#$ie.image(:text, /Research and Tools/i).click
#$ie.div(:class, "elm", :id, "research").click
#$ie.div(:id => "research",  :index => 1).click
#$document.getElementById("research").click
#$ie.image(:xpath,"//*[ <at> id='research']/image").click
$ie.div(:class, "elm").images.each {|image| image.flash }

by Anand Vardhan Srivastava on watir list.

 积攒到5.1节日的不仅有一堆的脏衣服，一肚子的闷骚诗，还有一身的坏毛病，古人云，吾日三省吾身，我先不做承诺，先省省再说：

1，莫名烦躁，还总是把自己的不开心在别的地方找借口

2，大嘴巴乱承诺，实现起来总是拖拉，甚至无限期拖拉

3，自以为是+小心眼，莫名和别人争论些不是关键的东东，说话不走脑子，都不知道争个啥最后

4，浮躁

5，做事没有条理，不管是桌子上还是机器上，太混乱了

请大家帮助我纠正坏毛病，我bg雪糕的说:)

Walfram 写给Von Neumann的100岁诞辰的文章，总结两点：

1，要想接触和看到更多有趣的问题，必需先丰富自己的能力

2，Von Neumann留下的那个2007年打开的盒子打开了没有啊？ (update: 盒子最后居然是弄错了:P, 更多看这里http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?thr...)

Today (December 28, 2003) would have been John von Neumann's 100th birthday---if he had not died at age 54 in 1957, and that gives me an excuse today to write a little about him. (I would have liked to spend longer on this, but December 28 only lasts so long, and I have many other things to do.)

I've been interested in von Neumann for many years---not least because his work touched on some of my most favorite topics. He is mentioned in 12 separate places in my book---second in number only to Alan Turing, who appears 19 times. (See www.wolframscience.com/nks/index/names/t-z.html.)

I always feel that one can appreciate peoples' work better if one understands the people themselves better. And from talking to many people who knew him, I think I've gradually built up a decent picture of John von Neumann as a man.

He would have been fun to meet. He knew a lot, was very quick, always impressed people, and was lively, social and funny.

One video clip of him has survived. In 1955 he was on a television show called "Youth Wants to Know", which today seems painfully hokey. Surrounded by teenage kids, he is introduced as a commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission---which in those days was a big deal. He is asked about an exhibit of equipment. He says very seriously that it's mostly radiation detectors. But then a twinkle comes into his eye, and he points to another item, and says deadpan "except this, which is a carrying case". And that's the end of the only video record of John von Neumann that exists.

Some scientists (such as myself) spend most of their lives pursuing their own grand programs, ultimately in a fairly isolated way. John von Neumann was instead someone who always liked to interact with the latest popular issues---and the people around them---and then contribute to them in his own characteristic way.

He worked hard, often on many projects at once, and always seemed to have fun. In retrospect, he chose most of his topics remarkably well. He studied each of them with a definite practical mathematical style. And partly by being the first person to try applying serious mathematical methods in various areas, he was able to make important and unique contributions.

But I've been told that he was never completely happy with his acheivements because he thought he missed some great discoveries. And indeed he was close to a remarkable number of important mathematics-related discoveries of the twentieth century: Godel's theorem, Bell's inequalities, information theory, Turing machines, computer languages---as well as my own more recent favorite core NKS discovery of complexity from simple rules.

But somehow he never quite made the conceptual shifts that were needed for any of these discoveries.

There were, I think, two basic reasons for this. First, he was so good at getting new results by the mathematical methods he knew that he was always going off to get more results, and never had a reason to pause and see whether some different conceptual framework should be considered. And second, he was not particularly one to buck the system: he liked the social milieu of science and always seemed to take both intellectual and other authority seriously.

By all reports, von Neumann was something of a prodigy, publishing his first paper (on zeros of polynomials) at the age of 19. By his early twenties, he was established as a promising young professional mathematician---working mainly in the then-popular fields of set theory and foundations of math. (One achievement was alternate axioms for set theory---see the NKS book, page 1155.)

Like many good mathematicians in Germany at the time, he worked on David Hilbert's program for formalizing mathematics, and for example wrote papers aimed at finding a proof of consistency for the axioms of arithmetic. But he did not guess the deeper point that Kurt Godel discovered in 1931: that actually such a proof is fundamentally impossible. I've been told that von Neumann was always disappointed that he had missed Godel's theorem. He certainly knew all the methods needed to establish it (and understood it remarkably quickly once he heard it from Godel). But somehow he did not have the brashness to disbelieve Hilbert, and go looking for a counterexample to Hilbert's ideas.

In the mid-1920s formalization was all the rage in mathematics, and quantum mechanics was all the rage in physics. And in 1927 von Neumann set out to bring these together---by axiomatizing quantum mechanics. A fair bit of the formalism that von Neumann built has become the standard framework for any more mathematical exposition of quantum mechanics. But I must say that I have always thought that it gave too much of an air of mathematical definiteness to ideas (particularly about quantum measurement) that are in reality depend on all sorts of physical details. And indeed some of von Neumann's specific axioms turned out to be too restrictive for ordinary quantum mechanics---obscuring for a number of years the phenomenon of entanglement, and later of criteria such as Bell's inequalities.

