Society Awards Nomination Form: Fill & Download for Free

Not at all.First, let’s get some things straight: Chinese books are well known (even modern ones are) and do win prizes. Chinese films are watched, and do win prizes.Guide for the perplexed: every word above is a link to a Chinese book or movie (a small selection of them) that are widely recognized and/or have received awards. Those are: The Analects, The Art of War, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Dream of the Red Chamber, the Dao De Jing, The True Story of Ah Q, To Live, Red Sorghum, and Dream of Ding Village. Among those authors I’ve underlined who’ve been especially recognized, we have: Mo Yan (Nobel Prize), Gao Xingjian (also Nobel Prize), Jiang Rong (Man Booker Asian Prize), and Liu Cixin (the Hugo).As for movies, those linked are: Farewell My Concubine (1993 Academy Award Nominee, Palme D’Or at Cannes, Best Foreign Film Golden Globe); Ju Dou (Palme D’Or nominated, received special award; Academy Awards nominated for Best Foreign Film); Raise the Red Lantern (Silver Lion at Venice; Academy Award-nominated Best Foreign Film); Hero (Golden Globe-nominated, Academy Award-nominated, won the Alfred Bauer Prize at the Berlin Film Festival); Red Sorghum (Golden Bear in Berlin); To Live (Grand Prix and Price of the Ecumenical Jury at Cannes; nominated for Golden Globe for Best Foreign Movie); City of Life and Death (Golden Shell at the San Sebastian Film Festival and Best Movie at the Oslo Film Festival); Story of Qiu Ju (Golden Lion at Venice).This is only including Mainland films—if our focal point is characters, we need to talk about those other countries which also use characters, whether purely Chinese (such as Hong Kong films— formerly exceptionally popular) or alongside another script (such as Japan—think Akira Kurosawa if you wonder whether characters inhibit their popularity).So, we can already see that “characters” (which wouldn’t make much of an impact on things like film, anyway) aren’t really an impediment to getting film and literature out there.David Moser might be arguing that “if they didn’t use characters, they’d be even more popular”—to which I ask, “why?” Again, characters don’t figure into the difficulty of watching films. Culture might, but characters or no, we’re still going to have that cultural gap. We have translators that translate Chinese fiction into English—like we do for Russian, French, Italian, and German literature.Chinese characters are difficult, but mostly in the context of their distance from forms of script we’re using in the West, just as Chinese is “difficult” for Americans/Europeans mostly because it’s so distant from the common European languages, and the distance between two languages is a major determiner for difficulty, since those languages are likely to have greater differences in grammar, phonology, syntax, etc..Even that linguistic distance is no real impediment to soft power: Vietnamese, for instance, absorbed a great deal of French things into their culture during their colonial period, and many spoke French. Hong Kongers, of course, learned English. Difficulty between languages is often not the main determiner, but rather resources, and providing obvious cultural or material benefits to learning that language. Privileged Hong Kongers and Vietnamese learned English and French not because they were easy, but because knowing them conferred obvious benefits. This remains the case in post-colonial societies, such as India with its usage of English.All that aside, Chinese as a language would still be difficult for Western speakers—I’d argue, once all is said and done, even more difficult—if we didn’t have characters and focused on Pinyin or some other alphabetic system, since we won’t have the clear disambiguation characters bring.China is, in my opinion, still underperforming in terms of soft power, and its more ancient forms—the residual effects of the Sinosphere in Korea, Japan and Vietnam, for example—are probably too nativized and integrated into those cultures at this point to be claimed as active soft power in the current situation. Its film industry is generally inward-focused (with the exceptions of major sallies like The Great Wall—which often do not so well). Its mainstream internet culture can often seem cut off from the world, which inhibits another medium of soft power expansion.So I’ll accept that there are issues with Chinese soft power expansion at the moment, but I wouldn’t pin that at all on the fact that Chinese has characters.“Parents don’t like to hear this, but kids aren’t stupid and they vote with their time and interest and say, you know, I’m going to skip the difficult Chinese and go with the fun English stuff. As long as I can remember, parents have been tearing their hair out: ‘How can I get my kids to read Chinese books?’ The issue is the characters, and people don’t want to admit that, but it’s true. It’s a serious impediment.I want to point this out especially, because I’m sort of flabbergasted by it. It’s incredibly common for the children of immigrants—especially if they’re very heavily assimilated—to not want to spend much time studying their parents’ native language, and a great deal don’t get much beyond “kitchen vocabulary” (i.e., everyday vocabulary used in speaking the language with their family) without having been expressly sent to spend some time in the Mother Country.I’ve seen this as true for the children of immigrants whether they speak Italian, Greek, or Russian. Hell, I’ve seen it happen with immigrants from different regions of China moving into a different dialectical area—they can speak with their family’s dialect with their parents, but they have difficulty beyond that, and use the language of their local area for every other occasion (and self-identify it as their mother language).Legacy language acquisition among the children of immigrants is a perennial issue, and far, far from unique to Chinese.

