Home
Member since 2017-07-15T03:50:57Z. Last seen 2025-02-23T01:24:09Z.
2752 blog posts. 128 comments.
Tweet Donate Usage GitHub Download npm install feather-icons Donate Usage GitHub Release Notes License Contact Made with <3 by Cole Bemis
2017-08-24 21:15:36 HKT
劍橋大學出版社早前在中國廣電總局要求下，抽起旗下《中國季刊》300多篇有關六四、文革、西藏、新疆及港台等敏感文章及書評。(互聯網) 英國劍橋大學出版社遭中國當局施壓，刪除其中國網站上的《中國季刊》（The China Quarterly）逾300篇涵蓋文化大革命、六四事件等內容的學術文章及書評。事件引起學術界激烈反彈，劍橋大學出版社其後撤回決定，重新補回這些文章。不旋踵，中國當局要求劍橋大學出版社刪去中國網站《亞洲研究》（The Journal of Asian Studies）約100篇文章，劍橋大學出版社暫未執行中國方面的要求。
《中國季刊》是歐美學術界研究中國的重量級刊物，由英國倫敦大學亞非學院主理，是一份有近六十年歷史的期刊。香港前總督衛奕信（David Wilson）1968年放下英國外交部的職務，就是轉而擔任這份刊物的主編，當時衛奕信的漢名是魏德巍。衛奕信的博士學位是在倫敦大學獲得，學術界有傳衛奕信曾獲美國哥倫比亞大學專研孫中山先生的韋慕庭教授（Martin Wilbur）指導；英美研究中國的學者關係密切，由此可見一斑。
1949年中共建政、1950年韓戰爆發，歐美急忙投入大量人力物力研究中共，有官方的介入，亦有民間財團的投入，《中國季刊》相當長一段時間便是由福特基金會贊助。美國對中國的研究，來華傳教士及在華工作美國人的第二代，佔了大到不能想像的比重，這些「子承父業」的中國通，成為四十年代到六十年代歐美了解中共政權的主力。當中，最為人熟悉的是做到1949年8月中共建政前夕的美國駐華大使司徒雷登（John Leighton Stuart）；中美1979年建交後，第二任駐華大使恒安石（Arthur Hummel Jr.）與第五任大使芮效儉（Stapleton Roy），三人都是來華傳教士之子，不同的是他們出生地點分別是浙江杭州、山西汾州和江蘇南京。第四任大使李潔明（James Lilley），父親是美國石油公司駐華人員，他生於山東青島。五十年代中至七十年代初，英國研究中國的學者亦有美國人，包括身兼中國、蒙古通的拉鐵摩爾（Owen Lattimore），另一是施拉姆（Stuart Schram）。
傳教士後代的中國通，加上抗戰之後在重慶擔任美國新聞處主任時與周恩來有往來的學者費正清（John King Fairbank）回到哈佛大學任教，以及哥倫比亞大學教授、亦是傳教士之子的包大可（A.Doak Barnett），成為戰後美國學界研究現代中國的主流。這些傳教士第二代及在華工作美國人員子弟，親歷國民政府官員貪污顢頇，在1949年之後的台海兩岸之間，不少被認為傾向中共多於國民政府。
六十年代，越戰推動美國調整對中共政策，中國通在當中影響至巨。若說費正清的門生是漢學研究與現代中國研究並重，那末包大可一系的一些例子，則可在側面說明是現代中國研究多於漢學，尤其是美國近代對中共政策的模塑，包大可一言九鼎。當時美國對中共及蘇聯展開圍堵，組織中蘇兩國周邊國家包圍之時，包大可率先提出對北京「圍堵但非孤立」（containment without isolation）。受業包大可的兩位學者，卡特時代國家安全事務官員奧克森伯格（Michel Oksenberg）、克林頓的國家安全事務特別助理李侃如（Kenneth Lieberthal），循業師足迹推動中美關係。任內與北京建交的卡特曾言，奧克森伯克「改變了我的生命，改變了國家的生命，一定程度上改變了每一個中國人民的生命」，可見奧克森伯格在中美建交中的重要作用。
《中國季刊》刪文事件，說明就算歷史悠久的期刊，亦無法以學術自由抵擋言論審查，歐美中國通欲以文化影響現代中國之夢因此喚醒。包大可從1960年到1982年，出任《中國季刊》編輯委員會成員長達22年，刊物今次被要求刪去300多篇文章，包大可若然泉下有知，不知作何感想。七十年代初，英國研究中國的學術界爆發激烈爭論，拉鐵摩爾一派認為，先要研讀古典中國知識，接下來才研究現代中國；另一派則認為，先要研究現代中國政治及經濟等內容，之後才學漢語、攻讀古典中國。事隔差不多半世紀，在21世紀的今天再次檢視那次論爭，
（節錄，全文將於明日蘋果論壇刊出）
Test
Disney’s Choice
While the “look-at-the-silly-millenials” genre tends to be a bit tiresome, the Wall Street Journal came up with a novel angle earlier this month: the TV antenna.
The antenna is mounting a quiet comeback, propelled by a generation that never knew life before cable television, and who primarily watch Netflix, Hulu and HBO via the Internet. Antenna sales in the U.S. are projected to rise 7% in 2017 to nearly 8 million units, according to the Consumer Technology Association, a trade group…
Since the dawn of television, the major networks have broadcast signals over the airwaves. It is free after buying an antenna, indoor or outdoor, and plugging it into your TV set. It still exists, though now most consumers have switched to cable television, which includes many more channels and costs upward of $100 a month.