But von Neumann's work on quantum mechanics had a variety of fertile mathematical spinoffs, and particularly what are now called von Neumann algebras have recently become popular in mathematics and mathematical physics.

Interestingly, von Neumann's approach to quantum mechanics was at first very much aligned with traditional calculus-based mathematics---investigating properties of Hilbert spaces, continuous operators, etc. But gradually it became more focused on discrete concepts, particularly early versions of "quantum logic". In a sense von Neumann's quantum logic ideas were an early attempt at defining a computational model of physics. But he did not pursue this, and did not go in the directions that have for example led to modern ideas of quantum computing.

By the 1930s von Neumann was publishing several papers a year, on a variety of popular topics in mainstream mathematics, often in collaboration with contemporaries of significant later reputation (Wigner, Koopman, Jordan, Veblen, Birkhoff, Kuratowski, Halmos, Chandrasekhar, etc.). Von Neumann's work was unquestionably good and innovative, though very much in the flow of development of the mathematics of its time.

Despite von Neumann's early interest in logic and the foundations of math, he (like most of the math community) moved away from this by the mid-1930s. In Cambridge and then in Princeton he encountered the young Alan Turing---even offering him a job as an assistant in 1938. But he apparently paid little attention to Turing's classic 1936 paper on Turing machines and the concept of universal computation, writing in a recommendation letter on June 1, 1937 that "[Turing] has done good work on ... theory of almost periodic functions and theory of continuous groups".

As it did for many scientists, von Neumann's work on the Manhattan Project appears to have broadened his horizons, and seems to have spurred his efforts to apply his mathematical prowess to problems of all sorts---not just in traditional mathematics. His pure mathematical colleagues seem to have viewed such activities as a peculiar and somewhat suspect hobby, but one that could generally be tolerated in view of his respectable mathematical credentials.

At the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where von Neumann worked, there was strain, however, when he started a project to build an actual computer there. Indeed, even when I worked at the Institute in the early 1980s, there were still pained memories of the project. The pure mathematicians at the Institute had never been keen on it, and the story was that when von Neumann died, they had been happy to accept Thomas Watson of IBM's offer to send a truck to take away all of von Neumann's equipment. (Amusingly, the 6-inch on-off switch for the computer was left behind, bolted to the wall of the building, and has recently become a prized possession of a computer industry acquaintance of mine.)

I had some small interaction with von Neumann's heritage at the Institute in 1982 when the then-director (Harry Woolf) was recruiting me. (Harry's original concept was to get me to start a School of Computation at the Institute, to go along with the existing School of Natural Sciences and School of Mathematics. But for various reasons, this was not what happened.) I was concerned about intellectual property issues, having just had some difficulty with them at Caltech. Harry's response---that he attributed to the chairman of their board of trustees was: "Look, von Neumann developed the computer here, but we insisted on giving it away; after that, why should we worry about any intellectual property rights?". (The practical result was a letter disclaiming any rights to any intellectual property that I produced at the Institute.)

Among several of von Neumann's interests outside of mainstream pure mathematics was his attempt to develop a mathematical theory of biology and life (see the NKS book, page 876). In the mid-1940s there had begun to be---particularly from wartime work on electronic control systems---quite a bit of discussion about analogies between "natural and artificial automata", and "cybernetics". And von Neumann decided to apply his mathematical methods to this. I've been told he was particularly impressed by the work of McCullough and Pitts on formal models of the analogy between brains and electronics (see the NKS book, page 1099). (There were undoubtedly other influences too: John McCarthy told me that around 1948 he visited von Neumann, and told him about applying information theory ideas to thinking about the brain as an automaton; von Neumann's main response at the time was just "write it up!".)

Von Neumann was in many ways a traditional mathematician, who (like Turing) believed he needed to turn to partial differential equations in describing natural systems. I've been told that at Los Alamos von Neumann was very taken with electrically stimulated jellyfish, which he appears to have viewed as doing some kind of continuous analog of the information processing of an electronic circuit. In any case, by about 1947, he had conceived the idea of using partial differential equations to model a kind of factory that could reproduce itself, like a living organism.

Von Neumann always seems to have been very taken with children, and I am told that it was in playing with an erector set owned by the son of his game theory collaborator Oskar Morgenstern that von Neumann realized that his self-reproducing factory could actually be built out of discrete robotic-like parts. (There was already something of a tradition of building computers out of Meccano---and indeed for example some of Hartree's early articles on analog computers appeared in Meccano Magazine.)

An electrical engineer named Julian Bigelow, who worked on von Neumann's IAS computer project, pointed out that 3D parts were not necesary, and that 2D would work just as well. (When I was at the Institute in the early 1980s Bigelow was still there, though unfortunately viewed as a slightly peculiar relic of von Neumann's project.)

Stan Ulam told me that he had independently thought about making mathematical models of biology, but in any case, around 1951 he appears to have suggested to von Neumann that one should be able to use a simplified, essentially combinatorial model---based on something like the infinite matrices that Ulam had encountered in the so-called Polish Book of math problems to which he had contributed.

