I want to talk to you today about something the open-source programming world can teach democracy, but before that, a little preamble. Let's start here.
今天我想要探讨一些事情 从开放代码的网络世界中感受民主 在此之前,先来点开胃菜 我们以此开始
This is Martha Payne. Martha's a 9-year-old Scot who lives in the Council of Argyll and Bute. A couple months ago, Payne started a food blog called NeverSeconds, and she would take her camera with her every day to school to document her school lunches. Can you spot the vegetable? (Laughter) And, as sometimes happens, this blog acquired first dozens of readers, and then hundreds of readers, and then thousands of readers, as people tuned in to watch her rate her school lunches, including on my favorite category, "Pieces of hair found in food." (Laughter) This was a zero day. That's good.
这是玛莎。佩恩,一个九岁的苏格兰小女孩 她住在阿盖尔-比特区的康斯尔 几个月前,佩恩开了一个关于美食的博客 叫做“独一无二”,然后她每天… 都带着相机去学校,记录下 学校的午餐 你能辨认出蔬菜吗? 然后,发生了一些有意思的事, 刚开始她的博客吸引了十几个读者 然后有了几百个读者 然后又有了几千个读者,人们乐于 看她对学校午餐的评价 包括我最爱做的事之一 ”食物里有几根头发“(笑声) 这天的午餐得到零分。幸好
And then two weeks ago yesterday, she posted this. A post that read: "Goodbye." And she said, "I'm very sorry to tell you this, but my head teacher pulled me out of class today and told me I'm not allowed to take pictures in the lunch room anymore. I really enjoyed doing this. Thank you for reading. Goodbye."
然而,两周前的一天,她发了一篇日志 日志里写到:“再见了” 然后她说:很抱歉的告诉你们,但是 我的班主任把我叫出教室,告诉我 我被禁止在食堂里拍照 我真的很喜欢做这件事 感谢你们的浏览,再见了
You can guess what happened next, right? (Laughter) The outrage was so swift, so voluminous, so unanimous, that the Council of Argyll and Bute reversed themselves the same day and said, "We would, we would never censor a nine-year-old." (Laughter) Except, of course, this morning. (Laughter) And this brings up the question, what made them think they could get away with something like that? (Laughter) And the answer is, all of human history prior to now.
你们可以猜到后来发生了什么,是吧? 民愤一瞬间就被点燃了,一时间群情激愤,各种谴责不绝于耳, 当局随之撤销了之前的决定 就是在同一天,他们辩解到:我们绝对… 绝对不会审查一个九岁小孩的博客 当然,除了今天早上 这就产生了一个问题 他们凭什么认为 他们能逃避这样的事 答案就是,人类自古以来就是如此
(Laughter) So, what happens when a medium suddenly puts a lot of new ideas into circulation?
所以 当媒体突然把一堆新观点公之于众的时候 会发生一些什么
Now, this isn't just a contemporaneous question. This is something we've faced several times over the last few centuries. When the telegraph came along, it was clear that it was going to globalize the news industry. What would this lead to? Well, obviously, it would lead to world peace. The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear but see, literally see, what was going on elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to? World peace. (Laughter) The telephone? You guessed it: world peace. Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet. Even the printing press, even the printing press was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe. Instead, what we got was Martin Luther's 95 Theses, the Protestant Reformation, and, you know, the Thirty Years' War. All right, so what all of these predictions of world peace got right is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly come into circulation, it changes society. What they got exactly wrong was what happens next.
如今,这不是当代才有的问题 这个问题在过去的几个世纪里 我们已经面对了无数次 当电报问世的时候,很明显… 它意味着全球化新闻产业 这会带来什么? 很显然,这一定会让世界和平 电视作为一个媒介,不仅让我们听世界 还有看世界,是直接地看到世界上… 正在发生着什么,这些事件又导致了什么? 就是世界和平 那么电话呢? 你猜得没错:世界和平 抱歉剧透了,但是世界尚未和平,暂时还没有 甚至还有印刷机 被视为促使天主教知识霸权 散布到欧洲的工具 但是由此,我们得到的却是《马丁.路德的95条论纲》 新教改革,你知道的… 三十年的战争,对吧, 那么世界和平的预言有多少可信? 只有许多的新观念迅速地 开始被传播,社会才会改变 但他们想错的是接下来发生的事
The more ideas there are in circulation, the more ideas there are for any individual to disagree with. More media always means more arguing. That's what happens when the media's space expands. And yet, when we look back on the printing press in the early years, we like what happened. We are a pro-printing press society.
