you are in the Baird school, not a barrack. Mr. Simms, I will give you one final opportunity to speak up.

S: Mr. Simms doesn’t want it. He doesn't need to be labeled, “still worthy of being a Baird man.” What the hell is that? What is your motto here? “Boys, inform on your classmates, save your hide, anything short of that we’re going to burn you at the stake"? Well, gentlemen, when the shit hits the fan, some guys run and some guys stay. Here’s Charlie, facing the fire, and there’s George, hiding in big daddy’s pocket. And what are you doing? You’re going to reward George and destroy Charlie.

T: Are you finished Mr. Slade?

S: No, I’m just getting warmed up. I don’t know who went to this place. William Howard Taft, William Jennings Bride, William Tell, whoever. Their spirit is dead, if they ever had one, it’s gone. You are building a rat ship here. A vessel for seagoing snitches. And if you think you’re preparing these minnows for manhood, you better think again. Because I say you are killing the very spirit this institution proclaims it instills. What a sham. What kind of a show are you putting on here today? I mean, the only class in this act is sitting next to me, and I’m here to tell you that this boy’s soul is intact. It’s non-negotiable, and you know how I know? Someone here, and I’m not going to say who, offered to buy. Only Charlie here wasn’t selling.

T: Sir, you’re out of order.

S: I’ll show you out of order! You don’t know what out of order is, Mr. Trask. I’d show you but I’m too old, I’m too tired, I’m too fucking blind. If I were the man I was five years ago, I’d take a flame thrower to this place! Out of order, who the hell you think you’re talking to? I’ve been around, you know? There was a time I could see. And I have seen. Boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off. But that is nothing like the sight of an amputated spirit. There is no prosthetics for that. You think you’re merely sending this splendid, foot soldier back home to Oregon with his tail between his legs? But I say you are executing his soul. And why? Because he’s not a Baird man. Baird men. You hurt this boy, you’re gonna be Baird bums, the lot of you. And Harry, Jimmy, Trent wherever you are out there, fuck you too.

T: Stand down, Mr. Slade.

S: I’m not finished. As I came in here, I heard those words, ‘cradle of leadership’. Well when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall, and it has fallen here, it has fallen! Makers of men, creators of leaders, be careful what kind of leaders you’re producing here. I don’t know if Charlie’s silence here today is right or wrong, I’m not a judge or jury, but I can tell you this, he won’t sell anybody out to buy his future. And that, my friends, is called integrity. That’s called courage. Now that’s the stuff leaders should be made of.