旅游  |  攻略  |  美食  |  自驾  |  团购
您的位置: 青海省旅游网 / 规划 / 新闻动态 / 青海要闻

许昌/哪家医院看不孕不育较好天涯寻医问药

来源:时空典范    发布时间:2017年10月22日 18:10:58    编辑:admin         

If you are looking for a loan, serving your bank manager breakfast might just do the trick.如果你想要贷款,请经理吃个早餐说不定能帮你忙。A compound found in eggs makes people much more generous, new research suggests.最新研究表明,鸡蛋里含有的某种复合物会使人们变得更加慷慨大方。Scientists say that tryptophan, an amino acid found in some foods, can change our behaviour.科学家称,一些食物中所含的一种叫做色氨酸的氨基酸能够改变人们的行为。In experiments they found that consuming a small portion of tryptophan - the equivalent of that found in three eggs -doubled the sum volunteers gave to charity.研究者们通过实验发现,摄入少量色氨酸(大概是三个鸡蛋中所含该物质的含量)能够使被试捐款人的捐款数目增加一倍。Eggs and other foods such as fish and milk are rich in tryptophan, an amino acid that is converted in the body into the feel-good chemical serotonin.鸡蛋、鱼、牛奶等都富含色氨酸,色氨酸能在人体内转化为让人感到愉快的化学物质5-羟色胺。Psychologists from Leiden University in the Netherlands, writing in the Frontiers in Psychology journal, said:‘For the first time, we investigated whether the administration of a compound contained in food such as fish, eggs, soy, and milk can promote charitable donating.荷兰莱顿大学的心理学家在发表于《心理学前沿》期刊里的文章中写道:“这是我们第一次研究如鱼、鸡蛋、豆和牛奶等食物中含有的化合物是否会对慷慨捐赠行为产生促进作用。”‘Our study is the first demonstration that charitable donating can be enhanced by serotonin-related food supplements.’“我们的研究首次明了,通过增加包含色氨酸的食物摄入量能够促进人们的慈善捐赠行为。”The authors carried out an experiment on 32 men and women, in which half were given a powder containing 0.8 grams of TRP,and the others were given a harmless placebo powder.该实验包括男性、女性被试共32名,其中一半被试食用的是含有0.8克的色氨酸粉末,另外一半则食用一种无害的安慰剂粉末。Each participant was given #163;7.50 (.25)for taking part in the research and asked whether they were willing to donate part of their financial reward to charity.每个参与实验的被试都被给予7.5英镑,并被询问是否愿意把这些钱捐给慈善机构。Four boxes for Unicef, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and World Wildlife Fund were left on a table.桌子上摆放着四个慈善机构的盒子,这四个慈善机构分别是联合国儿童基金会,大赦国际,绿色和平组织和世界野生动物基金会。When the psychologists counted the takings,they found that those given the TRP powder donated an average of 75p (.15),while those who received the placebo donated half as much.心理学家计算捐款数额后发现,摄入色氨酸粉末的被试平均捐出了75便士,而食用安慰剂的被试则只捐出了一半的数额Just how a food supplement could have such an effect is not clear, but the scientists suggest the involvement of oxytocin,the so-called ‘cuddle’ hormone produced by women during breastfeeding and lovemaking.为什么一种食品添加剂可以产生这样效果目前还不清楚,但科学家们认为这可能与后叶催产素有关,后叶催产素是女性在哺乳和性交期间会产生的一种所谓的“拥抱”荷尔蒙。They wrote: ‘It may be likely that the willingness to donate money to a charity is modulated by the effect that serotonin exerts on oxytocin levels.他们写道:“捐款的意愿可能受5-羟色胺对后叶催产素水平影响的调控。”‘Our results support the materialist approach that “you are what you eat”.“我们的研究结果持了唯物主义者的说法即‘吃什么东西就会产生什么行为’。”‘The idea [is]that the food one eats has a bearing on one’s state of mind. The food we eat may thus act as a cognitive enhancer that modulates the way we deal with the“social” world.#39;“人们所吃的食物会影响到大脑的状态。就这样食物扮演了认知促进者的角色,调控着人们应对‘社交’世界的方式。”Commenting on the research, Dr AdamPerkins, neurobiologist at King’s College London, said the study could be useful in prisons to encourage harmony among inmates.伦敦国王学院的神经生物学家亚当·帕金斯认为这项研究结果可以运用于监狱,对促进犯人间的和谐会非常有效。He said: ‘These results are interesting because they raise the possibility that dietary supplements containing TRP could be used to assist with boosting charitable attitudes and behaviour in the population.’他说:“这个研究的结果非常有趣,只要增加含有色氨酸的食物摄入量,就能很好地促进全民行善的意愿和行为。” /201504/369053。

Lazy Manager懒惰的经理A middle management executive has to take on some sports,by his doctor#39;s ,有一位中阶经营主管因为听了他的医师指示必须要做一些运动,so he decides to play tennis .所以他决定要打网球。After a couple of weeks his secretary asks him how he#39;s doing在几个星期之后,他韵秘书就问他情况如何,;It#39;s going fine; ,the manager says.;When I am on the court and I see the ball speeding towards me ,这位经理说:“进行得不错,当我在网球场上看到球快速朝着我来的时候,and my brain immediately says,;Back hand!To the net!Smash !Go back;我的脑袋就立刻说:‘反手拍!上网!杀球!后退! ”;Really?What happens then?; the secretary asks .秘书问说:“真的呀,然后咙?”;Then my bady says ,;Who 、 Me?Don#39;t talk nonsense!;“然后我的身体说:‘谁?我吗?别胡说八道了!”’ /201503/361443。

Some people see showers as a necessary (and lovely) ritual that all decent human beings do daily…  有些人把洗澡当成一个必要(和美好)的仪式,所有得体的人每天都洗澡....。.  While others believe it’s a chore to avoid until the last possible minute and then do as quickly as humanly possible。  而其他人则认为洗澡是项琐碎的事,直到最后一分钟才洗,而且洗得非常快。  If you’re in this category and have ever wondered how often you actually need to clean your body, the answer is: not as often as most Americans probably think。  如果你是这类人,从没想过到底要洗多少次。是,并不像美国人想的那么频繁。  Two dermatologists tell BuzzFeed Life that most Americans shower way more than is necessary。  两位皮肤病学家告诉BuzzFeed生活栏目,大多数美国人洗澡频率远比所需的次数多。  According to Dr. Joshua Zeichner, assistant professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, how frequently we shower and what we perceive as body odor is “really more of a cultural phenomenon。” Boston dermatologist Dr. Ranella Hirsch echoes this sentiment. “We overbathe in this country and that’s really important to realize,” she says. “A lot of the reason we do it is because of societal norms。”  