越多的观点被传播 就意味着更多的观点被反对 媒体越多,争议越多 这就是媒体扩张时代带来的结果 然后我们回首一下印刷机的时代 在过去的日子里,我们挺喜欢所发生的事情 我们处在一个速印时代。
So how do we square those two things, that it leads to more arguing, but we think it was good?
所以,我们如何平衡这两件事: 更多争议;但我们认为这有益社会
And the answer, I think, can be found in things like this. This is the cover of "Philosophical Transactions," the first scientific journal ever published in English in the middle of the 1600s, and it was created by a group of people who had been calling themselves "The Invisible College," a group of natural philosophers who only later would call themselves scientists, and they wanted to improve the way natural philosophers argued with each other, and they needed to do two things for this. They needed openness. They needed to create a norm which said, when you do an experiment, you have to publish not just your claims, but how you did the experiment. If you don't tell us how you did it, we won't trust you. But the other thing they needed was speed. They had to quickly synchronize what other natural philosophers knew. Otherwise, you couldn't get the right kind of argument going. The printing press was clearly the right medium for this, but the book was the wrong tool. It was too slow. And so they invented the scientific journal as a way of synchronizing the argument across the community of natural scientists. The scientific revolution wasn't created by the printing press. It was created by scientists, but it couldn't have been created if they didn't have a printing press as a tool.
至于答案,我想可以通过这样的事情来得出 这是《哲学学报》 第一本英语的科学读物 发行于16世纪中期 ”它由一个自称为隐形 隐形学院“的团体创办 这群自然派哲学家 后来称自己为科学家 他们致力于提升 自然派哲学家之间争辩的方式 他们需要做的有两件事 他们需要开诚公布,他们需要创造基准 换句话说,当你要进行一个实验的时候 你不能只是公开你的结论 也要公开实验的过程 如果你不告诉我们你做了什么,我们就无法信任你 另一件他们所需的事情,就是速度 他们必须同步掌握 其他自然派科学家的资讯,否则 你就会错过正在开展的辩论 印刷是一个清楚传达信息的正确媒介 但是书籍却是一个错误的工具。传播得太慢 所以他们创造了科学期刊 借此来传播自然派科学家 对于社会的争辩 科学革命不是因为印刷机而起的 是因为科学家而起的 但是如果没有印刷机这个工具 这场革命也不可能兴起
So what about us? What about our generation, and our media revolution, the Internet? Well, predictions of world peace? Check. (Laughter) More arguing? Gold star on that one. (Laughter) (Laughter) I mean, YouTube is just a gold mine. (Laughter) Better arguing? That's the question.
那么我们呢?我们这一代 我们的传媒革命呢,互联网? 那么,对于世界和平的预测呢?当然! 更多的争论?这个观点可以加一颗星!(笑声) (笑声) 我的意思是,YouTube就是一个金库(笑声) 更好地争辩?这也是一个问题
So I study social media, which means, to a first approximation, I watch people argue. And if I had to pick a group that I think is our Invisible College, is our generation's collection of people trying to take these tools and to press it into service, not for more arguments, but for better arguments, I'd pick the open-source programmers. Programming is a three-way relationship between a programmer, some source code, and the computer it's meant to run on, but computers are such famously inflexible interpreters of instructions that it's extraordinarily difficult to write out a set of instructions that the computer knows how to execute, and that's if one person is writing it. Once you get more than one person writing it, it's very easy for any two programmers to overwrite each other's work if they're working on the same file, or to send incompatible instructions that simply causes the computer to choke, and this problem grows larger the more programmers are involved. To a first approximation, the problem of managing a large software project is the problem of keeping this social chaos at bay.