The story is even more ironic when you consider the origins of cable TV. In the late 1940s, households that, due to geography, could not receive over-the-air television signals in their homes, banded together to erect “community antennas” on mountain tops or tall buildings, and then ran cables from said antennas to individual houses. In other words, cable TV originated as a means to get the free TV that was broadcast to everyone.
It turned out, though, that these “super antennas” could pick up not only local broadcast signals but also signals from stations hundreds of miles away; that meant that having cable access didn’t simply bring households to parity with customers using in-house antennas: cable TV was actually better. And while the FCC soon killed the ability of cable operators to offer those far-off channels, the idea of using cable access to offer additional differentiated content inspired Charles Dolan and Gerald Levin to launch the United States’ first pay-TV network in 1972; they called it the Home Box Office, now more commonly known by its acronym, HBO.
HBO pioneered the use of satellites to spread its content to all those community access cable networks; TBS, an Atlanta local television station owned by Ted Turner soon joined them, at first offering content for free, funded by advertising. Eventually, though, TBS and other channels, including the USA Network and an all-sports venture called ESPN, realized that the entrepreneurs investing in building out cable systems needed content to entice new subscribers in order to pay off their fixed costs: that meant the ability to charge fees on a per-subscriber basis — provided, of course, that the cable channel charging such fees actually had content that was worth paying for.
What made this transition easier is that cable operators were already charging customers for access; cable channels didn’t have to charge customers directly, and if their subscriber fees resulted in higher cable rates, well, that wasn’t their problem! Indeed, it wasn’t a problem for anyone: thanks to bundle economics everyone was happy. Cable operators charged more but justified increases with more and more cable channels; customers may have grumbled but increasingly found cable indispensable, thanks to cable networks doing exactly what they were incentivized to do: create or acquire content that was worth paying for.
Vertical Versus Horizontal
Perhaps the oldest theme on Stratechery is the importance of understanding the difference between vertical and horizontal companies; in May 2013 I wrote of Apple and Google:
Apple invests in software, apps, and services to the extent necessary to preserve the profit they gain from hardware. To serve another platform would be actively detrimental to their bottom line. Google, on the other hand, spreads their services to as many places as possible – every platform they serve increases their addressable market.
Vertical companies like Apple achieve profits by selling differentiated goods at high margins. Horizontal companies like Google, on the other hand, achieve profits through scale, which by extension means being free (or as low cost as possible) is more important than being the “best”; the brilliance of Google’s model, of course, is that having more users, and thus more data, means it is the best as well.
Indeed, that is the foundation of another major Stratechery theme: Aggregation Theory. Some companies, in markets with zero distribution costs and zero transactions costs (like search, for example), can leverage an initial user experience advantage into a virtuous cycle: new users attract new suppliers, which in turn increases the user experience, thus attracting even more users, in turn attracting more suppliers, until the aggregator has all the users and all the suppliers. Naturally, given that the payoff is, as I said, all the users, aggregators are horizontal companies.
Netflix: The Disruptive Aggregator
Netflix is an aggregator, perhaps my favorite example of all, in part because their industry — television — was in a far stronger position than the text-based industries aggregated by Google and Facebook. Making good content is hard, and expensive, and cable has always been a good deal; that Netflix has been as successful as it has is perhaps the most powerful example there is of how an initial user experience advantage can lead to a dominant position in an industry.
Netflix is also disruptive; while the term is overused, the formulation is actually quite simple: a new entrant leverages a technical innovation to serve customers with a business model incumbents cannot compete with, and over time moves up the value chain until those incumbents end up with a worse product that is more expensive to boot.
In the case of Netflix the innovation was streaming over the Internet: it was both a user experience breakthrough that gained the company customers, providing revenue with which the company could start to produce its own content, and also an enabler of a new business model — content everywhere. From a recent feature in Variety:
No media company today is expanding faster and is more talked about, admired, feared and debated than Netflix — which has upended the traditional models for television and inspired binge culture. “They totally made television global, and that was an unheard-of concept,” says Harvey Weinstein. “Whoever thought of buying universal rights to anything?” Depending on where you stand, Netflix is either saving Hollywood or wreaking havoc on an already unstable industry.
Netflix’s recent deal with longtime ABC Studios showrunner Shonda Rhimes draws that line quite nicely: for content creators Netflix’s rise has been a boon, not only financially but also creatively; for networks the streaming service is nothing but a threat, not just for talent but also viewer attention, and, inconveniently, a source of income at the same time.
Disney’s Netflix Problem
Rhimes former employer, Disney, is a perfect example. Back in 2012 the media company signed a deal with Netflix to stream many of the media conglomerate’s most popular titles; CEO Bob Iger had crowed on an earnings call earlier that year:
We feel very, very good about opportunities in SVOD and on digital platforms, as we’ve seen and other large media companies have seen the opportunities to monetize owned IP are only growing not just because of new technology but globally. And I think you’ll continue to see growth in both revenue and growth in bottom line, in income, from output deals to these third party or new platform owners. An exciting time for intellectual property owners.
Iger’s excitement was straight out of the cable playbook: as long as Disney produced differentiated content, it could depend on distributors to do the hard work of getting customers to pay for it. That there was a new distributor in town with a new delivery method only mattered to Disney insomuch as it was another opportunity to monetize its content.
