關於 slam home run ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

為什麼叫大滿貫(Grand Slam)？

Grand slam直譯過來是巨大的聲響，據說這個詞最早出自18世紀一種名叫「Boston」類似橋牌的撲克牌遊戲中。在Boston裡，grand slam是形容一位玩家贏得了單局全部13墩牌。

Grand slam第一次被用在網球運動是在1933年，美聯社(Associated Press)的運動編輯古爾德(Alan Gould)在爲The Fresno Bee報紙撰寫的文章中寫道：

「傑克．克勞福德(Jack Crawford)已經拿下過澳網、法網和英網的單打冠軍，明天下午他將在美網冠軍決賽面對佛瑞德．派瑞(Fred Perry)，爭取成為網球史上第一個grand slam。」

不過，克勞福德後來輸給了派瑞，沒能成為網球史上的第一個grand slam。

5年後，1938年，澳洲網球選手唐納．布吉(Donald Budge)在當年拿下了四大賽事全部的男子單打冠軍，創下歷史。美國專欄作家丹齊克(Allison Danzig)也再度將這個出自撲克牌遊戲中的grand slam，用來形容布吉非凡的成就。Grand slam開始在網球運動中使用。

你應該發現了，grand slam的用法一開始指的是「人」 - 在同一年中贏得了四大賽事的冠軍選手。說到運動場上的grand slam，第一個人其實是美國高爾夫球選手巴比．瓊斯(Bobby Jones)，瓊斯在1930年那一年贏得了高爾夫球四大賽全部冠軍。

現在，grand slam也被用作指「事」。比如，溫布頓是四大滿貫賽事之一（Wimbledon is one of the four Grand Slam tennis tournaments）。在棒球運動中，grand slam是指滿壘時打出的全壘打，也就是滿貫全壘打，可以說grand slam或是grand slam home run。

以grand slam為基礎，後來也延伸出，生涯大滿貫(career grand slam)、包括奧運冠軍的生涯金滿貫(golden grand slam)、包括奧運與年終冠軍的超級大滿貫(super slam)、四分之三滿貫(three-quarter slam)等等。

在中文裡將grand slam翻譯成「大滿貫」，據說是借用自麻將裡的術語，指的也是類似全贏的意思。

「滿貫」這個詞很早就有，可以在西元前200多年的《韓非子》看到。「貫」是古時候穿錢幣的繩子，穿滿了錢的繩子，「滿貫」指的是達到了極限的意思。

以上就是關於grand slam的由來，恭喜我們一起又收穫了一點網球風景。

--------------------------------

圖：
這次與breakpoint合作推出的「滿貫獵人」〈Grand Slam hunter〉聯名T恤，由澳網的淺藍色，法網的紅色，溫布頓的綠色，以及美網的深藍色組成一座網球場，象徵四大滿貫賽事，滿貫獵人，展現我們對大滿貫賽事的渴望，也是追求卓越挑戰極限的自我鼓勵。

支持我們，購買連結在留言區，多件折扣持續中。

* 我們會將淨利的20%作為基金，存錢辦免費的「受傷後的網球課」（簡介也在留言區）。也歡迎私訊贊助討論，希望能更快開成課一起學習。

【#迷上英式英文】英國首相Bojo復出後首次演說：I ask you to contain your impatience

演說全文：

Good morning.

I am sorry I have been away from my desk for much longer than I would have liked, and I want to thank everybody who has stepped up, in particular the First Secretary of State Dominic Raab, who has done a terrific job.

But once again I want to thank you, the people of this country for the sheer grit and guts you have shown and are continuing to show. Every day I know that this virus brings new sadness and mourning to households across the land, and it is still true that this is the biggest single challenge this country has faced since the war.

And I in no way minimise the continuing problems we face, and yet it is also true that we are making progress, with fewer hospital admissions, fewer covid patients in ICU, and real signs now that we are passing through the peak.

And thanks to your forbearance, your good sense, your altruism, your spirit of community, thanks to our collective national resolve, we are on the brink of achieving that first clear mission to prevent our national health service from being overwhelmed in a way that tragically we have seen elsewhere. And that is how and why we are now beginning to turn the tide.