我所研究的社会传媒学 最接近的解释就是:我从旁观察人们的争论 如果我要选择一个群体,代表 我们这一代的隐形学院,那么他们 尝试使用各种工具 并不是为了更多的争论,而是更有益的争论 我选择了开放源代码的程序 这个程序有一个三方的关联 有程序设计师还有一些源代码 以及电脑的运行,不过电脑 需要固定的程式还进行解读和操作 所以要明确写出一套让电脑知道如何去运行的程序 真的很难很难很难 尤其是当这仅由一个人去撰写的时候 当撰写程序的人超过一个的时候 如果他们用相同文件进行操作,要写出2个程序或者 互相充实各自的程序会变得很容易 否则传输一个没有完成的程序 很容让电脑当机 问题会变得很严重 会有更多的程序被牵连其中 最近有一次,有一个大型的管理软件 产生了一点问题 在海湾区造成了社会的动乱
Now, for decades there has been a canonical solution to this problem, which is to use something called a "version control system," and a version control system does what is says on the tin. It provides a canonical copy of the software on a server somewhere. The only programmers who can change it are people who've specifically been given permission to access it, and they're only allowed to access the sub-section of it that they have permission to change. And when people draw diagrams of version control systems, the diagrams always look something like this. All right. They look like org charts. And you don't have to squint very hard to see the political ramifications of a system like this. This is feudalism: one owner, many workers.
如今的几十年里,有一个标准的 解决问题的办法,就是使用 “视频监控系统” “视频监控系统” 这个系统会丝毫不差地做你要它做的事 它能提供在服务器上 软件运行的备份 唯一能能对此系统作出调整的程预员 只能是有特别受权的人 他们也只被允许去读取子部分的档案 他们也要被授权去进行修改 人们把系统运行的图示画出来 就好像这样 类似于组织结构图 其实不用很费力地 你就可以看出这个系统产生的社会分流 这其实就是封建制度:一个所有者,无数工人
Now, that's fine for the commercial software industry. It really is Microsoft's Office. It's Adobe's Photoshop. The corporation owns the software. The programmers come and go.
对于商务软件产业来说这都是可行的 必然微软,即以Adobe公司的Photoshop 集团企业拥有这些软件 程序员却是进进出出
But there was one programmer who decided that this wasn't the way to work. This is Linus Torvalds. Torvalds is the most famous open-source programmer, created Linux, obviously, and Torvalds looked at the way the open-source movement had been dealing with this problem. Open-source software, the core promise of the open-source license, is that everybody should have access to all the source code all the time, but of course, this creates the very threat of chaos you have to forestall in order to get anything working. So most open-source projects just held their noses and adopted the feudal management systems.
但是有一个程序员决定 工作不应该这样 这个人就是林納斯.托瓦茲 托瓦茲是著名的开放源代码的程序员 开发了Linux操作协同,很显然,托瓦茲着眼于 用开放源代码举动来处理这个问题 开放了源代码的软件,其核心就是授权 是不是每一个人都可以使用开放的源代码 随时随地都可以?当然了,这样的创举 也有可能在你试图让程序运作的时候 带来极大的混乱 所以,大部分开放源代码的程序,硬着头皮地 采用封闭管理系统。
But Torvalds said, "No, I'm not going to do that." His point of view on this was very clear. When you adopt a tool, you also adopt the management philosophy embedded in that tool, and he wasn't going to adopt anything that didn't work the way the Linux community worked. And to give you a sense of how enormous a decision like this was, this is a map of the internal dependencies within Linux, within the Linux operating system, which sub-parts of the program rely on which other sub-parts to get going. This is a tremendously complicated process. This is a tremendously complicated program, and yet, for years, Torvalds ran this not with automated tools but out of his email box. People would literally mail him changes that they'd agreed on, and he would merge them by hand.
托瓦茲说:我绝不会这么做 他的观点非常明确 当你接受使用一种工具,你也要接受 这种工具所包含的管理理念 他不会接受没有操作性的方式 而Linux操作系统却得到实现了 为了让你们更直接的感受到 这样的决定带来的巨大影响,这里有一张地图 显示了Linux的内部关系 在Linux系统运行的时候,一个个子部门… 都依赖于另一些子部门才能运作 这是极其庞大而复杂的工序 这是极其庞大而复杂的程序 很多年下来,托瓦茲在运营这个系统 并不是使用自动化的工具,而是他的电子邮箱 人们会把每一个他们所认同地改变逐字逐句写给他 然后他会自己着手去合并这些改变。
And then, 15 years after looking at Linux and figuring out how the community worked, he said, "I think I know how to write a version control system for free people."