The result of all this was a model that was formally a two-dimensional cellular automaton. Systems equivalent to two-dimensional cellular automata were arising in several other contexts around the same time (see the NKS book, page 876). von Neumann seems to have viewed his version as a convenient framework in which to construct a mathematical system that could emulate engineered computer systems---especially the EDVAC on which von Neumann worked.

In the period 1952-3 von Neumann sketched an outline of a proof that it was possible for a formal system to support self reproduction. Whenever he needed a different kind of component (wire, oscillator, logic element, etc.) he just added it as a new state of his cellular automaton, with new rules. He ended up with a 29-state system, and a 200,000 cell configuration that could reproduce itself. (von Neumann himself did not complete the construction. This was done in the early 1960s by a former assistant of von Neumann's named Arthur Burks, who had left the IAS computer project to concentrate on his interests in philosophy, though who maintains even today an interest in cellular automata.)

From the point of view of NKS, von Neumann's system now seems almost grotesquely complicated. But von Neumann's intuition told him that one could not expect a simpler system to show something as sophisticated and biological as self reproduction. What he said was that he thought that below a certain level of complexity, systems would always be "degenerative", and always generate what amounts to behavior simpler than their rules. But then, from seeing the example of biology, and of systems like Turing machines, he believed that above some level, there should be an "explosive" increase in complexity, with systems able to generate other systems more complex than themselves. But he said that he thought the threshold for this would be systems with millions of parts.

Twenty-five years ago I might not have disagreed too strongly with that. And certainly for me it took several years of computer experimentation to understand that in fact it takes only very simple rules to produce even the most complex behavior. So I do not think it surprising---or unimpressive---that von Neumann failed to realize that simple rules were enough.

Of course, as one often realizes in retrospect, he did have some other clues. He knew about the idea of generating pseudorandom numbers from simple rules, even suggesting the "middle square method" (see NKS page 975.) He had the beginnings of the idea of doing computer experiments in areas like number theory. He analysed the first 2000 digits of pi and e, computed on the ENIAC, finding that they seemed random---though making no comment on it (see the NKS book, page 912). (He also looked at ContinuedFraction[2^(1/3)]; see the NKS book, page 914.)

I have asked many people who knew him why von Neumann never considered simpler rules. Marvin Minsky told me that he actually asked von Neumann about this directly, but that von Neumann had been somewhat confused by the question. It would have been much more Ulam's style than von Neumann's to have come up with simpler rules, and Ulam indeed did try making a one-dimensional analog of 2D cellular automata, but came up not with 1D cellular automata, but with a curious number-theoretical system (see the NKS book, page 908).

In the last ten years of his life, von Neumann got involved in an impressive array of issues. Some of his colleagues seem to have felt that he spent too little time on each one, but still his contributions were usually substantial---sometimes directly in terms of content, and usually at least in terms of lending his credibility to emerging areas.

He made mistakes, of course. He thought that each logical step in computation would necessarily dissipate a certain amount of heat, whereas in fact reversible computation is in principle possible. He thought that the unreliability of components would be a major issue in building large computer systems; he apparently did not have an idea like error-correcting codes. He is reputed to have said that no computer program would ever be more than a few thousand lines long. He was probably thinking about proofs of theorems---but did not think about subroutines, the analog of lemmas.

Von Neumann was a great believer in the efficacy of mathematical methods and models, perhaps implemented by computers. In 1950 he was optimistic that accurate numerical weather forecasting would soon be possible (see the NKS book page 1132). In addition, he believed that with methods like game theory it should be possible to understand much of economics and other forms of human behavior (see the NKS book page 1135).

Von Neumann was always quite a believer in using the latest methods and tools (I'm sure he would have been a big Mathematica user today). He typically worked directly with one or two collaborators, sometimes peers, sometimes assistants, though he maintained contact with a large network of scientists. (A typical communication was a letter he wrote to Alan Turing in 1949, in which he asks "What are the problems on which you are working now, and what is your program for the immediate future?".) In his later years he often operated as a distinguished consultant, brought in by the government, or other large organizations. His work was then often presented as a report, that was accorded particular weight because of his distinguished consultant status. (It was also often a good and clear piece of work.) He was often viewed a little ambivalently as an outsider in the fields he entered---positively because he brought his distinction to the field, negatively because he was not in the clique of experts in the field.

Particularly in the early 1950s, von Neumann became deeply involved in military consulting, and indeed I wonder how much of the intellectual style of cold war U.S. military strategic thinking actually originated with him. He seems to have been quite flattered that he called upon to do this consulting, and he certainly treated the government with considerably more respect than many other scientists of his day. Except sometimes in his exuberence to demonstrate his mathematical and calculational prowess, he seems to have always been quite mature and diplomatic. The transcript of his testimony at the Oppenheimer security hearing certainly for example bears this out.

Nevertheless, von Neumann's military consulting involvements left some factions quite negative about him. It's sometimes said, for example, that von Neumann might have been the model for the sinister Dr. Strangelove character in Stanley Kubrick's movie of that name (and indeed von Neumann was in a wheelchair for the last year of his life). And vague negative feelings about von Neumann surface for example in a typical statement I heard recently from a science historian of the period---that "somehow I don't like von Neumann, though I can't remember exactly why".