If this virus were a physical assailant, an unexpected and invisible mugger, which I can tell you from personal experience it is, then this is the moment when we have begun together to wrestle it to the floor.

And so it follows that this is the moment of opportunity. This is the moment when we can press home our advantage. It is also the moment of maximum risk because I know that there will be many people looking now at our apparent success and beginning to wonder whether now is the time to go easy on those social distancing measures.

And I know how hard and how stressful it has been to give up, even temporarily, those ancient and basic freedoms - not seeing friends, not seeing loved ones, working from home, managing the kids, worrying about your job and your firm.

So let me say directly also to British business, to the shopkeepers, to the entrepreneurs, to the hospitality sector, to everyone on whom our economy depends-

I understand your impatience.

I share your anxiety.

And I know that without our private sector, without the drive and commitment of the wealth creators of this country, there will be no economy to speak of. There will be no cash to pay for our public services, no way of funding our NHS, and yes I can see the long term consequences of lock down as clearly as anyone, and so yes I entirely share your urgency.

It’s the government’s urgency.

And yet we must also recognise the risk of a second spike, the risk of losing control of that virus, and letting the reproduction rate go back over one, because that would mean not only a new wave of death and disease but also an economic disaster, and we would be forced once again to slam on the brakes across the whole country, and the whole economy, and reimpose restrictions in such a way as to do more and lasting damage.

And so I know it is tough, and I want to get this economy moving as fast as I can, but I refuse to throw away all the effort and the sacrifice of the British people, and to risk a second major outbreak and huge loss of life and the overwhelming of the NHS.

And I ask you to contain your impatience because I believe we are coming now to the end of the first phase of this conflict.

And in spite of all the suffering we have so nearly succeeded, we defied so many predictions, we did not run out of ventilators or ICU beds, we did not allow our NHS to collapse, and on the contrary we have so far collectively shielded our NHS so that our incredible doctors and nurses and healthcare staff have been able to shield all of us from an outbreak that would have been far worse.

And we collectively flattened the peak, and so when we are sure that this first phase is over, and that we are meeting our five tests, deaths falling, NHS protected, rate of infection down, really sorting out the challenges of testing and PPE, avoiding a second peak, then that will be the time to move on to the second phase, in which we continue to suppress the disease, and keep the reproduction rate, the r rate, down, but begin gradually to refine the economic and social restrictions, and one by one to fire up the engines of this vast UK economy, and in that process difficult judgments will be made.

And we simply cannot spell out now how fast or slow or even when those changes will be made, though clearly the government will be saying much more about this in the coming days.

And I want to serve notice now that these decisions will be taken with the maximum possible transparency.

And I want to share all our working and our thinking, my thinking, with you the British people, and of course, we will be relying as ever on the science to inform us, as we have from the beginning.

But we will also be reaching out to build the biggest possible consensus, across business, across industry, across all parts of our United Kingdom, across party lines, bringing in opposition parties as far as we possibly can, because I think that is no less than what the British people would expect.

And I can tell you now that preparations are under way, and have been for weeks to allow us to win phase two of this fight as I believe we are now on track to prevail in phase one.

And so I say to you finally if you can keep going in the way that you have kept going so far, if you can help protect our NHS, to save lives, and if we as a country can show the same spirit of optimism and energy shown by Captain Tom Moore, who turns 100 this week, if we can show the same spirit of unity and determination as we have all shown in the past six weeks, then I have absolutely no doubt that we will beat it together.

We will come through this all the faster.

And the United Kingdom will emerge stronger than ever before.

Thank you very much.