根据纽约西奈山医院皮肤病学助理教授舒亚·蔡克纳士,洗澡的频率和我们认为的体香实际上更是一种文化现象。波士顿皮肤病学家士赫希也有同感。“我们在这个国家,洗澡的频率太多了。我们意识到这一点是很重要的。”她说,“我们对洗澡频率研究的很多原因是因为社会规范。”  And those norms are mainly the result of good advertising。  而这些社会规范主要是广告宣传的好的结果。  After the Civil War, both advertising and “toilet soap” (i.e., soap for the body) became more prevalent in the ed States, says Katherine Ashenburg, author of The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History. “Americans turned out to be much more gullible and susceptible to these things than Europeans,” Ashenburg tells BuzzFeed Life。  《清洁污垢:一个不卫生的历史》的作家卡瑟琳·阿西伯格说,南北战争之后广告和香皂(即为洗身体的肥皂)在美国变得更流行。阿西伯格告诉BuzzFeed生活栏目“结果是,美国人远比欧洲人容易上当,容易受影响。”  “Germ theory didn’t matter half as much as promises of beauty,” Ashenburg says。  阿西伯格说,“对美丽的承诺远比病菌理论重要的多。”  But here’s the thing: Frequent showering may actually be doing more harm than good。  但是事实上:频繁洗澡弊大于利。  Zeichner and Hirsch say that showering too often (particularly in hot water) can dry out and irritate skin, wash away the good bacteria that naturally exists on your skin, and introduce small cracks that put you at a higher risk of infection。  蔡克纳和赫希说,洗澡太频繁(特别是洗热水澡)会导致皮肤干燥和过敏;清洗掉皮肤本身就有的有益细菌;产生表皮裂纹,让你更容易受到感染。  Both doctors say that parents should not bathe babies and toddlers daily. Zeichner says that early exposure to dirt and bacteria may make the skin less sensitive as you age, and prevent allergies and conditions like eczema。  两位士都说,家长[微]不应该每天都给婴幼儿洗澡。蔡克纳说,早期暴露在污垢和细菌的环境中会让皮肤到你年纪的时候更不容易敏感,防止过敏和如湿疹一样的症状。  While your activity level and climate will affect how often you’ll want shower, you can probably skip the daily shower and take one every two to three days。  尽管你的活动量和气候会影响你想洗澡的频率,你可能不需要每天都洗,每两天或每三天一次就好。  If you’re so inclined, you can clean the grossest parts of your body with a soapy washcloth or cleansing towelette to remove odor-causing bacteria on non-shower days. (Grossest parts of your body “face, underarms, under the breasts, genitals, and rear end,” according to Zeichner。)如果你很想洗的话,在不洗澡的日子里,你可以用有肥皂的毛巾或者是湿餐巾清洗身体最脏的部分,从而去除产生异味的细菌。(据蔡克纳所说,身体最脏的部分有:脸部,腋下,乳房下,生殖器和臀部。)  You should also put on clean undergarments each day; one study showed that we shed far more dirt and oil in our clothes than we do in the shower。  你也应该每天换内衣。一项研究表明我们穿衣时要比我们在洗澡中去除的污垢和油脂要多得多。  SO. You no longer have to stand in the stupid shower every morning getting your head wet for 10 minutes while you try to get up the courage to step out into the freezing bathroom!  所以,你不用每天早晨站在淋浴里花十分钟把头弄湿,并且鼓足勇气走到冰冷的浴室里。  How often do you shower?  你洗澡的频率是多少呢? /201503/362383。

;To protect our network against computer viruses,our IT Department has issued a ban on any use of e-mail attachments.For further details,please refer to the agttached document.;为了保护我们的网络不受病毒侵害,我们的IT部门对所有的电子邮件附件都进行了限制,需要了解详情请参见本邮件的附件。 /201507/386136。

If you’re like a lot of Americans, one of your New Year’s resolutions is to work out more. If you’re like a lot of Americans, you’ll join a gym this January as part of that plan. And if you’re like a lot of Americans, you won’t go very much.你是不是和很多美国人一样,新年规划之一是要多锻炼,并在今年1月为此办了一张健身卡,但实际上却不会常去?Our overoptimism about how much we will work out has been the subject of academic research. Nearly a decade ago, the economists Stefano DellaVigna and Ulrike Malmendier published “Paying Not to Go to the Gym,” a paper in which they found that members at three Boston gyms went an average of 4.3 times a month. With monthly membership fees of just over , that meant an average of per visit — well above the charge to work out as a nonmember.关于我们对自己会进行多少锻炼过分乐观的问题,一直是学术研究的对象。近10年前,经济学者斯特凡诺·德拉维尼亚(Stefano DellaVigna)和乌尔丽克·马尔门迪尔(Ulrike Malmendier)发表了一篇名为《付了钱却不去健身》(Paying Not to Go to the Gym)的文章。他们在研究中发现,波士顿三家健身房的会员平均每月去4.3次。在月会员费略高于70美元(约合440元人民币)的情况下,这意味着每去一次平均花费17美元,远高于非会员锻炼一次10美元的收费。So why didn’t they just pay per visit? Because they overestimated how often they would go. The authors surveyed gym members who, on average, said they would work out about 9.5 times a month, more than twice the actual attendance observed in the study. People remained in denial about their gym attendance even after they’d stopped going entirely: On average, nonattending gym members did not cancel until 2.3 months after their last visit, paying for 7 worth of completely unused gym access.那么,他们为什么不每次单独交钱呢?因为他们高估了自己去健身的频率。文章作者对健身房会员做了一项调查。受访者希望平均每月锻炼9.5次,是研究中观察到的实际次数的两倍多。甚至在彻底不去了以后,人们也依然不愿承认自己去健身房的实际频率。不再去的人注销会员资格的时间,与他们最后一次去平均相隔2.3个月,也就是说他们花187美元买的务根本没用过。Lightly used gym memberships aren’t limited to Boston. The last annual shareholder filing from Town Sports International, the parent company of New York Sports Clubs, showed the company had 497,000 members making 29.1 million annual visits; that is, the average member visited five times a month.健身房会员资格利用不充分的情况并不仅限于波士顿。纽约运动俱乐部(New York Sports Clubs)的母公司城镇运动国际(Town Sports International)最新的一份年度股东备案文件显示,公司有49.7万名会员,全年的健身人次是2910万,即平均每名会员每月去五次。