I recently met von Neumann's only child---his daughter Marina, who herself has had a distinguished career, mostly at General Motors. She reinforced my impression that until his unpleasant final illness, John von Neumann was a happy and energetic man, working long hours on mathematical topics, and always having fun. She told me that when he died, he left a box that he directed should be opened fifty years after his death. What does it contain? His last sober predictions of a future we have now seen? Or a joke---like a funny party hat of the type he liked to wear? It'll be most interesting in 2007 to find out.

Last edited by Stephen Wolfram on 12-28-2003 at 09:23 PM

内容摘要：
在像网站首页这样的资源比较集中的页面中，那些栏目最经常被用户点击？居左居右对广告的点击率的影响是什么？
“一切用数字说话”：以上问题都可以通过跟踪浏览器客户端的鼠标行为，按区块对页面进行点击行为的分析。

页面点击统计系统设计

输出：
页面上不同区域的点击量统计。

数据采集：
原理：
通过JAVASCRIPT的鼠标触发事件，动态将当前鼠标的坐标，客户端的分辨率传递到统计服务器上。

如果要往服务器端发请求，做计数器，插入一个图片是最简单的方法，这里是一个简单的例子：

/* (C) 2003 - 2004 www.chedong.com 

 * Free for all users, but leave in this  header

 * click based user analysis:
 * usage: touch a empty click.gif or create a static page on at server
 * including following script into your html page
 */

document.onclick = clickStat;

function clickStat() {
    // create a new empty element
    var image = document.createElement("<img></img>");
    
    // record client screen size and mouse coordinate
    tempX = event.clientX + document.body.scrollLeft;
    tempY = event.clientY + document.body.scrollTop;
    image.src = "http://www.chedong.com/click_stats.php?width=" + screen.width + "&x=" 
+ tempX + "&y=" + tempY;
    image.height = 0;
    image.width = 0;
    
    //send request to stat server
    document.body.insertBefore(image);
    return true;
}

通过全局的onClick事件，每次向统计服务器发一个请求：http: //www.chedong.com/click_stat.php?width=1024&x=345&y=567
其中：1024x768是屏幕分辨率，345是鼠标X坐标，567是鼠标Y坐标。
点击统计程序click_stats.php会以上信息到日志文件中。

数据输出：
从WEB日志中将相应统计提取出来。然后针对不同页面建立配置文件，将页面区块按照以下格式建立配置文件：
#X1 Y1 X2 Y2 comments
0 0 1024 100 navigator
0 100 1024 200 top_story
...

再利用用统计脚本根据指定区域的配置，将各个区域的点击量进行汇总。

the more you want it, the more you hate it.
有感于近来一切的没希望...
学业的希望，
工作的希望，
感情的希望，
生活的希望，
人生的希望，
幸福的希望，
统统tmd没有。。。

转载自为什么程序员总加班？，g9老大转载自这个

  测算项目周期…就好像有条小鱼向你游过来.

小鱼来了

看这条小鱼！

那么小一条鱼

我可以把它吞了。一口就行！

是不是哦？真那么容易？

当然！这条鱼那么小！

但你以前就错过

闭嘴（脑子里说的）。这条鱼那么小。我正盯着它看呢。

一口咬下去就没了。还不够我塞牙缝的。这算鱼么？也就一小点儿。还特小内种。 我一口就能吃没了。

鱼来喽！

等等。好像不对。

太晚了。你Y都立军令状了。

从侧面看这鱼.

靠！

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/29225
Posted on Friday, April 13, 2007, 12:00AM

In the course of climbing the corporate ladder, or of just managing the little corner of the world you occupy, you have to communicate with people. It's not always easy, but you have to do it.

Some of this communication amounts to simple conversation, and it's been dawning on me for a long time now that a great many young people don't know how to have one. In fact, a great many older people don't know how to have a conversation, either.

Ten Conversation Tips

Frankly, I don't see how people can advance in their careers if they don't know how to have a conversation. For most people, work -- not investments -- is their livelihood.

So I thought I'd offer up a few basic ideas on how to have a conversation with someone you just met.

1. Begin by knowing that the people you're talking to mostly want to talk about themselves.

They want to talk about their lives, their tastes, their views. To the extent that you let them do that, you facilitate conversation and good feeling.

A simple way to begin a conversation is to ask a person the most basic question: "How are you today?" The person will usually give a cursory answer such as, "I'm fine. How are you?"

If your conversation partner goes off on a long tangent about what she had to eat that morning, what she bought that afternoon, and how her mother treated her that evening, you're warned to simply terminate the conversation at once and go on to the next person.

Otherwise, you might continue by asking, "Where are you from?" This usually allows for the next rule of conversation:

2. Establish common ground.

For example, if your conversation partner is from Idaho, talk about how often you've been to Idaho and how beautiful it is there. If you've never been to Idaho, talk about how you've heard it's beautiful there and how much you've always wanted to visit.

