第一种：按住ALT不放，再按0177，再放开ALT键，“±”就出来了

第二种：用 搜狗拼音 打zhengfuhao 然后选5

特朗普的计划会让政府变得愚蠢

Political leaders in most functioning democracies have established checks and laws to ensure that their countries are guided by knowledge. On 14 June, President Donald Trump took one of his biggest steps yet to dismantle an important part of this system in the United States: an executive order that federal agencies should cut the number of advisory panels by at least one-third.

This is not just another of his ill-informed policies, or one that only wonks care about. It is the government making itself stupid. Ignoring, suppressing or manipulating science advice has been a pattern of this administration; now the very committees that provide that advice are being eliminated.

Scientists must sound the alarm.

As the research director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC, I’ve long studied the use and misuse of science in government decision-making. The federal advisory system — which includes both science and stakeholder committees — is a safeguard. It ensures that policy decisions are guided by evidence, even when there is political pressure to ignore information.

There are roughly 1,000 such committees, totalling some 60,000 members. To address issues from drug laws to foodborne illness, government agencies rely on the advice of leading specialists. Committees at the Department of Transportation make public transit safer; panels at the Department of Agriculture oversee food safety, and so on.

The Trump administration’s assault on science will have an impact far beyond this presidency. The loss of institutional knowledge, technical training and overall capacity in the government won’t simply be restored through the election of a science-friendly administration. It will take years to rebuild. Meanwhile, federal science agencies will struggle to fulfil their missions of protecting public health and safety, and the environment.

The committees now under threat also help the public to hold decision-makers accountable when they ignore important evidence. In 2008, the administration of George W. Bush — and in 2011, that of Barack Obama — failed to set a standard for ambient levels of ozone (an air pollutant that causes respiratory and cardiovascular distress) that the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended. The recommendation enabled the public to challenge the administrations’ decisions. Without an advisory committee, the lines between science assessments and policy decisions are blurred.

The executive order is ostensibly a cost-cutting measure. But federal advisory committees are a bargain for taxpayers. Agency staff run a few meetings a year, alongside other duties, and some compensation is granted for economy-class travel and other expenses that committee members incur. According to the US Federal Advisory Committee Act Database, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee spent US$951,860 in 2018, of which only $110,540 went to direct committee costs. (The rest went to existing staff members, who would have been paid anyway.) Thousands of world-class specialists donate their time to help the government to make informed decisions.

Also, every meeting of an advisory committee solicits public comments. This gives community advocates and people without easy access to government officials a way to make their views known. The upcoming cull will give the public less opportunity for input.

External advice has been one of the main targets of the Trump administration’s many attempts to sideline science. In 2017, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive to remove advisers with current EPA grants (individuals whose expertise the EPA clearly found useful). The agency retained advisers tied to industries that have financial interests in EPA regulations.

Our analysis found that, in the first year of the Trump administration, federal science advisory committees met less frequently than in any of the 21 years since the government started tracking them. Nearly two-thirds of these committees met less often than their charters direct. We have also logged more than 100 attacks on the use and communication of science in the Trump administration so far, more than for any other president. These include avoiding or removing terms such as ‘climate change’, halting a study by the US National Academy of Sciences and reversing a decision to ban a pesticide linked to neurological conditions in children.

Those actions have chipped away at the nation’s access to science advice. The executive order takes a jackhammer to it. By asking agencies to arbitrarily eliminate one-third of their advisory committees, the president is essentially asking which wheel you’d like removed from your car. Which is it to be: water quality, air pollution or chemical waste?

James Madison, the fourth president and a founding father of the United States, wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” We owe it to ourselves and our expertise, to the United States and the many other nations affected by its decisions — on emissions, infectious agents, drugs and so much more — to insist on being governed by knowledge, not ignorance. Speaking up for science panels is speaking up for democracy.

So what to do? Push back, demand action. Use the power of constituency, urge Congress for oversight, and even go to court if necessary. This is not about partisan politics; it is about making decisions based on the best available information.

Nature 570, 417 (2019)

doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01961-6

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01961-6

2019年SCI影响因子

一年一度的SCI影响因子发布了！2019最新SCI影响因子于2019年6月20号正式公布！详细的期刊及影响因子见附件的EXCELL文件。
关于SCI影响因子：
ISI每年出版JCR(《期刊引用报告》，全称Journal Citation Reports)。JCR对包括SCI收录的3800种核心期刊(光盘版)在内的8000多种期刊(网络版)之间的引用和被引用数据进行统计、运算，并针对每种期刊定义了影响因子(Impact Factor)等指数加以报道。一种期刊的影响因子，指的是该刊前二年发表的文献在当前年的平均被引用次数。一种刊物的影响因子越高，也即其刊载的文献被引用率越高，一方面说明这些文献报道的研究成果影响力大，另一方面也反映该刊物的学术水平高。因此，JCR以其大量的期刊统计数据及计算的影响因子等指数，而成为一种期刊评价工具。图书馆可根据JCR提供的数据制定期刊引进政策;论文作者可根据期刊的影响因子排名决定投稿方向。