Since pay-now, work out-later isn’t working as a strategy, economists have been searching for other solutions to get people into the gym more often.由于“现在付钱、以后锻炼”的策略不起作用,经济学家们一直在寻找其他解决方案,以提高人们去健身房的频率。“We describe a field experiment measuring the impact of bundling instantly gratifying but guilt-inducing ‘want’ experiences (enjoying page-turner audiobooks) with valuable ‘should’ behaviors providing delayed rewards (exercising),” wrote the economists Katherine Milkman, Julia Minson and Kevin Volpp of Wharton in a 2013 research paper. They gave Penn undergraduates free iPods loaded with audiobooks of their choice, but told them they could listen to them only at the gym.“我们描述的是一项实地试验,衡量将‘想做’的事情和‘应该做’的事情结合在一起的效应。‘想做’的是当时令人高兴但却会引起内疚的事情(听引人入胜的有声读物),而‘应该做’的是有价值且会在日后带来回馈的事情(锻炼),”沃顿商学院的经济学者凯瑟琳·米尔克曼(Katherine Milkman)、朱莉娅·明森(Julia Minson)和凯文·沃尔普(Kevin Volpp)在2013年的一篇研究论文中写道。他们给宾夕法尼亚大学的本科生提供免费的iPod,里面有学生自己选择的有声读物,但又要求学生,只能在健身房里听。This worked for a while: The undergrads given the iPods went to the gym about 50 percent more often than others who were just given a Barnes amp; Noble gift card to spend as they pleased. (A third group, given a book iPod to take home but encouraged to listen only at the gym, placed in between the other two.) But that lasted for about seven weeks. Thanksgiving break came, and the students returned to school having fallen out of love with their audiobooks; they no longer worked out more than their peers in the control group.这个办法一度奏效:得到了iPod的本科生去健身房的频率,比只拿到了巴诺书店(Barnes amp; Noble)礼品卡且可以自行决定其用途的学生高出了大约50%。(还有一个小组的学生也得到了有声读物。研究人员让他们把有声读物存在自己家里的iPod上,但鼓励他们只在健身房听。这组学生去健身房的频率介于另外两组之间。)但这种情况只持续了大约七周。感恩节假期结束后,返校的学生已经不再受到有声读物的诱惑,锻炼的频率也不再高于控制组的成员。“It was a bummer from the perspective that we’d like to design interventions that work forever,” said Ms. Milkman. But she also noted that there are lots of opportunities to try again. Gym visits don’t just pick up at New Year’s but at the start of each week, each semester, after holidays, and even after birthdays (though not 21st birthdays). The key is getting one of the fresh starts to stick.“从我们希望设计永久有效的干预这个角度来说,这种结果令人失望,”米尔克曼说。不过她也指出,有很多重新尝试的机会。去健身房的人次增加不仅出现在新年伊始,也出现在每周和每学期开始的时候,以及节假日甚至生日(但并不包括达到合法饮酒年龄的那个生日)过后。关键是让其中一种坚持下去。Heather Royer, an economist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, thinks she has hit on a way. In partnership with a Fortune 500 company, she and her research partners ran an experiment that combined two interventions: One to get people to start going to the gym, and another to keep them there. For four weeks, the company paid its employees to work out, per visit up to three times a week. After those four weeks, there were no more payments, but some workers were offered a “commitment contract”: They could set aside their own money that would be released to them only if they worked out over the next two months; otherwise, it would be given away to charity.加州大学圣巴巴拉分校(University of California, Santa Barbara)的经济学者希瑟·罗耶(Heather Royer)认为自己发现了一种方法。她和研究伙伴与一家财富500强(Fortune 500)公司合作,进行了一项实验,将两种干预结合起来:一种是让人们开始去健身,另一种是让他们坚持下去。在四周的时间里,这家公司出钱让员工去锻炼,每次奖励10美元,一周最多三次。四周过后,公司不再发钱,但部分员工签署了一份“承诺合约”:他们自己留出一部分钱,接下来两个月如果坚持锻炼,就会还给他们;如果没能坚持锻炼,这些钱将被捐给慈善机构。Even though those commitment contracts ended three months after the start of the study, the effects on workout frequency persisted for years: Three years after the study, the workers who had been offered the contracts remained 20 percent more likely to work out than those who had not been offered any incentives. By inducing a habit with cash payments, and then reinforcing that habit with self-funded payments, the researchers were able to permanently change workout habits for at least some people.尽管这类承诺合约在研究开始三个月后就到期了,但它们对锻炼频率的影响却持续了多年:研究项目过去三年后,当初签署合约的员工健身的几率,依然比那些什么激励都没得到的人高20%。通过用现金奖励的方式培养一种习惯,然后再用自己出钱的方式来巩固习惯,研究人员永久性地改变了至少部分人的锻炼习惯。The researchers at Wharton also found demand for continuing self-control devices: After study completion, 61 percent of subjects said they’d be willing to pay for gym-only audio books as a measure to help themselves work out.沃顿商学院的研究人员还发现,需要有持续性的自我控制策略:研究结束后,61%的实验对象表示愿意出钱购买只能在健身房听的有声读物,以此作为促进他们锻炼的手段。So why don’t gyms offer these kinds of devices to drive members to work out more?那么,健身房为何不提供这类措施,促使会员多锻炼呢?“They have a little bit of a conflict of interest,” says Richard Thaler, a behavioral economist at the University of Chicago. The fact that lots of people join gyms and rarely go to them isn’t great for our national waistline, but it’s pretty good for people who own gyms. “If they succeeded in getting people to go to the gym three times a week instead of three times a month, they wouldn’t be able to have as many members.”“这里有一点利益冲突,”芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)行为经济学家理查德·塞勒(Richard Thaler)说。很多人办了健身卡却很少去这个事实,对国民腰围不利,但对健身房老板却很有利。“如果他们成功地让人们一周去三次健身房,而不是一个月三次,可能就没法接纳那么多会员了。”The more promising avenue may be employers. Ms. Royer hopes to later demonstrate not just that commitment contracts work to get employees to the gym, but also that they save employers enough through improved health to be worth paying for.更靠谱的途径可能在于雇主。罗耶随后希望明,承诺合约不仅可以颇有成效地促使雇员去健身房,还可以通过改善员工的健康,为雇主省下足够多的钱,从而让雇主的投入物有所值。For now, you can use a service like Stickk to set up your own commitment contract: Promise to go to the gym, and set aside money that will be given to charity if you don’t. For extra incentive, you can even use an anti-charity: If you don’t work out, your money will be given to a cause you hate. That’s more likely to keep you working out through beach season than simply paying up front for a gym membership.目前,你可以用Stickk等务制定自己的承诺合约:承诺去健身房,并留出一些钱,如果不去便捐给慈善机构。如果需要额外的激励,你甚至可以利用自己不喜欢的机构:如果不锻炼,你的钱就会捐给你讨厌的某项事业。和预先花钱办健身房会员卡相比,这种做法更有可能让你在整个去沙滩游玩的季节坚持锻炼。 /201502/357880。

