DDJ 69. 不敢为主而为客, 第四修订

第六十九章
[原文]

用兵有言："吾不敢为主①，而为客②；不敢进寸，而退尺。"是谓行无行③；攘无臂④；扔无敌⑤；执无兵⑥。祸莫大于轻敌，轻敌几丧吾宝。故抗兵相若⑦，哀⑧者胜矣。

[译文]

用兵的人曾经这样说，“我不敢主动进犯，而采取守势；不敢前进一步，而宁可后退一尺。”这就叫做虽然有阵势，却像没有阵势可摆一样；虽然要奋臂，却像没有臂膀可举一样；虽然面临敌人，却像没有敌人可打一样；虽然有兵器，却像没有兵器可以执握一样。祸患再没有比轻敌更大的了，轻敌几乎丧失了我的“三宝”。所以，两军实力相当的时候，悲痛的一方可以获得胜利。

http://www.daodejing.org/69.html

老子有三宝， 曰：慈，俭，让。 我有三轻： 轻敌，轻人，自轻。祸莫大于三轻，轻敌几丧吾宝，轻人又几丧之，自轻几丧其余。 实力相当时，哀者胜。  但是怎样积累实力直到“实力相当”呢？就要己方要持三宝，占据道德制高点， 鼓励对方存轻敌之心。 

美国独立战争，内战，二战历史，都暗合道德经的启示。  然而一旦成了超级军事大国，古罗马第二，失去了超级大国的竞争，才是真正的危机开始。  These lessons we only learn from failures;  without failures, we face extinction.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“The Fourth Amendment is the most prolific source of constitutional litigation in American history, particularly with application to the states after its incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Its reach is indescribably broad: every one of the millions of arrests made annually is a Fourth Amendment event. So too is every search of every person or private area by a public official, whether a police officer, schoolteacher, probation officer, airport security agent, or corner crossing guard. The Fourth Amendment is the constitutional sentry whenever someone's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure. It protects a person's "legitimate expectation of privacy." Katz v. United States (1967). "Legitimate," the Court declares, means an actual expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." In defining that phrase, the reasonableness clause of the Fourth Amendment has spawned a vast amount of litigation.
...

The first half of the Fourth Amendment's text bans "unreasonable searches and seizures." The second half, known as the Warrant Clause, states a set of basic requirements for search warrants—that they must be supported by an affidavit that establishes probable cause, and that they must describe both the location and objects of the search.

On its face, the Warrant Clause would appear to be one of the most clearly written clauses in our Constitution. It requires that warrants be supported by probable cause, that the police officer seeking the warrant swear to the truth of the facts used to support his application, and that, once issued, the warrant describe where the search is to take place and what the officer is allowed to look for. All this is plain from the text. Perhaps because they are so plain, the rules just described have not been the subject of much litigation.

There are, though, two important questions the text does not answer, or at least does not answer clearly. Those questions have been the subject of a great deal of litigation and commentary: What does "probable cause" mean? The Fourth Amendment's text does not say. And, a trickier question, are officers ever required to obtain warrants in order to carry out a search or make an arrest? Again the text leaves the question open, though it implies that the answer is no: the phrasing of the Warrant Clause limits warrants but does not mandate their use.

...

As with any vague standard, the phrase "probable cause" has occasioned a great deal of litigation and commentary, but the contested territory is small. All sides agree that the phrase means more than just a possibility, and less than a near-certainty. A clearer definition than that may be impossible.”

我不敢为主而为客；不敢进寸，而退尺.

John Hancock and the 4th Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock
Boston Tea Party and Samuel Adams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams
Tea Trade, Joseph Banks driving force behind HMS Bounty and British Ultimate Success in replacing Tea from China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Banks
Macartney Embassy to China, when America's Independence and French Revolution was still fresh in memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macartney_Embassy
Another epic fail, from which we learn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny_on_the_Bounty

"And despite defeat, Ke’s strategy suggested that the 19-year-old Chinese prodigy has actually learned from AlphaGo’s often unorthodox approach... AlphaGo won by just half a point, the closest margin possible, but that’s characteristic of its playing style. The AI doesn’t appear to care about the margin of victory, instead choosing moves that it has determined are the most likely to lead to a win. The result was technically close, but AlphaGo looked like winning from a relatively early stage in the game." 
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15679110/go-alphago-ke-jie-match-google-deepmind-ai-2017

又扯远了。