人工智慧=未來趨勢?! AOPEN在浪潮跟你一起IoT🤣🤣
#李開復先生怎麼說
#各位看官意下如何
#人工智慧這樣行👊👊
#偵測到你無所遁形
#人潮就是錢潮🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
#AOPEN #建碁

【李開復Quartz專文：「人形機器人」將進入千家萬戶是無稽】人工智能時代的到來已經指日可待了。但是目前情感機器人、家庭機器人都離我們很遠。下面是外媒Quartz跟我的約稿：

▲ 機器人能幫著賺錢、省錢、提高生產力，也助人們回歸人性

人工智能時代的到來已經指日可待了。但是目前情感機器人的發展方向有點南轅北轍。

首先，讓我們明確一下人工智能的幾個要點：

人工智能擅長對目標明確的工作進行優化（但是不能創造，沒有感情）。

機械控制的發展速度較人工智能軟件的發展要緩慢得多。

傳感器雖然得到迅猛發展，但價格昂貴、體積偏大且太耗電。

鑒於以上原因，人形機器人將馬上進入千家萬戶的說法，簡直是無稽之談。當機器人在言談舉止各方面都與人類極其相似時，普通家庭用戶對機器人的「人類素質」的期望也會變得高不可攀。僅僅這種期望所帶來的失望就足以讓很多公司的「未來十年讓科幻小說成為現實」的展望受挫，更別提消費市場對價格的苛刻要求了。

機器人的開發要牢記實用性這一原則：機器人或能創造效益，或能節省成本，或能提高生產，或可以提供娛樂。依託現有技術製造的工業機器人將高效製造出其它機器人；商用機器人將會帶來更多經濟收益（例如替代保安、前台和司機等職位）；家用機器人將能發揮家用電器和玩具的功能——它們簡單易用且不具備任何「人性素質」。

這樣的機器人未必具備人類外形。工業機器人就是在黑暗廠房（例如富士康最先進的廠房）或者配備了智能升降機倉庫里（例如我們投資的開源機器人Dorabot）從事勞務的機器；商用機器人的形式和用途就更多樣了：它們也許就是一排攝像頭（例如曠視科技的產品），或者是一家自動商店（例如F5未來商店）。自動駕駛車將有車的外形——除了那種低速貨運、功能固定的運輸工具，例如機場鋪設的自動車道，或者從停車場到商店、主題公園的運輸設備（例如UISEE馭勢科技）；消費機器人也許會像一個揚聲器（例如亞馬遜的Echo）、一台電視機、一台吸塵器（例如Roomba）、一個教學玩具（例如奇幻工房的Dash Bot）或者一台用於家庭聯繫的平板電腦（例如小魚在家）。

人工智能也會與時俱進嗎？這一點毋庸置疑。聲音識別技術將更精准，電腦視覺技術也會提高，SLAM技術將讓機器人的動作更加流暢，機器人將會翻譯，還會針對限定領域進行對話。機器人也可能會瞭解我們的情緒並能模仿人類的情緒。這種情緒模仿將從搞笑的、娛樂性的發展為一定程度上能產生共鳴的模仿。誠然，這種模仿也都不是自發性的。在未來數十年，機器人還不能獨立進行常識性的推理、創造及規劃工作，它們也不會擁有自我意識、情感及人類的慾望。那種「全知全能人工智能」尚不存在，而且現在已知的開發技術也無法開發出此類機器人。這種技術在未來數十年都不會出現，也許永遠都不會出現。

人形機器人的研發對人工智能科學家充滿了誘惑力，而對人形機器人的預測也順理成章地激發著科幻小說家們的創作靈感。但是我們和人工智能有著本質區別：我們會創造，AI只會在創造的基礎上優化；我們多愁善感，AI冷酷無情；我們具備常識判斷能力，而AI只會從特定領域的大數據獲得信息。一言以蔽之，人類所長正是AI所短，而AI所長也是人類所短。

展望未來，人類最前沿的領域將是創造及社交領域。因此，我們應該推動機器人向它們所擅長的領域發展，例如進行重復性工作、優化工作或者創造財富的實用性工作。而我們人類也應該做一些我們擅長的工作：創新、創造、社交溝通或者娛樂。