The problem now is obvious: Netflix wasn’t simply a customer for Disney’s content, the company was also a competitor for Disney’s far more important and lucrative customer — cable TV. And, over the next five years, as more and more cable TV customers either cut the cord or, more critically, never got cable in the first place, happy to let Netflix fulfill their TV needs, Disney was facing declines in a business it assumed would grow forever.
The company finally responded earlier this month: not only did Disney terminate its deal with Netflix, CEO Bob Iger announced plans for Disney’s own streaming service, populated not only with the company’s family-friendly library but also original shows. Make no mistake, this is a big deal, and strategically sound; Disney, though, faces an under-appreciated challenge in making this streaming service a success: its own fundamental nature as a company.
One of the luxuries of monopoly is that a company doesn’t need to make the vertical/horizontal distinction I referenced earlier; Microsoft, for example, profited for years with a vertical-type business model — making money on device sales, via licensing — without ever developing an internal culture suited towards creating differentiation that customers would pay for. The presumption was they would have no choice, leaving the company free to focus on horizontal empire expansion.
That is a big reason why the company floundered when the rise of mobile reduced PCs to a minority position in the market; in an effort to preserve the business model former CEO Steve Ballmer attempted to build a devices business that Microsoft was fundamentally unsuited for. And, on the flipside, CEO Satya Nadella’s greatest achievement has been shifting the company towards non-Windows-dependent services that serve everyone, the sort of approach that Microsoft as a company is far better at.
Disney has the opposite problem: the company is really good at creating differentiated content — the absolute best in the business. The business model, though, has been a horizontal one. Thanks to the cable bundle the company has long since grown accustomed to getting a little bit of money from everyone, not a lot from the smaller number of folks who are willing to pay a premium for Disney’s differentiation.
The challenge for Disney is that as that old business erodes, the freedom to not choose between a vertical and horizontal model will erode as well:
Disney could pursue a vertical business model that would suit its differentiated approach; this would mean a streaming service that looks a lot like HBO. A relatively high price for a relatively small amount of content, and, by extension, an outsized dependence on the company’s ability to continually generate must-see TV. Disney could pursue a horizontal business model that better aligns with the economics of video; video has high fixed costs which means the more customers over which to spread those costs the better. This, interestingly enough, would look much more like Netflix: ever more content with the goal of reaching ever more customers, and becoming an aggregator. The worst approach would be to try and have it both ways: a streaming service that has limited differentiated content with horizontal audience and revenue assumptions; unfortunately for Disney this is exactly what Iger hinted at in his announcement:
While Iger didn’t announce pricing, he did say that “What we’re going to go for here is significant distribution because we believe one way to be successful in the long run is for both of these services to reach a maximum number of people.” That sounds like a horizontal approach! At the same time, Disney might not even include all of its own content in the service. Iger said of Marvel and Star Wars, “We’ve also thought about including Marvel and Star Wars as part of the Disney-branded service, but there where we want to be mindful of the Star Wars fan and the Marvel fan and to what extent those fans are either overlapped with Disney fans or they’re completely basically separate or incremental to Disney fans.” To be clear, both of these decisions are up in the air, but Iger’s comments are fundamentally at odds with each other: you reach everyone by having more content, not less, and by building a new sort of bundle (which is exactly what Netflix is doing). That means not only including Marvel and Star Wars but also content from non-Disney studios as well. Yes, that may seem antithetical to Disney, the only company that can rival Apple when it comes to fanatical control of how it is perceived by customers, but the company is rapidly losing the luxury of having cable companies do its dirty work.
On the other hand, if Disney insists on doing its own thing, limiting its service to its own differentiated content, it needs to charge the premium that such a strategy entails, and accept the smaller customer base that will result.
The Challenge of Culture
From my perspective the best approach is the horizontal one: content production is economically suited to a model predicated on maximum reach, and the Disney brand is uniquely capable of giving Netflix a run for its money when it comes to acquiring customers and building the streaming bundle of the future.
I wonder, though, if Disney, particularly under leadership that was so successful under the old model, is desperate enough to do what it takes to build a truly successful horizontal business. In some respects the challenge is even more difficult than Microsoft’s: in that case the company had to give up its business model to pursue a new opportunity that fit the fundamental nature of the company. I am suggesting Disney do the opposite: keep its business model — making money from everyone — while letting go of the need to control everything that is so inextricably tied up with the ability to create differentiation. It might be too much to ask.
