This speech parallels Steven Jobs' commencement speech in many aspects. Both speaker are college dropouts, amazing human beings, and remarkable visionaries. There is one notable distinction: Steven Jobs offers his personal insights into individual success, Bill Gates provides a map to the collective success of humanity as a whole. Both types of wisdom are equally valuable. We need to be successful ourselves first before we may help and make others successful.
------------------------------------------------------
Remarks of Bill Gates
Harvard Commencement
(Text as prepared for delivery)
President Bok, former President Rudenstine, incoming President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, parents, and especially, the graduates:
I’ve been waiting more than 30 years to say this: “Dad, I always told you I’d come back and get my degree.”
I want to thank Harvard for this timely honor. I’ll be changing my job next year … and it will be nice to finally have a college degree on my resume.
I applaud the graduates today for taking a much more direct route to your degrees. For my part, I’m just happy that the Crimson has called me “Harvard’s most successful dropout.” I guess that makes me valedictorian of my own special class … I did the best of everyone who failed.
But I also want to be recognized as the guy who got Steve Ballmer to drop out of business school. I’m a bad influence. That’s why I was invited to speak at your graduation. If I had spoken at your orientation, fewer of you might be here today.
Harvard was just a phenomenal experience for me. Academic life was fascinating. I used to sit in on lots of classes I hadn’t even signed up for. And dorm life was terrific. I lived up at Radcliffe, in Currier House. There were always lots of people in my dorm room late at night discussing things, because everyone knew I didn’t worry about getting up in the morning. That’s how I came to be the leader of the anti-social group. We clung to each other as a way of validating our rejection of all those social people.
Radcliffe was a great place to live. There were more women up there, and most of the guys were science-math types. That combination offered me the best odds, if you know what I mean. This is where I learned the sad lesson that improving your odds doesn’t guarantee success.
One of my biggest memories of Harvard came in January 1975, when I made a call from Currier House to a company in Albuquerque that had begun making the world’s first personal computers. I offered to sell them software.
I worried that they would realize I was just a student in a dorm and hang up on me. Instead they said: “We’re not quite ready, come see us in a month,” which was a good thing, because we hadn’t written the software yet. From that moment, I worked day and night on this little extra credit project that marked the end of my college education and the beginning of a remarkable journey with Microsoft.
What I remember above all about Harvard was being in the midst of so much energy and intelligence. It could be exhilarating, intimidating, sometimes even discouraging, but always challenging. It was an amazing privilege – and though I left early, I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.
But taking a serious look back … I do have one big regret.
I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world – the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.
I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.
But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity – reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.
I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.
It took me decades to find out.
You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about the world’s inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, I hope you’ve had a chance to think about how – in this age of accelerating technology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve them.
Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improving lives. Where would you spend it?
For Melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have.
During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles, malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the United States.
We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.
If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves: “This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving.”
So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “How could the world let these children die?”
The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.
But you and I have both.
We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.
If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.
I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: “Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care.” I completely disagree.
I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.
All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.
The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.
To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.
Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.
But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: “Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent.”
The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.
We don’t read much about these deaths. The media covers what’s new – and millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background, where it’s easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it, it’s difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It’s hard to look at suffering if the situation is so complex that we don’t know how to help. And so we look away.
If we can really see a problem, which is the first step, we come to the second step: cutting through the complexity to find a solution.
Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks “How can I help?,” then we can get action – and we can make sure that none of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their caring to matter.
Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest application of the technology that you already have — whether it’s something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.
The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research. But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.
Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern. The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to surrender to complexity and quit.
The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so that others learn from your efforts.
You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more investment from business and government.
But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can feel what saving a life means to the families affected.
I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.
What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software – but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?
You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that – is a complex question.
Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that’s why the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the computer, the Internet – give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.
Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: “I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance to grasp at all the real significance of the situation.”
Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open, more visible, less distant.
The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.
The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.
At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don’t. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don’t have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world.
We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology, because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.
Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world.
What for?
There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name?
Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:
Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?
Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world’s worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure?
Should the world’s most privileged people learn about the lives of the world’s least privileged?
These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.
My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.
In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.
Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.
You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.
Knowing what you know, how could you not?
And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity.
Good luck.
(original source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/97979/Bill-Gates-Harvard-Commencement-transcript)
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/16/2007
every life has equal value,盖茨真得让人感动。
挣钱是本领,花钱才是艺术。盖茨是当之无愧的艺术大师。
这篇演说让我钦佩的地方是,盖茨没有吹嘘自己如何赚了大钱,而是以普世的精神关注humanity。不知道中国有没有能达到这个高度的有钱人。
盖茨算得上历史上最名副其实的共产党员,应该介绍他入党。:)
thanks ,fengzi.
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/16/2007
" I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.
All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted."
太对了.
这篇很好的阅读.特别是在早晨.
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/16/2007
"My mother,...and at the close of the letter she said: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.
"
是的. - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/16/2007
I sencond ben ben. Great saturday morning read.
Freeman Dyson once said something along this line (I forgot the exact wording): Technology has not done enough to lift the poor out of poverty. What technology has done mostly is creating big-ticket toys for the rich.
ben ben wrote:
这篇很好的阅读.特别是在早晨.
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/16/2007
我怎么觉得他的演讲很空洞啊?再说,Gates完全没有taste, 他的产品和style真让人受不了。微软,Ikea, Walmart, Blockbuster......令人恐惧。Sorry, Mr. Fengzi, he's not my cup of tea. Even his phlanthropy doesn't help. I like Jobs much better--for one, Jobs is much better looking than Gates,and for nother, he has a taste. :-) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/16/2007
Gates是个聪明的人,他知道如何赚钱。然后,用钱赚钱。他钱赚得太多了,也没有地方花。做点好事也是应该的,他的钱是如何赚来的?
用不着为他唱赞歌。
圣经里有一个穷寡妇,把她仅有的两个小钱捐了出来。Gates捐得多,却远不是他所有的。
我是说他并不比那些一般的人更给予。我的同事收留了4个残废孩子,妻子不上班,在家照顾孩子,先生上班。为他们深深地感动,也恨自己做不到那末无私的给予。
- posted on 06/16/2007
July wrote:
Gates是个聪明的人,他知道如何赚钱。然后,用钱赚钱。他钱赚得太多了,也没有地方花。做点好事也是应该的,他的钱是如何赚来的?
盖茨的钱怎么赚的?这个不关大家事儿的,我们可以怀疑,但不能嫉妒。
用不着为他唱赞歌。
这个咱提点儿反对意见。
前阵儿店里不还讨论人该有感激之情么。做好事的人,就值得大家称赞。盖茨那个基金投了好多钱的,人家是善心。他和妻子可以不投的,钱没地方花,可以用那些钱烧火做饭的,但是盖茨没那么干。就这一点,得敬佩他。
圣经里有一个穷寡妇,把她仅有的两个小钱捐了出来。Gates捐得多,却远不是他所有的。
为什么要苛求盖茨捐掉所有钱呢?
再说,量上也不能比啊。你寡妇就捐了两个小钱,在路上随时都能捡两个小钱。盖茨的钱那单位叫亿美元啊,值n个寡妇。:)
- posted on 06/16/2007
I am fully aware that many of us, here and elsewhere, have different views about Bill Gates, from his personality to his company, and from his products to his motives behind his philanthropic cause.
However, by lauding the noble cause he's spearheading, we are not enshrining him as a saint. By endorsing his willingness to help other less unfortunate human beings, we are not embracing the corporate practice and philosophy of Microsoft--some of which are certainly controversial. Most importantly, by appreciating the difference made by a few affluent individuals, we are not denying nor undervaluing the much less publicized yet enormous contributions by countless private citizens like us.
We probably should not determine the value of individual contributions to the society solely based on the ratio between charity contribution and personal wealth. We certainly should not discount the impoverished population in Africa that is benefiting from the Bill Gates' program merely because he does not fit our personal preference or stereotype.
We no longer live in an era where our life solely depends on certain mysterious saints, miracles or perfect divine saviors. We live in an era where we can improve our intimately shared life for the better through joint efforts from different, imperfect and not unblemished, ordinary people like ourselves. And we work together not by following any particular, "perfect" religious doctrine, but by sticking to a plan forged by the collective human will and wisdom.
- posted on 06/16/2007
Your speech carries much more substantial weight than Gates'. Harvard should have invited you to give a commencement speech to their students. :-)
Fengzi wrote:
I am fully aware that many of us, here and elsewhere, have different views about Bill Gates, from his personality to his company, and from his products to his motives behind his philanthropic cause.
However, by lauding the noble cause he's spearheading, we are not enshrining him as a saint. By endorsing his willingness to help other less unfortunate human beings, we are not embracing the corporate practice and philosophy of Microsoft--some of which are certainly controversial. Most importantly, by appreciating the difference made by a few affluent individuals, we are not denying nor undervaluing the much less publicized yet enormous contributions by countless private citizens like us.
We probably should not determine the value of individual contributions to the society solely based on the ratio between charity contribution and personal wealth. We certainly should not discount the impoverished population in Africa that is benefiting from the Bill Gates' program merely because he does not fit our personal preference or stereotype.
