资治通鉴（小插盒） （北宋）司马光　著 9787512003156 线装书局 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

《资治通鉴》全册暴294卷，300万字，上起东周，下迄五代，囊括了1362年的历史，堪称我国古代较完整的一部编年体通史。《资治通鉴》几乎相伴一代伟人毛泽东一生，他非常痴迷这部史学巨著，前后共读了17遍。

资治通鉴卷

周

资治通鉴第二卷

周纪二

资治通鉴第三卷

周纪三

资治通鉴第四卷

周纪四

资治通鉴第五卷

周纪五

资治通鉴第六卷

秦

资治通鉴第七卷

秦纪二

资治通鉴第八卷

秦纪三

资治通鉴第九卷

汉

资治通鉴第十卷

汉纪二

资治通鉴第十一卷

汉纪三

资治通鉴第十二卷

汉纪四

资治通鉴第十三卷

汉纪五

资治通鉴第十四卷

汉纪六

资治通鉴第十五卷

汉纪七

资治通鉴第十六卷

汉纪八

资治通鉴第十七卷

汉纪九

资治通鉴第十八卷

汉纪十

资治通鉴第十九卷

汉纪十一

资治通鉴第二十卷

汉纪十二

资治通鉴第二十一卷

汉纪十三

资治通鉴第二十二卷

汉纪十四

资治通鉴第二十三卷

汉纪十五

资治通鉴第二十四卷

汉纪十六

资治通鉴第二十五卷

汉纪十七

资治通鉴第二十六卷

汉纪十八

资治通鉴第二十七卷

汉纪十九

资治通鉴第二十八卷

汉纪二十

资治通鉴第二十九卷

汉纪二十一

资治通鉴第三十卷

……

司马光(1019一1086)，北宋大臣，政治家、文学家、史学家，世称涑水先生，历仕仁宗、英宗、神宗、哲宗四朝。他主持编纂了中国历史上部编年体通史《资治通鉴》。司马光为人温良谦恭、刚正不阿，力荐德才兼备太常寺卿黄中庸为侍中兼枢密副使，其人格堪称儒学教化下的典范，历来受人景仰。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：资治通鉴（小插盒） （北宋）司马光　著 9787512003156 线装书局在线阅读

在线听书地址：资治通鉴（小插盒） （北宋）司马光　著 9787512003156 线装书局在线收听

在线购买地址：资治通鉴（小插盒） （北宋）司马光　著 9787512003156 线装书局在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：碎瓦 发布时间：2007-11-18 19:22:07

  以前跟你文学，如今和你搞政治

• 作者：长睡不醒u 发布时间：2019-01-23 18:56:56

  「读大刘的作品，你常有两种感受：人类的技术再天马行空，也不过是宇宙中的涟漪；而宇宙再广阔，也不能抹除人类存在过、奋斗过和爱过的痕迹。」via.地瓜

• 作者：望山 发布时间：2023-02-21 06:35:07

  0%。两个老师噶完了，眼睛尿尿了。

• 作者：番茄熊 发布时间：2022-11-25 23:27:54

  参考文献本身的参差，基本决定了这也就是抒发个人情感的读后感，权当案头消遣或许也可以

• 作者：悬浮的潜水艇 发布时间：2019-05-20 15:09:47

  作者将这本书献给他的妻子——被他称为至爱的宿主。看来读书人秀恩爱都显得那么与众不同。

• 作者：祺 发布时间：2017-06-06 11:38:24

  前1/3把老蒋和戴笠几人的关系，力行社蓝衣社复兴社等略微梳理了下，后2/3才是正题，资料多出自沈醉等人的回忆录，从整个叙事来说未见高明，多是平铺直叙对我来说到也无谓，有些字里行间的倒值得玩味，不过旁人不仔细看容易忽略，盖因多是琐碎之故？！真想知戴笠其生平，记得当年在天涯追的军统往