五年一屆的文獻展還有一個月就要結束，到這時已經引來批評一片。認識好幾個暑期去德國旅遊的愛藝人士，這次都避開了文獻展。 看大型藝術展覽確實是有閒有錢階層的特權，從世界各地飛往德國，機票和食宿就是一筆開銷；即便對德國人而言，很少有人願意把年假花在國內，多尋一個週末馬不停蹄看完罷了。今屆策展人亞當更想出一展兩城，最極致的參觀者還應撥出三五天飛往雅典。使人怨聲載道的是展覽協助服務匱乏，時長幾個月、每日有節目的文獻展，並沒有一本圖錄供人查詢作品的基本信息（藝術家、媒介、展覽場地和日期、以及少許解讀）。想知道發生什麼，只能看每日更新的網站。去到展館，作品介紹同樣乏善可陳，有時只有德文或藝術家的母語。 展覽聘請各國志願者做導覽員。我訂了一個，是個二十歲的加拿大遊戲設計師，堪稱一問三不知，總說「那你們怎麼想？」結果參觀者自己需要看手機、互相交流，運氣好還能現場捉到藝術家問一兩句。結束時我追問他是否經過培訓，他介紹培訓中並沒有太多關於藝術作品的內容，
這樣一解釋，我大概有些明白策展人的苦心。
文獻展拒絕提供這樣的意義，而是鼓勵不同聲音來唱副歌。用行動貫徹藝術政治理念的展覽，實在值得花費時間去看。
即時要聞 2017-08-24 00:32:47
(蘋果日報) 中心風力達時速175公里的強颱風「天鴿」，風眼直撲澳門，令當地大停電，洪水圍城。由賭王何鴻燊創建的葡京酒店，亦受停電波及要關閉。有澳門人表示，從未見過葡京關門。
今次天鴿吹襲澳門期間，下環、筷子基、沙梨頭一帶災情最嚴重，多輛停泊在路邊的車輛都遭殃，有車被水浸到擱起，也有不少車輛要報銷。
澳門沙梨頭一帶深夜仍未恢復供電，四周圍大廈烏燈黑火，街道佈滿垃圾，滿目瘡痍，猶如死城一樣。
2017/08/22 16:47 20 鄭正鈐／新竹市議員
勞動部在8月18日召開基本工資審議委員會，敲定自民國107年元旦起，基本工資月薪將由2萬1009元調高至2萬2000元，「22K」正式成為勞工的薪資下限，可謂勞工權益一大進程；但在教育界卻還有一群兼任及代課的「血汗教師」，屬於相對弱勢的群體，可惜少有人為他們發聲。
公立中小學兼任及代課教師鐘點費支給基準，自民國91年頒布至今，只修正了兩次，將「支給原則」修正為「支給基準」，將「中小學」修正成「公立中小學」，然而攸關教師權益、進而影響教學品質的鐘點費金額，長久以來不動如山，始終停滯如昔。
依照規定，在公立高中兼任、代課的教師，每節課的鐘點費是新台幣400元，國中是360元，國小更是低到260元，長年不動的金額，其實少得可憐；如若加計老師們事前備課、課後修改作業、考卷、計算成績等額外時間，每一堂課，事實上要耗費2到3小時的實際工時，換算下來，甚至還不如工讀生的時薪。 以國小兼任、代課教師的鐘點費來看，每周最高20堂課，一個月下來，薪資只有可憐的20800元，遠低於勞工基本工資，而國中老師也不過略優一些，可以領得28800元薪資；然而還不一定每位老師都能排到20堂課最高上限，再扣除沒上課就沒有收入的寒暑假，一整年計算下來，只能用「悲哀」兩字形容。
這樣的窘境，難以吸引對教育有熱情的師資，許多偏鄉學校根本招聘不到代理、代課教師，其次，即使勉強找到了人，如此待遇條件也非長久之計，勢必留不住人才，終究將危害孩子的受教權，損及整體教育品質。 再窮也不能窮教育，教育部有必要立即檢討公立中小學兼任及代課教師鐘點費支給基準，不要再壓榨作育英才的基層教師了！
作者:李玉杨 来自新浪评论
目前，共享经济的代表性企业除了Uber、滴滴之外，我们所能够想到的另外一个鼻祖级人物就是——Airbnb。
现在Airbnb依靠房屋租赁已经做到了255亿美元的估值，在全球“独角兽”当中排名第三，仅次于Uber和小米。
全球估值前四的独角兽们，其中有三位是共享经济的拥趸。但同样作为互联网共享经济的代表，Uber所在的租车行业和Airbnb经营的房屋短租领域却在国内的发展却有了很大的差别，以至于滴滴、Uber在国内做的如火如荼，宛如明星，旁边的Airbnb却鲜有人了解。
其实国内早就有了Airbnb的学徒，现已倒闭的爱日租是由德国“互联网山寨之王”之称的Rocket Internet控股的，前段时间阿里收购的东南亚电商平台Lazada，就是Rocket Internet的杰作。只不过爱日租却成了“第一个吃螃蟹中毒的家伙”，烧完2000万美元之后宣布倒闭，被很多人看做是中国没有在线短租的生存土壤的实证。
在思考一些共享经济问题时，我偶尔会产出这样的疑问：同样是共享经济，为何打车和房屋短租在国内却出现了冰火两重天的景象？真如大家所说的，Airbnb模式在国内没有生存土壤？还是没有找到打开正确体位的姿势？
今天，就以本人的浅之拙见来抛砖引玉，希望能够带来更多有益的启发。
都是非标服务惹的祸
共享经济好比电商行业的C2C，是以线下用户的闲散物品或者是服务等基于线上平台进行物权短暂交换的新兴经济模式。
共享经济可称之为“互联网+”在目前最好的实践者，但是共享经济和现在很多“互联网+”行业面临着一样的困境——非标服务和产品如何进行普适性改造。
Uber和Airbnb在产品层面的区别
从商业模式上来看，Uber和Airbnb也都是玩的共享经济，差别并不大，而Uber和滴滴在国内的现状表明了，消费者对于共享经济这一商业模式事实上的认可，这就说明共享经济在国内完全能够行得通。
抛开共享经济，想要找出Uber和Airbnb市场表现不同的原因，必须深入产品层面进行发掘。Uber的产品是以线上打车为主，Airbnb是以线上短期出租房屋为主，两者一个满足了“行”和需求，一个满足的是“住”的需求。
