世界知识旅行地图册 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

随着社会的进步，生活的富裕，国民周游世界列国已不再是可望而不可及的事了，因此比以往任何时候都更为迫切地想了解世界各国的情况。《世界知识旅行地图册》就是为您认识世界，了解世界、走向世界提供亲切的知识享受而又实际的帮助。

本图册总共有八个部分:地球与世界、亚洲、欧洲、非洲、大洋州、北美洲、南美洲、北极地区和南极洲。地球与世界部分重点介绍与人类活动密切相关的地球知识,如地球的运动、地壳、大气、水、陆地与海洋等和当今世界的资源与环境、人口、经济、政区和国际组织等状况。各洲以国家为单元，所介绍的国家和地区有近220个，其中国家193个，地区26个，仅有少量地区因篇幅原因未能列入。每个国家均有地图、国旗、国家概况以及面积、人口、宗教信仰、货币、时差、大使馆电话等，一目了然。

地球与世界

地球在宇宙中

地球的运动

世界时区

地壳和地壳的运动

地球上的大气

地球上的水

世界陆地自然带

世界的陆地与海洋

世界自然资源

世界能源

世界经济

世界经济

世界大家庭

人类与环境

世界交通与通信

世界政区

联合国与国际组织

亚洲

亚洲

中国

蒙古

朝鲜

韩国

日本

越南

老挝

柬埔寨

泰国

缅甸

马来西亚

文莱

新加坡

印度尼西亚

东帝汶

菲律宾

印度

尼泊尔

不丹

孟加拉国

马尔代夫

斯里兰卡

巴基斯坦

阿富汗

塔吉克斯坦

哈萨克斯坦

吉尔吉斯斯坦

乌兹别克斯坦

土库曼斯坦

伊朗

伊拉克

科威特

也门

沙特阿拉伯

阿拉伯联合酋长国

阿曼

巴林

卡塔尔

叙利亚

黎巴嫩

约旦

塞浦路斯

巴勒斯坦地区

以色列

土耳其

亚美尼亚

阿塞拜疆

格鲁吉亚

欧洲

非洲

大洋洲

北美洲

南美洲

北极地区 南极洲

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

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：世界知识旅行地图册在线阅读

在线听书地址：世界知识旅行地图册在线收听

在线购买地址：世界知识旅行地图册在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

《世界知识旅行地图册》就是为您认识世界，了解世界、走向世界提供亲切的知识享《世界知识旅行地图册》总共有八个部分:地球与世界、亚洲、欧洲、非洲、大洋州、北美洲、南美洲、北极地区和南极洲。地球与世界部分重点介绍与人类活动密切相关的地球知识,如地球的运动、地壳、大气、水、陆地与海洋等和当今世界的资源与环境、人口、经济、政区和国际组织等状况。各洲以国家为单元，所介绍的国家和地区有近220个，其中国家193个，地区26个，仅有少量地区因篇幅原因未能列入。每个国家均有地图、国旗、国家概况以及面积、人口、宗教信仰、货币、时差、大使馆电话等，一目了然。

• 作者：无序DNA 发布时间：2008-11-08 18:40:19

  My love,my cat,G-A-R-F-I-E-L-D!

• 作者：令和 发布时间：2019-09-10 00:18:05

  “人若戴了一副灰色的眼镜，他看见什么都是灰色的。但他若知道他是戴了灰色的眼镜的时候，他至少可以知道，他所看见的什么，本来不一定都是灰色的” 未完待续…

• 作者：土豆长在山坡上 发布时间：2019-03-21 16:11:55

  超级赞！！！

• 作者：喵喵奥特曼 发布时间：2020-06-19 21:57:56

  翻译太代入作者情感了 翻译出来的沈三白感觉就是个娘娘腔 整日没钱还要喝酒玩乐美其名曰寄情山水的没用的渣男 但再去看原文 却是一个重情却败于现实但依旧偷得浮生半日闲的男子 翻译给负分原文给四星 综合三星

• 作者：后浪 发布时间：2021-07-01 10:41:12

  波罗的海早期发展史的拓荒之作，见证条顿骑士团的兴衰历程

• 作者：鋼鏈女孩 发布时间：2018-07-19 16:09:43

  就算有人说你的想法很奇怪 那也没办法 因为这就是你的想法

• 概念不错，印证了我的很多经历，但是太浅了

  作者：子珂 发布时间：2017-05-02 14:21:23

  1. 视频

  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxqhqE4Ki3g

  作者在google介绍这本书的视频

  看了一下，感觉主题挺好的，但是解释、应用很乏力，总的来说没学到什么东西，书也是这样。

  2. 书

  2.1 这本书讲的是什么？

  我们常常有Eureka的时刻 —— 在某个意料之外的时候，突然想明白了某个问题，比如走路/睡觉的时候，突然有了灵感，解决了之前困扰很久的问题，作者称之为

  breakthrough thinking

  .