We no longer live in an era where our life solely depends on certain mysterious saints, miracles or perfect divine saviors. We live in an era where we can improve our intimately shared life for the better through joint efforts from different, imperfect and not unblemished, ordinary people like ourselves. And we work together not by following any particular, "perfect" religious doctrine, but by sticking to a plan forged by the collective human will and wisdom.
- posted on 06/16/2007
Except for the typo "less unfortunated", though.:)
Greetings to 若教, if you know who I am!:):):)
Ruozhi wrote:
Your speech carries much more substantial weight than Gates'. Harvard should have invited you to give a commencement speech to their students. :-)
Fengzi wrote:
I am fully aware that many of us, here and elsewhere, have different views about Bill Gates, from his personality to his company, and from his products to his motives behind his philanthropic cause.
However, by lauding the noble cause he's spearheading, we are not enshrining him as a saint. By endorsing his willingness to help other less unfortunate human beings, we are not embracing the corporate practice and philosophy of Microsoft--some of which are certainly controversial. Most importantly, by appreciating the difference made by a few affluent individuals, we are not denying nor undervaluing the much less publicized yet enormous contributions by countless private citizens like us.
We probably should not determine the value of individual contributions to the society solely based on the ratio between charity contribution and personal wealth. We certainly should not discount the impoverished population in Africa that is benefiting from the Bill Gates' program merely because he does not fit our personal preference or stereotype.
We no longer live in an era where our life solely depends on certain mysterious saints, miracles or perfect divine saviors. We live in an era where we can improve our intimately shared life for the better through joint efforts from different, imperfect and not unblemished, ordinary people like ourselves. And we work together not by following any particular, "perfect" religious doctrine, but by sticking to a plan forged by the collective human will and wisdom.
- posted on 06/16/2007
可能你没有fully aware 这是什么地方. 这里是文化沙龙. 虽然不乏有从商挣钱之人. 大家一但跨入这个门槛, 完全都是另一个精神世界的人了. 谈论的,讨论的, 争论的都是文学,艺术, 哲学, 科学, 伦理这些和经商赚钱物质追求格格不入的东西. 大家embrace 和 admire 的不是Bill Gates 这样的商人, 而是贝多芬, 莫奈, 爱因斯坦, 玛雅, 老方,WOA, ben ben, July等文化精神产品制造者. 我们这里甚至还有朱大侠这样的坚定分子, 要把金钱从艺术中彻底清除出去. 所以,作为一个商人Bill Gates 的讲话在这里得不到欣赏很正常.
当然, 出了cafe的门是另外一回事了.
Fengzi wrote:
I am fully aware that many of us, here and elsewhere, have different views about Bill Gates, from his personality to his company, and from his products to his motives behind his philanthropic cause.
However, by lauding the noble cause he's spearheading, we are not enshrining him as a saint. By endorsing his willingness to help other less unfortunate human beings, we are not embracing the corporate practice and philosophy of Microsoft--some of which are certainly controversial. Most importantly, by appreciating the difference made by a few affluent individuals, we are not denying nor undervaluing the much less publicized yet enormous contributions by countless private citizens like us.
We probably should not determine the value of individual contributions to the society solely based on the ratio between charity contribution and personal wealth. We certainly should not discount the impoverished population in Africa that is benefiting from the Bill Gates' program merely because he does not fit our personal preference or stereotype.
We no longer live in an era where our life solely depends on certain mysterious saints, miracles or perfect divine saviors. We live in an era where we can improve our intimately shared life for the better through joint efforts from different, imperfect and not unblemished, ordinary people like ourselves. And we work together not by following any particular, "perfect" religious doctrine, but by sticking to a plan forged by the collective human will and wisdom.
- posted on 06/17/2007
So, you do not know that Gates and Jobs have been secretly married for over ten years? Jobs just admitted: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9724198-7.html
I like Jobs, while I deeply respect Gates for his sheer brain power.
Ruozhi wrote:
我怎么觉得他的演讲很空洞啊?再说,Gates完全没有taste, 他的产品和style真让人受不了。微软,Ikea, Walmart, Blockbuster......令人恐惧。Sorry, Mr. Fengzi, he's not my cup of tea. Even his phlanthropy doesn't help. I like Jobs much better--for one, Jobs is much better looking than Gates,and for nother, he has a taste. :-) - posted on 06/17/2007
I agree. Although I don't question Gates' sincererity and the good cause, he is still a boring nerd. Jobs' speech at Stanford was much more impressive.
Ruozhi wrote:
我怎么觉得他的演讲很空洞啊?再说,Gates完全没有taste, 他的产品和style真让人受不了。微软,Ikea, Walmart, Blockbuster......令人恐惧。Sorry, Mr. Fengzi, he's not my cup of tea. Even his phlanthropy doesn't help. I like Jobs much better--for one, Jobs is much better looking than Gates,and for nother, he has a taste. :-) - posted on 06/17/2007
You had a great point, although you missed a few obvious ones.
First of all, you raised an issue that does not exist anywhere in the discussion other than in your own mind. Nobody has been talking about “经商赚钱物质追求.” It’s not in his speech, and it’s not in the discussion here.
In addition, the scope of the topics in this forum is not—and should not be--as narrowly confined to your tunnel-visioned interpretation of art, literature, science or ethics as you have claimed. It is and has been far broader than that, as evidenced by many animated discussions on virtually everything that touches and affects our life.
Unless you believe Harvard University, where this speech took place, is not the right place for art, literature, philosophy and science, I don’t see any reason why this speech does not belong here. It goes without saying that art, literature, philosophy, science, etc. are but one of the many forms to respond to the issues in our society. If you think ethics is on your short list of topics of choice, then a search for a good solution for the appalling disparities facing our times—as called upon by Bill—certainly fits the bill.
Finally, a mere label of “文化沙龙” should not be an automatic ban on a discussion of this topic, or any topic for that matter, just as a name such as “Bill Gates” or a title of “商人” would make the idea of a human being any less worthy. The real essence of art and literature lies in its free-spirits and all-embracing open-mindedness. Artificially created exclusion is certainly at odds with these values. Solving world’s problems requires as much creativity and imagination as literature and art. If anything, stereotyping and extremism of any shape and form, as clearly demonstrated here, are the foes of our spiritual pursuit, if that’s what you ostensibly value.
I’m not so much concerned about the lack of popularity or appreciation of Bill Gates’s speech. I am more concerned with the simple-minded logic, or lack of any logic, of trashing a person’s view merely based on his name or profession without further analysis, or of arbitrarily labeling an opinion and rejecting it. This approach to me is something we need to stay away from, if we are really after good art and quality science.
st dude wrote:
可能你没有fully aware 这是什么地方. 这里是文化沙龙. 虽然不乏有从商挣钱之人. 大家一但跨入这个门槛, 完全都是另一个精神世界的人了. 谈论的,讨论的, 争论的都是文学,艺术, 哲学, 科学, 伦理这些和经商赚钱物质追求格格不入的东西. 大家embrace 和 admire 的不是Bill Gates 这样的商人, 而是贝多芬, 莫奈, 爱因斯坦, 玛雅, 老方,WOA, ben ben, July等文化精神产品制造者. 我们这里甚至还有朱大侠这样的坚定分子, 要把金钱从艺术中彻底清除出去. 所以,作为一个商人Bill Gates 的讲话在这里得不到欣赏很正常.
当然, 出了cafe的门是另外一回事了. - Re: To err is human; to forgive divine.posted on 06/17/2007
Who are you then? :-) since your sister muzi mei is not pretty, muzi chou must be a great beauty. :-)
木子丑 wrote:
Except for the typo "less unfortunated", though.:)
Greetings to 若教, if you know who I am!:):):)
- posted on 06/17/2007
Yes, Jobs' standford speech is very thought provoking and offers both emotional and intellectual insights, which I didn't find in Gates' speech.
yc wrote:
I agree. Although I don't question Gates' sincererity and the good cause, but he is still a boring nerd. Jobs' speech at Stanford was much more impressive.
Steve Jobs
“Find What You Love.”
Commencement address at Stanford University
Palo Alto, California USA
June 12, 2005
Click to view video
Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios.
----------------------------------
I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.
The first story is about connecting the dots.
I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?
It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.
And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.
"Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become."It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:
Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.
None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, its likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
My second story is about love and loss.
I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.
I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.
I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.
During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I retuned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.
I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.
My third story is about death.
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.
I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.
This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope its the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.
Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.
Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.
Thank you all very much.
- posted on 06/17/2007
Another amazing commencement speech, delivered by my instructor Gass.
William Gass “Learning to Talk”
Commencement speech at Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri
June 4, 1979
A philosophy professor at Washington University and a consummate author, Dr Gass called his fiction works "experimental constructions.