This helps to establish the next rule:

3. Say kind, generous things to your conversation partner.

Talk about how beautiful his home area is. Talk about how you have seen the mountains there and how fabulous they are. Talk about how bracing the air there is.

Or, if you can't think of anything to say about the person's home, offer compliments about something else. Talk about how nice her hair looks or how nice his suit is. People like to be complimented. If they don't like to be complimented, they're not well in the head and you ought to leave them well enough alone.

If they react negatively to compliments, again, move on to the next topic or the next person.

4. Keep your comments brief.

Don't respond to a question about where you're from with a long, detailed answer about all the places you've ever been. Talk about how you are that day in a short, punchy way. Answer in detail only if your partner asks in detail.

You know how you don't like to be bored by long answers? Everyone else on the planet feels the same way. Brevity is a good way to make friends. You never want to be so brief as to be rude, but again, brief is good.

5. Get back on common ground again as soon as you can.

Ask what your colleague or neighbor does for a living. If he or she does anything at all, say how interesting that is. Ask for an explanation of what it is if you don't understand.

I've had some of the most interesting, revealing conversations of my life just by asking people what they do. What does a "chemical engineer" do? Just by asking that I learned volumes about how the energy business works. What does a petroleum geologist do? What's sedimentary rock and how do you get oil out of it? I learned all this just by asking people what they do and then asking for more explanation.

People want to talk about their lives, and you oblige them, make them like you, and learn from them by allowing them to talk.

This is especially true in job interviews. You want to allow your interviewer to do a big chunk of the talking. In so doing, you learn where to make your points, where to keep quiet, and how to explain yourself so you fit into the interviewer's world.

6. Don't brag unless you do it in a funny way.

Don't tell people how much money you make. Don't tell people how cool you are. No one likes a braggart. No one likes to feel small compared with anyone else.

Just be modest about your achievements. Even if the person you're talking to brags, don't brag yourself.

7. Unless you're specifically asked about it, don't talk about religion at all.

You're very likely to make enemies and not at all likely to make friends if you bring up religion. Most people have different views about religion from yours, and you can scarcely conceive of a better way to alienate people than trying to press your religious views on them.

8. The same goes for politics.

You can hardly hope to meet someone whose political views exactly match yours, so you can easily offend by pressing your views on someone else. Just smile and listen quietly and go on to the next thing.

Unless you meet someone who says, "I know you and I totally agree with you," don't get into politics at all.

9. If you talk about current issues, do so in a genial, friendly way.

Don't start fights about Hillary Clinton or George Bush or anyone else. Just smile and laugh about it, and if the person you're talking to insists on saying provocative things, change the subject.

If the person persists, say you have work to do and, with a smile, go on to something else.

10. Make whatever points you need to make in a hurry, and then leave.

Don't feel your time and your conversation partner's time have no value. Time is everything in life, and you oblige people by saving their time.

In a job interview, for example, make whatever points -- always complimentary -- you care to make, answer questions, and then leave. But leave with a smile and a firm handshake.

You'd be amazed at how many people don't know any of these rules. If you do, you're way ahead of the game.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/how-to-stifle-your-creativity-in-10-easy-steps.html