  这本书就是关于breakthrough thinking相关研究的系统性总结.

  butterfly指的是breakthrough thinking, net指的就是我们可以怎样更好的产生这种灵感

  但这本书的问题，在于

  只谈到了现象，却没有太多更为有用的解释

  。也就是说，只是让我知道了我之前的做法都是合理的，还有很多人是这样做的，但也就止步于此了

  2.2 一些有用的内容

  (1) 人存在两种思维模式，Executive Network (EN) , Default Network (DN).

  EN是我们的表意识，是有目的性的思维，比如我们想要做某个任务；DN是我们的潜意识，即当我们没有在做任务的时候，我们的思维就是在DN里

  (2) breakthrough产生的规律:

  常常在EN和DN切换的时候产生，比如散步、睡觉刚醒的时候

  2.3 存在的问题

  但书没有进一步解释，为什么活动、睡觉的时候，更容易产生breakthrough

  而书的第二部分，怎么面对失败在我看来就是小儿科了，对于熟悉lean startup, 熟悉科学研究的人而言，失败实在是太正常不过了，所以我根本不会想去读

  再比如像书的第一章，把breakthrough分成了4个类别，觉得有些把问题搞复杂了.

  2.4 其他

  值得一提的是，本书

  最后的Chapter Summaries和Science Appendix都写得不错

  。Chapter Summaries非常好的概括了本书的内容，Science Appendix算是本书稍显有含量的地方，稍微介绍了一些可以理解的原理，可惜专业名词太多，如果有相关的图片就更好了。

  所以，建议大家这样读这本书：先看视频，然后读第一章，看最后的总结，再决定这本书值不值得读，会比较有效率

  最后，书里提到了两点我觉得还算有意思

  - 对于直觉型思维，怎样和团队讲清楚是非常重要的。也就是老大们经常会直觉上觉得一个东西有搞头，让下面去做。但是，如果不把实际的原因、想法讲清楚，下面的人就会很不理解，难以做好

  - 潜意识所占的比例极大。因为所有意识之外的，比如对于环境的感受，肢体动作等等我们意识不到的东西，都是潜意识在控制的

  3. 对于breakthrough ideas的一些个人体验

  - 睡觉、走路的时候，常常会产生灵感

  - 很多时候，灵感不是知道了什么，而是能够高效的把一些东西组织在一起。比如我写一篇文章，可能文章的每个部分都清楚了，但是只有在进入状态的情况下，才会感觉到每个部分之的flow, 即文章的各个部分是如何联系在一起的。做产品也是类似

  - 常常是基于观察、体验才有新的想法。比如突然观察到了某个问题/条件，进而发现了改进的机会，或者发现了计算、试验中的某个现象。

  - 走路、运动也是给大脑长期工作之后的休息。之后才会有更好的灵感。长时间思考会精疲力尽，体力性活动之后，思维的“力气”会恢复.

  本书最大的特点，就是让我知道了，原来很多人也是在同样的经历下产生了灵感。但对我而言，确实算不上好书

  我觉得，一本好书，不仅仅是准确、写得好，更重要的是能让我学到东西。这本书的问题也就在于此，东西当然准确，但是内容太浅了，不算一个好的学习体验

• 转载一篇国外学者的书评的书评

  作者：benshuier 发布时间：2011-04-23 23:15:28

  原文网址

  http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/04/review-of-timothy-brooks-collaboration/

  我没得到作者授权就私自拿来了...如果要引用的话请多加注意

  Review of Timothy Brook’s Collaboration

  Filed under: Books China-Japan English War— K. M. Lawson @ 7:33 pm Print

  In the most recent issue of The Journal of Asian Studies there is a review of Timothy Brook‘s new work Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China written by Susan Glosser. I was very disappointed with this review which, except for a few conciliatory lines in the beginning of the review, was very critical of Brook’s work. While I agree with Glosser on one or two points, I found her to be far too harsh, sometimes irrelevant (she complains that he does not offer a glossary with the Chinese names of all the organizations mentioned, but they can be found under the index entry for every organization) and in several instances clearly wrong in her assessment of the book, which I believe is a truly excellent contribution to the scholarship on Chinese collaboration during the occupation.

  Timothy Brook’s work is a careful look at the issues surrounding Chinese wartime collaboration through a close examination of a number of case studies from the Yangtze delta. With the exception of some work I have read in Japanese and some coming out of Taiwan, this is the most detailed source based research I have seen of this kind to date.

  Here I just want to contest three points in Glosser’s critique of Brook’s work that I think particularly unfair. She argues that 1) Brook doesn’t discuss the “problem of generalizing from one city to another.” 2) She complains about Brook’s allegedly unproblematized use of the word “pacification” (such as in referring to Japan’s “pacification teams.”) 3) Glosser spends almost a third of the review critiquing Brook’s “desire to avoid moral judgments” and his allegedly “neutral stance” on issue of Chinese collaboration.