如果说区别，打车和租赁房屋除了外表形态上的差异，打车更多的是一种标准化的服务，而租赁房屋则是一种非标准化的服务。这是基于，打车行业本身已经形成了一套跨区域的服务规范。举个小小的栗子，你知道在北京冲着出租车招招手就能拦下，同样在纽约、在东京、在伦敦，这一方法同样适用。其实这样的例子还有很多，而线上打车其实就受益于人们潜意识里已经形成的约定成俗的打车习惯，使得无论是购买方还是出租方的学习适应成本都极低。
但在Airbnb上挂出的房屋既没有酒店的24小时服务，保洁人员及时周到的清理和每天更换的洗浴用品等等。这种非标准化的服务产品，往往加重了用户的心理负担，并且会出现很多意想不到的适应难题。
当然，如果不深入研究，你会发现Airbnb的房屋租赁模式和国内传统的房屋中介有着相似之处。但是，传统中介会让买卖双方进行看房面谈，提升安全感，并且提供契约保证。而这些对于Airbnb来讲，其表现手段就是更为苍白的房屋PS照片和“不够靠谱”的文字描述。
在国内目前信用普遍不高，社会公众安全感极低的情况下，去陌生人家里住上一晚，堪称是一次冒险活动，至少我会为买卖双方的这种勇气点个赞。
而且，Airbnb模式对于国人来说，带有强烈的美帝文化气息。
中国社会科学院财经战略研究院在京发布《中国经济体制改革报告2013》称，预计2020年中国城市人均住宅建筑面积将达到35平方米，实现一户一房 。而北京大学中国社会科学调查中心发布《中国民生发展报告2013》，该报告称2012年全国家庭平均住房面积为100平米，人均30平米。
根据美国统计署发布的数据，2014年美国共有住宅1.34亿栋， 美国家庭拥有自己房屋的比率是65%，其中的60%为独栋屋、6%是连栋屋或双栋屋、8%为活动房屋，剩下26%为公寓楼里的单元房。美国人拥有房地产的中线价值为17.7万美元。若按统计署每个家庭平均人口2.63计算的话，人均占有使用面积的中位数为88.6平方米。
从人均面积和独栋House上就可以看出，美国的房屋短租有着很好的经济基础，能够撑起Airbnb这样的“上层建筑”。Airbnb式的短租在国内行不通，是不是就意味着在“住”的层面，共享经济在国内没有生存土壤呢？当然不是。
非标准服务商品必须进行标准化输出
在Airbnb网站上，较为普遍的短租方式有两种，一种是整套房屋出租，另一种则是和房东一起共享一套房屋。
私以为，既然房屋出租式的共享方式是一种非标准的商品服务，那为什么不在有限的程度内进行标准化整合，既能够保证共享经济的特色，同时又不失舒适方便的特性。
比如，国内用户担心安全问题，为何我们不从整套房屋出租开始？教育培养用户，只有通过润物细无声的方式，让用户接受这样一个事实：房屋短租更加的实惠方便，而且也是一种时尚的住宿方式。
像爱日租这样Airbnb的像素级复制者，往往平均一单可赚50到60元，但爱日租获取单个订单成本是150元，也就是平均每单亏损上百块，相对于普通互联网公司的单个获客成本来说，高出了数十倍。所以，他倒闭了。
而如果一开始，爱日租能够提供类似酒店的服务，但是以短租的方式，先进行整套房屋出租，这样有利于保证用户体验。当整套房屋出租已经形成一套规范化的标准之后，此时再横向扩张，相信阻力或小很多。爱日租死在了水土不服上。
中国在线房屋短租行业的切入点和方向在哪里？
笔者认为，除了以上的非标商品服务的标准化输出，其实我们也不妨参考Airbnb进军国内的方式。
似乎Aribnb已经开始吸取中国模仿者的教训，在2015年，Airbnb踩着一众模仿者的尸体宣布进军中国市场，不得不说，Airbnb选的真是时候。根据36 氪报道：2015年第一季度，Airbnb 通过穷游网页面总预定数量为 9634 单，总间夜达到 23389。此外，Airbnb联合创始人内森•布莱卡斯亚克（Nathan Blecharczyk）最近称，
Airbnb公司准备让房主和投宿客人结伴旅游、开展体育活动或其他活动。
可见，旅游行业已经成为Airbnb的下一个目标，而在中国Airbnb更是将旅游作为切入点，从而反向延伸至房屋短租。
国家旅游局统计结果显示，2015年上半年国内旅游人数20.24亿人次，同比增长9.9%；国内旅游消费1.65万亿元人民币，同比增长14.5%，比社会消费品零售总额增速高4.1个百分点。出入境总游客数量为1.27亿人次，同比增长9.8%。
显然，Airbnb将旅游作为在线短租的切入口，是有着用户需求基础的。而游玩往往必须考虑“住”的需求，两者天然的联系让Airbnb找到了打入中国市场的突破口，这种将需求解决方案打包的方式推广在线短租的方式更为聪明。
所谓Airbnb在国内没有生存土壤，笔者认为现在下结论为时过早，在线短租行业目前才刚刚发力，当资本集中涌来，才是在线短租行业真正的春天，虽然这个春天来的晚一些。
来源：虎嗅网（http://www.huxiu.com/article/150502/1.html）
《商业评论》网iPhone客户端
请关注我们的新浪微博官方帐号：
@商业评论网（http://weibo.com/ebusinessreview）
@商业评论杂志（http://weibo.com/hbrc)
最近，被朋友圈《有了共享汽车，再也不用买车了》 类似标题的共享汽车文章刷屏了。
从共享单车到共享充电宝、共享雨伞......共享经济去年到今年的热度可是远远不亚于之前的O2O概念，表面好似是把传统的租赁搬到线上，只要加一把能用微信支付和支付宝打开的锁，采取计时收费，就能打上共享经济的标签。
那么，对于共享汽车（更准确的描述是“分时租赁”——钛媒体注），我认为值得提出疑问：共享汽车真的有这么大的社会价值？
共享汽车不过是新瓶装旧酒