十五年后,回顾Linux的运行 他指出:我想我知道了 如何撰写一个版本控制系统,让人们去免费使用
And he called it "Git." Git is distributed version control. It has two big differences with traditional version control systems. The first is that it lives up to the philosophical promise of open-source. Everybody who works on a project has access to all of the source code all of the time. And when people draw diagrams of Git workflow, they use drawings that look like this. And you don't have to understand what the circles and boxes and arrows mean to see that this is a far more complicated way of working than is supported by ordinary version control systems.
他称之为Git,即分布式版本控制系统 它与传统的版本控制系统 有两大不同 首先他要遵守一个理念 就是开放源代码,每一个为此项目工作的人 都可以随时使用全部的代码 当人们绘制Git流程图的时候 就会像这样 你必须要理解这些循环 方块和箭头的意义,这远远比 传统的版本控制系统 要复杂的多
But this is also the thing that brings the chaos back, and this is Git's second big innovation. This is a screenshot from GitHub, the premier Git hosting service, and every time a programmer uses Git to make any important change at all, creating a new file, modifying an existing one, merging two files, Git creates this kind of signature. This long string of numbers and letters here is a unique identifier tied to every single change, but without any central coordination. Every Git system generates this number the same way, which means this is a signature tied directly and unforgeably to a particular change.
当然也会带来一些混乱 这就是Git的第二个改革 这是GitHub的截图,这是Git的首要主机伺服 每当程序员使用Git 去进行任何改变 都会构建新的文件,修改现存文件 合并多个文件,Git就会生成这么个签名 这是一串由字幕和数字组成的代码 每一个改变都会有其独一无二的代码 而且并不会经过其他程序的处理 每一个Git的系统以相同的方式生成这些代码 也就是说这些签名是直接 连接到每一个独立的改变上的
This has the following effect: A programmer in Edinburgh and a programmer in Entebbe can both get the same -- a copy of the same piece of software. Each of them can make changes and they can merge them after the fact even if they didn't know of each other's existence beforehand. This is cooperation without coordination. This is the big change.
这会带来如下影响: 一个在爱丁堡的程序员和一个在乌干达恩德培德程序员 可以得到相同的软件的的备份 每个人都可以进行修改,然后整合 即使他们互相不知道 彼此的存在也没关系 这是不需要协调的合作 这就是巨大的改革
Now, I tell you all of this not to convince you that it's great that open-source programmers now have a tool that supports their philosophical way of working, although I think that is great. I tell you all of this because of what I think it means for the way communities come together.
我之所以告诉你们这些,不是想要你们觉得 这些开放源码程式设计师这下有了好工具 可以帮助实践他们的工作哲学,真是太棒了 虽然我真的觉得这的确很棒 我告訴你们这些,是因为我从中看到了 这对不同社群间的整合产生的意义
Once Git allowed for cooperation without coordination, you start to see communities form that are enormously large and complex.
自从Git的开创了“互相合作而不需居中整合”的方式 你就会开始看到非常巨大 而且复杂的社群形式
This is a graph of the Ruby community. It's an open-source programming language, and all of the interconnections between the people -- this is now not a software graph, but a people graph, all of the interconnections among the people working on that project — and this doesn't look like an org chart. This looks like a dis-org chart, and yet, out of this community, but using these tools, they can now create something together. So there are two good reasons to think that this kind of technique can be applied to democracies in general and in particular to the law.
这是一个Ruby的社群的图示 红宝石是一种开放原始码程式语言 而在其中人们之间的关系 - - 这不是一个软体图示,而是人际的图示 所有在同一个企划共同工作的人们 这是他们之间的连结 而这一点都不像个组织结构图 还比较像个反组织结构图,然而 从这个社群里,而不单单只是使用那些工具 人们可以一起合作,制作程式 所以现在有两个很好的理由这样想: 这种方式可以应用在 普遍的民主制度,尤其是在法律上
When you make the claim, in fact, that something on the Internet is going to be good for democracy, you often get this reaction.