  On the first count, Glosser is certainly correct in worrying about the generalization involved, but I think Brook is also well aware of the dangers and admirably avoids them in many places more adventurous scholars would not. He has already focused his study on only one area of occupied China, the Yangtze delta, and laments, in some detail, the paucity of available sources. He goes into considerable length to describe his sources and the various problems which accompany them in his opening chapter, even showing specific examples of the kinds of contradictions present and strategies he used. He works with Japanese sources (writings of the pacification team members), Chinese sources (such as memoirs), and Western sources (witnesses in Nanjing, for example) depending on their availability.

  I am more than satisfied by his explanation that, “I chose seven cities and counties across the Yangtze Delta for intensive study. This selection was not based on whether the sites were typical or unique (some would prove to be one, some the other, and some both), but only on whether the documentation was sufficiently dense to allow for a more than superficial portrait of what local people did in the face of military occupation…After the case studies were written, I chose to include in the book five that were sufficiently distinct in terms of the themes that the sources allowed me to explore…”1 and did not find any of his major claims to be based solely on individual findings in any one city or place. On the contrary, I imagine the accusation of generalization would be particularly offensive to Brook since he has urged the reader to try to overcome some of the stereotypes and classic images we have of the wartime collaborators and allow for the many different forms and levels of cooperation with the occupying forces, their varying motivations, costs, and ultimately levels of moral responsibility.

  Glosser for some reason takes issue with the fact that Brook uses the term “pacification teams” which is a direct translation of the Japanese term. She seems so concerned that we maintain a sufficiently condemnatory tone in our work on Japan’s activities in occupied China that this direct translation doesn’t seem to be sufficiently insidious. I find no issue with the fact that he calls these teams by the best English translation available (“pacification” is originally 宣撫, which in one of its two related definitions in Japanese specifically means to pacify a people in an occupied territory), especially since he does not, by this, ever try to hide the fact that the Japanese were guilty of horrible atrocities.

  She says that he uses the word “pacification” for “his own description of events (p. 134)” but I can’t find any use of that word on the page, for any purpose. Instead, page 134 makes use of another term which we are all familiar with, when he discusses Japanese “counterinsurgency operations” in Nanjing. It is on the same page where he notes Japanese military promises to offer “care for disarmed Chinese soldiers” even as they carried out a policy of executing captured soldiers in Nanjing and, at the bottom of that page tells of the summary execution of fifty policemen which had just been promised permission to operate after negotiations with Nanjing’s International Committee.

  Finally, Glosser seems to think that Brook has a “neutral stance” with respect to collaboration and wants to “avoid moral judgments.” I’m afraid this kind of comment shows that she has completely misread Brook’s careful argument. Perhaps she missed Brook’s simple request in his introduction that, “All I ask of the reader is to suspend judgment as to who is guilty for having worked with the Japanese until after we have seen them at work.”2 Brook wants to point out that the costs and consequences of collaboration, its form, and the motivations are all very much tied up in the contingencies of specific situations. Also, he reminds us that, “Ambiguity of intention is only half the problem. There is also the ambiguity of unknowable consequences.”3 He is “neutral” to collaboration in one important respect: the word “collaboration” is already a morally loaded word, and I think he would argue that without some special care, this can get in the way of any interesting and productive look at the interactions between Chinese and Japanese during the war.

  I think Glosser fundamentally misunderstands Brook when she protests his claim that “history does not fashion moral subjects, nor produce moral knowledge.” I completely agree with her when she says that, “All histories [are] embedded in an ethical view of the world.”4 However, I’m not sure how Brook is to be understood as denying this. Brook admits how his own “ethical view of the world” has affected his description of some of the historical figures he describes in the book. On the very same page as his comment about moral knowledge, he has this to say, “Without question, many of [the choices of collaborators] were venal in inspiration and destructive in impact, and the historian is not disqualified from documenting that venality or tracking the damage these choices led to and declaring them to be damaging. I have found it impossible to suspend my personal distaste for some of the characters who appear in this book, and it would be facetious to suggest that the reader should, particularly when the consequences of collaboration were as stark as they were in a place like Nanjing.” I think what Brook, who it might be noted collected and edited the important Documents on the Rape of Nanking (1999), wants to argue for is a more careful consideration of some of the “inconvenient facts” that produce a more complex picture – a complexity that we must face if we are to have any chance at understanding the kinds of choices faced by individuals every day in extreme times. It is because of some of these ambiguities that we cannot “deduce the causes that prompted people to act from the moral claims we impose, nor evaluate their actions solely in relation to consequences the actors could not anticipate.”5 This is as true for collaborators with the Japanese occupation regime as it is with anyone who collaborated with Chinese Communist regime in its most violent hour, and as it is for the daily choices of policemen, soldiers and government officials of an occupied Iraq today. An analytic calculus of atrocity and the clarity of hindsight does not help us in the least in understanding the people thrust into extreme positions during times such as war, occupation, imperial domination, or under highly repressive governments — or for that matter the choices they faced.

  1. Timothy Brook Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 26-27.

  2. ibid. 13.

  3. ibid. 241.

  4. Susan Glossar review of Brook’s book in Journal of Asian Studies vol. 65 no. 1, 149