• 一首唱给自己的情歌

  作者：Shirleysays 发布时间：2015-09-04 16:35:16

  文/夏丽柠

  在《一个人的朝圣》里，英国女作家蕾秋•乔伊斯为读者塑造了一个执着坚定的“徒步独行侠”哈罗德。他穿越英国腹地，去探望一位住在临终关怀养老院里的旧同事奎妮，癌症晚期患者。哈罗德希望以实际行动换取奎妮对生命的坚持。

  当我们还沉浸在为哈罗德的举动而欢呼雀跃的时候，小说像一架摄像机的镜头，慢慢地转向了最佳配角“奎妮”。没有奎妮，哈罗德完成不了他的壮举; 没有奎妮，他跨越千山万水也失去了意义; 没有奎妮，哈德罗的生活也许早早就溃败得一塌糊涂……《一个人的朝圣2：奎妮的情歌》就是要为我们揭开奎妮的“秘密”。

  “哈罗德•弗莱就要来了，我想。我等了二十年，现在他就要来了”。在本书的扉页，奎妮这样告白。然而，她在写给哈罗德的第二封信里说，“我的秘密已被我深埋二十年，趁还不算太晚，我必须一吐为快。我会告诉你一切，余下的终归寂静”。是的，聪明的读者不会猜错，奎妮暗恋哈罗德！否则，她也不会在啤酒厂里代哈罗德受过，保住了他的工作，自己却黯然离开。

  奎妮毕业于牛津大学，懂古典文学，爱好诗歌，交际舞跳得也不错。她的人生轨迹里有“女文青”的特质，生在缺乏爱的家庭，早早离家却爱上人渣，独自承担，收拾残局。作为厂里的第一位名女会计，在忍受老板压榨的同时，还要安慰自己的心灵枯寂。

  如今，我们常常开口聊“妇女解放”，闭口谈“女权”。书中的奎妮便 是标准的“独立女性”形象。可独立，不代表聪明。奎妮貌似干了件“蠢事”，朝夕相处令她爱上了老实善良的已婚男人哈罗德。读着她给哈罗德的信，看着她淡淡地吐露心事，“只要能在每个工作日见到你，我就能在配角的位置幸福地爱着你”。我们眼里浸满了一个寂寞爱的女子。

  命运不公，生命有时坚硬，有时脆弱。人的根本就是活着，可奎妮敞开心扉之时，竟是赴死之际。读着读着，便心生悲哀，活着，真难。在等爱与等死共进的时候，奎妮返璞归真，回到了人类的初心，那就是爱与真诚。她书写与哈德罗的过往、与他儿子戴维的交集和被他妻子看破真相时的窘态。在生命终了之即，她的回忆格外平静。

  奎妮是智慧女性，她拥有驾驶情感与生活的能力，是一个勇敢、冷静和坦诚的女人。在她身上，少了茨威格的《一个陌生女人的来信》中“我爱你，与你无关”的野性，反而为她增添了传统女性忍耐和勇于牺牲的魅力。爱没有对错和值不值得。如果能够无怨地爱一个人，才会认真地过生活吧。

  在本书里，乔伊斯还刻画了一组“欢乐”的终极病人：芭芭拉、珠母纽王和亨德森先生 ，当然还有和蔼可亲的凯瑟琳和露西修女，大家一起面对“上帝”（死神）的召唤。丰子恺说，“既然无处可逃，不如喜悦。既然没有静土，不如静心。既然没有如愿，不如释然”。丰子恺先生的寥寥数语，不知挽救了多少自私的灵魂，也成就了多少像奎妮一样释然的人。

  与其说这本书是奎妮的恋爱告白，不如说是一首她唱给自己的情歌。倘若你曾为哈罗德的故事流过眼泪，那么奎妮的故事会让你的泪水如花朵般幸福绽放，就像顾城的诗句：“我们站着不说话，就十分美好”，书中就弥漫着这种美好。暗恋是多么美妙的情感，安静与克制造就了一场情感充沛的梦。梦不醒，爱不灭。“活着真幸福”，我想奎妮停笔时会在心里这么说。

  转载请豆邮联系

• When ballistic missiles can see：比尔盖茨书评

  作者：Lena. 发布时间：2020-03-02 18:40:47

  When I was a kid, I read a lot of sci-fi books. One of the most common themes was “man vs. machine,” which often took the form of robots becoming self-aware and threatening humanity. This theme has also become a staple of Hollywood movies like

  The Terminator

  and

  The Matrix

  .