There are people in this country eating too much red meat. They should cut back. There are people eating too many carbs. They should cut back on those. There are also people eating too much fat, and the same advice applies to them, too.在美国,有些人食用红肉太多,他们应该少吃点;也有些人食用碳水化合物太多,他们也应该克制;还有些人食用脂肪太多,相同的建议也适用于他们。What’s getting harder to justify, though, is a focus on any one nutrient as a culprit for everyone.把某一营养物质说成是危害所有人健康的罪魁祸首的说法,正变得越来越难以自圆其说。I’ve written Upshot articles on how the strong warnings against salt and cholesterol are not well supported by evidence. But it’s possible that no food has been attacked as widely or as loudly in the past few decades as red meat.此前,我已在《纽约时报》的Upshot专栏中撰文,阐述那些关于盐和胆固醇的强烈警告其实并没有得到充分的据持。不过,在过去的几十年里,恐怕任何一种食物受到的攻击都没有红肉这样广泛和强烈。As with other bad guys in the food wars, the warnings against red meat are louder and more forceful than they need to be.与食品战争中的其他“坏东西”一样,对食用红肉的警告已经大大超过了实际需要的程度。Americans are more overweight and obese than they pretty much have ever been. There’s also no question that we are eating more meat than in previous eras. But we’ve actually been reducing our red meat consumption for the last decade or so. This hasn’t led to a huge decrease in obesity rates or to arguments from experts that it is the reason for fewer deaths from cardiovascular disease.今天美国人超重和肥胖的程度基本上都甚于以往,我们也毫无疑问是比以前吃肉多。然而,在过去十年左右的时间里,我们的红肉消费量实际上是在逐渐减少的。可这并没有引起肥胖率大幅下降,也没有专家认为它是心血管疾病死亡人数减少的原因。The same reports also show that we eat significantly more fruits and vegetables today than we did decades ago. We also eat more grains and sweeteners.同样,报告还显示,我们今天食用水果和蔬菜的量显著多于几十年前。我们还吃下了更多的谷物和甜味剂。This is the real problem: We eat more calories than we need. But in much of our discussion about diet, we seek a singular nutritional guilty party. We also tend to cast everyone in the same light as “eating too much.”这才是真正的问题:我们摄入的热量超过了实际所需。但是,在大多数关于饮食的讨论中,我们都试图把责任归咎于某一类营养物质。而且,我们也倾向于给所有人都套上“吃得太多”的大帽子。I have seen many people point to a study from last year that found that increased protein intake was associated with large increases in mortality rates from all diseases, with high increases in the chance of death from cancer or diabetes. A close examination of the manuscript, though, tells a different story.我见过有很多人拿着去年的一项研究振振有词,称该研究发现,蛋白质摄入量的增加与因所有疾病死亡率以及因癌症或糖尿病死亡的几率大幅增加相关。然而,在仔细阅读文献后,我发现它说的完全是另外一回事。This was a cohort study of people followed through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or Nhanes. It found that there were no associations between protein consumption and death from all causes or cardiovascular disease or cancer individually when all participants over age 50 were considered. It did detect a statistically significant association between the consumption of protein and diabetes mortality, but the researchers cautioned that the number of people in the analysis was so small that any results should be taken with caution.这是一项队列研究,研究人员通过美国健康与营养调查(National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Nhanes)对参与者进行了随访。研究发现,当考虑到所有50岁以上的参与者时,蛋白质摄入量与全因死亡率、心血管疾病死亡率以及癌症死亡率中的任何一项均无相关性。研究的确发现蛋白质摄入量与糖尿病死亡率之间具有统计学显著相关性,但研究人员提醒说,由于该分析中纳入的人数过少,应谨慎对待由此得出的任何结果。The scary findings from two paragraphs up are from a subanalysis that looked at people only 50 to 65. But if you look at people over 65, the opposite was true. High protein was associated with lower levels of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality. If you truly believe that this study proves what people say, then we should advise people over the age of 65 to eat more meat. No one advises that.而上面倒数第二段中那个可怕的结论只不过是一项仅考察50岁到65岁参与者的亚组分析的结果而已。如果你将调查的对象改为65岁以上的参与者,就会发现情况恰恰相反。高蛋白摄入量与较低的全因死亡率和癌症特异性死亡率相关。如果你相信这项研究为应该少吃红肉提供了据,那么我们也应该建议65岁以上的人多吃些肉——显然并没有人这么做。Further, this study defined people in the “high protein” group as those eating 20 percent or more of their calories from protein. When the Department of Agriculture recommends that Americans get 10 to 35 percent of their calories from protein, 20 percent should not be considered high.此外,这项研究对“高蛋白质”组成员的定义为:饮食总热量中有至少20%来自蛋白质。考虑到美国农业部(ed States Department of Agriculture,USDA)建议美国人从蛋白质获得的热量应占所需热量的10%至35%,20%其实不能算高。If I wanted to cherry-pick studies myself, I might point you to this 2013 study that used the same Nhanes data to conclude that meat consumption is not associated with mortality at all.如果允许我自己来挑选的话,我也能找出一项2013年的研究,它使用了相同的Nhanes数据,却得出了相反的结论:肉类消费量与死亡率毫不相关。