Leo Szilard, an almost unknown scientist in today's times, made some astonishingly important contributions to science and society. Cancel all your plans for the next 10 minutes and buckle in - because your mind is about to be blown.Szilard owned the patent on the atomic bomb - (Espacenet - Bibliographic data). Pause for a minute and let that last statement sink in - there was a patent on the atomic bomb and this man owned it. The neutron was discovered in 1932 by James Chadwick and soon after, Szilard invented and patented the idea of a neutron based nuclear chain reaction in 1933-34, which also describes the resulting explosion. He tried to preserve the patent's secrecy by assigning it to the British Admiralty ( for fear of Nazi Germany getting their hands on it ).Szilard attempted to start a nuclear chain reaction with a few light neutron-rich elements, but did not meet with success. Unfortunately, he did not try fissioning Uranium, which was eventually achieved by Otto Hahn and team in 1938 in Germany ( Nazi Germany, just a few months before WWII ). Interestingly, Szilard had mentioned 3 elements in his 1933 patent - Beryllium, Bromine and Uranium, which he believed might support nuclear chain reactions. It was evidence of Szilard uncanny insight that Uranium indeed turned out to sustain nuclear chain reactions (and it is the only natural element to do so).In his university days, Szilard took courses from Einstein, who also highly praised Szilard's doctoral thesis. In the late 1920s, they worked together to develop refrigerators with no moving parts and they shared a few patents on those. Yes - Einstein had patents on refrigerators. Unfortunately, these refrigerators never became a commercial success, though a form of such refrigerators are still used today in nuclear power plants. Einstein and Szilard were very good friends throughout their lives.After discovery of fission in 1938, Szilard was one of the very first to understand that creating nuclear weapons was now feasible and that the Allies needed to build atomic weapons before the Nazis did it (WWII was just around the corner). To explain this urgency, he (with a bit of help from Wigner and Teller) wrote a letter to President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR)... but he also knew that he was not famous enough to be taken seriously enough. He was not going to let the letter get lost or overlooked in other random communication. He was very close friends with Einstein, whom he asked to sign the letter to increase its importance.When Szilard approached Einstein for signing the letter, Einstein had barely heard about the fission of Uranium in Germany, but he had no idea about the possibility of an atomic bomb. When Szilard explained the situation, Einstein exclaimed -, 'Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht' - "I had not thought of that at all". Einstein shared Szilard's concerns about Germany building the bomb before the allies and agreed to sign the letter. Einstein later said that his only contribution to the atomic bomb was to act as Leo Szilard's mailbox.This letter, written by Szilard and signed by Einstein, was delivered to FDR and was directly responsible for the creation of the Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, the letter became widely known as the "Einstein letter". In the above picture, its referred to as the "Roosevelt letter". It should really be called the "Szilard-Einstein letter".Szilard, along with Enrico Fermi, owned the patent on the nuclear reactor. As a proof of concept experiment, and one of the first tasks undertaken under the Manhattan project, they collaborated to create the first self sustained nuclear chain reaction ( world's first nuclear reactor ) in Chicago in 1942.Above: the team that built the first nuclear reactor. Szilard is the right most on the first step (white lab coat). Enrico Fermi is the left most on the ground (the balding guy who looks like the villain from True Lies).Even before the bomb had been built, Szilard and Niels Bohr envisioned the bomb as a vehicle for world peace... a bomb which will make it impossible for any country to invade another (assuming both had it). That is exactly what the atomic bomb achieved. I love the inherent irony in this idea... build a huge bomb which will eradicate world wars. The best example of an out of the box solution.This is the reason why Szilard and Bohr (and many others) wanted to share the bomb technology with other countries (Russia specifically). Many scientists working on the bomb also believed that the bomb was too great a weapon to be a monopoly in the hands of any single country. If the technology was not shared, Szilard and Bohr foresaw the cold war and the nuclear arms race as the logical conclusion arising from such a situation (Franck Report). They were right again. Bohr and Szilard were the Seldons of our world (ref Asimov's Foundation series).Szilard wanted the bomb to be used only as a deterrent (as a defensive weapon), and when he came to know about the plans of the military to use it aggressively against Japan, he argued and verbally fought with General Leslie Groves (Groves was Oppenheimer's boss and the head of the overall Manhattan Project).When Szilard shouted at Groves in anger, Groves threw Szilard out of the Manhattan project and toyed with the idea of imprisoning Szilard (Decision -- Groves Seeks Evidence, July 4, 1945). He was spared imprisonment when many other scientists working on the bomb voiced their support for Szilard. Either way, Groves failed to find any hard evidence against Szilard.Szilard wrote another letter to FDR (again through Einstein) explaining that the bomb should not be used against Japanese cities, but FDR died a few days before receiving the message. Szilard then tried to contact President Truman but his message never reached Truman (or was ignored).After the bombs were dropped on Japan, Szilard left nuclear physics and started working on molecular biology.Later in life, he was diagnosed with bladder cancer, and doctors gave him a bad probability of survival. Using his knowledge of radioactive elements and biology, Szilard came up with an experimental radiotherapy treatment regimen to irradiate the cancerous cells using gamma radiation from the Cobalt 60 isotope. The doctors warned him that he would die because of the increased radiation, but Szilard persisted. Using this method, he cured his cancer and made a complete recovery. This new regimen of Radiation therapy has been since used to treat some cancers.Leo Szilard died of a heart attack in his sleep on 30th May, 1964. The next day, the New York Times published the news of his death on their front page.Although not well known today, he has not been forgotten. He is well known in the inner circles of nuclear physicists and scientific historians; the proof is that there is a crater on the Moon that is named after Szilard, but its on the far side of the moon - which will never be visible to humans directly from the Earth. Might be appropriate in a way... its looking farther into space. He was also inducted in the US National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1996.[Edit] An excellent trivia from the reader Vinnie Pepi - In the Hugo award nominated Old Man's War novels by John Scalzi, the special forces soldiers are all given names of famous scientists (Einstein, Pasteur, Dirac, Fermi, Sagan, etc). The name of their General is Szilard. Interestingly, Wigner used to often refer to Szilard by the nickname "The General".A quote from David's blog on Szilard (Leo Szilard - Father of the Bomb?)... "Szilard’s colleague’s, many of them Nobel Prize winners or deserving of the award, thought him a brilliant and more importantly, incredibly original and independent thinker. Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize-1963) wrote that if all that was necessary were ideas, Szilard could have done the Manhattan Project all by himself."Szilard was the epicenter of the first atomic bomb. He, more than anyone else (arguably Fermi and Oppenheimer are up there too), is the father of the atomic bomb and always saw the bomb as a weapon of world peace, rather than of destruction - as a way to bring balance to the world. It would be the end of wars as he knew them, and it was his dream from the very beginning...It is not a coincidence that there have been no major wars between nations having atomic weapons. It is not the case that the world discovered brotherly love or learnt to hold hands while singing the Kumbaya after 1945. It is the fear of total and complete annihilation from a nuclear war that holds nations at bay.Leo Szilard is responsible for eradicating large scale conflicts and World Wars, inventing nuclear power plants, and on top of all that, he also invented a new radiotherapy regimen to fight cancer. Few famous people have had such a huge impact on the world and it saddens me that he is so obscure.Szilard, in this picture, is carrying a book titled "A plan for peace".I believe his own plan worked.References:The man who changed war, peace and the worldThe Making of the Atomic Bomb: 25th Anniversary Edition: Richard RhodesAmazon.com: Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the BombLeó Szilárd - WikipediaLeo Szilard OnlineLeo Szilard - Father of the Bomb?Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand‘The Great Escape’ - New York Timesps: If this answer piqued your interest, I highly recommend reading the Pulitzer prize winning book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It is the story of one of the most amazing achievements of human kind and its more engaging than all the Dan Brown novels put together. This is no exaggeration - the book will entertain, educate and enlighten you like no other book you have ever read.I don't think I can write a better marketing statement for Rhodes' book than David Eisenberg, who wrote thus on his blog...The Making of the Atomic Bomb is not only the best and most comprehensive treatment of the [Manhattan] project and its antecedents (and I’ve read a number of them), it is also possibly the single best history or non-fiction book that I have ever read, and that’s a lot of books.Of course, it is not for everyone. If you don’t like history or science (don’t panic, no math necessary), World War II stories, daring commando raids, hair raising escapes, behind the scene politics, mysterious conversations, intellectual battles between the world's greatest scientists, between scientists and soldiers, scientists and politicians, the interpersonal relationships of the great men of this century, incomparable drama, massive death, powerful explosions, personal sacrifice and “a ripping good yarn” as they used to say, then don’t read it. If you are interested, I promise you that there will be no disappointment.This answer has been mostly derived from this source (with permission of the author)...This content was derived from MotleyTechOriginal page link - Leo Szilard - The Man who changed the World

I haven’t selected these movies on any basis of technicality, specific genre, intellectual approach, graphics or on any coherent category….#1. The Imitation Game“When people talk to each other, they never say what they mean. They say something else and you’re expected to just know what they mean”This movie focuses on Alan Turing, a Mathematician, Logician, Wartime Code breaker, father of Computer Science and a great British Hero as he fights against prejudice.The film tackles themes of prejudice against the feminine, against homosexuality and more generally against anyone who is different.How? By simply pointing out, using the example of Alan Turing and his colossal achievements, that it takes someone different to do something amazing.An amazing story it is, packaged in a beautifully tight screenplay without a wasted scene, that keeps the audience fully engaged throughout. All the cast are on top form, in orbit around a stellar performance by Benedict Cumberbatch that layers humor, complexity, sexuality and the palpable frustration of a brilliant mind not quite able to communicate with his fellow humans.A film that depicts a man who perhaps fails the test he invented, that is now named after him. The Turing Test. Can he fool you that he is a real human being and not a super intelligent machine? The stress of playing that Imitation Game is set into every micro twitch of the central character.IMBD : 8/10Rotten Tomatoes : 90%#2. Saving Private Ryan“Absurdly, dead fish by the hundreds were washing ashore, their peaceful world disrupted by man's squabble.”The movie has that trademark Spielberg style--the structure is all tied up and unified from beginning to endthe emotional symbols aboundthe music swelling when he's working at your emotionsthe hand held camera that worked so well in Schindler's List to give you a feeling of participation, camera angles and periods of silence to disorient you (like Schindler), suspense techniques learned from Hitch... It's a movie that stays with you for a period afterwards.After the initial set-up, you will have the opportunity to participate in the D-Day operation and experience the horror of it. Those who have been in a real war can comment about how realistic or not Spielberg captures its chaotic horror in this scene.In my case I again feel very lucky that my draft number was high, so I never had to face Nam like many of my classmates. Spielberg reminds us brutally in "Saving Private Ryan" that we All have a debt to pay to the brave souls who have sacrificed so much for us. What Tom Hanks does with his performance is to remind us of this debt in a very personal way.IMDB : 8.6/10Rotten Tomatoes : 93%#3. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”It’s a hard to explain such magnificently created trilogy in a limited amount of words, with a total run time of 11 hours and 3 minutes this is a film series of three epic fantasy adventure films directed by Peter Jackson, based on the novel The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. TolkienThe battle and action sequences get a lot more screen time than they do in the books. That's partly the nature of the medium, but I think that's what a lot of people see in the books as well, and I just don't.The amazing thing about The Lord of the Rings is what Tolkien called "secondary creation". It's the idea that the writer isn't just making up a story and asking you to suspend your belief in the real world so that you can tolerate the fact that it's not real. Rather, Tolkien wants to create a world so rich and deep that you don't have to suspend disbelief. You instead come to a secondary belief in his secondary creation.Although movies have a long run time but it is still brilliant.The series was a major financial success. The films were critically acclaimed winning 17 out of 30 total Academy Award nominations.The final film in the series, The Return of the King, won all of its 11 Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, which also tied it with Ben-Hur and Titanic for most Academy Awards received for a film. The series received wide praise for its innovative special and visual effects.IMDB :8.8/10 (Fellowship of the Ring)8.7/10 (The Two Towers)8.9/10 (The Return of the King)Rotten Tomatoes :91% (Fellowship of the Ring)90% (The Two Towers)93% (The Return of the King)#4. The Dark Knight"To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."The secret, I believe, is a stunning, mature, intelligent script. That makes it the best superhero movie ever made.As if that wasn't enough, Heath Ledger. He, the newest of the tragic modern icons present us with a preview of something we'll never see. A fearless, extraordinary actor capable to fill up with humanity even the most grotesque of villains. His performance is a master class.Fortunately, Christian Bale's Batman is almost a supporting character. Bale is good but there is something around his mouth that stops him from being great.The Dark Knight is visually stunning, powerful and moving. What else could anyone wantIMDB : 9/10Rotten Tomatoes : 94%#5. Fight Club“It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.”The script was tight, the theme fascinating, the acting incredible (especially Edward Norton, as one might expect), the direction inspired, and the cinematography stunning.It is one of the few films that deserves to be seen multiple times. In fact, if you have seen it only once, you have missed something. I was seriously hoping the movie would receive Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Norton), Best Screenplay, Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Picture.So, how is it that the film received no nominations? Unfortunately, it had a mismatched ad campaign. The ads made it seem like the movie was about street boxing, instead of a intellectual and emotional ride through a man's psyche as he takes a strange path toward rebellion against consumer society. As a result, most who went to see it were disappointed, and those who would recognize its brilliance stayed far away from the movie theaters. This is one of the most underrated movies I know.Those who enjoyed The Game, Memento, or The Matrix really should check it out.IMDB : 8.8/10Rotten Tomatoes : 80%