请注意，本文编写于 225 天前，最后修改于 49 天前，其中某些信息可能已经过时。
People have an opposite opinion on how transparency the information should be, especially in the fields of scientific research, business and the academic world. Some think that it is good to share those information as transparent as possible. While, some insisted that some information is too important, and can not be shared without any restriction. I share the same feeling for the last one.
We do know that there are many advantages for letting the information openly access in certain areas. And our scientists are doing it right now. For example, researchers can public their research works on academic journals, such as SCIENCE and NATURE, through a peer review. Any other research who have interest on that work can just download the paper form the journal website. Also, many medical companies are giving up the patent protection right for some drugs, since those medicals can save thousands of millions people who are suffering the certain illness.
however, if some information are openly access to anybody, it may bring some devastating consequences to our society. Let us taking scientific research as an example, unclear technology could be used to generated electrical power, but it also can be made as unclear weapon. If the process of making unclear weapon are transparent to terrorists, they may use it to launch catastrophic attach at any part of the world. The limitation of accessing the information should include, but not limited to the unclear technology, those technologies that can be weaponized.
In conclusion, I believe that information should be shared as openly as possible only in certain areas, and those technologies which can be weaponized should highly limited access by organizations, governments, and even United Nations.
Waiting for adding
People hold opposite opinion on whether the government should spend a large number of money on high speed railway or on public transport. Some believe that the high speed railway between cities is good, other prefer the improving of public transport. I personally agree with the last one.
It is true that the high speed railway can bring us tremendous convenience. With the railway that connecting cities, the time people spend on the road will dramatically decrease, which means that they have more time to do other things, such as study, work and spend with their families. Also, the short time commute can increase the communications between cities in multiple levels including culture, businesses, and other sectors. The potential of the high speed railway is enormous. For example, under that background, people even can work in one city and live in another city.
However, the high speed railway is not the only option we have, and it will be a wrong choice if government try to spend their tax to connect two distance cities. Clearly, we have better plan for that situation — flight.and we need to notice that people who need the high speed railway are minority and they can not represent the majority. Most residents depend heavily on public transport. Obviously, it will be the better choice for the government to improving the quality of existing public transport. For example, the efficiency of the bus can be improved by adding more bus line to the road, the quality of the seats also can be improve in both buses and metro. Those are the things that influence the well-being of citizens.
In conclusion, I believe that the needs of high speed railway is not extensive, and the governments should not spend large sums of money on it. Instead, the public transport is a more reasonable choice.