  Despite the prevalence of this theme, I don’t lose any sleep worrying about this scenario. But I do think we should spend more time thinking about the implications—positive and negative—of recent progress in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and machine vision. For example, militaries have begun to develop drones, ships, subs, tanks, munitions, and robotic troops with increasing levels of intelligence and autonomy.

  While this use of A.I. holds great promise for reducing civilian casualties and keeping more troops out of harm’s way, it also presents the possibility of unintended consequences if we’re not careful. Earlier this year, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres

  called global attention

  to these threats: “The weaponization of artificial intelligence is a growing concern. The prospect of weapons that can select and attack a target on their own raises multiple alarms…. The prospect of machines with the discretion and power to take human life is morally repugnant.”

  Unfortunately, my first attempt to educate myself on autonomous weapons was a bust. I read a book that was dry and felt really outdated. Then a few months ago I picked up

  Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War

  , by Paul Scharre. It’s the book I had been waiting for. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

  Scharre is a great thinker who has both on-the-ground experience and a high-level view. He’s a former Army Ranger who served four tours of combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then went onto a policy role at the U.S. Department of Defense and led the working group that drafted the government’s policy on autonomous weapons. He’s currently a policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, a center-left think tank in DC.

  He is also a good writer. Scharre writes clearly about a huge range of topics: computer science, military strategy, history, philosophy, psychology, and ethics. He gives you the right grounding to start participating in the debate over where our country should draw the line on these powerful technologies.

  Scharre makes clear from the beginning that he has no problem with some well-bounded military uses of autonomy. For example, he brings you along for a tour of the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Combat System, an advanced system for tracking and guiding missiles at sea. Aegis has a mode of operation in which human operators delegate all firing decisions to an advanced computer (but can override them if necessary). Why would you want to put a computer in charge? If you’re out at sea and an enemy fires 50 missiles at you all at once, you’d be very happy to have a system that can react much faster than a human could.

  “Autonomy has great benefits in environments where humans can’t survive.”

  Army of None

  also shows that autonomy has great benefits in environments where humans can’t survive (such as flight situations with high G forces) or in which communications have broken down. It can be enormously helpful to have an unmanned drone, tank, or sub that carries out a clear, limited mission with little communication back and forth with human controllers.

  In addition, autonomous weapons could potentially help save civilian lives. Scharre cites robotics experts who argue that “autonomous weapons … could be programmed to never break the laws of war…. They wouldn’t seek revenge. They wouldn’t get angry or scared. They would take emotion out of the equation. They could kill when necessary and then turn killing off in an instant.”

  Despite these and other advantages, Scharre does not want the military ever to turn over

  judgment

  to computers. To make his case, he offers compelling real-life cases in which human judgment was essential for preventing needless killing, such as his own experiences in Afghanistan. “A young girl of maybe five or six headed out of the village and up our way, two goats in trail. Ostensibly she was just herding goats, but she [was actually] spotting for Taliban fighters.” Scharre’s unit did not shoot. Yes, it would have been legal, but he argues that it would not have been morally right. A robotic sniper following strict algorithms might well have opened fire the second it detected a radio in her hand.

  Scharre ends the book by exploring the possibility of an international ban on fully autonomous weapons. He concludes that this kind of absolute ban is not likely to succeed. However, he holds out hope that enlightened self-interest could bring countries together to ban specific uses of autonomous weapons, such as those that target individual people. He also believes it’s feasible to establish non-binding rules of the road that could reduce the potential for autonomous systems to set each other off accidentally. He also believes we could update the international laws of war to embed a common principle for human involvement in lethal force.

  There are no easy answers here. But I agree with Scharre that we have to guard against becoming “seduced by the allure of machines—their speed, their seeming perfection, their cold precision.” And we should not leave it up to military planners or the people writing software to determine where to draw the proper lines. We need many experts and citizens across the globe to get involved in this important debate.