我一直倡導要開發一些實用性機器人，鼓勵人們進入服務行業。但我不支持製造「類人」機器人。這種機器人開發難度大，而且永遠無法滿足人們的期望，因此，這種機器人的勝算不大。我分析的正確與否暫且不論，但是有一點我們需要有清晰的認識，那就是，未來十年，AI將大規模地取代那些依靠人力的、重復性的、分析性的崗位。因此，我們要肩負起創造更多社會服務性崗位的職責，而不是空想或謀劃一個充斥著「不適用於人類」職位的社會。

◀英文原文▶

Robots should make money, save money, increase productivity, or deliver entertainment—and let humans be human

Robots should make money, save money, increase productivity, or deliver entertainment—and let humans be human

The age of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics is upon us, but the current fad of emotional humanoid robots is not headed in the right direction.

First, let’s understand what robotics are based on:

AI algorithms which are very good at optimization of explicitly defined goals (but cannot create, and have no feelings)
Mechanical control which advances much slower than AI software algorithms
Sensors which are rapidly improving but are often still too expensive, too large, or too power-hungry

Given the above, it is ludicrous to think that human-like robots will roam our homes any time soon. When a robot looks like a person, talks like a person, and has features like a person, home users will have unattainable human-capability expectations. The disappointment alone will doom any company hoping to bring science fiction to the living room in the next decade, not to mention the price-sensitivity for consumer markets.

Robotics must begin with utilitarianism in mind—robots should make money, save money, increase productivity, or deliver entertainment. There will be industrial robots that build other robots in high-volume, manufactured with today’s technologies. There will be commercial robots that deliver economic value (such as replacing security, receptionists, and drivers). There will be consumer robots that mimic today’s appliances and toys, requiring no consumer education, and causing no human-capability expectation.

These robots won't look like a person. The industrial robot is a giant factory run in the dark by machines (like at Foxconn’s most advanced factories), or a warehouse with smart forklifts (like our investment Dorabot). The commercial robot comes in various forms and applications. It might look like an array of cameras (like our investment Megvii) or an automated store (like our investment F5 Future Store). The autonomous vehicle will look like a car, except will be first deployed in low-speed, freight, or fixed-function transport—such as in airport autonomous car-only lanes, or in transport from parking garages to shopping malls/theme parks (like our investment UISee). And the consumer robot may look like a speaker (like the Amazon Echo), a TV, a vacuum cleaner (like Roomba), an educational toy (like our investment Wonder Workshop Dash Bot), or a pad-on-steroids for family communications (like our investment Ainemo).

Will AI capabilities increase over time? Of course. Speech recognition will get better, computer vision will improve, SLAM will be improved to help the robot move around fluidly, and the robot will be able to translate languages, or have a dialog within limited domains. The robot may be able to read some of our emotions, or mimic certain human emotions. But this mimicking will go from laughable and entertaining to occasionally acceptable—and generally not genuine. For decades to come, robots by themselves will be unable to learn common sense reasoning, creativity, or planning. They also won't possess the self-awareness, feelings, and desires that humans do. This type of “general AI” does not exists, and there are no known engineering algorithms for it. I don’t expect to see those algorithms for decades, if ever.

Trying to make robots human-like is a natural temptation for robotics and AI scientists, and predicting humanoid robots comes naturally to science fiction writers. But we humans simply think differently from AI. We create and AI optimizes. We love and AI is stoic. We have common sense and AI learns patterns from big data in a singular domain. Simply stated, we are good at what AI is not, and AI is good at what we are not.

In the future, the human edge will be in creativity and social interaction. Therefore, we need to focus robotics development toward what they’re good at: repetitive tasks, optimization, and utilitarian value creation. We should also let people do what they’re good at: innovation, creation, human-to-human interaction, and performing services.

I am an advocate of making utilitarian robots, and encouraging people to go into service jobs. I am not an advocate of making humanoid service robots—it is too hard today, and will not meet people’s expectations; therefore they will likely fail. Whether or not my analysis is correct, we need to be reminded that in the next decade AI will replace a massive number of manual-labor, repetitive, and analytical jobs. We have a human responsibility to help create societal service jobs—not dream or plan a society in which all jobs come with a sign “humans need not apply.”

