2008年11月28日 星期五
東京狂想曲 TOKYO
第一部:室內裝修
一男一女開著破車,車上載著播映電影的器材。男的拍了一部充滿怪誕想法的影片,想要再東京的三流色情小劇院放映,試圖獲得賞識。第一天晚上,他們抵達東京,大雨滂沱,他們投宿女生高中同學在東京的租屋處。那套房小不拉機的。女生的高中同學告訴他樓下五金行門口可以停車,不會被拖吊,而且可以停到16號。
第二天清晨東京女孩就默默地整理好衣裝辛勤地上班去了。他們這對情侶睡醒之後就在街上閒晃、找房子。幾天後他們兩個領悟到了自己與東京女孩的強烈對比,對方汲汲營營地努力工作,而他們兩人卻一直賴在朋友家無所是事,於是他們去應徵面試包裝禮品的工作。原本男主角對於這工作很不感興趣,但是應徵結果卻是他上了。他開始每天努力學習包裝的技巧,女主角則是努力地找房子,只是一直找不到合適的。
電影上映那天,女生發現了16號已過,車子果然已被拖吊,所有放映電影的器材都在車上,贖回車子的錢也不夠,他先騙男主角車子雖被拖吊,但是她已經把器材拿下車了,只求男主角安心。於是她到拖吊場求人讓他把器材拿下車,當然也是遭遇了一翻羞辱。他揹著那些器材坐著電車、捷運...只希望男友的夢想能實現。
放映當晚,效果奇佳,男友有了小小成就,當人問她是否參予演出時,她感到強烈的反差,怎麼男友的夢想慢慢實現,而自己卻像第一天晚上高中同學的玩笑話「胸無大志」?她也才驚覺男友對於夢想(導演)的熱情遠大於對於她。她感到失望,晚上回到借住處時,半夜他聽見了高中同學男友對她的批評,批評她們這對情侶一直賴在別人家裡、不努力工作等等。
隔天醒來,她照著鏡子,發現自己的胸部真的不見了!真的「胸無大志」了!身體漸漸變化,最後演化成一座木椅。變成木椅之後,被一男子拾回,男子出現時她是椅子,男子看不見她時,她變回人類。這種生活她感覺更踏實,更快樂了,儘管只是一個簡單的FUNCTION。
感想:雖然只是一張椅子,但是這樣的一個簡單功能,卻能讓生活踏實,對照著整天努力拼命想替別人、自己博得一點掌聲,真的比較快樂。何必這麼拼命地追求呢?我想,追求遠大目標的爽快感大概都只存在過程之中的小小成就吧,畢竟頂點就只是一個點。也不是每個人都適用這種積極的法則,也不必去相信自己一定是個有用的人,天生我材必有用只適用在那些有資格對別人演講的人,這句話會成為明言的原因也是因為講的人是個出色的人,但是他不一定對,他只是在講述自己的經驗,而我們普羅大眾的基因,跟他還是有很大的區別的。
我不是要你消極,而是認清事實。
第二部:天下為屎
『屎者』長相怪異、行為詭異,生活在下水道。時常從水溝蓋跑出來,搶路人的花、鈔票吃,舔路人,破壞路人的東西。有天他在下水道發現了手榴彈,他帶了一些到人潮聚集的地方,瘋狂的轟炸,造成無數死傷。社會上形成了撻伐他的聲浪,當然,也有一群人是支持他的。後來他被日本警方逮捕,但是警方訊問他時他卻不發一語。這時法國出現了一位長相與他神似的男子自稱能與他溝通,於是他來到了日本與屎者展開對話,當然是講一些很怪異的語言。屎者批評日本人的長相,引起眾怒(我看到這邊倒是滿爽的)。法官決議判處屎者絞刑,就在一群專家的監看之下絞刑完成,醫師也確認屎者死亡了,他卻張開眼睛而且還彎曲身體抓了抓癢。所有專家嚇了一跳,這時後方出現一個怪異的聲音,大家轉頭去看,回過頭來時,屎者已經不見了。
感想:對於這種原始行為,高度社會化的世界已經無法認同,甚至可以看見高度社會化的人類多麼懦弱,在我看來,有些行為還很滑稽。但是,高度社會化的人卻很自以為是,這是問題所在,沒人可以讓他們明白,人類也是動物。或許只有仰望星空看得入神時,才會驚覺"原來我還是活在宇宙之中,不是眼前的城市" 最後一幕讓我想到,現代人太容易大驚小怪,只要丟個煙霧彈就能把人唬得一愣一愣,說不定,這個屎者只是在演戲,但是卻能造成社會激化對立、吸引世界媒體的目光。多可笑的人類?!