1. Be afraid. Be very afraid. There’s nothing like fear to put a stop to any kind of creativity: fear of getting it wrong; fear of what other people may say; fear of embarrassment; fear of change. The more afraid that you are, the less creative you will be—and the less you will act on any creative thoughts that manage to break through the curtain of anxiety.
2. Remind yourself of all the times that you failed in the past. Keep them fresh in your mind. Dwell on them—the pain, the shame, the hurt, the way others sniggered. Let your imagination go to work and really re-live those cringe-making moments. That should stop you ever trying again.
3. Never waste time. Stay constantly busy. Never mind what the tasks are, just keep them coming thick and fast. Time is money, isn’t it? There’s no mileage in leaving any moments free from gainful activity—especially for self-indulgent activities like day dreaming or reflecting on what has happened. If you fill every waking moment with busyness, you won’t have to worry about creative thoughts sneaking up on you. There will be no space for them.
4. Always try to fit in. Be much more than a good team player—be the person who never, ever rocks the boat. Whatever seems to be the majority opinion, go with it. People who have ideas of their own can face suspicion or—horror of horrors—criticism and dislike by the majority. Don’t risk being on the wrong side. The minute that it’s clear what the majority (or the most powerful players) want, that’s where your opinions and thoughts must be.
5. Stick to what you know. Tried and true is what’s right for you. Change and novelty involve risk, and risks can go wrong. If you give in to entertaining innovative thoughts, you may find that what you’ve been doing all these years isn’t as good as you thought. That would upset you and maybe force you to do something risky, like altering your habits or changing your viewpoint. So don’t be rash. Caution must be your watchword at all times. Whatever that new idea is, let it wait a while—say a decade or so—before considering it seriously. You’ll be surprised how many will go away in far less time than that.
6. Always defer to authority. The people in charge must know what they are doing, or they wouldn’t hold the positions that they do. It would be presumptuous to inject any of your own ideas, when they clearly have all the answers. Rules exist to be obeyed, not challenged. If you always do exactly as you are told, you won’t ever risk disapproval from your betters.
7. Don’t ask stupid questions. Best of all, don’t ask any questions. They only get people into trouble. Folk who develop the nasty habit of questioning things may upset the status quo, and that simply causes trouble and disruption. Things are as they are. There’s no point wasting time or effort wondering whether they ought to be different in some way. Only dissidents and weirdoes don’t understand that simple fact.
8. Always listen to your Inner Critic. It’s there to stop you making a fool of yourself. Whatever it says, pay close attention. It will unfailingly point out how useless, pointless, and silly those creative ideas really are. It will explain to you that they will never work, and how expressing them will only make you a laughingstock. It’s your friend. Trust it implicitly.
9. Leave thinking to the experts. There’s no point in bothering them with with your pathetic notions or observations. If it was an idea worth having, the experts would already have thought about it. They have all kinds of qualifications and can use long words too. If you think that some change might be needed (and you can’t simply ignore such a disruptive idea), hire expensive, expert consultants to do the thinking. They’ll quickly tell you whatever you want to hear, then add what others are doing, so you can copy them. Best of all, if it goes wrong, you can first of all say that what you did was follow industry best practice (whatever that means); and, if that doesn’t disarm any criticism, you can blame the consultants.
10. Keep it simple, stupid. The worst thing about creative ideas is that they so often make life more complicated. The best way to stay on an even keel is to keep everything very, very simple. Find one or two rules of thumb and stick to them like glue. Don’t listen to anyone who tries to tell you that there aren’t simple, easy answers to every situation. There are. It’s just that, for some odd reason, they don’t work very often—if ever. Still, persistence is a great virtue. If you stay with these simple, superficial approaches long enough, one or two are bound to work in some circumstance, sometime. Then you can point out to the clever dicks that you were right all along. Why mess up your head with learning? It’s learning that allows creative ideas in the first place. Anyway, learning is for children. Adults like you don’t need it.

CSDN第一次xx会，请了google谷雪梅女士讲座，讲到如下几点涉及google的东东。

1）Google的服务器集群大概有30个Clusters,每个Cluster包括2000台服务器
2）Google最重要的创新：GFS(Google File System) GWQ(Global Work Queue) MapReduce
  google最关心的事情：数据如何存放（GFS)，数据如何处理（MapReduce)
3) Google现在正在用统计的方法来改善机器翻译和Spellcheck的技术
   比如小甜甜Britney Spears Google统计下来，用户搜索有800多种拼法，传统的Spell check技术根本不能满足这种要求。
  听完讲座我试验了一下google的机器翻译，发现效果还真的是不错
4）Google开放GFS＋MapReduce给美国的大学，可以帮助他们建设类Google的分布式计算系统
   这个东西有在米国的小朋友知道吗? 要是能看到更多的资料就好了。
5) google用的gcc和gdb都是自己修改后专用，python创始人一半时间为google内部开发小工具
   Google内部小工具大观园:P

很想问问他，怎么样能够像他那样从一个退学学生，然后混到学位证.

upate:
郁闷, 估计是没机会有票亲自去问他这个问题了:P
btw: 今天在永和吃饭碰到了林毅夫两口, 汗
再btw: 刚知道google中国要5.31搞developer day, 倒时python的老大Guido要来，结果去看注册页面，北京已经满了:(
一定要找个机会搏张票，去和老大探讨探讨问题。。。

他是个哑巴，虽然能听懂别人的话，却说不出自己的感受。

她是他的邻居，一个和外婆相依为命的女孩。

她一直喊他哥哥。他真象个哥哥，
 带她上学，伴她玩耍，含笑听她唧唧喳喳讲话。

他只用手势和她交谈，可能她能读懂他的每一个眼神。

从哥哥注视她的目光里，她知道他有多么喜欢自己。

后来，她终于考上了大学，非常开心。

他便开始拼命挣钱，然后源源不断地寄给她。她从来没有拒绝。

终于，
 她毕业了，参加了工作。然后，她坚定地对他说：“哥哥，我要嫁给你！”

他象只受惊的兔子逃掉了，再也不肯见她，无论她怎样哀求。

她这样说：“你以为我同情你吗？想报答你吗？不是，
 我12岁我就爱上你了。”可是，她得不到他的回答.

有一天，
 她突然住进了医院。他吓坏了，跑去看他。医生说，她喉咙里长了一个瘤，

虽然切除了，却破坏了声带，可能再也讲不了话了。

病床上，她泪眼婆娑的注视着他。 

于是，
他们结婚了。很多年，没有人听他们讲过一句话。

他们用手，用笔，用眼神交谈，分享喜悦和悲伤。他们成了相恋男女羡慕的对象。

人们说，那一对多么幸福的哑夫妻啊。 　　

爱情阻挡不了死神的降临，
他撇下她一个人先走了。人们怕她经受不住失去爱侣的打击来安慰她。 
她收回注视他遗像的呆痴目光，突然开口说：“他还是走了。”谎言已揭穿了…… 

人们惊讶之余，
 都感叹不已，这是一份多么执着的、深厚的、像童话一样的爱呀！

从此，她不再讲话，不久也离开了人世。

相恋中的男女仍会拿他们当作谈论的话题，
 他们常说，你听过那对哑夫妻的故事吗？默默爱你，直到永远……

屡次被我们发现在其blog上发酸诗，
2007/4/13

本是无名叶

何足惹人怜

他日红颜顾

仍愿独自哀

为了抗争这种脱离劳苦民工大众的行为, 我决定给其配上我们人民群众喜闻乐见的

英文丽华体翻译版，

I'm nobody,

not worth anyone to care,

if some girl take a look at me some day,

I would rather play by myself.