灰熊感謝壯壯棒球全民女神來頻道上玩～ 這一集的內容除了能夠學到棒球場上必知的英文單字以外，還可以學到這些單字延伸出來的意思。完全讓你想不到，原來這些棒球英文還有這些這麼深的含義！？

0:00 Intro
0:48 為什麼叫壯壯
1:25 當初怎麼走入演藝圈這行的
2:06 當啦啦隊期間印象最深刻的事
2:32 平常有講英文的習慣嗎
3:03 工商時間
4:37 Strike
5:32 Battery
5:55 Cookie
7:54 Hit
8:45 Hit and run
9:19 Home run
10:47 Grand slam
11:36 Gopher ball
11:51 Outro

學英文很厭世嗎？讓九粒來拯救你！喜歡九粒教學風格的你，千萬不要錯過九粒的生活口說英文入門課！
趕快點起連結搶只有12月才有的聖誕優惠哦！(初級中級都合適)：https://bit.ly/3q4ZW39 👈🏻

六五折只有六天！

快點嘎九粒上史上最活潑促咪的英文會話課程還有訂閱九粒的頻道一起快樂學英文吧！

別忘記追蹤我們的棒球女神的IG @ula_shen_ 😍

-

你聽了嗎？九粒全創作單曲ABCD寫入你心的饒舌歌！
⚠️：這首歌將會無敵洗腦你🤯

快來被洗腦：https://youtu.be/bVlXYOy5XVk

特別感謝 #CAPSULEAcademy 提供可愛溫馨的場地～



#棒球英文 #英文單字 #18禁英文單字

- It's not often a team misses three alley-oops in one quarter and still wins by 26 points. It's even rarer for the Washington Wizards to start 0-5.

That hasn't happened since they were the Baltimore Bullets.

The Denver Nuggets treated the Verizon Center as their own personal playground Friday night, breaking a three-game losing streak with a 118-92 victory that provided comic relief for the winners and showers of boos for the losers.

"We scored 118; we threw away 20," Denver coach George Karl said. "We play a style where I know we're going to have mistakes, but sometimes we make the mistakes and don't make the defense make the plays. It will be interesting the film we'll put together -- maybe we'll put it to Abbott and Costello."

Carmelo Anthony scored 32 points, including 12 consecutive Denver points in the third quarter. Marcus Camby added 13 points, 12 rebounds and seven assists for the Nuggets, who shot 51 percent and rebounded from a 119-93 pounding Wednesday night at Boston.

"We lost three straight -- and this was the game we really needed," Anthony said. "We needed to get our confidence back, get our swagger back."

The Wizards fell to 0-5 for the first time since 1966, when their home was up the road in Baltimore. The third quarter has to rank among the most embarrassing 12 minutes of basketball since the team moved to the nation's capital: Coach Eddie Jordan, who pronounced his team's mind-set as "fine" before the game, watched his team miss 7 of 10 shots, commit 12 turnovers and get outscored 33-11 in the quarter.

"We just weren't disciplined. We didn't stay organized. We didn't rebound. We didn't share the ball. We didn't execute," Jordan said. "It's one of the most disappointing games I've been involved in."

Gilbert Arenas, still laboring on a surgically repaired left knee that was drained for a second time on Wednesday, finished with 18 points on 5-for-13 shooting. He made 2 of 8 3-pointers and is 5-for-32 from 3-point range on the season. He remained in the trainer's room long after the game and was not available for comment, needing treatment after playing 42 minutes on Thursday in New Jersey and 37 minutes on Friday.

"Back-to-back's going to be difficult for him right now," Jordan said.

Caron Butler scored 14 of his 21 points in the first quarter for the Wizards, while Antawn Jamison (6-for-17) and DeShawn Stevenson (0-for-6) continued to struggle from the field. Washington shot 38 percent, only a slight improvement over their NBA-worst 36.4 percent entering the game.

"We need to get our act in order, and we have to find a way to get a win, period," Jamison said. "Not only get a win, but find a way to get this thing rolling because it's not rolling at all. You can see it. When you're out there, you're experiencing it."