----------------------------------
DINNER, LET US IMAGINE, has reached its second wine. We are exchanging pleasantries: gossip, tittle-tattle, perilously keen remarks. Like a fine sauce, they pique the mind. They pass the time. A thought is peeled and placed upon a plate. A nearby lady lends us a small smile, and there are glances brilliant as the silver. Patiently we listen while another talks, because everyone, our etiquette instructs, must have his chance to speak. We wait. We draw upon the cloth with unused knives. Our goblets turn as slowly as the world.
And on this beautiful ceremonial morning I want to talk to you about talking, that commonest of all our intended activities, for talking is our public link with one another; it is a need; it is an art; it is the chief instrument of all instruction; it is the most personal aspect of our private life. To those who have sponsored our appearance in the world, the first memorable moment to follow our inaugural bawl is the birth of our first word. It is that noise, a sound that is no longer a simple signal, like the greedy squalling of a gull, but a declaration of the incipient presence of mind, that delivers us into the human realm. Before, there was only an organ of energy, intake, and excretion, but now a person has begun. And in no idle, ordinary, or jesting sense, words are what that being will become. It is language which most shows a man, Ben Jonson said: "Speake that I may see thee." And Emerson certainly supports him: "Man is only half himself," he said, "the other half is his expression." Truths like this have been the long companions of our life, and so we often overlook them, as we miss the familiar mole upon our chin, even while powdering the blemish, or running over it with a razor.
Silence is the soul's invisibility. We can, of course, conceal ourselves behind lies and sophistries, but when we speak, we are present, however careful our disguise. The monster we choose to be on Halloween says something about the monster we are. I have often gone to masquerades as myself, and in that guise no one knew I was there.
PLATO THOUGHT of the soul as an ardent debating society in which our various interests pled their causes; and there were honest speeches and dishonest ones; there was reason, lucid and open and lovely like the nakedness of the gods,"Everywhere here in this quad, everywhere along the long lines of listening chairs - like a choir before bursting into song - there is the silent murmor of us all, our glad, our scrappy, rude, grand, small talk to ourselves, the unheard hum of our humanity" where truth found its youngest friend and nobility its ancient eloquence; and there was also pin-eyed fanaticism, deceit and meanness, a coarseness like sand in cold grease; there was bribery and seduction, flattery, brow-beating and bombast. Little has changed, in that regard, either in our souls or in society since; for the great Greeks were correct: life must be lived according to the right word--the logos they loved--and so the search for it, the mastery of it, the fullest and finest and truest expression of it, the defense of it, became the heart of the educational enterprise.
To an almost measureless degree, to know is to possess words, and all of us know how much words concern us here, at the university, in this context of texts. Adam created the animals and birds by naming them, and we name incessantly, conserving achievements and customs, and countries that no longer exist, in the museum of human memory. But it is not only the books which we pile about us like a building, or the papers we painfully compose, the exams we write, the calculations we come to by means of mystic diagrams, mathematical symbols, astrological charts or other ill- or well-drawn maps of the mind; it is not alone the languages we learn to mispronounce, the lists, the arguments and rhymes, we get by heart; it is not even our tendency to turn what is unwritten into writing with a mere look, so that rocks will suddenly say their age and origin and activity, or what is numb flesh and exposed bone will cry out that cotton candy killed it, or cancer, or canoodling, the letter C like a cut across an artery, the flow of meaning like blood; no, it is not the undeniable importance of these things which leads me to lay such weight upon the word; it is rather our interior self I'm concerned with, and therefore with the language which springs out of the most retiring and inmost parts of us, and is the image of its parent like a child: the words we use to convey our love to another, or to cope with anxiety, for instance; the words which will convince, persuade, which will show us clearly, or make the many one; the words I listen to when I wait out a speech at a dinner party; words which can comfort and assuage, damage and delight, amuse and dismay; but above all, the words which one burns like beacons against the darkness, and which together comprise the society of the silently speaking self; because all these words are but humble echoes of the words the poet uses when she speaks of passion, or the historian when he drives his nails through time, or when the psychoanalyst divines our desires as through tea leaves left at the bottom of our dreams.
EVEN IF THE WORLD becomes so visual that words must grow faces to save themselves, and put on smiles made of fragrant paste, and even if we all hunker down in front of films like savages before a divinity, have experience explained to us in terms of experiences which need to be explained, still, we shall not trade portraits of our love affairs, only of ourselves; there is no Polaroid that will develop in moments the state of our soul, or cassette to record our pangs of conscience; so we shall never talk in doodles over dinner, or call up our spirit to its struggle with a little private sit-com or a dreary soap. Even if the world falls silent and we shrink in fear within ourselves; even if words are banished to the Balkans or otherwise driven altogether out of hearing, as though every syllable were subversive (as indeed each is); all the same, when we have withdrawn from any companionship with things and people, when we have collapsed in terror behind our talcumed skins, and we peer suspiciously through the keyholes of our eyes, when we have reached the limit of our dwindle -- the last dry seed of the self -- then we shall see how greatly correct is the work of Samuel Beckett, because we shall find there, inside that seed, nothing but his featureless cell, nothing but voice, nothing but darkness and talk.
How desperately, then, we need to learn it -- to talk to ourselves -- because we are babies about it. Oh, we have excellent languages for the secrets of nature. Wave packets, black holes, and skeins of genes: we can write precisely and consequentially of these, as well as other extraordinary phenomena; but can we talk even of trifles: for instance, of the way a look sometimes crosses a face like the leap of a frog, so little does it live there, or how the habit of anger raisins the heart, or wet leaves paper a street? Our anatomy texts can skin us without our pain, the cellular urges of trees are no surprise, the skies are driven by winds we cannot see; yet science has passed daily life by like the last bus, and left it to poetry.
It is terribly important to know how a breast is made: how to touch it to make a tingle, or discover a hidden cyst (we find these things written of in books); but isn't it just as important to be able to put the beauty of a body in words, words we give like a gift to its bearer; to communicate the self to another, and in that way form a community of feeling, of thought about feeling, of belief about thought: an exchange of warmth like breathing, of simple tastes and the touch of the eye, and other sensations shortly to be sought, since there is no place for the utopia of the flesh outside the utopia of talk.
It can't be helped. We are made of layers of language like a Viennese torte. We are a Freudian dessert. My dinner companion, the lady who lent me her smile, has raised her goblet in a quiet toast. It is as though its rim had touched me, and I try to find words for the feeling, and for the wine which glows like molten rubies in her glass; because if I can do that, I can take away more than a memory which will fade faster than a winter footprint; I can take away an intense and interpreted description, a record as tough to erase as a relief, since without words what can be well and richly remembered? Yesterdays are gone like drying mist. Without our histories, without the conservation which concepts nearly alone make possible, we could not preserve our lives as were the bodies of the pharaohs, the present would soon be as clear of the past as a bright day, and we would be innocent arboreals again.
Of course we could redream the occasion, or pretend to film our feeling, but we'll need words to label and index our images anyway, and can the photograph contain the rush of color to my face, the warmth which reminds me I also am a glass and have become wine?
I REMEMBER BECAUSE I talk. I talk from morning to night, and then I talk on in my sleep. Our talk is so precious to us, we think we punish others when we stop. So I stay at peace because I talk. Tete-a-tetes are talk. Shop is talk. Parties are parades of anecdotes, gossip, opinion, raillery, and reportage. There is sometimes a band and we have to shout. Out of an incredibly complex gabble, how wonderfully clever of me to hear so immediately my own name; yet at my quiet breakfast table, I may be unwilling, and thus unable, to hear a thing my wife says. When wives complain that romance has fled from their marriage, they mean their husbands have grown quiet and unresponsive as moss. Taciturnity -- long, lovely word -- it is a famous tactic. As soon as two people decide they have nothing more to talk about, everything should be talked out. Silence shields no passion. Only the mechanical flame is sputterless and silent.
Like a good husband, then, I tell my wife what went on through the day -- in the car, on the courts, at the office. Well, perhaps I do not tell her all that went on, perhaps I give her a slightly sanitized account. I tell my friends how I fared in New York, and of the impatient taxi which honked me through the streets. I tell my students the substance of what they should have read. I tell my children how it used to be (it was better), and how I was a hero (of a modest sort, of course) in the Great War, moving from fact to fiction within the space of a single word. I tell my neighbors pleasant lies about the beauty of their lawns and dogs and vandalizing tykes, and in my head I tell the whole world where to get off.
Those who have reputations as great conversationalists are careful never to let anyone else open a mouth. Like Napoleons, they first conquer, then rule, the entire space of speech around them. Jesus preached. Samuel Johnson bullied. Carlyle fulminated. Bucky Fuller drones. Wittgenstein thought painfully aloud. But Socrates talked . . . hazardously, gayly, amorously, eloquently, religiously . . . he talked with wit, with passion, with honesty; he asked; he answered; he considered; he debated; he entertained; he made of his mind a boulevard before there was even a France.
I remember -- I contain a past -- partly because my friends and family allow me to repeat and polish my tales, tall as they sometimes are, like the stalk Jack climbed to encounter the giant. Shouldn't I be able to learn from history how to chronicle my self? "Every man should be so much an artist," again Emerson said, "that he could report in conversation what had befallen him." Words befell Emerson often. He made speeches on occasions like this one, and until his mind changed, he always meant what he said. Frequently his mind changed before he reached any conclusion. In his head his heart turned to look about and saw the other side.
