中国的富裕阶层则主要来自:上世纪的个体经济时期发家的个体户、社会转型机关企事业单位搞"三产"创收时期的"红顶商人"、官员下海时期利用"政府关系资源"获得暴利的商人、股票初期"圈钱者"、贪官、上世纪80年代以来的房地产开发商、国企MBO获利者、山西煤老板、浙商。
中国的中产阶级缺少了知识分子,自然就缺少了推进社会进步、推动社会道德建设的"激情"与动力。
这的确是中国中产阶级的悲哀,也是中国社会的悲哀
Face is truth. A long way to real truth.
中国的富裕阶层则主要来自:上世纪的个体经济时期发家的个体户、社会转型机关企事业单位搞"三产"创收时期的"红顶商人"、官员下海时期利用"政府关系资源"获得暴利的商人、股票初期"圈钱者"、贪官、上世纪80年代以来的房地产开发商、国企MBO获利者、山西煤老板、浙商。
中国的中产阶级缺少了知识分子,自然就缺少了推进社会进步、推动社会道德建设的"激情"与动力。
这的确是中国中产阶级的悲哀,也是中国社会的悲哀
我学了个新词,叫Metro Sexual ,说是现在最受女人欢迎的男人名称。 他们最大的特征是有同性恋男人的敏感,但是仍然是异性恋。首先他们非常会穿衣服,知道什么叫时髦,上班知道穿 Slimane 和Paul Smith 设计的西装,下班知道穿Zegna和 Prada的休闲。其次他们喜欢Shopping, 他们陪女人出去买衣服的时候非常投入,品头论足,完全互动。同时这些男人都是美食家,不仅知道都市最"in" 的餐厅,而且自己还可以掌勺,有非常动人的烹调技术。最重要的是这些男人是优秀的聆听者,他们可以非常聚精会神地听女人痛诉恋爱悲剧,关键时刻还将自己的 肩膀慷慨借出来让女人在上面哭一鼻子。另外与这种男人交往没有任何副作用,其之擅长和女人打交道到了与众多女人分手之后仍然以"知己"身份往来的地步。从 纽约回来的朋友说,这种男人是跟着电视连续剧《欲望城市》流行起来的,这是当今的白马王子。
我 家男人可不是这样的,从来不讲究穿,连套西装都没有;我去买东西的时候,他就在外面抽烟;吃东西不认环境只认饭,让他请客就是去吃顿涮羊肉。到是不太爱说 话,配我这种话唠很合适,可以有时候我在说话,他在打盹。而且周围都是一帮老爷们朋友,没事就去掏旧货,买怀表,看足球,就是有女朋友也藏得好好的,丝毫 不露。我俩过得挺好,要不是这些纽约人在这里拌嘴,说什么metro sexual, 我们还不知道我们已经不是时髦人了,我们的生活方式已经折旧了。怪不得我不爱看《欲望城市》,觉得那里面的女人都够"嘬"的。
昨天去三联书店,一进门就看见《查特莱夫人 的情人》在最显眼的地方摆着。我大概上中学的时候,这本书是英文课的必读书,里面的内容已经差不多忘光了,还好看过一个半黄不黄也叫《查特莱夫人的情人》 的电影,虽然镜头都是虚的,有些场景却依然记忆犹新。我想了一下,觉得应该对比一下查特莱夫人、欲望城市女人和我所喜爱的男人到底有什么区别:
仔细分析一下这个对比结果,我们可以推论出以下几条:
一、 女人越来越要有社会地位的男人。 这挺有意思,性一解放,女人对情人也要求高了,好像不能像查特莱夫人那样洒脱了,那时候的情人是在小木屋里偷情,现在的情人要能出入各种场面,能去鸡尾酒会,能说外文。
二、 女人越来越自私了,希望一个能够围着自己转的男人。这挺自然的,女人现在都有自己的职业了,也挣钱了,完全自我为中心的男人越来越不讨人喜欢了。反正自我和财产是成负比的,你要有好多好多钱,女人才可能容忍你的大 EGO。不然的话,凭什么呀!