居然把淋浴的管子和蓬头换好了..., 虽然缠了密封条之后比缠时候还滴的稍微多一点.

总结一下，

1，一个能工作的系统就是一个牛X的系统

2，一个牛B的系统一定有很多优美的接口

3，一个优美的接口背后都一定有一个ws的实现(此条非原创)

Starbucks chairman warns of "the commoditization of the Starbucks experience"

Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz wrote this to CEO Jim Donald earlier this month. The memo's authenticity has been confirmed by Starbucks.

From: Howard Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Jim Donald
Cc: Anne Saunders; Dave Pace; Dorothy Kim; Gerry Lopez; Jim Alling; Ken Lombard; Martin Coles; Michael Casey; Michelle Gass; Paula Boggs; Sandra Taylor

Subject: The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience

As you prepare for the FY 08 strategic planning process, I want to share some of my thoughts with you.

Over the past ten years, in order to achieve the growth, development, and scale necessary to go from less than 1,000 stores to 13,000 stores and beyond, we have had to make a series of decisions that, in retrospect, have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, what some might call the commoditization of our brand.

Many of these decisions were probably right at the time, and on their own merit would not have created the dilution of the experience; but in this case, the sum is much greater and, unfortunately, much more damaging than the individual pieces. For example, when we went to automatic espresso machines, we solved a major problem in terms of speed of service and efficiency. At the same time, we overlooked the fact that we would remove much of the romance and theatre that was in play with the use of the La Marzocca machines. This specific decision became even more damaging when the height of the machines, which are now in thousands of stores, blocked the visual sight line the customer previously had to watch the drink being made, and for the intimate experience with the barista. This, coupled with the need for fresh roasted coffee in every North America city and every international market, moved us toward the decision and the need for flavor locked packaging. Again, the right decision at the right time, and once again I believe we overlooked the cause and the affect of flavor lock in our stores. We achieved fresh roasted bagged coffee, but at what cost? The loss of aroma -- perhaps the most powerful non-verbal signal we had in our stores; the loss of our people scooping fresh coffee from the bins and grinding it fresh in front of the customer, and once again stripping the store of tradition and our heritage? Then we moved to store design. Clearly we have had to streamline store design to gain efficiencies of scale and to make sure we had the ROI on sales to investment ratios that would satisfy the financial side of our business. However, one of the results has been stores that no longer have the soul of the past and reflect a chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store. Some people even call our stores sterile, cookie cutter, no longer reflecting the passion our partners feel about our coffee. In fact, I am not sure people today even know we are roasting coffee. You certainly can't get the message from being in our stores. The merchandise, more art than science, is far removed from being the merchant that I believe we can be and certainly at a minimum should support the foundation of our coffee heritage. Some stores don't have coffee grinders, French presses from Bodum, or even coffee filters.

Now that I have provided you with a list of some of the underlying issues that I believe we need to solve, let me say at the outset that we have all been part of these decisions. I take full responsibility myself, but we desperately need to look into the mirror and realize it's time to get back to the core and make the changes necessary to evoke the heritage, the tradition, and the passion that we all have for the true Starbucks experience. While the current state of affairs for the most part is self induced, that has lead to competitors of all kinds, small and large coffee companies, fast food operators, and mom and pops, to position themselves in a way that creates awareness, trial and loyalty of people who previously have been Starbucks customers. This must be eradicated.

I have said for 20 years that our success is not an entitlement and now it's proving to be a reality. Let's be smarter about how we are spending our time, money and resources. Let's get back to the core. Push for innovation and do the things necessary to once again differentiate Starbucks from all others. We source and buy the highest quality coffee. We have built the most trusted brand in coffee in the world, and we have an enormous responsibility to both the people who have come before us and the 150,000 partners and their families who are relying on our stewardship.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge all that you do for Starbucks. Without your passion and commitment, we would not be where we are today.

Onward…

让我想起了清华夜话和那些逝去了的日子...