TALK, OF COURSE, is not always communication. It is often just a buzz, the hum the husband makes when he's still lit, but the station's gone off. We can be bores as catastrophic as quakes, causing even the earth to yawn. Talk can be cruel and injurious to a degree which is frightening; the right word wrongly used can strike a man down like a club, turn a heart dark forever, freeze the feelings; nevertheless, while the thief is threatening to take our money or our life, he has yet to do either; and while Sadat and Carter and Begin talk, while talk mediates a strike, or weighs an allegation in the press or in committee, or considers a law in congress or argues a crime in court; while a spouse gripes, or the con man cons, while ideas are explained to a point beyond opacity by the prof; then it's not yet the dreadful day of the exam, no one has lost their nest egg or filed for divorce, sentence has not been passed, the crime has not yet occurred, the walkout, or the war. It may sound like a balk, a hitch in the motion, a failure to follow through, but many things recommend talk, not least its rich and wandering rhymes.
Our thoughts tend to travel like our shadow in the morning walking west, casting their outline just ahead of us so that we can see and approve, or amend and cancel, what we are about to say. It is the only rehearsal our conversation usually gets; but that is one reason we fall upon cliche as if it were a sofa and not a sword; for we have rehearsed "good morning," and "how are you?" and "have a nice day," to the place where the tongue is like a stale bun in the mouth; and we have talked of Tommy's teeth and our cold car's stalling treachery, of our slobby dog's affection and Alice's asthma and Hazel's latest honeybunny, who, thank god, is only black and not gay like her last one; we have emptied our empty jars over one another like slapstick comics through so many baggy-panted performances we can now dream of Cannes and complain of Canada with the same breath we use to spit an olive in a napkin, since one can easily do several thoughtless things at once -- in fact, one ought; and indeed it is true that prefab conversation frees the mind, yet rarely does the mind have a mind left after these interconnected cliches have conquered it; better to rent rooms to hooligans who will only draw on the walls and break the furniture; for our Gerberized phrases touch nothing; they keep the head hollow by crowding out thought; they fill all the chairs with buttocks like balloons; they are neither fed nor feed; they drift like dust; they refuse to breathe.
WE FORGET SOMETIMES that we do live with ourselves -- worse luck most likely -- as well as within. The head we inhabit is a haunted house. Nevertheless, we often ignore our own voice when it speaks to us: "Remember me," the spirit says, "I am your holy ghost." But we are bored by our own baloney. Why otherwise would we fall in love if not to hear that same sweet hokum from another? Still, we should remember that we comprise true Siamese twins, fastened by language and feeling, wed better than any bed; because when we talk to ourselves we divide into the self which is all ear and the self which is all mouth. Yet which one of us is which? Does the same self do most of the talking while a second self soaks it up, or is there a real conversation?
Frequently we put on plays like a producer: one voice belongs to sister, shrill and intrepidly stupid; a nephew has another (he wants a cookie); the boss is next -- we've cast him as a barnyard bully; and then there is a servant or a spouse, crabby and recalcitrant. All speak as they are spoken through; each runs around in its role like a caged squirrel, while an audience we also invent (patient, visible, too easily pleased) applauds the heroine or the hero because of the way they've righted wrongs like an avenging angel, answered every challenge like a Lancelot, every question like Ann Landers, and met every opportunity like a perfect Romeo, every romance like a living doll. If we really love the little comedy we've constructed, it's likely to have a long run.
Does it really matter how richly and honestly and well we speak? What is our attitude toward ourselves; what tone do we tend to take? Consider Hamlet, a character who escapes his circumstances and achieves greatness despite the fact his will wavers or he can't remember his father's ghost. He certainly doesn't bring it off because he has an Oedipus complex (we are all supposed to have that); but because he talks to himself more beautifully than anyone else ever has. Consider his passion, his eloquence, his style, his range: "O what a rogue and peasant slave am I!" he exclaims; "now could I drink hot blood," he brags; "to be or not to be," he wonders; "O," he hopes, "that this too too solid flesh would melt," and he complains that all occasions do inform against him. For our part, what do we do? do we lick our own hand and play the spaniel? do we whine and wheedle or natter like a ninny? Can we formulate our anger in a righteous phrase, or will we be reduced to swearing like a soldier? All of us are dramatists, but how will we receive our training? Where can we improve upon the puerile theatricals of our parents, if not here among the plays and perils of Pirandello and the dialogues of Plato (among the many glories of the letter "P" -- "peachtree" and "pulchritude," "philosophy" and "friendship"), the operas of Puccini and the follies of the faculty?
IF WE THINK awareness is like water purling gaily in its stream, we have been listening to the wrong James, for our consciousness is largely composed of slogans and signs, of language of one kind or other: we wake to an alarm; we read the weather by the brightness of a streak on the ceiling, the mood of our lover by the night's cramp still clenched in her morning body; our trembling tells us we're hung over; we wipe ourselves with a symbol of softness, push an ad around over our face; the scale rolls up a number which means "overweight," and the innersoles of our shoes say "hush!" Thus, even if we haven't uttered a word, we've so far spent the morning reading. Signs don't stream. They may straggle, but they mostly march. Language allies itself with order. Even its fragments suggest syntax, wholeness, regularity, though many of us are ashamed to address ourselves in complete sentences. Rhetorically structured paragraphs seem pretentious to us, as if, to gaze at our image in a mirror, we had first to put on a tux; and this means that everything of real importance, every decision which requires care, thoughtful analysis, emotional distance, and mature judgment, must be talked out with someone else -- a consequence we can't always face, with its attendant arguments, embarrassments, counterclaims, and lies. To think for yourself -- not narrowly, but rather as a mind -- you must be able to talk to yourself: well, openly, and at length. You must come in from the rain of requests and responses. You must take and employ your time as if it were your life. And that side of you which speaks must be prepared to say anything so long as it is so -- is seen so, felt so, thought so -- and that side of you which listens must be ready to hear horrors, for much of what is so is horrible -- horrible to see, horrible to feel, horrible to consider. But at length, and honestly -- that is not enough. To speak well to oneself . . . to speak well we must go down as far as the bucket can be lowered. Every thought must be thought through from its ultimate cost back to its cheap beginnings; every perception, however profound and distant, must be as clear and easy as the moon; every desire must be recognized as a relative and named as fearlessly as Satan named his angels; finally, every feeling must be felt to its bottom where the bucket rests in the silt and water rises like a tower around it. To talk to ourselves well requires, then, endless rehearsals -- rehearsals in which we revise, and the revision of the inner life strikes many people as hypocritical; but to think how to express some passion properly is the only way to be possessed by it, for unformed feelings lack impact, just as unfelt ideas lose weight. So walk around unrewritten, if you like. Live on broken phrases and syllable gristle, telegraphese and film reviews. No one will suspect . . . until you speak.
There are kinds and forms of this inner speech. Many years ago, when my eldest son was about fourteen, I was gardening alongside the house one midday in mid-May, hidden as it happened between two bushes I was pruning, when Richard came out of the house in a hurry to return to school following lunch, and like a character in a French farce, skulking there, I overheard him talking to himself. "Well, racing fans, it looks . . . it looks like the question we've all been asking is about to be answered, because HERE COMES RICHARD GASS OUT OF THE PITS NOW! He doesn't appear to be limping from that bad crash he had at the raceway yesterday -- what a crash that was! -- and he is certainly going straight for his car . . . what courage! . . . yes, he is getting into his car . . . not a hesitation . . . yes, he is going to be off in a moment for the track . . . yes --" and then he went, peddling out of my hearing, busily broadcasting his life.
My son's consciousness, in that moment, was not only thoroughly verbal (although its subject was the Indy 500, then not too many days away, and although he could still see the street he would ride on), it had a form: that given to his language and its referents by the radio sportscaster. Richard's body was, in effect, on the air; his mind was in the booth "upstairs," while his feelings were doubtless mixed in with his audience, both at home and in the stands. He was being seen, and heard, and spoken of, at the same time.
LATER THIS LED me to wonder whether we all didn't have fashions and forms in which we talked to ourselves; whether some of these might be habits of the most indelible sort, the spelling out of our secret personality; and, finally, whether they might not vitally influence the way we spoke to others, especially in our less formal moments -- in bed, at breakfast, at the thirteenth tee. I recognized at once that this was certainly true of me; that although I employed many modes, there was one verbal form which had me completely in its grip the way Baron Munchhausen was held in his own tall tales, or the Piers Plowman poet in his lovely alliteration. If Richard's was that of the radio broadcast, mine was that of the lecture. I realized that when I woke in the morning, I rose from bed only to ask the world if it had any questions. I was, almost from birth, and so I suppose by "bottom nature," what Gertrude Stein called Ezra Pound -- a village explainer -- which, she said, was all right if you were a village, but if not, not; and sooner than sunrise I would be launched on an unvoiced speechification on the art of internal discourse, a lecture I have given many times, though rarely aloud.