共享汽车最早的模型在2012年笔者就有所听闻，在当时因打车市场的热战，也激发了相关的汽车租赁市场，在那时期的PP租车，友友租车、AA租车等一批打着共享经济旗号的互联网租车公司相继诞生，早期大多都是“p2p模式”的共享租车，时至今日，这些平台似乎过的并不好。在今年3月曾获得过千万级美元融资的友友租车就因为新的融资没有到位，宣布业务全面停止下线。而PP租车也因模式问题后面转型做传统的汽车租赁业务了，打着“共享经济”的租车公司并没有把故事讲到最后。
如果剖开共享汽车的运营底层架构来看的话，本身的模式和传统的模式上并无太大的差异：
有租赁公司方提供车辆，用户提供租赁资格平台审核，用户取车使用按照计时付费。而共享汽车无非是在操作环节上从传统的面对面切换到手机APP里，由人工替换了移动互联网。在国内目前大部分家庭已实现家家一部汽车，在信用体系缺失的中国，日常生活租车还是很难被大众所理解，除了异地外出旅游，会有多少人有租车自驾的需求？
西方国家可以一辈子租房住，可以租车用。在中国，车和房是很多家庭一辈子奋斗的目标，这是骨子里的意念。之所以共享汽车能在美国做起来，是因为美国人工成本高，导致出租车价格高，而且美国的公共交通不够发达，加之信用体系完善，因而共享汽车是很好的出行方式。但在中国，出租车价格低廉，还有地铁、公交、专车等各种交通方式。因而不论是自驾租车还是共享汽车，在中国都有沦为“鸡肋”的趋势。
同样的风口，不同的结局
共享单车厮杀的激烈市场，对于共享汽车有巨大的刺激作用。共享单车的融资规模和融资速度都令人不可思议，从滴滴和快的到摩拜和ofo，从共享单车到共享充电宝，资本正变得越来越强势和激进。唯快不破成了大过天的法则，没有人再考虑企业需要练内功的自我修养。而共享经济正是在资本的风口上，给了创业者更多试错的机会。
共享单车从某种层面来说，是唤醒了用户的需求，短途自行车的需求在拥堵的一线城市是一直有的，只是困于没有太方便的自行车可骑车。
租车则有很大不同。
在北京这种一线大城市，共享汽车的市场需求量至少为2万辆，而目前实际投入运营还不到5000辆。这种共享汽车的投放数量上还不如传统的一嗨、神州租车一个城市的自由汽车数量多。
在今天单车已经进入了洗牌期，共享单车的投放在一个城市动辄就是百万辆的投放起点，共享汽车是不可能做到的。单车的投入成本远远低于汽车，单车失败了，可以说是做公益了，而共享汽车对于运营方来说失败不起！
单车可以在路边直接投放让用户即用即还，共享汽车却不能自由取车还车，往往用户有需求时还需要公共交通的短泊找到共享汽车的停车点。一部分共享平台采用的是“定点租”，事实上非常影响用户体验。不仅如此，由于停车收费问题，不定点租还，难免会产生停车费，更让用车人难以接受。从用户需求和体验上，共享单车和共享汽车完全相差深远，共享汽车更像是在追着共享经济风口的伪需求。
共享汽车运营或面临最大挑战
近日，共享单车引发的少年致死案引发了社会讨论，打着共享经济标签的企业在市场随意投放商品，并不意味着就没有监管。而共享汽车相对于传统租赁，基本全程要在无人监控的场面下依靠线上完成整个流程，在面部识别和信用缺失体系下，共享汽车的运维和监管难免出现一些真空地带。在车车辆使用上，一些汽车的刮蹭，小事故，单纯靠线上监管是很难完成的。单车的零部件比较简单，而汽车的很多零部件能否保证完整以及一些日常的维修保养等都是运营方要考虑的细节。汽车的安全完全不同于单车，汽车很可能会因为车辆性能的一点小问题酿成大祸。
对驾驶员是否酒驾，是否是本人租车本人驾驶，以及交通事故的划分，这些问题都会摆在平台运营方面前，毕竟机动车是和非机动完全不一样的，此外，违章罚单也成为一大痛点。尽管各家都在想办法采用措施确保用户为自己的违章买单，却依然会有漏网之鱼或者拒不支付的情况。
在成本方面，按照常理共享汽车的定价不能高于网约车，但共享汽车单量投入基本都是10万元+甚至更高，且共享汽车不可能24小时持续被使用，若加上各种停车费，车辆维修，人力成本，多数分时租赁企业只能以亏损状态维持现有运营，尚未敢轻举妄动，这也是行业一片繁荣下分时租赁的现状。
汽车与单车的品类完全不同。共享单车可以粗放管理，但共享汽车对细节运营的要求极为严苛，需要投入大量的金钱成本、时间成本和人力成本。加上回本难、盈利难，久而久之，就会显现出亏损和衰落的趋势。
综上所述，在共享单车的旋风下，打着共享经济旗号的共享汽车看似是机会，实则不过是伪需求，在目前用户体验、重资产投入以及监管困难等死穴没有解决的情况下，共享汽车不过是个伪命题。
By David Edmonds BBC News
Visitor looks at of the Sculpture of Auguste Rodin, The Thinker, during a press preview in the Barberini Museum on January 19, 2017 in Potsdam, GermanyImage copyright Getty Images Two hundred years ago, it was still possible for one person to be a leader in several different fields of inquiry. Today that is no longer the case. So is there a role in today's world for the polymath - someone who knows a lot about a lot of things?