2019SCI影响因子 下载

2019年6月6日，工信部正式发布5G商用牌照，三大运营商中国电信、中国移动、中国联通和中国广电各获得一张。这标志着中国通信行业正式进入5G时代，迎来5G元年。
5G牌照的作用在于，运营商有了牌照就相当于持证上岗，前期的基站建设、无线铺垫、网络优化等都将在第一时间得到消费者及市场的验证。在验证的过程中，发现问题、解决问题、总结问题、制定出合理合规的网络优化方案及维护方案，大大减少后期的投入，加速组网速度。
与此同时，中国也成为继韩国、美国、瑞士、英国后，第五个正式商用5G的国家。回顾历史，中国移动通信建设与全球进程相比，经历了1G的空白、2G落后、3G追赶、4G同步的阶段，现在终于用智慧和汗水登上了5G技术的第一梯队。
5G即第五代移动通信技术。过去的四代网络技术（1G、2G、3G、4G）全部是为了服务于“人与人”之间的通信需求，5G则主要是为了服务“物与物”和“人与物”之间的通信需求。相比之下，5G的优势则体现在其独特的三大应用场景：增强型移动宽带、超可靠低时延和海量机器类通信。
4G改变生活，5G将改变社会。迎接高科技带给人类的巨大福利吧！

我们的移动网络和宽带网络至今还没有真正达到标称的带宽速度，为什么会如此？我们消费者一致在被欺骗，而有没有更好的选择，因为你只能用现在这样的网络啊。而下文华为CEO任正非道出了个中理由。

为何我们的网速如此之慢？任正非一语说破天机！

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1623806336452858315&wfr=spider&for=pc

任正非说，5G实际上被夸大了作用，也被更多人夸大了华为公司的成就。因为我们跑得太快了，我们的年青人按捺不住自己的兴奋，一直讲啊讲，就把事情夸大了。实际上现在人类社会对5G还没有这么迫切的需要。人们现在的需要就是宽带，而5G的主要内容不是宽带。5G有非常非常多的内涵，这些内涵的发生还需要更多需求的到来，还需要漫长的时期。他说，5G的发展一定是缓慢的。
任正非还透露了一个秘密，日本和韩国还是4G，他们把4G运用到非常好，能够足够满足使用。我们的4G没有用好，打开我的手机只有20—30兆，实际上我们提供的4G是可以到300—400兆，足够看8K电视。但是我们的网络，白天打开就只有二三十兆，只能看4K，没法看8K电视。为什么？网络结构不好。网络结构不好是啥？还是没有数学家在研究运营商的网络结构。所以网络结构性的问题没有解决，5G用上来和4G差不多。就好比我嘴巴很大，但是喉咙很小，我吃一大块肉还是一口吞不进去。
任正非的网络，白天打开能够达到二三十兆，对于许多用户来说，是感受不到的。不用说二三十兆，有的网络可能十兆都达不到。你说，移动等公司赚了多少钱？该投的设备不投，该优化的网络不优化，用户花了大价钱，得到的却是慢速度，冤不冤？所以，许多用户用脚投票，任凭你的广告轮番轰炸，就是不予理睬。什么免费宽带？速度呢，是多少，能保证吗？却只字不提，公众就明白了是怎么回事。
由此看来，联通公司还是很有道理的。如果通过扩建和优化，4G能够达到任正非所说的可以到300—400兆，你说还有多少用户不够用？如果到时候的5G，就像现在的4G一样，只是徒有其名，甚至速度还不如联通已经优化的4G，除了让用户付出高昂的代价、通信公司大量圈钱之外，还有别的好处吗？如果这种出现了，用户自然不会当冤大头，花高价钱买一个听起来很先进实际上速度很低的5G，而是乐意花更低的代价使用速度足够用的4G。届时，联通则有可能成为大户。应该说，许多公司搞5G，将5G作为赚钱的噱头的意图是十分明显的。
现在的4G，能够达到300—400兆的速度，实际速度却不到十分之一，如果联通过扩建，将4G速度提高到300—400兆。到5G又像现在的4G这样，实际速度不到理论速度的十分之一，还不如经过优化的4G快，而价钱却是4G的一倍以上，你说用户又将如何选择？应该说，这种可能性是极大的。现在的4G就是一个证明。为何用户对现在的网络不满意，原因就在于一些通信公司只顾赚取更多的利润，却根本不理睬用户的不满，用户花了4G的钱，却享受不到4G的速度。如果联通公司确实能够将4G速度提高到300—400兆，用户一定会满意，联通抢占大量市场份额那是不用说的。

另外一篇报道任先生也提到了华为目前也在积极研究解决网络拥堵和优化网络架构的问题，愿这一天早日到了，我们就能真正享受这发达的高速公路了！