Let’s avoid cherry-picking, though. A 2013 meta-analysis of meat-diet studies, including those above, found that people in the highest consumption group of all red meat had a 29 percent relative increase in all-cause mortality compared with those in the lowest consumption group. But most of this was driven by processed meats, like bacon, sausage or salami.不过,我们还是不要刻意去挑选吧。2013年的一项关于肉类膳食研究的荟萃分析纳入了上述的几类情况,分析结果发现:与红肉消费量最低组相比,最高组成员的全因死亡率增加了29%,但这一增加主要是由加工肉类,如培根、腊肠或意大利香肠等造成的。Epidemiologic evidence can take us only so far. As I’ve written before, those types of studies can be flawed. Nothing illustrates this better than a classic 2012 systematic review that pretty much showed that everything we eat is associated with both higher and lower rates of cancer.流行病学据能告诉我们的也只有这么多了。正如我之前所说,这类研究有可能存在缺陷。2012年的一项典型的系统性综述就是最好的佐:该综述表明,几乎我们的所有食物都同时与较高和较低的癌症发病率相关。We really do need randomized controlled trials to answer these questions. They do exist, but with respect to effects on lipid levels such as cholesterol and triglycerides. A meta-analysis examining eight trials found that beef versus poultry and fish consumption didn’t change cholesterol or triglyceride levels significantly.所以,我们需要进行随机对照试验才能真正找到问题的。这样的实验确实是存在的,不过却是关于胆固醇和甘油三酯等血脂水平指标的。一项荟萃分析审查了八项试验,发现与食用禽肉和鱼肉相比,食用牛肉并不会显著改变人的胆固醇或甘油三酯水平。All of this misses the bigger point, though. It’s important to understand what “too much” really is. People in the highest consumption group of red meat had one to two servings a day. The people in the lowest group had about two servings per week. If you’re eating multiple servings of red meat a day, then, yes, you might want to cut back. I would wager that most people ing this aren’t eating that much. If you eat a couple of servings a week, then you’re most likely doing fine.但是,所有这些都忽略了更重要的一点——“太多”的标准到底是什么。红肉消费量最高组的人每天食用一至两份红肉,而最低组的人每周才食用大约两份。如果你每天都吃好几份红肉,那么,没错,你是需要控制一下了。但我敢打赌,正在阅读这篇文章的人中大多数都不会吃那么多。如果你每周食用一两份红肉,那么最有可能的情况是:你的身体一切正常。All the warnings appear to have made a difference in our eating habits. Americans are eating less red meat today than any time since the 1970s. Doctors’ recommendations haven’t been ignored. We’re also doing a bit better in our consumption of vegetables. Our consumption of carbohydrates, like grains and sugar, however, has been on the rise. This is, in part, a result of our obsession with avoiding fats and red meat.健康警告大大改变了我们的饮食习惯。美国人今天的红肉消费量比20世纪70年代以来的任何时候都少。人们并没有忽略医生的建议。我们在食用蔬菜方面也取得了一点进步。但我们对谷物和糖等碳水化合物的消费量却一直在上升。在某种程度上,可以说这正是我们执着于不吃脂肪和红肉的后果。We’re eating too many calories, but not necessarily in the same way. Reducing what we’re eating too much of in a balanced manner would seem like the most sensible approach.我们仍然摄入了太多的热量,只不过改了个途径罢了。最明智的做法应该是以平衡的方式少吃那些我们过量食用的东西才对。Last fall, a meta-analysis of brand-name diet programs was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study compared the results from both the individual diets themselves and three classes, which included low-carbohydrate (like Atkins), moderate macronutrient (Weight Watchers) and low-fat (Ornish). All of the diets led to reduced caloric intake, and all of them led to weight loss at six months and, to a lesser extent, at 12 months. There was no clear winner, nor any clear loser.去年秋天,《美国医学协会杂志》(Journal of the American Medical Association)上发表了一项对著名饮食方案的荟萃分析。该研究既比较了单个的饮食方案,也对三大类饮食方案:低碳水化合物饮食(如阿特金斯饮食法[Atkins]),中度宏量营养素饮食(如Weight Watcher)和低脂肪饮食(如Ornish饮食)进行了比较。所有的饮食方案都减少了热量摄入,它们都能令参与者在六个月后体重减轻,并在接下来的六个月里继续减轻(但减重幅度较小)。它们之间并没有表现出明显的优劣。Where does that leave us? It’s hard to find a take-home message better than this: The best diet is the one that you’re likely to keep. What isn’t helpful is picking a nutritional culprit of bad health and proclaiming that everyone else is eating wrong. There’s remarkably little evidence that that’s true anytime anyone does it.这给我们带来什么启示?你最有可能坚持下来的饮食方案就是最好的饮食方案——世界上最棒的教益或许莫过于此。把健康状况不佳归咎于某一特定的营养物质,并宣称其他人的饮食习惯都不对,这样做没有一点好处。很显然,任何时候任何人这么做都是毫无根据的。 /201505/374897。

The #64257;rst time Laura Poitras was stopped and questioned at an airport, she thought it was a mistake. Flying home to the US from the Sarajevo #64257;lm festival in 2006, she was paged at Vienna airport and asked to go to security. She was put on a bus, taken to a baggage inspection room and questioned about her trip. She asked: “Why are you stopping me?” The answer: “Well, you know, your name came up on a US government list, and you have a threat score that is really high.”...If it was high then, today it is stratospheric. Poitras has played a key role in the world’s greatest leak of espionage secrets — American whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations of a huge US electronic surveillance programme. Poitras is one of only two journalists to whom Snowden last year entrusted his treasure trove of documents taken from the National Security Agency, the cyber intelligence organisation. She is also the director of Citizenfour, a #64257;lm about her encounter with Snowden, which is tipped for an Oscar as best documentary of 2014.Poitras now assumes she is under surveillance, night and day. “I am lit up like a Christmas tree behind the scenes,” she says, quite casually. “Which means there is probably a graph, and the graph shows who are the people that