一直觉得 twitter 应该叫做唧歪。
很佩服最早想出 twitter 这个主意的人，换成我自己的话根本是想不到这个东西会有用的——真的有那么多人只想说些只言片语么？真正看到这个东西才发觉它很方便。
不过始终不太喜欢上 twitter，毕竟是西方人的地盘。自己写些方块字大概也不会有人看。
好在国内马上出现了克隆：[饭否](http://www.fanfou.com/)，据说还有一个 jiwai.de，听说而已，还没有亲见。马上注了 snakehsu 这个 id。现在可以随时发布状态报告了：）
有时候也惊叹于社交网络的无孔不入，不知道还有没有什么领域是 web 2.0 还没有覆盖到的了。不过为什么 [Facebook](http://www.facebook.com/) 上类似的功能我就总是懒得用呢？看来语言是一个重要的原因，还是使用母语舒服，特别是在北京呆了好几个月之后。
2007年9月26日星期三
2007年9月16日星期日
Got a million-dollar syndrome
From [New York University School of Medicine](http://www.med.nyu.edu/psych/screens/depres.html):
Self-test questions and my answers:
1. Do you feel sad, blue, unhappy or "down in the dumps"?
C. Sometimes
2. Do you feel tired, having little energy, unable to concentrate?
B. Rarely
3. Do you feel uneasy, restless or irritable?
D. Very Often
4. Do you have trouble sleeping or eating (too little or too much)?
C. Sometimes
5. Do you feel that you are not enjoying the activities that you used to?
C. Sometimes
6. Do you feel that you lost interest in sex or experiencing sexual difficulties?
C. Sometimes
7. Do you feel that it takes you longer than before to make decisions or unable to concentrate?
D. Very Often
8. Do you feel inadequate, like a failure or that nobody likes you anymore?
C. Sometimes
9. Do you feel guilty without a rational reason, or put yourself down?
D. Very Often
10. Do you feel that things always go or will go wrong no matter how hard you try?
C. Sometimes
Can somebody help?
**Note:** This is __NOT__ a medical treatment and the author is not responsible for any outcomes from the use of this blog entry. Even if you thing you have similar answers to these questions before you take the NYU test, it does not mean that you are in depressive syndrome. Please refer to acknowledged tests and professional doctors.
Online Depression Screening Test
Brought to you by the
NYU Department of Psychiatry
Your answers reflect the presence of significant depressive symptoms.
It is advised to seek a psychiatric consultation,
Click here for
Referral Information
Self-test questions and my answers:
1. Do you feel sad, blue, unhappy or "down in the dumps"?
C. Sometimes
2. Do you feel tired, having little energy, unable to concentrate?
B. Rarely
3. Do you feel uneasy, restless or irritable?
D. Very Often
4. Do you have trouble sleeping or eating (too little or too much)?
C. Sometimes
5. Do you feel that you are not enjoying the activities that you used to?
C. Sometimes
6. Do you feel that you lost interest in sex or experiencing sexual difficulties?
C. Sometimes
7. Do you feel that it takes you longer than before to make decisions or unable to concentrate?
D. Very Often
8. Do you feel inadequate, like a failure or that nobody likes you anymore?
C. Sometimes
9. Do you feel guilty without a rational reason, or put yourself down?
D. Very Often
10. Do you feel that things always go or will go wrong no matter how hard you try?
C. Sometimes
Can somebody help?
**Note:** This is __NOT__ a medical treatment and the author is not responsible for any outcomes from the use of this blog entry. Even if you thing you have similar answers to these questions before you take the NYU test, it does not mean that you are in depressive syndrome. Please refer to acknowledged tests and professional doctors.
Blender 信笔涂鸦作
[Blender](http://www.blender.org) 是一个在 GPL 2.0 许可下发布的 3D 建模和动画软件。刚学会一点操作，用它画了个雪人──嗯，从小就爱画雪人，因为它比较简单。
2007年9月13日星期四
Discuss to battle global warming
[willyoujoinus.com](http://willyoujoinus.com/), a website I tumbled on today, is sponsored by [Chevron Corporation](http://www.chevron.com/) and focuses on debating on global environmental and energy issues.