纪念清华的日子

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

当我沉默的时候
我觉得充实
我将开口
同时感到空虚
年轻的生命已经死亡
我对这死亡有大欢喜
因为我借此知道它曾经存活
死亡的生命已经腐朽
我对于这腐朽有大欢喜
因为我借此知道它还非空虚
生命的泥委弃在地面上
不生乔木，只生野草
这是不是我的罪过？
但我不敢坦然
不敢欣然
不能大笑
不能歌唱
为什么现实误解了我的理想
为什么生活把我欺骗
假如生活欺骗了你
不要忧郁，也不要愤慨
不顺心暂且克制自己
相信吧，快乐之日就会到来
****************************
单调的生活让我感到空虚
我把这空虚寄予八周的设计
咖啡，泡面
一夜听了无数次的唱片
而陪伴我的
只有专教三米九的层高
与主干道上的煎饼摊
困是深层次的
颓是全方位的
推研是艰难的
转系是明智的
做设计八周是不够的
学建筑的日子是不浪漫的
一个声音日日高喊
"走出教室，走出宿舍
把第八套广播体操再做一遍"
第七周
霸王硬上板
前半夜点草，后半夜刮草
学长名言：天下没有交不了的图
没有最糙，只有更糙！
在一个伸手不见五指的夜晚
小风嗖嗖的吹着
革命马上就要迎来胜利的曙光
我的图  崩了！……
第八周，按时交图
遗漏的总是很多
老师问我为什么不画阴影
我说：我的阴影，在心里……
过去的总是难以祭奠
交图的喜悦渐行渐远
剩下的只有钱柜的通宵歌唱
和西门鸡翅的消化不良
假如生活欺骗了你
不要忧郁，也不要愤慨
不顺心暂且克制自己
相信吧，快乐之日就会到来
*************************
单调的生活让我感到空虚
我把这空虚寄予爱情
相恋，失恋
一次次虚度我的华年
原来爱情就像做设计
第一次见面是选题，看上去都很美好
初次表白是快设，准备得有些糟糕
发现女生很难懂，复杂得就像西直门的交通
发现男生很邋遢，健壮的就像工地上的民工
发现性格不合是功能硬伤，付出再大努力也难以解决
有人说：换女朋友就像换地段，
上面的房子其实没有变
有人说：自一而终的爱情过时了，
大家都背着导师干私活儿
一个声音高喊：
熬夜后，请不要相信一见钟情！
一个声音高喊：
理性的四环路，胜过激情的平安大道！！
忙碌的生活让人难以留恋
我要如何用针管笔给玫瑰描上花边
谁说A0的图板放不下A4的情书？
曾记否当年我的表白？
啊，你是我的女神！你是我的灵感！
你是0.1的针管笔，你是辉柏嘉的彩铅
你是牛顿牌水彩，你是中南海香烟
你是CAD，你是天正，你是防火规范
你是业主，你是任务书，你是地段的红线！
我在熬夜后的清晨看见了做模型 的你，你的眼神好像带着电
从那一刻起，我的生活已经改变！
鸟巢的用钢量，也不及我对你爱的深沉
国家大剧院的穹顶，也装不下我对你的思念！
假如生活欺骗了你
不要忧郁，也不要愤慨
不顺心暂且克制自己
相信吧，快乐之日就会到来
*****************************
单调的生活让我感到空虚
我把这空虚寄予未来
腐败，私活儿
永远爬不起来的被窝
2005年一个最热的夏天
比2004年来得早一点
一场风暴如期来临
推研资格……告急！
学分绩……告急！
快速设计……告急！
推研名额……告急！ 
许多人奔走相告，许多人疾声高呼
许多人焦虑，许多人忧愁
许多人脱发，许多人白头
许多人徘徊河边，许多人爬上主楼
许多人露出本来面目，革命的前夜是寒冷的
有人说不用担心
一个萝卜一个坑
最后我发现
没错我是萝卜
可是没有坑……
有人说学制是要压缩的
有人说名额是会增多的
有人说出去当建筑师的可是越来越少了
有人说推研是人生遭遇了PK嘛……
有人说我想要两个孩子
一个叫雅思，一个叫托福
有人说GRE词汇真难背
有人说北京的房子真贵
有人选择毕业，着急的推销着自己
男，23岁，未婚，健壮，勤劳，建筑系毕业，欲寻工作一份，本人承接以下业务： 
建筑设计，工程制图，建筑效果图，三维建模，flash 动画，照片上色，天正，CAD，3DMAX，PHPTOSHOP，VRML，C++，网络维护管理，网络游戏代练，水电工，瓦工，油漆，贴瓷砖，通下水道，拆洗抽油烟机，拆装空调，筛沙，砌墙，砸墙，装卸，苦力搬运，四六级替考，代开发票，办证，拔火罐，算命，代写小学生寒暑假作业，替小学生欺负其他同学（年龄十岁以下），有意者来电来函咨询，中介及一夜情勿扰
假如生活欺骗了你
不要忧郁，也不要愤慨
不顺心暂且克制自己
相信吧，快乐之日就会到来
**********************************8
一个人的幸福
是对建筑不产生嗜好
平静地过一生
没痛苦，也没操劳
不用自己的作品给评论家增添重负
不为一丝灵感整天枯坐桌前
不喜欢在普利策的高峰上漫游
不把高尚的艺术与现实的甲方寻求
安宁是好的
但加倍好的是建筑
我不能放下画笔，沉默不语
当一切都逝去，一切也都会重来
我们的心儿憧憬着未来
现今总是令人悲哀
一切都是暂时的，转瞬即逝
而那逝去的将变为可爱
而那逝去的将变为可爱