三、 我们已经完全进入消费世界,男人要是不懂得消费,那是不会讨女人喜欢的,甚至连共同语言都没有,就别说情人了。现如今对男人来讲,有个好的消费观,对找个情人要比有什么好的世界观和道德观更重要。
四、 最最最重要的一点是:古今中外,没有女人喜欢话多的男人,所以闭闭嘴吧,用你的耳朵谈情说爱。
我发现这么一比,我的性意识已经非常落伍了,在查特莱夫人和欲望城市女人之间。特此邀请本地的欲望城市女人来写 SEXTALK这个专栏,不想再把我这种开始发锈的东西再在外面瞎说八道。如果有METRO SEXUAL 的男人来代替更是再好不过。
至于我该干什么去,我很清楚,接着拉广告就是了。
博客之P2P
很好的一种解释,Web2.0的扁平化趋势将会克隆整个Web的精神到每一个个体,Web世界正在走向类"分形"的结构。
1. 最早是商业P2P, 然后是文件传播的P2P, 现在是信息的P2P,当前典型代表是博客之P2P。
2. 每个博客既是受众,同时也是传播者。博客世界的草根,就是那个"P",博客的影响力就是带宽。体系上,每个博客都可以是一个备受关注的服务器。当然,这只是体系上的,事实上还是两极世界。
3. Blogosphere的Feed,是想跑都跑不掉的种子。比特流世界的P2P体系中最稀缺的种子来源,在博客世界里却很丰富。但是丰富的背后却意味着信息的冗余和复杂,搜索工作还需大量的工作要做。
4. 人的潜力非常之大,在适合的机会和土壤之下,就会迸发出巨大的能量。互联网无疑是土壤,但这机会嘛,有时是水到渠成,有时则要半推半就。博客就是一个机会,它结合了平台与传播。
6. 随着博客和Web 2.0对信息发布、信息交流和双向定制和甄选的变革,信息流P2P的基本框架已经初具规模。
7. 如果有人现在做个试验,就向60年代六度理论的奠基实验那样,不过把实验的方式从传统的邮寄传递,变成在网上进行一封Email的传递,选择多样化的传递起点,每次传递时都加上一个传递者的名字,最后来计算网络人与人之间的连接跨度,相信一定是个极为有趣的实验。而从博客上事件流的P2P传递,是不是可以用来衡量这方世界的广度?
8. 信息传递的P2P的趋势,将会使互联人之间的跨度继续递减,传递成本递减,速度递增,应用递增。
9. 博客P2P系统是Blogosphere博客世界的子集,是一个松散关联,高速传递的"自动机"。既带有高度的随机性,又具有高度的聚合性。
10. 博客P2P是一个自然演化的系统,Blogroll,TrackBack,以及被发言光大了的传统超链接等等都是传送工具,但还不够,远远不够。比特流的P2P机会很多,因为很多人同是贡献着;博客世界信息流的机会更多,因为我们距离每个人都来贡献的目标――还远。
其实这种理解下面的高手已经作了总结,breakdown me!
我们不仅仅停留在缩短距离,提高效率的层面,其实我们已经在为人类社会的发展敲着战鼓。
refer: http://www.cultureby.com/trilogy/2005/12/internet_20_the.html
Consider them a kind of telescope. Those who buy model 3, probably also buy models 2 and 1. Those who buy 2, probably also buy 1 (but not 3). Those who buy model 1 only buy model 1. I make no claims for the veracity or the utility of these models. But writing them out helped return my pulse almost to normal.Model one: disintermediation
The Internet is an efficiency machine. It removes the friction that stands between buyers and sellers. Now Dell can sell directly, from factories to consumers. Now Amazon can disintermediate the bookstore and someday the publisher. We are on the verge of being able to tell how much of the marketplace was about the accidents, not the essentials, of supply and demand. Markets will verge on maximal efficiency.