The website runs basically like this: once a month or so, a topic is raised and the members of the site can write their entries under the topic while everyone can comment on everyone's post. The discussion is moderated from the beginning. When the topic is closed in about one month, the discussion will be analysed by experts in related areas. Apparently such discussion can help Chevron to some extent in their R&D and corporation policy making processes.
Is this grassroot power in action? I am not sure. Discussions by ``lay people'' may provide some useful insights given adequate analysis. However, they are prone to lose focus if there are no experts giving them guidelines and clues to discuss. The idea of ``one topic per month'' may be based on the same concern. If people have a better perception of their circumstances they will be better prepared in the discussion and can be more constructive. However, the brief summary on our environment provided on the website seems not to be more useful than Lester Brown and Al Gore. Surely some ideas can be extracted and contribute to decision-making, but I doubt how much weight such ideas have compared to expert opinions.
Another interest aspect is the composition of the members of the site. I guess most would be U. S. citizens. If they can post the composition in nationality, gender, age groups etc., it would be interest to see how these factors affect people's opinion on climate change and other hot questions.
I have registered on this site and it will be approved in 24--48 hours. Perhaps you can find me in some of the discussions :).
The website runs basically like this: once a month or so, a topic is raised and the members of the site can write their entries under the topic while everyone can comment on everyone's post. The discussion is moderated from the beginning. When the topic is closed in about one month, the discussion will be analysed by experts in related areas. Apparently such discussion can help Chevron to some extent in their R&D and corporation policy making processes.
Is this grassroot power in action? I am not sure. Discussions by ``lay people'' may provide some useful insights given adequate analysis. However, they are prone to lose focus if there are no experts giving them guidelines and clues to discuss. The idea of ``one topic per month'' may be based on the same concern. If people have a better perception of their circumstances they will be better prepared in the discussion and can be more constructive. However, the brief summary on our environment provided on the website seems not to be more useful than Lester Brown and Al Gore. Surely some ideas can be extracted and contribute to decision-making, but I doubt how much weight such ideas have compared to expert opinions.
Another interest aspect is the composition of the members of the site. I guess most would be U. S. citizens. If they can post the composition in nationality, gender, age groups etc., it would be interest to see how these factors affect people's opinion on climate change and other hot questions.
I have registered on this site and it will be approved in 24--48 hours. Perhaps you can find me in some of the discussions :).
网上参考资料来源整理
参考（References）部分：
1. [bartleby.com](http://www.bartleby.com/): 内容很丰富，可搜索的内容包括词典、作家作品片断和全文、同义词典、总统就职宣言等等。
2. [Citizendium](http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page): 类似[Wikipedia](http://www.wikipedia.org/)，也是用 Mediawiki 平台搭建的，特点是内容均由有一定经验的人士撰写，而且所有编辑必须实名。其目标是建立一个“Reliable”的 wiki，不过看样子要老师们接受它还需要很长时间。