第三部:繭居族
這一部有趣的是電影場景的佈置吧,對於劇情我覺得太平淡無奇了。
因此,我不評論了。
2008年11月26日 星期三
2008年11月23日 星期日
不得不被抱怨的台灣人
民主真的倒退了嗎?法律是民主的最後一道防線,這永遠扯不清,還是一樣,信者恆信不信者恆不信。至於政治人物...最好通通去吃屎,別戕害子孫了。
2008年11月19日 星期三
Jamie Oliver Campaigns For Chicken Welfare
Jamie Oliver Campaigns For Chicken Welfare
by Caroline Gammell
Two of Britain's best-known chefs are mounting a campaign to persuade people not to eat battery-reared chickens.
Jamie Oliver has made a television programme on the appalling conditions in which many of the birds live and hopes to encourage supermarkets to invest in better-treated birds such as free range or organic.
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, his friend and fellow chef, has also made a series exposing the horrors of battery farming.
They hope their combined efforts will draw attention to the suffering of the birds and the poor quality of the meat.
In some supermarkets, entire chickens can be bought for as little as £2.50, while recent figures from the RSPCA showed that only five per cent of the birds in Britain were kept in high welfare conditions.
Oliver, who campaigned against unhealthy school dinners in 2005, examines the poultry industry in his one-off programme Jamie's Fowl Dinners on Channel 4 on Jan 11.
In front of invited guests, he will show a series of films and interviews explaining how the birds are killed and their brutal living conditions.
At one stage he examines the 39-day life of a battery-reared chicken and says: "It's disgusting, the smell is awful. Why would anyone want to eat these birds, who are walking in their own faeces."
Oliver's aim is to get rid of the cheapest chicken meat.
"My ambition is to change the 95 per cent of Britain eating standard chicken; to get them to step up to a better-welfare bird. I would say: buy British and buy the best welfare bird you can afford."
High-welfare birds are not necessarily free range or organic but they are given more space, a place to perch, better lighting and longer nights.
Oliver's campaigning success in the past has been formidable. His drive to rid school canteens of unhealthy food - Turkey Twizzlers were a particular target - led Tony Blair's Government to pledge an extra £280?million over three years to improve food standards.
In Fearnley-Whittingstall's three-part Hugh's Chicken Run, which is on Channel 4 starting on Jan 7, the chef tries to ensure that more than 50 per cent of chicken bought and eaten in his local town - Axminster in Devon - over the space of a week is free range.
That includes all curry houses, burger bars and pubs in the area.
In seeking to understand the nature of chicken farming, he rears his own battery chickens alongside free-range birds.
This week, the RSPCA urged shoppers to pay a little extra to ensure that the poultry they bought had been bred in decent conditions and called for retailers to sell only higher welfare chicken by 2010. Of the 855 million chickens reared for their meat in Britain every year, the majority are kept in cramped, dimly-lit spaces.
Marc Cooper, an RSPCA farm animal scientist, said: "If people knew how the average chicken was treated before it ended up as their Sunday roast, they would probably be disgusted."
© 2007 The Telegraph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
肉雞(meat chicken):
• Chicken is Britain's most popular meat
• We eat 12 times as much chicken as we did 30 yrs ago
Our perpetual demand means that not only is it mass produced, it is also dirt cheap:
• 855 million chickens are produced in the UK every year
• Supermarkets are selling whole birds for as little as £2
• Pound for pound that's cheaper than some dog food 比狗食還便宜,人類是該悲哀還是...?
But this low unit cost is not necessarily good for the farmer or the birds.
• Every day 100,000 birds die in standard chicken farms due to poor welfare conditions
一天當中因為環境不好而死亡的機高達10萬隻
蛋雞(egg laying hens):
• We eat over 10 billion eggs a year in the UK
• As well as being sold whole, eggs are present as an ingredient in a number of foods including mayonnaise, biscuits and even wine
在節目中看到那些蛋黃跟蛋白被分離,再組合成廚師需要的形狀,或是加工成全蛋液方便使用,看完之後真的覺得很噁心。麥當勞早餐的荷包蛋不會是這樣來的吧?不然怎麼能這麼奇形怪狀?別以為你在超市買到的沙拉是正常的水煮蛋,那是一條長條型的組合但切片而成的。
• 86% of these eggs still come from battery caged hens who do not have the freedom to express natural behaviour i.e. dust bathe, forage, roost & nest
這個活動的網址:http://www.supportchickennow.co.uk/freedomfood/index.html
你吃的雞怎麼來的?
Lifecycle of an intensively reared chicken 一般標準雞(95%)
Day old chicks
In about six weeks, these day-old chicks will be ready for consumption.
Sorting chicksJust hatched,
these chicks are sorted onto conveyor belts and packed into crates on their way to rearing sheds. Except on execptional farms, a free-range chick will be treated the same as an intensively farmed chick for roughly the first two weeks.
A recent EU directive has been put in place to measure the welfare of intensively reared chickens.
3 week old chickens
These chickens are three weeks old. The build-up of faeces can contribute to the strong smell of ammonia in the sheds and result in breast blisters on some animals.
Lame chicken
These chickens are bred and fed to grow rapidly and are slaughtered before reaching maturity. Fast growth can sometimes result in health problems.
Collecting chickens for slaughter
At six weeks the chickens are caught by hand, packed into crates and transported for processing. Both free-range and intensively reared chickens are caught and transported using the same methods.
Chickens hanging ready for culling
These chickens are ready to be slaughtered and processed. Except in some high welfare instances, free-range and intensively reared chickens are slaughtered using the same methods
The end product
The average intensively reared chicken produced for meat in the UK is about 42 days old and weighs more than two kilos. Intensive production practices focus on keeping costs low, and although this chicken retails at £4.09, with 'buy-one-get-one-free' offers a whole chicken can be found in the supermarket for as little as £2.50 .
Lifecycle of a free-range chicken 自由豢養雞(5%)
1 - 2 week old chicks
Except on a few exceptional farms, for roughly the first two weeks of its life, a free-range chick will be treated in the same way as an intensively farmed chick.
2 - 4 week old chicks
Government standards permit a stocking density of 38 kg/m² in intensive farms. Free-range standards limit this to 27.5 kg/m². For an average 2kg bird this equates to 19 birds per m² in an intensive farm and 13 birds per m² in free-range farms.
2 - 4 week old chicks
Free-range chicks are first allowed to roam outside at around 2 weeks old.
4 - 5 week old chicks
Free-range standards mean that chickens have to access to the outdoors for at least half of their lives. They are shut up in the sheds at night.
Being free-range gives chickens a chance to perch and roam in woodland. Habits they are thought to have inherited from their jungle fowl ancestors.
圖片來源:CIWF; Ellis, Hattie, 'Planet Chicken', London, 2007 (p.188)
(來自網站:http://www.channel4.com/)
這些標準雞豢養的室內充斥著他們的排泄物,JAMMIE到那參觀時也覺得臭氣沖天,AMMONIA的濃度很高,甚至開始腐蝕這些標準雞的爪子,以下這張圖片擷取自RSPCA 2008年出版的welfare standards for chickens的附件
有些雞因為生長速度過快(每天65公克),導致骨骼發育不完全的腿無法荷重而攤坐在地上。
以下是十分骯髒的羽毛,一樣擷取自RSPCA 2008年出版的welfare standards for chickens的附件
這些標準雞平均壽命只有39天,你能想像你活在這世界上39天,而且是極惡劣的環境,擁擠、骯髒、惡臭、不見天日、病痛...然後39天到了,就是準備死亡嗎?雖然他們是被養來吃的沒錯,他們該過什麼樣的生活?有什麼樣的環境?到頭來還不是一樣被吃掉,如果我們能多花幾塊錢,購買自由豢養雞(free fenced)或是有機雞(organic),他們會有不一樣的生命。JAMMIE說,我知道要指責、批評養雞工業的人很簡單,但我從來都不知道他們也不願意這麼做,而且做得很辛苦,他們每天與雞生活在一起,更希望這些雞能有更好的環境,但事實上,他們每賣出一隻雞能賺到的,只有幾塊錢,利潤低得出乎意料。因此,我想,要改善這個現象,最基本的還是要改變消費習慣,我們吃的雞肉,實在太多了,而且我們花費的價錢,實在太低了,我們該珍惜食物。
後記:看了那一小時的節目,真的會讓你想哭。 圖片呈現的還是不夠SHOCK,DISCOVERY的TRAVEL & LIVING最近在播這一集,希望有多一點人能看到。但是在台灣,應該還沒有像英國一樣可以在購買時利用標籤得知雞肉的豢養方式,所以,我們也只能看看而已。 還是少吃ㄧ點雞排跟鹹酥雞好了,看完這個節目有點噁心,也不太想吃雞肉了。 但是過個兩三天之後,我應該還是一樣在吃雞排吧...
2008年11月15日 星期六
Status of the Use of Elevators in Fires
By Richard W. Bukowski, P.E., FSFPE
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is leading a new effort to rethink the traditional stairwell-centered approach to emergency egress to embrace a more holistic strategy that includes all aspects of building design and operation, and their impacts on occupant safety. Clearly, elevators are a key component of this strategy. The effort began with a "Rethinking Egress" workshop in March 2008 and will continue in a series of workshops until a consensus of the engineering community is reached on how stairs, elevators, and other means of egress can meet the need for "timely" full evacuation of tall building occupants and response by emergency personnel.
One of the early conclusions from NIST's investigation of the events of September 11, 2001, was the need for "timely" full evacuation of tall building occupants and response by emergency personnel.1 At any significant height, stairs alone are clearly inadequate. In the late 1990s, NIST had worked with several Federal agencies and the elevator industry to study the use of elevators as a secondary means of egress (to stairs). This resulted in requirements in the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) for elevators in air traffic control towers but an attempt to extend this to other occupancies in the model codes failed. A collection of papers from this effort were published.2 In 2003, NIST took the issue to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee, which develops and maintains the ASME A17 standards used throughout the US (and harmonized with the Canadian elevator standard
CSA B44). It was agreed to jointly organize a workshop to assess the feasibility of elevators that would be safe to use in the event of a fire in a building.
This workshop was held in March 2004, and there was a consensus among the fire service and elevator industry that it was feasible with current technology to make elevators safe for use by both occupants and the fire service in a building with a fire condition. The key observation leading to this consensus was that the requirements implemented in the 1980s in the
ASME A17.1 standard was effective in sensing the onset of hazardous conditions and taking elevators out of service ahead of unsafe conditions.
In the 1970s, there was a small number of incidents where occupants, firefighters or the fire itself, called an occupied elevator to the fire floor and opened the door onto untenable conditions (e.g., First Interstate Bank fire3). Light beams that prevent the landing doors from hitting passengers when they close were blocked by smoke, holding the doors open and preventing the car from leaving. The response from the elevator industry was twofold. First, firefighters' emergency operation (FEO) was developed and mandated on all new and upgraded elevators. FEO involves smoke detectors located in every elevator lobby and machine room that, when activated, take all elevators out of service, returning them to the designated level (of exit discharge) opening the doors, and locking them out of service. This is called Phase I recall. If the fire is on the designated level, the elevators are sent to an alternate level. The second industry response was to require signs in every elevator lobby warning not to use the elevators in fires, but to use the stairs.
The elevators are intended to be placed into Phase I recall on activation of an elevator lobby or machine room smoke detector and not for any other alarm in the building. Thus, the elevators will continue to operate in what is called normal service with a fire in the building unless Phase I is activated. Fire departments have a manual means to activate Phase I, which some utilize in order to take control of the elevators and prevent occupants from unknowingly traveling to the fire floor or becoming entrapped. Once on Phase I, firefighters can place individual cars into a manual operation mode called Phase II with a firefighter's key in a keyswitch located in the car. Phase II operation does not respond to hall calls and utilizes a special operating mode for the car controls that reduces the risk of the firefighter being exposed to fire conditions, including disabling the door light beams (see ASME A17.4).4
Based on the 2004 workshop consensus that elevators could continue to be used safely with a fire in the building until Phase I was initiated, ASME organized two task groups (one on use of elevators by firefighters and the other on use of elevators for occupant egress) to carefully study any hazards that might result and the means to mitigate these hazards. These task group activities are nearing completion, and a second workshop to share the results of the task group deliberations (including a several-hundred page hazard analysis) is planned for October 2009.