I have since asked a number of people, some from very different backgrounds, what shape their internal talk took, and found, first of all, that they agreed to the important presence of these forms, and that one type did tend to dominate the others: it was often broadcasting -- never the lecture -- though I once encountered a sermon and several prayers; it frequently took place in the courtroom where one was conducting a fearless prosecution or a triumphant defense; it was regularly the repetition of some pattern of parental exchange, a rut full of relatives and preconditioned response; the drama appeared to be popular, as well as works of pornography, though, in this regard, there were more movies shown than words said -- a pity, both modes need such improvement; monologues such as Browning might have penned: the vaunt, the threat, the keen, the kvetch, the eulogy for yourself when dead; there was even the bedtime story, the diary, the chronicle, and, of course, the novel, gothic in character, or at least full of intrigue and suspense: Little did William Gass realize when he rose that gentle May morning to thump his chest and touch his toes that he would soon be embarked on an adventure whose endless ramifications would utterly alter his life; otherwise he might not have set out for the supermarket without a list; otherwise he might not have done that extra push-up; he might better have stayed in bed with the bedclothes pulled thickly over his stupidly chattering head.
YET I SHOULD LIKE to suggest (despite the undeniable sappiness of it) that the center of the self, itself, is this secret, obsessive, often silly, nearly continuous voice -- the voice that is the surest sign we are alive; and that one fundamental function of language is the communication with this self which it makes feasible; and that, if the university has done its work, you are a bit nearer than you were before to being one of the few fortunates who have made rich and beautiful the great conversation which constitutes our life.
Everywhere here in this Quad, everywhere along the long lines of listening chairs -- like a choir before bursting into song -- there is the silent murmur of us all, our glad, our scrappy, rude, grand, small talk to ourselves, the unheard hum of our humanity; without which -- think of it! -- we might not be awake; without which -- imagine it! -- we might not be alive; since while we speak we live up there above our bodies in the mind, and there is hope as long as we continue to talk; so long as we continue to speak, to search for eloquence even over happiness or sympathy in sorrow, even if all that is left to us is the omitted outcry, Christ's query, the silent shout: "My God, my God, why have you left me alone?"
?1979, 1984, and 1985 by William Gass
- posted on 06/17/2007
You probably belong to a different class, the elite class. 微软,Ikea, Walmart, Blockbuster, these are great places for the proletariats like myself, who either were born w/o taste or can not afford a taste. :-)
BTW, how to compare Microsoft with Apple? Or for that matter, how to compare software with hardware? Perhaps Mac OS has more juice than Windows. But I hope Jobs's taste will go through another tasty quantum leap after he flushes out Microcoft Office suite from his Mac line.
Ruozhi wrote:
我怎么觉得他的演讲很空洞啊?再说,Gates完全没有taste, 他的产品和style真让人受不了。微软,Ikea, Walmart, Blockbuster......令人恐惧。Sorry, Mr. Fengzi, he's not my cup of tea. Even his phlanthropy doesn't help. I like Jobs much better--for one, Jobs is much better looking than Gates,and for nother, he has a taste. :-) - posted on 06/17/2007
First of all, you raised an issue that does not exist anywhere in the discussion other than in your own mind. Nobody has been talking about “经商赚钱物质追求.” It’s not in his speech, and it’s not in the discussion here.
Bill Gates已经是经商赚钱成功的象征. 学校毕业典礼往往请在各行各业成功的人来对毕业生激励一番. Bill Gates是经商赚钱成功的象征. Bill Gates和经商赚钱成功是同一词. 这已经深深地印在人们的mind里. 我知道他没有讲如何经商赚钱, 他也不会在这种场合将的. 他的演讲充满了成功后的世界观(开始关心穷人和不平等当然可贵), 我们再把他的成功经历联系起来. 完整的图象就出来了. 这和很多艺术家的道路截然不同. 难怪café里对他的反应如此风趣. Qinggang甚至要介绍Bill入党.
In addition, the scope of the topics in this forum is not—and should not be--as narrowly confined to your tunnel-visioned interpretation of art, literature, science or ethics as you have claimed. It is and has been far broader than that, as evidenced by many animated discussions on virtually everything that touches and affects our life.
哦, 不要误会. 我只是解释为什么大家对Bill Gates的反应这么风趣,我的观点是这和café的人文精神有关. 我觉得你上一帖的回应没有回应到关键之处. 你的帖子内容本身没有什么不合适的地方. 如果我造成了误会, 请原谅.
Fengzi wrote:
You had a great point, although you missed a few obvious ones.
- posted on 06/17/2007
Gates 的演说很好,谢风子。我读时也觉着boring,两个原因,一正是因为极度的不平等和贫穷不在我身边,只存在于background里,不切身;二因为他开始讲technical details,如何cut through complexity, etc.,不符合我的expectation——这样场合的演讲应当更inspiring。可是,可是,这正是Gates的points啊。哈佛的学生多是privileged and sheltered kids,他们有的是地方去听Jobs那样的演讲(单从演讲我也更喜欢Jobs的),所以Gates这样“不合时宜”的演讲才更可贵。我也愿意相信Gates的真诚,因为毕竟他做了,比如,OneWorld Health(a nonprofit pharmaceutical company)正在研制一种新的非常便宜的治疗疟疾的药,funding就来自Gates' foundation。 也许Gates的“给”比圣经里那个寡妇的“给”要容易,也许作为个人Gates没有那个寡妇高贵,但他给出的钱确实可以挽救很多生命,这还是值得我们尊敬啊。
至于说taste,that's a different matter:)我也有若之的恐惧,但不知惧的是否一样的东西。我相信taste没有天生的,所有的taste都是acquired,而商品广告无时无刻不在试图把商家的taste变成我的,这是我所怕的,而垄断的公司连选择都不给我,这就让我更怕,这时它给我的是美是丑都已经不那么重要了。
- posted on 06/17/2007
I've heard much worse commencement speeches, the worst being given by Chevy Chase the actor (I was embarrassed to see how he tried to be humorous from time to time, only to face a quiet audience).
In a commercial age like ours no school's graduation ceremonies can afford any philosophical reckoning anymore. They need dramas, of which Gates' appearance at Harvard provides plenty.
Perhaps we should allow imperfection in everyone - yes, even social icons. I despise Microsoft products, but I truly admire the Gates for their unprecedented, anti-capitalist effort in providing affordable, conventional medicine to the third world, especially Africa.
- posted on 06/17/2007
偷个懒,抄浮生的带篡改:
"两个原因,一正是因为极度的不平等和贫穷不在我身边,只存在于background里,不切身;二因为他开始讲technical details,如何cut through complexity, etc., "
这正是我感兴趣的.
另外, 突然明白这种演讲风格是我在大陆听过的. 那种人们称之为"唱高调".但我现在就是爱听这种, 真信这种. 真的信.
更重要的是我突然醒悟, 我其实是受过很特殊很好教育的人, 比起大多数美国人.在大陆我们受的集体主义教育, 从小就要想着全人类, 就讲要牺牲个人利益. 这种教育不是为普通人准备的. 是训练,造就领袖的. 是为未来的LEADER做准备的.
我真辜负了我所受到的教育:) 不知道现在明白晚不晚:) - posted on 06/17/2007
有意思,两个最成功的 dropouts, 在两个世界顶级大学演讲,两种截然不同的风格。虽然从风格上讲 Jobs 的更 personal 所以也更生动些(很多这类讲话都是教毕业生们如何在社会里做人),但从大的方面讲,Gates 的更unconventional,也更有意义。
上面有人反复说 Gates “经商赚钱”,这两个词是我从小就鄙夷的,但我得说 Gates 的经商赚钱与一般的经商赚钱不同,因为发展创新技术与倒买倒卖不同,把计算机普及到家庭与贱买贵卖不同。我也从来不希罕 Windows, 但我 admire 他的贡献,用点“滥词”,是对人类的贡献。
更难得的是他看到了远离美国的不平等。与浮生不同,我在中国见过极度的不平等和贫穷,虽然非洲的情况更坏。我欣赏任何为改变这种不平等的努力。一般认为大公司的 CEO 们政治上都倾向于保守,他们更愿意谈自由,而只有 liberals 才把平等挂在嘴边。一般名人做慈善是把钱捐给他们自己的“favorite charity ”,不过一个什么教堂而已。但 Gates 把他的资源最有效地用在世界上最贫穷的地方,最大限度地拯救生命,是没有哪个个人可比的。
联想到中国的新富们把钱一掷千金地扔到赌场里,心里只有鄙夷。
- posted on 06/17/2007
笨笨没有篡改:)我就是找到了我觉着它boring的原因才明白问题的所在:I've long lost my idealism。Gates不能算是唱高调啊,光说不练是唱高调,Gates说的都是他的身体力行:)
看他前边讲很多年后才明白极度不平等与贫穷的存在,我初读觉着有些pretentious,好像在为没有更早做慈善工作开脱,再想不是的。我们上大学的时候至少还有些理想主义,现在美国的大学生,elite学校的我不知道,但象加州大学里我见到的学生只是在学求职的技能,根本没有理想主义可言的,当然可以说这是社会安定和谐的表现。Gates的演讲正是用自己的经历提醒大家:他在事业达到顶峰要再上层楼时的“新发现”我们根本从一开始就应当知道,也应当行动的,而这些都是一个努力的过程。
- posted on 06/17/2007
应该惧的是同一样的东西吧。我上面举的几家大公司都是带有垄断倾向的。我完全理解你说的这种恐惧,这种垄断是集权在资本
主义社会的表现,假如人不抵抗,就会被它捕获。America's landscape has become so boring that we see the same stores everywhere we go.