3. [Answers.com](http://answers.com/): 这个就不用多说了，很大众化，对于一般的搜索也很好用。
4. [ePodunk](http://www.epodunk.com/): 只能搜索美国范围以内，虽然似乎很翔实，对非美国居民或旅美人士来说用处不大。
5. [Encyclopedia Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/): 虽然据说 Wikipedia 的准确程度和它相仿，但是引用不列颠百科全书，老师是不会有什么意见的。对于国人来说，有些内容要付钱才能看到是件很不方便的事。
6. [Scholarpedia](http://scholarpedia.org/): 跟 Citizendium 想法类似，这次是由真正的学者撰写并有同行评议，不过现在内容还很少。
7. [JSTOR](http://www.jstor.org/): 期刊全文库。对于大专院校的同学强烈推荐，除了最新期刊看不到，文章内搜索不便外可说没有什么缺点，如果你所在学校的图书馆没有买这个，应该到他们办公室去吵，直到他们答应买为止。
8. [Oxford English Directionary](http://www.oed.com/): 最权威的英语词典，但需要订购后方可浏览查询。提供多种搜索方式。缺点一个字：贵。目前的个人订阅价是195英镑/年，或50英镑/季度。如果没有专业需求还是继续用金山词霸或者 [dict.cn](http://dict.cn/) 好了。
9. [Wikiseek](http://www.wikiseek.com/) 和 [WikiMindMap](http://www.wikimindmap.org/): 顾名思义，Wikiseek 提供了一个跨 wiki 搜索的引擎。不过现在大部分结果自然都是 Wikipedia 里的。后者可以看作是一个更好地阅读 Wikipedia 的工具：输入一个关键词，它能帮你找出相关的文章，并用 Mind Map 的形式组织起来。
10. [Online Education Database](http://oedb.org/library/college-basics/research-beyond-google): 基本上，这是个数据库的数据库，主要内容包括在线课程、在线学位、在线教育的搜索，也提供了一些其它的学术数据库的链接。
11. [MathWorld](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/): 数学狂人 Wolfram 建立的数学数据库，内容非常全面，可以当做数学手册使用。
12. [GeoHive](http://www.xist.org/default1.aspx) 和 [Fedstats](http://www.fedstats.gov/): 前者提供了全球各国的统计数据，后者看名字就看得出，又是只有美国的数据，不过也非常丰富。
13. [Theoi](http://www.theoi.com/) 和 [Encyclopedia of Mythology](http://www.pantheon.org/): 两个神话学的数据库，似乎只有考古专业的哥们和写玄幻小说的会感兴趣了。
14. [Glossary of Poetic Forms](http://www.poeticbyway.com/glossary.html): 关于英语文学，特别是诗歌中若干概念的解释。
15. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](http://plato.stanford.edu/) 和 [FOLDOP](http://www.swif.it/foldop/): 哲学百科全书和词典，适合啃原著的朋友。
16. [Religion Online](http://www.religion-online.org/): 宗教和社会研究者的论文集，按主题分类。
电子书部分：
1. [Classics in the History of Psychology](http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/): 心理学史经典，提供了经典书籍和文章的全文。
2. [The Online Books Page](http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/search.html): 可通过作者名和书名搜索，不过我试着输入了几个生态学家的名字，都没有结果，似乎是社会科学著作为主。
3. [eBrary.com](http://shop.ebrary.com/): 相信不少大学已经买了他家的服务，不过作为一个 \*nix 用户，对它总觉得有点不爽：浏览器依赖 ActiveX，书籍又不能脱机阅览。
4. [Google Books](http://www.google.com.au/books?hl=en): Google 图书搜索，大部分书只能看有限几页，少数版权过期的书可以下载。国内用户注意如果不用这里的链接可能会撞墙。
5. [Project Gutenberg](http://www.gutenberg.org/): 提供过了版权有效期的老书下载，对于搞自然科学的同学来说可能意义有限……
以上，就是 Scholastici.us 提供的网上参考资料和电子图书来源汇总。看完他们的两篇文章，我的心情久久不能平静。什么时候我国也能拿出这么多参考资源放到网上造福学子呢？
1. [bartleby.com](http://www.bartleby.com/): 内容很丰富，可搜索的内容包括词典、作家作品片断和全文、同义词典、总统就职宣言等等。
2. [Citizendium](http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page): 类似[Wikipedia](http://www.wikipedia.org/)，也是用 Mediawiki 平台搭建的，特点是内容均由有一定经验的人士撰写，而且所有编辑必须实名。其目标是建立一个“Reliable”的 wiki，不过看样子要老师们接受它还需要很长时间。
3. [Answers.com](http://answers.com/): 这个就不用多说了，很大众化，对于一般的搜索也很好用。
4. [ePodunk](http://www.epodunk.com/): 只能搜索美国范围以内，虽然似乎很翔实，对非美国居民或旅美人士来说用处不大。
5. [Encyclopedia Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/): 虽然据说 Wikipedia 的准确程度和它相仿，但是引用不列颠百科全书，老师是不会有什么意见的。对于国人来说，有些内容要付钱才能看到是件很不方便的事。
6. [Scholarpedia](http://scholarpedia.org/): 跟 Citizendium 想法类似，这次是由真正的学者撰写并有同行评议，不过现在内容还很少。
7. [JSTOR](http://www.jstor.org/): 期刊全文库。对于大专院校的同学强烈推荐，除了最新期刊看不到，文章内搜索不便外可说没有什么缺点，如果你所在学校的图书馆没有买这个，应该到他们办公室去吵，直到他们答应买为止。
8. [Oxford English Directionary](http://www.oed.com/): 最权威的英语词典，但需要订购后方可浏览查询。提供多种搜索方式。缺点一个字：贵。目前的个人订阅价是195英镑/年，或50英镑/季度。如果没有专业需求还是继续用金山词霸或者 [dict.cn](http://dict.cn/) 好了。