"The winner of the 1964 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, which British X-Ray crystallographer was instrumental in…"
"Man produces evil as a bee produces honey. These are the words of which Nobel laureate, born in Cornwall in 1911, his novels include Pincher Martin, the Inheritors and Rites of…"
Obviously you don't need to hear the rest of these questions to know the answers. At least, not if you're Eric Monkman or Bobby Seagull. Seagull's fist-pumping and natty dressing, and Monkman's furrowed brow, flashing teeth, contorted facial expressions and vocal delivery - like a fog horn with a hangover - made these two young men the stars of the last University Challenge competition.
I feel that if I want to make a novel contribution to society I need to know a great deal about one tiny thing Eric Monkman, Polymath "Wolfson, Monkman" and "Emmanuel, Seagull" became familiar phrases, Monkmania became a hashtag. They squared off as opposing captains in the semi-finals (though in the final itself, the team from Balliol College, Oxford triumphed).
At Cambridge, Monkman and Seagull forged a most unlikely friendship. The Canadian, Eric Monkman, is the middle-class son of two doctors. Bobby Seagull's family originate in Kerala, India, and he was raised in a working-class part of east London, before gaining a scholarship to Britain's most elite private school, Eton. "If I got married tomorrow, I'd ask Eric to be my best man," says Seagull.
Find out more
Listen to Monkman and Seagull's Polymathic Adventure on BBC Radio 4 at 20:30 on Monday 21 August Catch up later on the BBC iPlayer They're still recognised in the street. "People often ask me, do you intimidate people with your knowledge," says Monkman. "But the opposite is the case. I have wide knowledge but no deep expertise. I am intimidated by experts." Seagull, like Monkman, feels an intense pressure to specialise. They regard themselves as Jacks-of-all-Trades, without being master of one. "When I was young what I really wanted to do was know a lot about a lot," says Monkman. "Now I feel that if I want to make a novel contribution to society I need to know a great deal about one tiny thing."
You have this impulse to know and, therefore, things stick to you - you put on, as it were, epistemological weight Stephen Fry, Actor, comedian, writer and general egghead The belief that researchers need to specialise goes back at least two centuries. From the beginning of the 19th Century, research has primarily been the preserve of universities. Ever since, says Stefan Collini, Professor of Intellectual History and English Literature at Cambridge University, researchers have labels attached to them. "They're professor of this or that, and you get a much more self-conscious sense of the institutional divides between domains of knowledge."
Before then, there were some polymaths who made original contributions in multiple areas. The word polymath stems from the Greek, polus, meaning "much" or "many" and mathe, meaning "learning". The first use of the word has been traced to the 17th Century. From the Renaissance, people such as Leonardo da Vinci - painter, sculptor, architect, physicist, anatomist, philosopher, geologist and biologist - gave rise to a synonym of polymath, the "Renaissance man".
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Leonardo da Vinci designed an aeroplane and a helicopter-like "helical air screw" One polymath/Renaissance Man was Thomas Young (1773-1829), the subject of a biography by Andrew Robinson entitled The Last Man Who Knew Everything. Young was a physician and physicist, whose achievements were breathtaking. He established the wave theory of light, undertook pioneering work in optics and studied 400 languages, helped decode the hieroglyphs on the Rosetta Stone - and much, much more. And to confound any notion that he was a sort of 19th Century uber-geek, he was also an accomplished dancer and gymnast.
These days, any ambition to contribute to many disciplines is probably unrealistic. It takes years of immersion just to reach the boundary of our current knowledge in any one area. Today's polymaths might share the same personal qualities as Thomas Young - an abundance of grey matter, of course, combined with relentless curiosity and a tendency to workaholicism (Young barely slept) - but they are repositories of scholarship rather than contributors to it.
Monkman and Seagull's selected polymaths
Eric's choice:
Stephen Leacock (1869-1944): Anglo-Canadian political scientist and economist famous in Canada today for his collections of humorous essays and stories. The subjects of his comedy include academia, mathematics, life in rural Canada and the "leisure classes" described by his mentor Thorstein Veblen. When browsing a bookshelf in Canada, I always hope to find an early Stephen Leacock collection.
Joseph Needham (1900-1995): British biochemist, sinologist and historian. As a biochemist, Needham studied chemical embryology. As a sinologist, he was one of the first Westerners to realise the depth of Chinese accomplishments in science. This led him to pose the "Needham Question", asking why modern science arose in Europe but not in China. I find this an intriguing mystery.