In this model, the revolution runs deep but its structural effects are limited. Really, we live in the same old world. It's just that certain pieces have been taken out. Hey, we didn't need them anyhow. The world is merely more compact, more elegant. And that's a good thing.
Model two: long tail
The Internet is a profusion machine. It allows small cultural producers to find small cultural consumers, and as a result, all hell is breaking lose. Chris Anderson's long tail model (and my own plenitude model) says that the tiny acts of innovation, rebellion and refusal that used to die in obscurity can now, some of them, find just enough fellow travellers to sustain themselves. As a result, the gravitational power of the center is being made to creak like the mast of an 18th century man of war in a perfect storm. It might hold...or maybe this is the moment to throw ourselves overboard.
I recently had dinner with a journalist who belongs to the upper reaches of the newspaper elite. Casually, ever so casually, she let slip that the great newspapers may not exist five years from now. This is a very good way to get an anthropologist's attention and make his head spin. I had to leave the table. My paper bag was in the cloak room.
In effect, the long tail model is an efficiency model too. It says that now that people can reach one another, they will reach one another. The costs of access, the friction created by the media, has dropped to almost nothing. But this model goes vastly beyond the efficiency model. It says that the structural effects of the Internet 2.0 will not be merely a matter of making the economy more efficient. There will also be social consequences large and small. The world will ramify. Elites will fall. Diversity will flourish. The fundamentals of association and government will transform. In short, the very nature of the social beast will change.
This is not a disintermediated world with "bits taken out." This is the world less hierarchical and more heterogeneous, a whole with more, and more various, parts now wired and networked in new ways.
Model three: reformation
The Internet is a reformation machine. It will create new fundamentals of and for our world. It change the units of analysis and the relationships between them. This reformation model says, in other words, that the coming changes will deeply cultural...and not merely social (model 2) and economic (model 1).
I noticed this doing research in Korea. Teens and college students were creating new networks with webpages (the local equivalent of MySpace) and and the clouds of photos and messages they were sending one another. I assumed that this was Model 2 stuff, a change in fundamentals of interaction, until they began to talk about themselves in new ways.
It became clear eventually that these people were reforming personhood and the self. The self was not merely better connected, but now more porous, more distributed, more cloud like. This cultural fundamental, the definition of what and who a person is, was changing. (In the Attiyeh interview, Weinberger talks about buddy lists in the West and what he calls the "continuous presence" of friends.)
When I listen to Clay Shirkey (pictured) talk about categories of knowledge and the tags by which it is organized, I begin to wonder, as he does more brilliantly than I could hope to, whether we are looking at new ideas of the idea. This too is a good way to get the anthropologist's attention. If there is something my tribe cares about, it is culture and the way in which culture defines knowledge of and in the world. To think that this is now "under construction" is quite enough to make me reach for a paper bag and my best hyperventilation cessation technique. Just give me a minute. No, really, I'll be fine.
The reformation model says fundamental categories of our culture (particularly the self and the group and the terms with which we think about them) are changing. We are now down to what is sometimes called the DNA level of things. This isn't actually a great metaphor for anthropological purposes, but the phrase is a tag, so you know what I mean. Model 3 is not about faster markets or new networks. This is a change in the basic terms of reference, the very internal blue print with which we understand and construct the world.
Model four: continuous presense (everything and everyone all the time)
One way to assess innovations is to make a guess about where we are headed. I think our economic, social and cultural destination might be this: we will be continuously connected to all knowledge and all people with a minimum of friction, and priviledge will be measured, in part, by how good are the filters with which we make contact with all but only the people and knowledge we care about. One of these filters will, I hope, be a "pattern recognition" system that detects the fundamental changes set in train by models 1, 2 and 3 so that we can have a little early warning. Because, frankly, you know, I've just about had it.
SeeSunshine
Linguaring IEEE Security Domain
Butler Lampson's viewpoint at the US National Science Foundation's 2005 Cyber Trust Meeting this fall.