The Nuggets had won their first two and lost their next three, but they were in the mood to have fun Friday. They attempted six alley-oops, missing all three in the second quarter but making three others, including a poetry-in-motion twisting reverse slam by J.R. Smith on a feed from Allen Iverson in the fourth quarter.

Smith finished with 16 points and Iverson had 15 points and eight assists, but Anthony had the best run. The Baltimore native's 12 straight points in the third quarter all came on jump shots, including a pair of 3-pointers, as part of a 14-4 spurt that gave the Nuggets an 80-58 lead. Anthony went 3-for-13 against the Celtics, but he was 14-for-24 Friday night.

"'Melo led us tonight. He caught fire," Iverson said. "We just rode his coattails all the way in."

If the outcome was a surprise to anyone, those people need to check themselves.

Temple was faced with a huge task yesterday and didn't deliver. Not so much because of effort as inability.

Against Georgetown, the nation's fifth-ranked team, the Owls posed little resistance as sophomore sensation Allen Iverson went for 24 points. Victor Page, his freshman backcourt mate, added 18 - with an aerial show for emphasis - as the Hoyas breezed to a 74-49 win over Temple in the second round of the Preseason National Invitation Tournament at USAir Arena.

The win advanced the Hoyas (2-0) to New York for the tournament semifinals Wednesday night against Georgia Tech. The Owls (1-1) headed home for an eight- day break.

"I learned a lot today," Temple coach John Chaney said. "I learned I've got some good people on this team.

"No one was pointing fingers at each other. It's easy to handle the high tide, and everyone's a good guy when you're winning. But when you lose, that's when you test the spirit of your players."

The framework of the game was established within a few seconds: The Hoyas would score off fastbreaks, follow layups or post moves, and score they would. And the Owls could do very little to stop them.

Jerome Williams (14 points, 12 rebounds) converted a layup on the first play of the game. A Temple turnover followed and Boubacar Aw scored on another layup, indicating what was on the horizon.

The Hoyas, sparked by a running jumper and two layups by Iverson, opened with an 11-2 run and kept going. Temple tried creeping up from behind, getting a follow slam by Huey Futch (seven points), and a couple of layups from Johnny Miller, but the closest the Owls got was seven points (30-23) with 4 minutes, 28 seconds left in the half.

Then Page went to work, hitting two free throws and two jumpers, then punctuating the half with a spectacular flying slam over Lynard Stewart, enabling Georgetown to go up, 42-27, at the break.

"You can never give Temple but so much," Georgetown coach John Thompson said. "They just chip away at you . . . But the key was the lack of that third guard. We knew they didn't have that, and we wanted to attack their guards and take advantage."

That would explain Temple's difficulty in running plays, setting screens, having anyone but the point guard distributing the ball. The Owls also had 14 turnovers and shot just 26 percent in the second half.

The bright spot, as expected, was Miller. The "other" sophomore guard was 0 for 5 on three-pointers in the first half, causing more problems for Temple, but came to life in the second half, finishing with 21 points on 9-for-22 shooting.

His help, however, was scarce.

Miller knifed his way through the lane numerous times, only to have his passes dropped or open layups missed. The turnovers fueled Georgetown's momentum, which made the outcome that much more predictable.

"We didn't play our game," Miller said after battling Iverson all day. ''Playing them is good for this team because of the pressure they threw at us, but losing never is good. We've got to come back from this and just play our game, that's all."

The Hoyas never stopped playing theirs as Iverson and Page took over in the second half. Steals, high-flying dunks, assists, rebounds . . . name it and they did it, and no one other than Miller had an answer.

Temple scored just four points in the first 6:20 of the second half. The Owls made just 33 percent of their shots, shot only seven free throws, were outrebounded, 47-34, and had just four assists.

It was a learning experience that might come in handy against the top-notch opponents Temple will play later this season. But it didn't make the day any better.

"The best time to test your team is the early portion of the season. That's why this was a good game for us," Chaney said.