浮生 wrote:
至于说taste,that's a different matter:)我也有若之的恐惧,但不知惧的是否一样的东西。我相信taste没有天生的,所有的taste都是acquired,而商品广告无时无刻不在试图把商家的taste变成我的,这是我所怕的,而垄断的公司连选择都不给我,这就让我更怕,这时它给我的是美是丑都已经不那么重要了。
- posted on 06/17/2007
I suspected the same thing in the beginning too :-), but then my distaste for Pottery Barn, World Market, Pier I and some other more upscale stores shows it's probably not just a matter of taste. It really boils down to the manipulation of sameness. I go to some of the places too precisely because they're less expensive than others. I'm sure I'm more proletarian than you're. :-)
potus wrote:
You probably belong to a different class, the elite class. 微软,Ikea, Walmart, Blockbuster, these are great places for the proletariats like myself, who either were born w/o taste or can not afford a taste. :-) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/17/2007
Then we're in the same line. :-) But isn't Gates one of the biggest capitalists in the world?
八十一子 wrote:I despise Microsoft products, but I truly admire the Gates for their unprecedented, anti-capitalist effort in providing affordable, conventional medicine to the third world, especially Africa.
- posted on 06/18/2007
谢FZ 和RZ, 我的几点读后感:
1. Gates 和 Jobs 都是这个制度内杰出的奋斗者和受益者, 他们也是理想主义的追随者,尽管与我们的理想不甚一致。
2. Jobs 的演说或许更动人,因为整篇文稿留给我的印象是他还要继续闯下去。
3. Gates 已经是局外人了,他不会不比我们更清楚微软成功的真正原因, 就是自由资本这只仅次于上帝的手。
4. 但Gates的伟大之处在于他认识到这个体制的局限,“if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living” 这是我在Jobs的演说中没有察觉到的,或许他十年以后会补充进去。
5. 若之妄图用Personal Taste来混淆群众的觉悟能力,属于误导,望另开一线专门讨论Taste,iMac, Walmart 之类。
6. 希望看到那么一天,美国慈善事业的能力超过了政府军,那么离全人类的大同理想就不远了:))
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/18/2007
Not anti-capitalism, but "creative" capitalism, by Gates' own words, he is a firm believer of capitalism, but he thinks the system needs to be fixed and de-bugged. ;)
八十一子 wrote:
anti-capitalist - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/18/2007
盖茨所揭示的问题和表达的愿望都没什么新奇的,过去几千年,无数的宗教和政治领袖都说过类似的话,包扩释迦牟尼、耶稣和毛泽东。可惜他们没能实现他们的承诺,以至于这样的话成了唱高调,因为我们都不相信他有可能实现。
但是,我希望盖茨能够成功,他所依据的资源是科学技术和商业运作。如果他以此做到了宗教和国家,这两个人类历史上最强大的力量,都做不到的事,我不知道后果会是什么,但我很希望我在有生之年能看到。 - posted on 06/18/2007
他们都是大人物,这一点相同。但老毛主张一个阶级推翻另一个阶级,而且要用枪,最后还要打到谁谁谁;老耶只要大家先皈依,好日子就在天堂等着(可并没有交代好日子的来龙去脉啊),不信就下地狱,哪里管死活;老释更是超度今生,只管来世,怎么看也和老盖的杯水主义不相同啊?
盖茨做的事,是没有一个政府愿意出面干的,因为谁干谁下台。联合国也做不了,能把战事纠纷摆平就不错了,饿死病死的至少没力气攻打邻国呵。盖茨的高明之处(其实就是清醒之处),是在他意识到资本社会“Winner Takes All”已经行不通了,地球是有限的,而且世界越变越小,不是艾滋病,就是禽流感,还有臭氧层,反正你躲不了,除非有钱人都搬到火星上去 (切,那里气候又赶不过西雅图好)。
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/18/2007
I was in the yard listening to his speech. It sounds more inspiring if you were at present. I think it is well written, successfully illustrating or projecting his transition from a businessman to a philanthropist. This is an important moment in his life, and he transfers quite well, at least with a very good beginning. God bless him, again. - posted on 06/18/2007
哼哼,WOA,我这么诚恳地参加讨论,你居然说我混淆视听,太伤我心了。:)还想让我另起炉灶,偏不走!:)盖茨这个资本主义的最大受益者,拿出一些钱去做慈善,还不错吧,也谈不上伟大和英明呵。八十一子说他行善史无前例,那也是因为他赚的钱史无前例啊!他因为爱母亲认识到钱的局限,是常人吧。他的讲词写得不怎么样就不怎么样,道德上的优势不能改变事实和quality. I prefer to be inspired than to be touched.
WOA wrote:。
5.若之妄图用Personal Taste来混淆群众的觉悟能力,属于误导,望另开一线专门讨论Taste,iMac, Walmart 之类。
6.希望看到那么一天,美国慈善事业的能力超过了政府军,那么离全人类的大同理想就不远了:))
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/18/2007
呵呵,若之是个唯美派。Gates在若之这里是输定了:)
还有,其实WOA的建议不错,taste是个很重要的话题,值得单开线讨论呢——在Gates下面讨论taste,冒犯的不是Gates,是taste:) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/18/2007
就是青岗说的,挣钱是技术,花钱是艺术,Jobs 和盖茨正是在玩不同的游戏。 富人捐钱的也多,但动机高尚的不多,象盖茨这样的伟大情操,连巴菲特都决心投靠他的基金会了。
当然他没有Jobs好看,穿牛仔裤也没Jobs性感,这说明若之的Taste是不俗的(但我今晚就给John Travolta打电话汇报去。)
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/19/2007
我是个审美主义者,离唯美还是有距离的。:)我说Gates没taste,是指他的产品,当然他穿衣服也没taste. :-)
taste是个很重要的话题, 留给你和咖啡的其他比我更有品味的mm开线吧。我可以照WOA的建议开个相关的话题。
对了,谢谢你的salmon的recipe,试了,不错。
浮生 wrote:
呵呵,若之是个唯美派。Gates在若之这里是输定了:)
还有,其实WOA的建议不错,taste是个很重要的话题,值得单开线讨论呢——在Gates下面讨论taste,冒犯的不是Gates,是taste:) - posted on 06/19/2007
Gates没有Jobs有taste,是他自己公开承认了的。上个月他和Jobs同台露面时,观众
问他们从对方学到了什么时,Gates说:“I'd give a lot to have Steve's taste...
the way he does things is just different, I think it is magical”.
Gates的令人敬佩之处,还不在于他投了多少钱在慈善事业上,而是在他投入的时间,
精力。他的30billion的慈善基金虽然大得惊人,但他的野心更大,以至于这笔钱远
远不够。他是在用资本家攻占市场的方式在调配资金,选择慈善项目,这点上的确
是史无前例的。
- posted on 06/20/2007
zxd wrote:
I was in the yard listening to his speech. It sounds more inspiring if you were at present. I think it is well written, successfully illustrating or projecting his transition from a businessman to a philanthropist. This is an important moment in his life, and he transfers quite well, at least with a very good beginning. God bless him, again.
亲自听报告的人来了。:)
我觉得任何讨论最后还得拉回到生活实际的层面,才有可体验性。否则在学理、美学或哲学的意义上,大家相互讨论,总是各说各的话。
我打个比方,去美国的诸位中产肯定生活没问题了,这时候有人拿出2万刀在贵州建了所希望小学。(贵州我实地考察过,穷困的地方很难想象)
思维不出格的旁观者大概会这样考虑:这个捐赠人心真好。而不会说:他们去美国了,有钱,欠中国的,捐个学校应该的。
如果受捐赠者也说:他们去美国了,有钱,应该做的。
那我就会觉得人情很冷漠,而且捐赠者也会心寒。
我的信息很闭塞,就知道盖茨,还真不知道那个苹果的工作斯。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
听各位这么苦口婆心,特别是苏珊和青冈,我已经被感动了。青冈不知道Job,上一张两人的照片吧。这两人私生活好像都很严谨,比那陈良宇拿国家的钱去养情人不知强哪里去了。:) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
Ruozhi wrote:
这两人私生活好像都很严谨,比那陈良宇拿国家的钱去养情人不知强哪里去了。:)
看来若之也看了那条线。:)
这句话里的“好像”用得好。
每个人都是一个黑洞,当阳光没有照射到他的时候,谁也不知道洞里有什么。
若之错了,再愚蠢的人都不会用国家的钱去包情人,那不等着让别人揭短么?是他自己的钱,我们可以说他的钱来路不正,比如有公司老板贿赂啊等等。
但如果广义地说,谁的钱都是国家的钱,就也没错。:)
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
还是Jobs性感,有taste :-)
Gates结婚前有一个女人,他一直很爱她,但他不愿和她结婚,Gates和他现在的太太结婚时达成协议,每年他要和那个女人在一起两个星期,他太太同意的。
Ruozhi wrote:
听各位这么苦口婆心,特别是苏珊和青冈,我已经被感动了。青冈不知道Job,上一张两人的照片吧。这两人私生活好像都很严谨,比那陈良宇拿国家的钱去养情人不知强哪里去了 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
These airport/train station HSBC ads have a lot to add to the current discussion. :) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
终于把若教授感动了。:) Gates和Jobs都是beautiful human being 啊。I am inspired
by both of them.
