Yet Aristotle's conception of our political nature seems to require standards of justice that are natural or right for us.
但亚里士多德对我们政治天性的概念,似乎需要正义的标准,且那对我们是自然或正确的法治预设。
So the basic idea was fine, but I failed to satisfy the initial condition that the answer had to be between the lower bound and the upper bound. Right?
因此基础的思想是对的,但是程序没能满足,正确答案在给定的区间内这个条件,对不对?
So, in general what we see, and this is always true if we're comparing the same atom, and in general, if we're comparing different types of molecules, but we know that a single bond is always weaker than a double bond, which is weaker than a triple bond.
通常我们会看到,这对比较相同原子来说总是正确的,通常,如果我们要比较不同种类的分子,但我们知道单键,总是要比双键弱,双键总是要比三键弱。
Poetry is a response to the daily necessity of getting the world right."
诗歌是对世界正确转动的琐事的反应“
So even if the body theory of personal identity is the right theory, what I want to say in response to that is,So what?
即便身体理论对个人认同感的解释是正确的,我的反应还是,那又怎样?
Are Aristotle's views on democracy correct here in his analysis? Do in fact many chefs make ? for a better dinner than a single chef?
亚里士多德对民主的看法,从他的分析来看,正确吗?多位厨师所准备的,晚餐真的比单一厨师所准备的来的好吗?
Okay these--you guys are all right, everything that I heard was a correct answer.
很好 这些原因--你们说的都很对,我听到的每一个答案都是正确答案
If Frederick Jackson Turner had anything right in "The Frontier Thesis", although he didn't pay hardly any attention to the South, this idea of a safety valve of a West to move to was surely there for slavery.
如果弗雷德里克·杰克逊·特纳,在《边境论》中有什么正确的言论,那就是,尽管他对南方几乎没有施以任何关注,即这个西进运动是一道安全阀的构想,显然是为奴隶制而设的
So, the Commune begins on the 18th of March, 1871, and it lasts until the end of May, 1871. Lenin once called it the "Festival of the Oppressed"; and Lenin was wrong about many things, he was right about a few things but wrong about many, but he got that one right.
由此,巴黎公社在一八七一年三月十八日成立,并于同年的五月底被政府所瓦解,列宁将这段时间称为"受压迫者的庆典",列宁做错过不少事情,他做对的事情寥寥无几,但对于巴黎公社的评价是正确的
OK, good. This might be our all-time high, 89% got this right. This is great.
好的,很好这可能是我们上课以来正确率最高的一次,89%,的同学都做对了,这太棒了。
But as theorists, we could be interested in the theoretical possibility that the right response is to not think about the facts of death at all.
但作为理论家,我们可能对“正确的回应是,根本不考虑所有关于死亡的事实”,在理论上的可能性感兴趣。
We need to avoid the temptation, in many ways understandable as it might be, to airbrush or sanitize Aristotle, to make him seem more politically correct for modern readers.
我们要避开这个诱惑,虽然在很多方面看来,他可能在经过喷雾与消毒之后较易理解,亚里士多德,也许会对现代的读者变得比较政治正确。
So to imply that now you can eat all you want, you have an issue to free ticket if you will, some people might consider not the right message.
假如说现在你可以吃任何你想吃的东西,这里面存在一个免费门票的问题,有些人对营销信息的理解并不正确
Boy, my handwriting is atrocious, isn't it?
同学们,我的板书可能不太正确对不对?
It's not since syntactically correct, right?
因此这并不是语法正确的对不对?
Here's a quick quiz, just to get your sense, I'm not expecting necessarily to get these right, but just to get a sense of a few issues with nutrition.
先来个快速测验,只凭你们的感觉,我不要求各位给出正确答案,只是听听大家对几个营养学问题的想法
And what he would expect is if this Plum Pudding model is true, nothing's really going to happen to the particles, right, they should go straight through, because if they hit an electron, those are so small.
他所预期的是,如果李子布丁模型,是正确的,alpha粒子,不会发生什么事情,对吧,它们会直接穿过去,因为如果它们撞到电子。
应用推荐