Bobby's choice:
Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179): This German Benedictine abbess was a theologian, writer, poet, composer, artist, linguist, medical researcher and botanist. She is regarded as the founder of scientific natural history in Germany and is one of the first historically identifiable composers in Western music. I was taught about her during my years at St Bonaventure's Catholic secondary school.
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941): The Calcutta-born "Bard of Bengal" was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize for Literature (1913). India chose one of his musical compositions for its national anthem, while Bangladesh chose one of his poems. He was also a painter, and founded the renowned Visva-Bharati University. My father, who studied Bengali literature at university, introduced me to Tagore at a young age.
So is there still a useful role for today's clever-clog - besides ringer in the pub quiz team?
Stefan Collini says that in many Western societies "there is a populist hostility to expertise in public life". It may be that polymaths, with their broader gaze, have an important role in communicating specialist fields. What's more, with ever narrowing specialism there is a need for generalists to synthesise information, to make connections between the discipline silos.
A contemporary polymath, the American academic Jared Diamond, drew on his interest in geography, evolution, anthropology, history and botany, to develop a theory explaining how it was that Eurasian and North African civilisations came to conquer others. It was turned into a best-selling book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.
Image caption Jared Diamond: One of Stephen Fry's favourite polymaths Diamond is one of Stephen Fry's favourite polymaths. Fry - actor, comedian, writer and general egghead - is himself on the polymathic spectrum. He says he shares a personality trait with other polymaths - inquisitiveness. "If you know a lot, it's because you're curious," he says. "You have this impulse to know and, therefore, things stick to you. You put on, as it were, epistemological weight. I have always been fantastically greedy to know things."
Monkman and Seagull love knowing a lot of stuff. You might find them reading about the French Revolution one day, and about genetics or astronomy the next. Despite their anxiety about spreading themselves too thin, they share Fry's appetite to know. It's an overwhelming craving, likely to frustrate any countervailing drive to master one topic.
By the way. The answer to those two questions. Dorothy Hodgkin was the crystallographer, and William Golding the novelist. But you knew that anyway.
David Edmonds (@DavidEdmonds100) is the producer of Monkman and Seagull's Polymathic Adventure, on Radio 4 at 20:30 on 21 August.
By John Mcternan
John McTernan is head of political practice at PSB, a strategic research consultancy. He was a speechwriter to ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and was communications director to former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.
(CNN)The White House is one of the most instantly recognizable buildings in the world -- a global symbol of American values and democracy. It is also a historic building, in need of constant repair and maintenance to ensure it remains safe and sound. It is now into its third century of life.
Imagine if it were announced that an unavoidable part of the essential repair programs was that it would have to be painted gray for the next four years. The outcry would be deafening. Tourists would be shocked, Americans aghast.
But that -- in effect -- is what is happening in London's most famous landmark: Big Ben. Repairs to the Westminster's Clock Tower -- formally the Elizabeth Tower since Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee -- have led to the bell being silenced for four years.
青嶼幹線昨大塞車，外界歸咎政府在未完成所有收費亭加裝工程前便急推雙向收費，本報翻查資料更發現當局最初預計收費亭工程於2015年中完工，當局解釋分階段施工是為免釀成交通意外，而延至今年底完工則是配合港珠澳大橋工程。但有離島及荃灣區議員批評當局無將收費亭分階段開放的方案諮詢區議會，僅提交傳閱文件，車流量數據亦欠奉，批評當局欠諮詢。
翻查資料，運房局2013年5月就更改收費模式所需的設施更新諮詢立法會交通事務委員會，同年6月獲財委會撥款。文件指局方建議開立一筆8,130萬元的承擔額，更換青馬管制區大嶼山和馬灣繳費廣場人手收費行車線繳費系統、在繳費廣場往機場方向的行車線安裝自動繳費系統，及重建和更換繳費廣場收費亭等。
文件提及工程是配合港珠澳大橋工程而設，預計2014年10月招標，2015年12月完成安裝收費亭等設備，去年4月完成試行運作及轉換系統，去年8月則完成重建繳費廣場往機場方向的交通設備，但隻字未提工程需分階段進行。
當局亦未有就工程細節諮詢離島或荃灣區議會，至今年7月、即新收費實施約一個月前才向葵青、離島及荃灣區議會提交傳閱文件，提及在實施雙向收費後，收費廣場機場方向的5條繳費通道會封閉進行工程，至今年9至12月才完工，而8至12月期間僅得6條繳費通道運作。
運輸署解釋當局一直計劃分階段開放收費亭，工程延至今年才完成是為配合港珠澳大橋預計年底可具備通車條件，而2013年的評估則基於當時估計大橋於2016年底落成。
荃灣區議員譚凱邦指近年區議會均無討論過有關收費方式改變的具體安排，即使當局有具體措施後亦僅於今年7月以傳閱文件方式告知區議會，根本無機會討論，「如果文件交代得全面啲，或者有議員會意識到得6個收費站根本唔夠」，他又指連具體交通流量數據都欠奉。離島區議員鄧家彪指，區議會均從未討論有關雙向收費的具體工程安排，認為有需要諮詢區議會及運輸業界，「你單車比賽封路都諮詢區議會啦，點解呢樣唔做諮詢？」
Fuck ....
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]