Gates是不如Jobs性感,不过在CEO,大富豪里面已经很不错了,不信把他们拉出来看
看,有几个不是皱皱巴巴或肥头大耳。:)
July说的那个结婚协议现在应该没有了吧,都结婚那么多年,有好几个孩子了。
Microsoft的co-founder,Paul Allen,也是个很有趣的人物,他30岁得癌症离开微
软之后,做了很多稀奇古怪的慈善事业,从研究脑科学到寻找外星人。现在他在搞
航天飞机商用化呢。
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
Ruozhi wrote:
听各位这么苦口婆心,特别是苏珊和青冈,我已经被感动了。青冈不知道Job,上一张两人的照片吧。这两人私生活好像都很严谨,比那陈良宇拿国家的钱去养情人不知强哪里去了。:)
明白了,别穿衬衣西裤,改穿圆领牛仔裤。品味啊 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
不知道,Gates没有向我update :-)
Gates以前还不洗澡,现在也不知如何了 :-)
Susan wrote:
July说的那个结婚协议现在应该没有了吧,都结婚那么多年,有好几个孩子了。
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/20/2007
好像每年还去,两人找一个海岛。盖茨说这是他每年的 thinking time,靠这两个星期出新思想。
盖茨结婚后还有过一个年轻的女朋友叫 Stefanie Reichel。有兴趣的可以去 google 他们的故事,也很精彩。
July wrote:
不知道,Gates没有向我update :-)> Gates以前还不洗澡,现在也不知如何了 :-)
Susan wrote:
July说的那个结婚协议现在应该没有了吧,都结婚那么多年,有好几个孩子了。
- posted on 06/20/2007
刚查了一下,盖茨和 Stefanie 在一起是 92年,他是 94年结的婚。我记错了,诬蔑盖茨了。
行人 wrote:
好像每年还去,两人找一个海岛。盖茨说这是他每年的 thinking time,靠这两个星期出新思想。
盖茨结婚后还有过一个年轻的女朋友叫 Stefanie Reichel。有兴趣的可以去 google 他们的故事,也很精彩。
July wrote:
不知道,Gates没有向我update :-)> Gates以前还不洗澡,现在也不知如何了 :-)
Susan wrote:
July说的那个结婚协议现在应该没有了吧,都结婚那么多年,有好几个孩子了。
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
这个所谓的红颜知己,灵魂知音的,老婆大人肯定要靠边站了。
我是steve jobs大扇子也。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
红颜知己是灵魂之友, 老婆是老婆,功能不尽相同,有时也不能相互取代。:-) 各在其位。
greentea wrote:
这个所谓的红颜知己,灵魂知音的,老婆大人肯定要靠边站了。
我是steve jobs大扇子也。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
July wrote:
红颜知己是灵魂之友, 老婆是老婆,功能不尽相同,有时也不能相互取代。:-) 各在其位。
难得绿营里有人如此开明大度,佩服的说!
不知别的MM同意不?:-) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
greentea wrote:
我是steve jobs大扇子也。
第一回看见Jobs 长得什么样,难怪苹果那么招人喜爱。我一直想换回苹果,那是初恋啊!叫什么来着?Macintosh。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
guanzhong wrote:
July wrote:难得绿营里有人如此开明大度,佩服的说!
红颜知己是灵魂之友, 老婆是老婆,功能不尽相同,有时也不能相互取代。:-) 各在其位。
不知别的MM同意不?:-)
那有什么不同意的,何况也不以个人意志为转移呀。一个人又要做老婆又要做知己,还不许黄脸只许红颜,也忒累了吧,社会的进步就是分工越来越细:) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
浮生 wrote:
那有什么不同意的,何况也不以个人意志为转移呀。一个人又要做老婆又要做知己,还不许黄脸只许红颜,也忒累了吧,社会的进步就是分工越来越细:)
妇女解放得从咱们姐妹思想转变开始,估计男人们要乐歪了。估计他们恨不能所有红颜都成为知己。 - posted on 06/21/2007
Ruozhi 忘了, 老G和老J在美国自由社会, 小弟弟一会翘就开始猎艳, 七老八十的
时候,早就对女人SOSO无新鲜感了, 而老C辈在中国, 熬一个丑八怪到黄脸婆之后
发达, 才开始有飞荧流燕献媚讨好, 唯一的机会可以满足自少年就缠绕的女性性
幻想, 又怎能轻易放弃和抵挡?人在什么环境和条件说什么话做什么事。
Ruozhi wrote:
听各位这么苦口婆心,特别是苏珊和青冈,我已经被感动了。青冈不知道Job,上一张两人的照片吧。这两人私生活好像都很严谨,比那陈良宇拿国家的钱去养情人不知强哪里去了。:) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
为人父母 wrote:
浮生 wrote:妇女解放得从咱们姐妹思想转变开始,估计男人们要乐歪了。估计他们恨不能所有红颜都成为知己。
那有什么不同意的,何况也不以个人意志为转移呀。一个人又要做老婆又要做知己,还不许黄脸只许红颜,也忒累了吧,社会的进步就是分工越来越细:)
姐妹们可以做老婆,还可以做知己(或者都做),也乐啊!:-) - posted on 06/21/2007
老关中啊,我是在说盖茨,你不要推而广之。盖茨对他太太说了,那个女人就是他的灵魂所在,给他思想。而盖茨的每一个新思想,都会对人类带来巨大的影响,太太当然不敢怠慢, 说到底,她要当盖茨的太太,就必须接受这个事实。
再说了,即便我说的是真理,你也不要身体力行,不是每一个真理都能经得住实践的检验。
guanzhong wrote:
为人父母 wrote:姐妹们可以做老婆,还可以做知己(或者都做),也乐啊!:-)
浮生 wrote:妇女解放得从咱们姐妹思想转变开始,估计男人们要乐歪了。估计他们恨不能所有红颜都成为知己。
那有什么不同意的,何况也不以个人意志为转移呀。一个人又要做老婆又要做知己,还不许黄脸只许红颜,也忒累了吧,社会的进步就是分工越来越细:) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
浮生要笑死我了。:)
Gates太太和Gates还是满志同道合的,时代周刊的封面人物也不是光凭给人做老婆
就能当上的,是不是?:)
要说最开明的要算第二大富翁Buffett 的太太。她把孩子扶养成人后,就给先生找
好女朋友,然后自己跑去旧金山过自由的单身生活,偶尔回家团聚一下,三人同行
直到去世。
Buffett捐出85%的财产给慈善事业,可见两口子很般配,都是豪爽的人。:)
- posted on 06/21/2007
July wrote:
老关中啊,我是在说盖茨,你不要推而广之。盖茨对他太太说了,那个女人就是他的灵魂所在,给他思想。而盖茨的每一个新思想,都会对人类带来巨大的影响,太太当然不敢怠慢, 说到底,她要当盖茨的太太,就必须接受这个事实。
再说了,即便我说的是真理,你也不要身体力行,不是每一个真理都能经得住实践的检验。
I see.
I am sitting in the back of a lecture hall at a conference, feeling bored with the talks (LP) and more interested in this discussion (红颜知己), although July tells me not to "推而广之" or "身体力行"。:-) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
有一年当苹果的发明者之一的助教,从他的一些访谈中得知,他是根据自己最爱的苹果名字给苹果电脑取的名。以前,我一直记不住这个拗口的名字。:)
鹿希 wrote:啊!叫什么来着?Macintosh。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/21/2007
如果照关中的理儿,,推而广之也未为不可吗。比如,老公与蓝颜知己,工作与业余兴趣,挣钱养家与修身养性。。。。:)
guanzhong wrote:
I see.
I am sitting in the back of a lecture hall at a conference, feeling bored with the talks (LP) and more interested in this discussion (红颜知己), although July tells me not to "推而广之" or "身体力行"。:-) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
oops, - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
Is this the "thinking time" girlfriend? - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
No. The girl is Stefanie, a former MicroSoft product German Manager.
The thinking time girlfriend has been with Gates for long long time, and she maybe older than him and Gates's mother didn't think he should marry to her.
yc wrote:
Is this the "thinking time" girlfriend? - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
July wrote:
No. The girl is Stefanie, a former MicroSoft product German Manager.