I am in contact with.” She is speaking in Berlin, where she now lives. Milky autumn light streams through the windows, gently illuminating her. She looks younger than her 52 years and gestures fluidly when she speaks. If she worries about the perpetual monitoring of her daily life, she does not show it. “The choice is, either I say: ‘Well, I’ll stop doing this kind of work,’ you know, because the harassment is really bothersome, or ‘I’ll keep doing it.’”The incident at Vienna airport occurred soon after she had #64257;nished My Country, My Country, a 2006 #64257;lm that followed the lives of ordinary Iraqis under the US occupation after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Nominated for an Oscar, it also caused the US intelligence agencies to put Poitras on something she now knows is a “watch list” — a roster of people the US authorities seek to track. Next came another documentary that may have irritated the US government — The Oath, a 2010 #64257;lm about two Yemeni brothers who served Osama bin Laden as driver and bodyguard, one of whom ended up in Guantánamo Bay.That #64257;rst Vienna questioning has been followed by about 40 others at US airports. Poitras has had her computer, notebooks and mobile phone taken away, sometimes for weeks. She says she assumed that when of#64257;cials realised she was “just a #64257;lm-maker”, she would be taken off the list. But it didn’t happen. “And then, I became more confrontational at the airport, you know, taking notes while answering questions, asserting my rights as a journalist.”When Snowden got in touch last year, she quickly realised his story had the potential to cause a much bigger shock than anything she had done before. “The minute I thought Snowden was real, of course, I was fearful. I mean it was clear this was going to be dangerous — to anger the most powerful people in the world.”The 31-year-old computer expert had electronic #64257;les containing more than one million documents Snowden had taken from the NSA, where he worked as a contractor until he fled for Hong Kong in May 2013. He decided to hand them over to Poitras and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald. Hiding in a Hong Kong hotel, he arranged a secret meeting with them and another Guardian journalist. As Poitras portrays in Citizenfour, Snowden spent hours in his cramped room explaining his secrets and convincing the three reporters. Later she asked Snowden why he had chosen her. He emailed in reply: “You asked why I picked you. I didn’t. You did.” He was talking about her reputation: she was the kind of formidable force he needed to make sure his revelations would reach a global audience.The result was a string of stories published in The Guardian, The Washington Post, Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine and elsewhere, detailing the electronic spying operations of the NSA and its partners in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They reported on Prism, a secret programme for eavesdropping on Americans’ Google and Yahoo accounts; on Tempora, a British-run global surveillance scheme, and on XKeyscore, a computer #64257;lter for sifting vast amounts of internet data. The stories revealed that agents spied on players engaged in the World of Warcraft online game, snooped around aid organisations Unicef and Médecins Sans Frontières, and even tapped the mobile phone of German chancellor Angela Merkel.The impact was immediate. In the US, Snowden was condemned by some as a traitor and lauded by others as a hero. The authorities charged him with espionage and accused him of assisting the enemies of the US. Washington wants to bring Snowden back from Russia, where he sought protection a few days after his encounter with Poitras.However, US President Barack Obama also ordered a review of NSA procedures, which made a string of recommendations to increase court scrutiny. “One of the things that has been interesting to watch about the NSA story is how it has cut across political lines. We have had people both from the Democratic and the Republican parties who have been outraged,” says Poitras. In other countries, support for Snowden has been far stronger, notably in Germany, where politicians were furious at the Merkel phone-tap and public opinion is particularly concerned about the invasion of privacy.Little in Poitras’s early life prepared her for this global drama. She grew up in a prosperous home in Boston, Massachusetts. She won’t talk about her family but it is a matter of record that her wealthy parents donated m for medical research to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After school, the young Poitras moved to San Francisco and worked for a while as a pastry chef before taking up #64257;lm studies. She moved to New York, where she focused on documentaries and made her #64257;rst award-winning #64257;lm, Flag Wars, an account of the gentri#64257;cation of Columbus, Ohio.Everything changed for Poitras in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack. “Somehow I felt that what was happening in the country was really disturbing and that I wanted to say something about it,” she remembers. She became increasingly concerned about the US government’s response, including the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. And she started work on the controversial #64257;lms that have made her one of the world’s best-known documentary-makers.Despite being a favourite for an Oscar, she says winning awards is not the point — the #64257;lms themselves are the point. Poitras is not convinced governments have changed much in response to the Snowden disclosures. “There has been a lot of lip service and a lot of recommendations in committees but no real fundamental changes of these policies,” she says. “In terms of concrete policy changes, maybe Merkel’s phone isn’t being tapped right now. But I am not sure how much of a big shift there is.”So surveillance continues at the same level as before? Poitras thinks there is “probably some reining in” of the targeted surveillance of people who “cannot be suspected of any wrongdoing”, perhaps out of fear of legal action. “I would guess people think twice in the intelligence agencies before they do that.” But she is far more positive about the revelations’ wider impact. “The reporting has changed consciousness and awareness around these issues#8201;.#8201;.#8201;.#8201;globally,” she says.Technology companies, including Google, Apple and Facebook, are “making real big changes in terms of offering privacy for customers” out of a fear that co-operating with the US government could lose them business, she says. “So you have those kind of things in the tech industry that are shifting and I think will continue to shift. They’ll be offering encryption and privacy for customers.”Poitras is particularly pleased with developments in Germany, where she has lived since 2012 before she began making Citizenfour, having decided it would be too risky to work in the US. But she is scathing about Britain, which she has refused to visit, even to promote Citizenfour, for fear of arrest. “My lawyers really were concerned and careful, and so the UK is the one country that I haven’t travelled to.”She adds: “Yes, I go back to the US but the US is different. I mean, the US has the First Amendment [in its constitution] that protects the press. It has never happened that the US government has gone after journalists for publishing information that is classi#64257;ed.”In Britain, it is the catch-all nature of the Of#64257;cial Secrets Act that deters her, especially after of#64257;cials entered The Guardian’s offices and ordered the destruction of Snowden-linked computer hardware. This moment is captured in the #64257;lm — the hammers smashing the electronics to pieces. Her voice rising slightly, she says: “I mean, it is shocking to me actually to learn this, that there are no laws that are protecting the press and no historical memory of what happens if you don’t have a healthy functioning free press.”Like Snowden himself, Poitras believes there are cases when secret surveillance is legitimate — suspected terrorist plots, for example, or nuclear proliferation. “But it shouldn’t be bulk drag nets, suspicious surveillance of entire populations. We live in democracies that have a rule of law, which has been sidestepped in these programmes.”She admits surveillance has changed her. Not only is she ultra-careful about practical issues — such as encrypting emails and having two computers, one for work and one for general use. She re- George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four when she was getting emails from Snowden and was struck by the moment when the hero, Winston Smith, is trying to write a journal without being observed by the all-seeing eyes of the state. She recalls: “The sort of chilling effect then, when actually he sits down to write, he actually couldn’t express himself. I felt this, not to that extent, but there is this chilling effect where you realise that, well, if I think my computer is in#64257;ltrated, then do I really want [to write] personal things on an email? I start using pencil and paper, you know — those kinds of things.”But she is proud that she trusts all the people involved in the Snowden #64257;lm — and that a majority of her closest colleagues were women. When she presented her team at a premiere in Berlin, nine of the #64257;rst 15 people on the stage were female; she says she chose individuals not because they were women but because they were “absolutely the best people” and that in documentary #64257;lm-making women play a much bigger role than they do in Hollywood. “There are so many prominent women directors in documentary, so I don’t feel what I am doing is unique.”She wonders whether this is because the organisations are much smaller than for Hollywood features. “I actually think you can make your way without going through the same levels of systems’ bureaucracies. I don’t know.”Poitras sees Citizenfour as the third in a trilogy about US power that began with her Iraq and Guantánamo #64257;lms. She says it is “too soon to say” what she might do next. But she is working on a #64257;lm-based installation for the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York in 2016 that will address “the same themes but in a different way”.