但事实上,当你这样告诉别人: 网路上有些东西对民主制度是好的 你通常会得到这样的反应
(Music) (Laughter)
(音乐)(笑声)
Which is, are you talking about the thing with the singing cats? Like, is that the thing you think is going to be good for society? To which I have to say, here's the thing with the singing cats. That always happens. And I don't just mean that always happens with the Internet, I mean that always happens with media, full stop. It did not take long after the rise of the commercial printing press before someone figured out that erotic novels were a good idea. (Laughter) You don't have to have an economic incentive to sell books very long before someone says, "Hey, you know what I bet people would pay for?" (Laughter) It took people another 150 years to even think of the scientific journal, right? So -- (Laughter) (Applause)
意思是,你是指像会唱歌的猫 这类东西吗?这就是你说的 对社会有帮助的事物吗? 我必须说,像唱歌的猫这种东西 总是会有的 我并不只是指这总是发生在网路上 我是指任何媒体都会产生这类事情。 在商业性印刷兴起后 没多久就有人发现 印制色情小说是门好生意(笑声) 你不必靠经济诱因来卖书单价,卖多久 就会有人说:“欸,想知道我赌多少在 大家愿意花多少钱买这些书吗?“(笑声) 人们甚至还要多花150年才想到 创办科学杂志,对吧?所以 - (笑声,掌声)
So the harnessing by the Invisible College of the printing press to create the scientific journal was phenomenally important, but it didn't happen big, and it didn't happen quick, and it didn't happen fast, so if you're going to look for where the change is happening, you have to look on the margins.
所以“无形学院”利用印刷机 创办了科学杂志 这是个重要事件,但并不是个划时代的里程碑 而且它发展的速度不快 所以如果你想知道改变发生在哪里 你必须从边缘地带寻找
So, the law is also dependency-related. This is a graph of the U.S. Tax Code, and the dependencies of one law on other laws for the overall effect. So there's that as a site for source code management. But there's also the fact that law is another place where there are many opinions in circulation, but they need to be resolved to one canonical copy, and when you go onto GitHub, and you look around, there are millions and millions of projects, almost all of which are source code, but if you look around the edges, you can see people experimenting with the political ramifications of a system like that. Someone put up all the Wikileaked cables from the State Department, along with software used to interpret them, including my favorite use ever of the Cablegate cables, which is a tool for detecting naturally occurring haiku in State Department prose. (Laughter) Right. (Laughter) The New York Senate has put up something called Open Legislation, also hosting it on GitHub, again for all of the reasons of updating and fluidity. You can go and pick your Senator and then you can see a list of bills they have sponsored. Someone going by Divegeek has put up the Utah code, the laws of the state of Utah, and they've put it up there not just to distribute the code, but with the very interesting possibility that this could be used to further the development of legislation. Somebody put up a tool during the copyright debate last year in the Senate, saying, "It's strange that Hollywood has more access to Canadian legislators than Canadian citizens do. Why don't we use GitHub to show them what a citizen-developed bill might look like?" And it includes this very evocative screenshot.
法律也是互相依赖的 这是一张美国税法的图示 显示法规与法规之间的依赖关系 以及其整体效果 所以,我们有了管理程式码的网站 但是事实上,法律也是一个 供许多不同意见传播的地方 但是它们最终都必须变成一个标准版本 而当你到GitHub上上看看 你会看到难以计数的制作计画 几乎全部都是程式码 但如果你往网路边缘找,你会发现 有人正在实验这种系统的 政治效应 有人把维基解密发布的美国国务院电报 和用来解读的软体一起放上网路 包括一种我最爱用在他们公布的 国务院电报的软体,那是种专门用来侦测 国务院电报里自然产生的俳句的工具 (笑声) 是啊(笑声) 纽约州参议院设立了名为 “公开立法”法案,也使用GitHub上的服务 同样是为了更新速度与流畅度 你可以上去浏览你们区的参议员 就可以看到他们支持的法案 有人透过Divegeek发布了犹他法规 就是犹他州的州法,而他们这么做 并不是只为了 也为了可以将这个用在进一步 发展立法过程的有趣可能性 去年参议院的著作权辩论里 有人发布了一样工具,说: “好莱坞比加拿大公民有更多接触 加拿大立法委员的管道,这非常奇怪。我们来用GitHub上 让他们看看一个公民规划的法案会是什么样子。“ 而这张非常令人震撼的截图也包含在内
This is a called a "diff," this thing on the right here. This shows you, for text that many people are editing, when a change was made, who made it, and what the change is. The stuff in red is the stuff that got deleted. The stuff in green is the stuff that got added. Programmers take this capability for granted. No democracy anywhere in the world offers this feature to its citizens for either legislation or for budgets, even though those are the things done with our consent and with our money.