不错,是她。等哪天有空来散布点他们的八卦:) - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
wow, so Gates is a 孝子, and a "romantic" nerd. :)
July wrote:
No. The girl is Stefanie, a former MicroSoft product German Manager.
The thinking time girlfriend has been with Gates for long long time, and she maybe older than him and Gates's mother didn't think he should marry to her.
yc wrote:
Is this the "thinking time" girlfriend? - posted on 06/22/2007
Yes, He really is :-)
yc wrote:
wow, so Gates is a 孝子, and a "romantic" nerd. :)
July wrote:
No. The girl is Stefanie, a former MicroSoft product German Manager.
The thinking time girlfriend has been with Gates for long long time, and she maybe older than him and Gates's mother didn't think he should marry to her.
yc wrote:
Is this the "thinking time" girlfriend? - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
推荐此贴为年度最有品味的八卦贴。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
还是让行人讲讲Gates 和Stefanie 的故事吧,Stefanie最后还有个和微软股票有关的官司。Gates好像还出了庭。具体情节我忘了。
WOA wrote:
推荐此贴为年度最有品味的八卦贴。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
WOA, I bet Fengzi must be very disappointed. This post was ZTed, because the authored felt that it is an inspiring piece. 八卦贴 seems far away from the original good will. :-)
WOA wrote:
推荐此贴为年度最有品味的八卦贴。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
好好好,我看应改为年度最佳品味原贴,以及年度最佳八卦跟贴(rzp, 七月,浮生除外)
rzp wrote:
WOA, I bet Fengzi must be very disappointed. This post was ZTed, because the authored felt that it is an inspiring piece. 八卦贴 seems far away from the original good will. :-)
WOA wrote:
推荐此贴为年度最有品味的八卦贴。 - posted on 06/22/2007
nothing wrong with 八卦, everyone loves it, especially "tasteful" 八卦. ;)
WOA wrote:
好好好,我看应改为年度最佳品味原贴,以及年度最佳八卦跟贴(rzp, 七月,浮生除外)
rzp wrote:
WOA, I bet Fengzi must be very disappointed. This post was ZTed, because the authored felt that it is an inspiring piece. 八卦贴 seems far away from the original good will. :-)
WOA wrote:
推荐此贴为年度最有品味的八卦贴。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
讲话是要听的。Gates讲话,我也愿意听,毕竟是世纪伟人一个。不过Gates写过一本书,其语言比软件说明书还无味。他是个科技+商业脑袋,绝无丁点文学味。 - posted on 06/22/2007
ok, ok, DING -- style, 八卦, taste, whatever...... Let me also add some juice to this line.
A Wall Street big shop met Bill Gates at a recent jet event at Las Vegas. They talked for about 45 minutes, on blackjack, poker. When asked what does he do on his spare time, Gates said "read physics books." (The kinds written for non physicists.) The two men found great common interest in the card games.
Couple of weeks later, the big shop locked himself in his office for two hours, wrote a letter to Gates, put it into a Fedex envelop, together with the book he recommended (about a group of MIT tried to out-played Casino...) for Gates......
Gates had asked if Altantic city is the nearest place w/ Casino from Wall Street. Imaging if these two sit down together at a blackjack table, it will make quite a scene.
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
那是,像你这样写程序比莎士比亚好,写中文比比尔盖茨好,写英文比曹雪芹好,胡说八道比谁都好的鬼, 到哪里去找啊?
:-)
touche wrote:
讲话是要听的。Gates讲话,我也愿意听,毕竟是世纪伟人一个。不过Gates写过一本书,其语言比软件说明书还无味。他是个科技+商业脑袋,绝无丁点文学味。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/22/2007
继续Taste,八卦,Gates, Jobs, Allen,....
- Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/23/2007
rzp wrote:
WOA, I bet Fengzi must be very disappointed. This post was ZTed, because the authored felt that it is an inspiring piece. 八卦贴 seems far away from the original good will. :-)
WOA wrote:
推荐此贴为年度最有品味的八卦贴。
八卦不见得完全无聊,它让我们看到这些伟人的另外一面,这一面可能比他们愿意让我们看到的那伟大的一面更真实。 - posted on 06/23/2007
接着八卦,盖茨与Stefanie Reichel。
盖茨第一次见到 Stefanie 是91年4月。当时她任微软德国分部的客户经理。盖茨在蒙特卡洛一次会议里遇见她,整个会议里,他的眼睛没离开过她。当天,盖茨取消了第二天的回程机票,对她发动了全面攻势。会议结束后,盖茨和 Stefanie 一同前往伦敦,入住 Sheraton Heathrow,又搬到 Park Hyatt。当晚他们一同观看了 Miss Saigon 的演出,在英国演员 Michael Caine 开设的印度餐馆恭共进晚餐。
饭后,二人一同飞往西雅图,盖茨带 Stefanie 去见了他母亲 Mary Gates。玛丽看见 Stefanie 非常高兴,两个女人谈了很长时间。盖茨母亲表示希望 Stefanie 常来。
紧接着,盖茨带 Stefanie 出席了微软董事会议。
盖茨和 Stefanie 的关系持续了七个月,一般认为是 Stefanie 提出了分手。我们不知道为什么,只知道最后两人曾计划同游阿姆斯特丹,但没能成行。
94年1月1日,盖茨和 Melinda French 在夏威夷结婚,小型婚礼严格保密。盖茨包下了酒店的全部房间和附近的所有直升飞机,没有一个记者偷拍到婚礼的照片。
94年5月,Stefanie 接到盖茨的电话,邀请她前往荷兰,实践她带领盖茨游览阿姆斯特丹的诺言。Stefanie 如约前往,发现盖茨租下了 Hotel L'Europe 的整个顶层,等着她。出乎盖茨预料,Stefanie 走到前台,掏出信用卡,自己订了一个房间。盖茨极度失望,但同意跟 Stefanie 保持普通朋友关系。
再后来,Stefanie 向法庭出示了微软防碍司法的重要证据,据说因此给微软造成的损失以十亿美元计。 - posted on 06/23/2007
好好好,全民动员,将八卦进行到底。
好像这一段缺了细节,入驻酒店之前,是她犹豫之后才接受共进正餐邀请的吧? 麻烦行人再查一查,很关键的,切切。
行人 wrote:
接着八卦,盖茨与Stefanie Reichel。
盖茨第一次见到 Stefanie 是91年4月。当时她任微软德国分部的客户经理。盖茨在蒙特卡洛一次会议里遇见她,整个会议里,他的眼睛没离开过她。当天,盖茨取消了第二天的回程机票,对她发动了全面攻势。会议结束后,盖茨和 Stefanie 一同前往伦敦,入住 Sheraton Heathrow,又搬到 Park Hyatt。当晚他们一同观看了 Miss Saigon 的演出,在英国演员 Michael Caine 开设的印度餐馆恭共进晚餐。 - Re: Bill Gates Harvard Commencement transcript (ZT)posted on 06/23/2007
能看见的都是旁证,她当时怎么想,得去问她本人了。你去?
有人看见他们从印度餐馆出来后,步行去了一个图书馆“with Reichel in his arm”。已经公开不避嫌了。
WOA wrote:
好好好,全民动员,将八卦进行到底。
好像这一段缺了细节,入驻酒店之前,是她犹豫之后才接受共进正餐邀请的吧? 麻烦行人再查一查,很关键的,切切。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- Fengzi
- #1 qinggang
- #2 ben ben
- #3 ben ben
- #4 悟空
- #5 Ruozhi
- #6 July
- #7 qinggang
- #8 Fengzi
- #9 Ruozhi
- #10 木子丑
- #11 st dude
- #12 行人
- #13 yc
- #14 Fengzi
- #15 Ruozhi
- #16 Ruozhi
- #17 Ruozhi
- #18 potus
- #19 st dude
- #20 浮生
- #21 八十一子
- #22 ben ben
- #23 guanzhong
- #24 浮生
- #25 Ruozhi
- #26 Ruozhi
- #27 Ruozhi
- #28 WOA
- #29 yc
- #30 行人
- #31 WOA
- #32 zxd
- #33 Ruozhi
- #34 浮生
- #35 WOA
- #36 Ruozhi
- #37 Susan
- #38 qinggang
- #39 Ruozhi
- #40 qinggang
- #41 July
- #42 Fengzi
- #43 Susan
- #44 走过路过
- #45 July
- #46 行人
- #47 行人
- #48 greentea
- #49 Fengzi
- #50 July
- #51 guanzhong
- #52 鹿希
- #53 浮生
- #54 为人父母
- #55 lilia
- #56 guanzhong
- #57 July
- #58 Susan
- #59 guanzhong
- #60 greentea
- #61 greentea
- #62 行人
- #63 yc
- #64 July
- #65 行人
- #66 yc
- #67 July
- #68 WOA
- #69 July
- #70 rzp
- #71 WOA
- #72 yc
- #73 touche
- #74 rzp
- #75 July
- #76 悟空
- #77 行人
- #78 行人
- #79 WOA
- #80 行人
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation