Don't want to call fish and game because they'll kill it, don't want to shoot it myself and get fined. The landlord is a softie for bears so I bought this for my girlfrend while I'm working. It got onto the tree by the back deck, so I used this and it took off running even though it didn't get completely blasted. The bear is maybe 250lbs and we.
Assassin's Mace (Chinese: 杀手锏; pinyin: Shāshǒujiàn) is a Chinese term composed of the characters for 'kill', 'hand', and 'mace'.[1] This term has its roots in ancient Chinese folklore, which recounts how a hero wielding such a weapon managed to overcome a far more powerful adversary.[2] 'Shashou Jian' was a club with which the 'assassin' incapacitated his enemy, suddenly and totally, instead of fighting him according to 'the rules.'[3]
Examples[edit]
The term as a figure of speech has been around for centuries and has been revived in contemporary Chinese pop culture, as a slang phrase that appears in articles about everything from soccer to romance.[4] In popular usage, the term is roughly equivalent to the English idioms 'silver bullet' or 'trump card', and means anything which ensures success.[3][5]
Michael Pillsbury in his book 'The Hundred-year marathon' suggest that People's Liberation Army strategists talks about developing 'Assassin's Mace' to supplant the United States.[6] The Assassin's Mace Pillsbury describe is not a single tool or military equipment but a group of technologies or strategies to overtake the United States in the global hierarchy.[6]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^Pillsbury, Michael (January 2000). 'China Debates the Future Security Environment'. National Defense University Press. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
Chinese writings on the future of warfare and the revolution in military affairs (RMA) frequently use three Chinese ideograms to signify something that can be used in a war that will surprise and overwhelm the enemy, vital parts of exploiting the RMA. The three ideograms (sha shou jian) literally mean 'kill,' 'hand,' and an ancient word for club, or 'mace.' U.S. Government translations have rendered this term as 'trump card,' 'magic weapon,' or 'killer mace.' None of these translations is wrong, but none captures the full meaning. The importance of the term can be seen in its continued usage over time, both originally in traditional Chinese novels and ancient statecraft texts, as well as today in the daily military newspaper. Behind these three ideograms may lie a concept of victory in warfare through possession of secret weapons that strike the enemy's most vulnerable point (called an acupuncture point), at precisely the decisive moment. This entire concept of how RMA technology can win a war cannot be fully conveyed by its simple English translation of 'trump card.'
- ^Khan, Saif Ul Islam (2017-04-04). Assassin's Mace: A Chinese Game Changer. Rohan Vij. ISBN978-93-85563-03-4.
- ^ abHambling, David (2 July 2009). 'China Looks to Undermine U.S. Power, With 'Assassin's Mace''. Wired.com. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
Sha Shou Jian a popular expression used by sports commentators, businessmen and even in romantic advice columns. Alastair Johnston of Harvard University criticizes the way Washington pundits want to make the Assassin’s Mace “mysterious and exotic”: it’s simply the decisive, winning quality. In sports, the Assassin’s Mace may be the key goal-scorer; in business, it’s any quality that puts you ahead of the competition; in love, it might be the subtle smile that wins over the object of your affections. Johnston suggests that a fairly idiomatic translation would be “silver bullet”...
- ^Ho, Soyoung. 'Panda Slugger, the dubious scholarship of Michael Pillsbury, the China hawk with Rumsfeld's ear'. Washington Monthly. Archived from the original on 14 February 2015. Retrieved 3 February 2015.
And what about the 'Assassin's Mace,' one of Pillsbury's major preoccupations? Here, Pillsbury appears to have taken a common Chinese term, shashoujian, and decided, based on his own unfamiliarity with it ('I first saw this unusual term in…1995,' he writes in a 2003 article) that it indicates what he calls a 'secret project.' In fact, though, the term has been around for centuries and has been revived in contemporary Chinese pop culture, a slangy phrase that appears in articles about everything from soccer to romance. Pillsbury cites public speeches by Chinese leaders and articles in Chinese newspapers that speak of developing 'shashoujian' weapons, but he never explains how this adds up to evidence of a secret program. It's as if a Chinese researcher, hearing a U.S. official speaking of a need for 'kick-ass weapons,' were to become confused by the term 'kick-ass' and conclude that there must be a secret 'kick-ass weapons' program. In short, Pillsbury has identified a secret program that, by all indications, is literally no more than a figure of speech.
- ^Ho, Soyoung (July–August 2006). 'Panda Slugger'. Washington Monthly. Archived from the original on 14 February 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
The term 'assassin's mace,' more commonly translated as 'trump card' (shashoujian) is, according to Pillsbury, integral to a Chinese notion of 'inferior defeats superior.'
- ^ abPillsbury, Michael (2015). The Hundred-Year Marathon: China' Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 134–155.
In the long dark tunnel that has been 2020, November stands out as the month that light appeared. Some might see it as a bright light, others as a faint light – but it is unmistakably a light.
On November 9, Pfizer announced the interim results of its candidate vaccine, showing it to be “more than 90% effective” in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in late-stage human trials. The news was greeted with joy.
A couple of days later, the Russian Direct Investment Fund announced that the candidate vaccine they are funding – dubbed Sputnik V – showed 92% efficacy in late-stage trials. Not to be outdone, Moderna then announced that its candidate vaccine showed 94.5% efficacy.
The latest COVID-19 vaccine announcement comes from Oxford University. And, as with all of the above announcements, it came via press release. Its vaccine candidate, developed in partnership with AstraZeneca, showed an overall effectiveness of 70.4%.
In case that sounds disappointing, bear in mind that these are interim results and the figures might change. Also, the Oxford vaccine was given to one group of volunteers as two standard doses, which showed 62% effectiveness, and another group of volunteers as a smaller dose followed by a standard second dose. This raised effectiveness to 90%.
It’s not immediately clear why this is the case. Professor Andrew Pollard, one of the lead researchers on the project, described the results as “intriguing”. He also highlighted that the use of lower doses means that there would be more vaccine doses available.
There were no cases of severe COVID-19 in those who received the vaccine. And it seems to generate a protective immune response in older people. Although we’ll have to wait for the final breakdown of results to get clarification on that.
Not the only measure
Despite the Oxford vaccine having lower overall effectiveness than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines – at least at this interim stage – there are other success factors to consider. Safety is one, and the Oxford vaccine is so far reported to have a good safety record with no serious side-effects.
Another crucial factor is storage. The Oxford vaccine can be stored in a domestic fridge. The need for sustained freezing across the whole vaccine journey from factory to clinic at ultra-low temperatures – as seen with the Pfizer vaccine – may be a problem for many countries, but especially poorer countries.
The Oxford vaccine, based on a viral vector, is also cheaper (around US$4) than Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines – around US$20 and $33, respectively. AstraZeneca has made a “no profit pledge”.
Equitable distribution
As I have previously discussed, equitable distribution of new vaccines is vital, especially for low- and middle-income countries which don’t have the profile or purchasing power of wealthier countries. GAVI – a global health partnership that aims to increase access to immunisation in poor countries – has worked for years to address this very point. It set up the COVAX initiative in 2020, which has access to 700 million doses of COVID vaccine if clinical trials are successful.
Oxford and AstraZeneca have previously made their own commitments to provide a billion doses of their vaccine for low- and middle-income countries, with a commitment to provide 400 million doses before the end of 2020. Certainly, AstraZeneca has committed to provide more doses to countries outside of Europe and the US than any of its nearest competitors.
An excellent start
Bear Mace Game Changers
These commitments will clearly not be enough for immediate global coverage, but it is an excellent start. Around 9% of the world’s population live in extreme poverty, and the health systems around them are fragile. With promises for equitable vaccine distribution, there is hope that the poorer populations around the world will not be forgotten. The global health community must keep its focus on this area.
What does this announcement mean for the world? Potentially a huge amount. But remember that the trials are not yet complete and, at the time of writing, the regulators have yet to approve any of the new vaccine candidates. Even when those hurdles are cleared, we still need to vaccinate the world, which requires successfully navigating the complex obstacles of distance, terrain, politics, cold-chain logistics and human behaviour.
Bear Mace Spray
The global pandemic is not over and won’t be for a long time yet – but the light is getting brighter.