“The truth is that I am not going to stop caring about these issues. We are 13 years after 9/11 and still have a war in Afghanistan. We still have policies that are really moving us in a direction that I don’t think is right for the country. There is a sort of moral drift away from fundamental principles, of transparency and government.” It is a serious view. But then making Poitras documentaries is a serious business. Snowden chose well.当劳拉#8226;波伊特拉斯(Laura Poitras)第一次在机场被拦下询问时,她以为是弄错了。2006年从萨拉热窝电影节(the Sarajevo #64257;lm festival)飞回美国途中,她听到维也纳机场的大喇叭里喊着她的名字,让她去找安检人员。她被带上一辆巴士,送到一间行李检查室,接受关于其行程的盘问。她问道:“你们为什么要拦下我?”回答是:“嗯,你知道,你的名字出现在美国政府的一份名单上,而且你的威胁分数真的很高。”她的威胁分数如果当时算高的话,如今就肯定直上云霄了。波伊特拉斯在世界上最大规模的间谍泄密事件——美国泄密者爱德华#8226;斯诺登(Edward Snowden)曝光美国大规模电子监听计划——中扮演了关键角色。去年,斯诺登把自己从美国网络情报机构——国家安全局(NSA)拿走的珍贵文件只委托给了2名记者,波伊特拉斯便是其中之一。她还是《第四公民》(Citizenfour)的导演,这部纪录片讲述了她遇到斯诺登的经过,有望获得奥斯卡2014年最佳纪录片奖。波伊特拉斯现在认为,她从早到晚都处在监视之下。“我像一颗在幕后被点亮的圣诞树,”她相当从容地说,“这意味着,他们很可能有个图表,上面显示了我接触的人。”她在柏林接受采访,那里是她现在的居住地。秋天柔和的阳光洒进窗内,淡淡地照亮了她。她看起来比52岁的实际年龄年轻些,说话时手势很多。如果说她对日常生活受到无时无刻的监视感到忧虑,那么她至少没有表现出来。“我面临的选择是,要不说‘好吧,我会停止做这类工作’,你懂的,因为这种骚扰真的很烦人,或者说‘我会继续这么做’。”维也纳机场事件发生的不久前,波伊特拉斯刚刚完成了《伊拉克,我的祖国》(My Country, My Country)的制作。这部2006年的纪录片叙述了在萨达姆#8226;侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)被推翻后,伊拉克普通人在美国占领下的生活。该片获得奥斯卡提名,也导致美国情报机构把波伊特拉斯列入她现在所知的“观察名单”——美国有关部门试图追踪的人员名单。接下来是另一部可能激怒了美国政府的纪录片——《誓言》(The Oath)。这部2010年的影片讲述了为奥萨马#8226;本#8226;拉登(Osama bin Laden)当司机和保镖的也门两兄弟,其中一人后来成了关塔那湾(Guantánamo Bay)的在押人员。在维也纳第一次被盘问之后,她又在美国不同的机场被盘问了40来次。波伊特拉斯的电脑、笔记簿、手机都曾被扣押,有时数周后才拿回。她说,她本来以为,当官员们意识到她“只是个电影人”之后,就会从名单上删除她的名字。但事实不是这样。“于是,我在机场变得比较不客气,边回答问话边作笔记,坚持自己作为记者的权利。”去年斯诺登与她联系时,她很快意识到,他的故事可能引发的轩然会超过她以往做过的任何事。“当我意识到斯诺登所言属实时,我当然害怕。我的意思是,这显然会很危险——会激怒世界上一些最强大的人。”当时,这位31岁电脑专家的电子文档包含了他从NSA拿走的超过100万份文件。斯诺登在2013年5月逃往香港之前是NSA的合同工。他决定把这些文档都交给波伊特拉斯和英国《卫报》(Guardian)记者格伦#8226;格林沃尔德(Glenn Greenwald)。藏身于香港一家酒店的他,安排了与二人和另一名《卫报》记者的秘密会面。正如波伊特拉斯在《第四公民》中所描绘的一样,斯诺登在其狭小房间内花了几个小时解释他的秘密,让三名记者相信他。后来,波伊特拉斯问斯诺登为何选择她。他回邮件称:“你问我为什么选你。我没有选你。是你选了自己。”他指的是她的声望:他需要一种令人敬畏的力量来确保他的爆料能引起全球的注意,她就是这种力量。结果就是《卫报》、《华盛顿邮报》(The Washington Post)、德国《明镜周刊》(Der Spiegel)等媒体发表的一系列报道,详尽描述了NSA及其在英国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰的伙伴机构所进行的电子侦察活动。这些报道曝光了窥探美国人谷歌(Google)和雅虎(Yahoo)账户的秘密计划“棱镜”(Prism);英国运行的Tempora全球监听计划;以及用于筛选海量互联网数据的电脑过滤器XKeyscore。这些报道曝光了情报人员监视网络游戏“魔兽世界”(World of Warcraft)的玩家,窥探援助组织如联合国儿童基金会(Unicef)和无国界医生组织(MSF),甚至窃听德国总理安格拉#8226;默克尔(Angela Merkel)的手机。这些爆料立刻引发冲击波。在美国,有人指责斯诺登为“叛徒”,也有人赞其为“英雄”。当局以间谍罪对其提出刑事控罪,指控其帮助美国的敌人。华盛顿方面希望将斯诺登从俄罗斯引渡回国。斯诺登在与波伊特拉斯见面几天后便前往俄罗斯并寻求保护。然而,美国总统巴拉克#8226;奥巴马(Barack Obama)也命令对NSA的工作流程进行评估,评估结果提出了一系列加强法庭审核的建议。波伊特拉斯称:“关于NSA事件,其中一个有意思的看点在于这件事是如何跨越政治界线的。我们看到,对此气愤填膺的既有民主党人也有共和党人。”在其他国家,对斯诺登的持要大得多,特别是德国。该国政界人士对默克尔手机被监听极为愤怒,舆论对侵犯隐私也尤为关切。波伊特拉斯的早年人生经历对这种全球戏剧性事件没有什么铺垫。她在马萨诸塞州波士顿的一个富裕家庭长大。她不愿谈论自己的家庭,但公开记录显示,她的有钱的父母向麻省理工学院(Massachusetts Institute of Technology)的医学研究捐赠了2000万美元。年轻的波伊特拉斯在毕业后来到旧金山,在那里当了一段时间的糕点主厨,随后开始攻读电影研究专业。她来到纽约专门从事纪录片制作,首部获奖影片是《旗帜之争》(Flag Wars),讲述俄亥俄州哥伦布市的中产阶层化。对波伊特拉斯来说,“9/11”恐怖袭击发生后,一切都变了。她回忆道:“我觉得,这个国家发生的事情真的令人不安,对此我想要说些什么。”她越来越担忧美国政府的回应,包括关塔那湾的在押人员待遇问题。她开始制作有争议的影片,这让她成为全球最著名的的纪录片制作人之一。尽管获得奥斯卡奖的呼声很高,但她表示,获奖并不是意义所在;电影本身才是。波伊特拉斯不相信各国政府因斯诺登的曝光而有太大改变。她说:“有很多表面文章,各种委员会提出许多建议,但这些政策没有根本上的改变。就具体的政策改变而言,或许默克尔的电话现在没有遭到窃听。但我不肯定有什么大的变化。”因此监听程度还和过去一样?波伊特拉斯认为,或许由于担心面临法律诉讼,针对那些没有涉嫌有不当行为的目标的监视“很可能有所收敛”。“我猜,现在情报机构的人在监听前会三思。”但她对斯诺登曝光的整体影响看法积极得多。她说:“这些报道在全球范围……改变了人们对这些问题的观念和认识。”波伊特拉斯表示,由于担心与美国政府合作可能让它们丧失业务,谷歌、苹果(Apple)和Facebook等科技公司“在保护客户隐私方面正在做出切实的重大改变”。“因此技术行业正在出现那类转变,而且我认为转变将会继续。它们将为客户提供加密和隐私保护”。波伊特拉斯尤其对德国的事态发展感到高兴——她自2012年(那是在她开始制作《第四公民》之前)以来住在德国,因为她认为在美国工作风险过大。但她对英国的批评很尖锐——由于担心被捕,她拒绝去英国,即便为了推介《第四公民》也不例外。“我的律师非常担忧和小心,因此我没有去过英国”。她补充称:“没错,我会回美国,但美国有所不同。我的意思是,美国有保护媒体的宪法《第一修正案》(First Amendment)。美国政府从未因记者发表机密信息而对其进行追捕。”在英国,《官方保密法》(Official Secrets Act)不受约束的触角范围令她却步,尤其是在官员们闯入《卫报》办公室,下令毁掉与斯诺登相关的电脑设备之后。电影中记录了那一刻——锤子将电子设备砸成碎片。她略微提高声音说:“我的意思是,得知这个消息令我震惊,没有法律保护新闻机构;如果没有健康运转的自由媒体,就没有对发生事件的历史记忆。”像斯诺登本人一样,波伊特拉斯认为秘密监视在某些情况下是正当的——例如疑似的恐怖分子阴谋或核扩散。“但它不应是巨大的拖网,对全体人口进行疑神疑鬼的监听。我们生活在实行法治的民主国家,这些监听计划绕开了法治。”她承认监视改变了她。她不仅对实际事务极为谨慎,比如加密电子邮件,并且拥有两台电脑:一台用于工作,另一台作一般用途。当她收到斯诺登的邮件时,她重读了乔治#8226;奥威尔(George Orwell)的《一九八四》(Nineteen Eighty-Four)。她被书中的英雄温斯顿#8226;史密斯(Winston Smith)试图在不受政府监视的情况下写日记的情节打动。她回忆说:“随之而来的可以说是寒蝉效应,当他真正坐下来写的时候,他居然无法表达自己的真实感受。我感受到了这一点,虽然没到那种程度,但是这种寒蝉效应是存在的,你意识到,嗯,既然我认为自己的电脑被入侵了,那我还要在电子邮件里写私人的事情吗?所以,我开始使用铅笔和纸,诸如此类的事情。”但她引以自豪的是,她信任所有参与制作斯诺登电影的人,她最密切的同事中多数是女性。当她在柏林的首映式上介绍她的团队时,首批出场站到台上的15人中9位是女性;她说,她选择这些人不是因为她们是女性,而是因为她们是“绝对最优秀的人”,而且女性拍摄纪录片比在好莱坞作用更大。“有这么多杰出的女性纪录片导演,所以我不觉得自己是独一无二的。”她揣测,这是否是因为制作纪录片的组织规模比好莱坞大片小得多。“我觉得你可以走自己的路,而无需通过官僚体制的各个层级。我不知道。”波伊特拉斯把《第四公民》看作她关于美国实力三部曲的第三部;前两部是她拍摄的关于伊拉克和关塔那的纪录片。她说,现在讨论下一步可能做什么还“为时尚早”。但她正在为2016年纽约惠特尼美国艺术物馆(Whitney Museum of American Art)的一个基于电影的展览做准备,这个展览将以“不同的方式展现相同的主题”。“说实话,我不会停止关心这些问题。9/11事件已经过去13年,但我们仍在阿富汗打仗,仍有一些政策在推动美国向着我认为不对的方向前行。我们在透明度和政府上有点偏离了根本的道德原则。”这是一个严肃的看法,可是像波伊特拉斯那样制作纪录片本来就是一项严肃的事业。斯诺登选得很精明。。