In the mid-1980s, the British adopted a requirement for a firefighter elevator as part of a firefighting shaft in all new high-rise buildings (>30 m). They developed and published a standard5 which has recently been converted (with little change) to a European standard.6 These firefighter elevators are now common in tall buildings in England and other countries that traditionally follow British Standards. Not surprisingly, the ASME work is leading to recommendations that are very similar to the British/European standard.
Due to the high level of training and preplanning common to fire department operations (and especially high rise firefighting operations) the fire service should be familiar with the system and its safe operation (ASME publishes ASME A17.43, as a training guide on elevator emergency operating procedures for the fire service). This is not true for occupant use elevators, so the occupant egress elevator is a more complex issue to the extent that their use differs from the occupants' everyday use of the system.
Current thinking (not yet finalized by the ASME task group) is that on any fire alarm in the building, the firefighter elevator(s) will be placed in Phase I to await the arrival of the fire department at the level of fire department access. The remaining elevators will evacuate the occupants from the fire floor, two floors above and two below, to the level of exit discharge and then be taken out of service to control occupant movement while the situation is assessed by the fire department. Such a phased (or partial) evacuation procedure is commonly followed in high rise buildings using the emergency voice evacuation system to direct occupants on the five floors to the stairs and (in some cases) informing occupants in the rest of the building to await further instructions.
Should the incident commander decide that full building evacuation is necessary, the elevators would be placed into full evacuation mode, unloading the building from the top down. The system would follow this top down priority, ignoring hall calls, except that these would register that occupants are awaiting elevators on those floors. If these floors had already been evacuated, cars could be sent back or fire service cars operating on Phase II used to collect occupants.
Each floor would have a fire and smoke rated elevator lobby to provide a protected waiting space and that provides a barrier from the fire. This would delay automatic activation of
Phase I, which would terminate elevator evacuation. Informational displays in the lobbies would assure occupants that the elevators are in service evacuating people, and a direct access to an egress stair from the lobby would provide an egress path if the elevator evacuation is halted. A pressurized hoistway would protect the elevator and lobby from smoke, and provisions to protect the elevator components from water are included. Emergency power, protection of the power and control wiring, and protection against water intrusion rounds out the protection package.
While both firefighter and occupant elevators have additional costs for safety features, the costs are low compared to the cost of wider or more egress stairs. It is interesting to note that the elevator industry design practice for normal use (to meet the demands of the start and close of the business day) results in a number, capacity, and speed to permit the self evacuation of 100% of the building population in 30 minutes to one hour (based on an industry standard design handling capacity of 12.5%7).
The benefits of using elevators are so obvious that the building codes are changing rapidly and most tall buildings are being outfitted with elevators for egress and access even before the codes and standards can be changed. In their 2009 editions, the International Building Code8 (IBC), NFPA 1019 and NFPA 500010 require fire service elevators in all new buildings over
120 feet (37 m). The City of San Francisco adopted (effective in January of 2008) a change to their building code requiring fire service elevators in new buildings exceeding 200 feet11 (61 m). Fire service elevators are included in the designs of Freedom Tower (NYC), Burj Dubai (UAE), Chicago Spire (Chicago) and many others.
NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 incorporate an adoptable annex containing requirements for occupant evacuation elevators but do not require their use in any occupancy or any threshold building height. The IBC 2009 contains similar requirements in the body, but also no requirement by occupancy or height threshold. This approach was considered more appropriate for such a significant code change. Occupant elevators are also incorporated in Freedom Tower, Burj Dubai, Chicago Spire, One Financial Center Shanghai (a modified approach where the express elevators normally serving the observation deck will stop at the required refuge floors in a fire) and others.