9. [Wikiseek](http://www.wikiseek.com/) 和 [WikiMindMap](http://www.wikimindmap.org/): 顾名思义，Wikiseek 提供了一个跨 wiki 搜索的引擎。不过现在大部分结果自然都是 Wikipedia 里的。后者可以看作是一个更好地阅读 Wikipedia 的工具：输入一个关键词，它能帮你找出相关的文章，并用 Mind Map 的形式组织起来。
10. [Online Education Database](http://oedb.org/library/college-basics/research-beyond-google): 基本上，这是个数据库的数据库，主要内容包括在线课程、在线学位、在线教育的搜索，也提供了一些其它的学术数据库的链接。
11. [MathWorld](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/): 数学狂人 Wolfram 建立的数学数据库，内容非常全面，可以当做数学手册使用。
12. [GeoHive](http://www.xist.org/default1.aspx) 和 [Fedstats](http://www.fedstats.gov/): 前者提供了全球各国的统计数据，后者看名字就看得出，又是只有美国的数据，不过也非常丰富。
13. [Theoi](http://www.theoi.com/) 和 [Encyclopedia of Mythology](http://www.pantheon.org/): 两个神话学的数据库，似乎只有考古专业的哥们和写玄幻小说的会感兴趣了。
14. [Glossary of Poetic Forms](http://www.poeticbyway.com/glossary.html): 关于英语文学，特别是诗歌中若干概念的解释。
15. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](http://plato.stanford.edu/) 和 [FOLDOP](http://www.swif.it/foldop/): 哲学百科全书和词典，适合啃原著的朋友。
16. [Religion Online](http://www.religion-online.org/): 宗教和社会研究者的论文集，按主题分类。
电子书部分：
1. [Classics in the History of Psychology](http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/): 心理学史经典，提供了经典书籍和文章的全文。
2. [The Online Books Page](http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/search.html): 可通过作者名和书名搜索，不过我试着输入了几个生态学家的名字，都没有结果，似乎是社会科学著作为主。
3. [eBrary.com](http://shop.ebrary.com/): 相信不少大学已经买了他家的服务，不过作为一个 \*nix 用户，对它总觉得有点不爽：浏览器依赖 ActiveX，书籍又不能脱机阅览。
4. [Google Books](http://www.google.com.au/books?hl=en): Google 图书搜索，大部分书只能看有限几页，少数版权过期的书可以下载。国内用户注意如果不用这里的链接可能会撞墙。
5. [Project Gutenberg](http://www.gutenberg.org/): 提供过了版权有效期的老书下载，对于搞自然科学的同学来说可能意义有限……
以上，就是 Scholastici.us 提供的网上参考资料和电子图书来源汇总。看完他们的两篇文章，我的心情久久不能平静。什么时候我国也能拿出这么多参考资源放到网上造福学子呢？
2007年9月12日星期三
Highlights in recent articles
* [What is the Value of a Good Map? An Example Using High Spatial Resolution Imagery to Aid Riparian Restoration](http://www.springerlink.com/content/953308008086wv32/)
QuickBird satellite images are used to map harvested and intact forests. The difference between coarse and fine resolutions are studied. The implications of map errors are also examined by modifying confusion matrix to create a ``cost error matrix''.
* [Quantifying search effort of moving animals at several spatial scales using first-passage time analysis: effect of the structure of environment and tracking systems](http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01370.x)
This article has both theoretical and methodological implications: the advantages and limitations of first-passage time analysis (FPT) are assessed. FPT was able to detect changes of movements and area-restricted search (ARS) in various scales.
QuickBird satellite images are used to map harvested and intact forests. The difference between coarse and fine resolutions are studied. The implications of map errors are also examined by modifying confusion matrix to create a ``cost error matrix''.
* [Quantifying search effort of moving animals at several spatial scales using first-passage time analysis: effect of the structure of environment and tracking systems](http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01370.x)
This article has both theoretical and methodological implications: the advantages and limitations of first-passage time analysis (FPT) are assessed. FPT was able to detect changes of movements and area-restricted search (ARS) in various scales.
订阅：
评论 (Atom)