右边这块称为“差异” 这部分是给你看许多人一起编辑的内容 什么时候改的,谁改的 以及改动的内容是什么 红色是被删除的东西 绿色则是多加进去的东西 程式设计师真是物尽其用了 世上没有任何民主国家可以提供 公民这样的机会,不论是关于立法或预算 就算那些事是在我们的 同意和金钱之下通过的
Now, I would love to tell you that the fact that the open-source programmers have worked out a collaborative method that is large scale, distributed, cheap, and in sync with the ideals of democracy, I would love to tell you that because those tools are in place, the innovation is inevitable. But it's not. Part of the problem, of course, is just a lack of information. Somebody put a question up on Quora saying, "Why is it that lawmakers don't use distributed version control?" This, graphically, was the answer. (Laughter) (Laughter) (Applause) And that is indeed part of the problem, but only part.
如果可以的话,我很想告诉你们 开源程式设计师已经想出了 一种规模广大的合作方式 便宜而且和民主的理想一致,我很想告诉 你们,这些工具都已经准备好了 因此改革是必然的,但事实并不是这样 当然,部分的原因只是出在缺乏资讯 有人在问答网站上问了一个问题 “为什么立法的人 不使用分散式版本控制的方式吗?“ 这个则是图像示的答案(笑声)(图中文字 左:拥有Github 帐号的人 右:律师) (笑声,掌声) 这的确是一部分的问题,但只是一部分而已
The bigger problem, of course, is power. The people experimenting with participation don't have legislative power, and the people who have legislative power are not experimenting with participation. They are experimenting with openness. There's no democracy worth the name that doesn't have a transparency move, but transparency is openness in only one direction, and being given a dashboard without a steering wheel has never been the core promise a democracy makes to its citizens.
当然,更大的问题出在权力 那些实际参与以实验这个政治效应的人 并没有立法权,而有立法权的人 却不去参与这个实验 这些实验是关于公开性 如果没有公开透明的程序 那就不叫做民主,但是透明性只不过是 公开性的一种面向,而给一艘 沒有舵的船,也並不是民主国家 对人民的中心承諾
So consider this. The thing that got Martha Payne's opinions out into the public was a piece of technology, but the thing that kept them there was political will. It was the expectation of the citizens that she would not be censored. That's now the state we're in with these collaboration tools. We have them. We've seen them. They work. Can we use them? Can we apply the techniques that worked here to this?
所以想想看这些 玛莎。佩恩的想法能传达给大众 是因为一点科技的幫助 但让它持续曝光的是政治意愿 大众期望著 她不用接受审查 这才是我们目前和这些合作性工具的发展情況 我们拥有过,见识过过它们。它们可用。 我们可以利用它们吗? 我们可以将左边的方式应用在右边这里吗?
T.S. Eliot once said, "One of the most momentous things that can happen to a culture is that they acquire a new form of prose." I think that's wrong, but -- (Laughter) I think it's right for argumentation. Right? A momentous thing that can happen to a culture is they can acquire a new style of arguing: trial by jury, voting, peer review, now this. Right?
T.S.艾略特曾说:”一个文化里 所能发生的最重大的事 是发现新的散文形式。“ 我不这么认为,不过 --(笑声) 这是一个正确的理论方式,对吧? 一个文化里能发生的最重大的事情是 他们可以发展出新的论辩方式: 法官审判、投票、同侪审查、然后是这个,对吧?
A new form of arguing has been invented in our lifetimes, in the last decade, in fact. It's large, it's distributed, it's low-cost, and it's compatible with the ideals of democracy. The question for us now is, are we going to let the programmers keep it to themselves? Or are we going to try and take it and press it into service for society at large?
在我们的人生里,一种新的论辩方式已被发明 而且其实是在过去十年里发生的 它规模巨大、很广泛、低成本 而且它很适合实现民主制度的理想 而现在的问题是:我们要继续只让 这些程式设计师使用它吗? 或者,我们可以试着使用它、让它 为社会大众服务?
Thank you for listening. (Applause) (Applause) Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)
感谢大家出席聆听(掌声) (掌声) 谢谢,谢谢(掌声)