Richard Bukowski is with the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
- Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST NCSTAR 1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005.
- Bukowski, R.W., Burgess, R. and Reneke, P., Collected Publications Related to the Use of Elevators During Fires, NIST SP 983, May 2002, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/elevators/
- Morris, J., First Interstate Bank Fire – What Went Wrong? Fire Prevention, No. 226,
20-26, Jan/Feb 1990. - Guide for Emergency Personnel, ASME A17.4-1999, ASME New York.
- BSI 5588, Part 8. "Fire precautions in the design, construction and use of buildings. Code of practice for means of escape for disabled people," British Standards Institution, London, 1999.
- EN 81-72, "Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Particular applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts - Part 72: Firefighters," European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
- Strakosch, G.R., The Vertical Transportation Handbook Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1998.
- International Building Code, International Code Council, Falls Church, VA, 2009.
- NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.
- NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.
- San Francisco Fire Code, Section 5.08, Jan 2008.
2008年11月7日 星期五
↗
二、分析過後,我的確是變得超級懶惰。
三、變得不愛運動。
四、變得安逸怠惰。
五、變得空口說白話。
六、變得無所是事。
七、變得愛睡覺。
八、對於夢想,不但沒有繼續實踐,反而呈現停擺放棄,遇到困難也只剩退縮。
九、不合理的事使我忍氣吞聲得幾乎就要爆炸。
十、感到生活極盡無聊。
set a goal, a smallest goal, achieve it, then go foward toward the next smallest goal, then, the next goal will become bigger and bigger.
let me start my perfect plan from here, no...who do I expect to "let" me? just me! and...the lonely me will be the best.
2008年11月2日 星期日
電影一樣夢幻的蠢事
「你很煩耶!」M生氣地不斷捏掐A的大腿、腰、手臂、胸。
你也知道,她捏的部位都是很容易疼痛的。
「好了喔!不要再捏了,再捏你就完蛋。」A帶著些不悅地威脅著M。
M還是不斷地捏掐那些部位,終於,A反擊了,往她胸部用力一捏、轉。M痛得叫不出來,直到A鬆開右手,M別過頭去開始啜泣。A卻笑了,笑的是她竟然不聽警告導致現在疼痛不已而啜泣,相較於幾秒鐘前的嘴臉,簡直天爙之別。約莫一分鐘後,M使力甩了A兩下臀部,A還是頑皮地笑著。
M開始收拾行李,噘著嘴,A也不想理會。室內氣氛凝結,直到M收好行李。
「載我回家。」M不帶表情地說。
A起身穿好褲子、衣服,到浴室照了鏡子,出了浴室之後,M在衣櫥旁突然堆起笑臉撒嬌地伸出雙手要A抱她、吻她。
「幹麻?!」A感到狐疑地問。
「親我!」M調皮撒嬌地說。
A的唇才剛靠近M的臉頰,M突然變臉,右手迅速朝A的下體伸去,抓著A的睪丸。
「你媽的!竟然捏我的胸部,沒人敢這樣捏我!」M凶惡的臉質問A。A沒多說任何一句話。
A才警覺這是復仇,看著M變臉的速度與那種像電影般演戲的謀略,A不禁感到不可思議,也感到與這個人之間的距離感。
在路上,他們沒再多說任何贅詞。
*****(猜猜這五個字,猜中的人送你兩張101觀景台的門票)
2008年11月1日 星期六
解離
看到了那樸實的小火鍋,我想起當時堅持要吃樸實小火鍋的你,也許你真的很有個性,但是我不能如此客觀地評價一個人,尤其是我們還要看著對方的表情。如果你是甜美的長相,我覺得你的要求很可愛;假若你是噁心至極的外表,我連跟你吃飯的動力都沒有;又如果你長得普普通通,我大概覺得你在矯情造作吧。
被討厭的人,會有一個被討厭的外表(文藝一點的說法是:被疏離的,外表已被淋上滾燙的臭水)。
世界很不公平,也許你輸的原因就只是因為你醜了一點,但沒辦法,我的確是先看到你的外表,音速永遠超越不了光速,我光是看見了你,就失去了聽你解釋的動力,或是,連讓你犯錯的機會也沒有。