Powered by ScribeFire.
2007年11月2日星期五
2007年10月29日星期一
This is what I call failure
And it is outrageous!
Zhong, Li, and Peng, “Analysis on the Status of Farmers, Agriculture and Countryside, and Development Strategies and Measures in Tibet Autonomous Region,” Journal of Mountain Science 1, no. 2 (2004): 175--182.
One of the worst research articles I have ever read. People doing research on Tibet should never be an armchair researcher. There are always needs to go into the field. However, this article is a typical armchair work. Everything the authors have is but statistical data. And merely from this they can pretend to make "scientific decisions" for people who really have to make a living in Tibet. These workers (I am very reluctant to call them "scientists") are irresponsible and do not know Tibet at all.
For example, they do not know what kind of agriculture the ecosystem in Tibet can support. They naively think that Tibetan chicken eggs and pork "ha[ve] a good market" in the competition with products from outside. And they think they can improve grassland productivity in Tibet just by thinking.
Anyone with ideas about how northern Tibet agriculture system works will not put the problem so lightly. And these researchers are supposed to know.
The cause of the problem seems to be the inadequate pressure to publish, as well as the ill-formed evaluation system which is based on the quantity of publications rather than quality. Of course the lame peer review system of the journal also helped.
This, I am afraid, is the state of China's Tibetan studies.
Wake up, you lazy bones. You have the privilege to study in Tibet, without so much fuss as I and my foreign colleagues had. You should really go down there and hear what the people and the land have to say!
Zhong, Li, and Peng, “Analysis on the Status of Farmers, Agriculture and Countryside, and Development Strategies and Measures in Tibet Autonomous Region,” Journal of Mountain Science 1, no. 2 (2004): 175--182.
One of the worst research articles I have ever read. People doing research on Tibet should never be an armchair researcher. There are always needs to go into the field. However, this article is a typical armchair work. Everything the authors have is but statistical data. And merely from this they can pretend to make "scientific decisions" for people who really have to make a living in Tibet. These workers (I am very reluctant to call them "scientists") are irresponsible and do not know Tibet at all.
For example, they do not know what kind of agriculture the ecosystem in Tibet can support. They naively think that Tibetan chicken eggs and pork "ha[ve] a good market" in the competition with products from outside. And they think they can improve grassland productivity in Tibet just by thinking.
Anyone with ideas about how northern Tibet agriculture system works will not put the problem so lightly. And these researchers are supposed to know.
The cause of the problem seems to be the inadequate pressure to publish, as well as the ill-formed evaluation system which is based on the quantity of publications rather than quality. Of course the lame peer review system of the journal also helped.
This, I am afraid, is the state of China's Tibetan studies.
Wake up, you lazy bones. You have the privilege to study in Tibet, without so much fuss as I and my foreign colleagues had. You should really go down there and hear what the people and the land have to say!
Powered by ScribeFire.
2007年10月27日星期六
Follow-up: biofuel debate
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
There is yet another voice to express the concerns behind the large scale adoption of biofuel crops, especially corn. It has been pointed out by Mr Ziegler that plantation of biofuel crops has already led to decrease of available arable land, and the increase of food price.
This seems to be one thing that market cannot solve satisfyingly. If we rely solely on price and demand to adjust the production of food and biofuel, it can be expected that farmers will always have incentives to plant corn to produce ethanol before the price of biofuel is the same as fossil fuel. At the same time food price will also rise and leave more people in hunger. But farmers will not turn to food production until food price (combined with subsidies, maybe) is high enough to provide revenue as good as fuel. By then millions would have starved.
A threshold should be determined which states the maximum land and other resources allocated to biofuel production and should be enforced as a law. If we cannot determine the threshold yet, I think it is another time to apply precaution principle and set a safe limit. At the same time attempts to reduce fuel consumption and improve fuel efficiency should always be encouraged.
On the other hand, Food and Agriculture Organization in 2005 considered biofuel as a key to fight against hunger, as it reduces the import bill as well as brings investments and jobs. But that argument seems to miss the resource part, ignoring food production while it examines hunger.
There is yet another voice to express the concerns behind the large scale adoption of biofuel crops, especially corn. It has been pointed out by Mr Ziegler that plantation of biofuel crops has already led to decrease of available arable land, and the increase of food price.
This seems to be one thing that market cannot solve satisfyingly. If we rely solely on price and demand to adjust the production of food and biofuel, it can be expected that farmers will always have incentives to plant corn to produce ethanol before the price of biofuel is the same as fossil fuel. At the same time food price will also rise and leave more people in hunger. But farmers will not turn to food production until food price (combined with subsidies, maybe) is high enough to provide revenue as good as fuel. By then millions would have starved.
A threshold should be determined which states the maximum land and other resources allocated to biofuel production and should be enforced as a law. If we cannot determine the threshold yet, I think it is another time to apply precaution principle and set a safe limit. At the same time attempts to reduce fuel consumption and improve fuel efficiency should always be encouraged.
On the other hand, Food and Agriculture Organization in 2005 considered biofuel as a key to fight against hunger, as it reduces the import bill as well as brings investments and jobs. But that argument seems to miss the resource part, ignoring food production while it examines hunger.
Powered by ScribeFire.
2007年10月23日星期二
Bio-fuel and resilience
Today I attended a lecture given by Alan Bullin with the topic ``Biofuels in the Asia-Pacific'', which is just a general review of the situation of biofuel legislation, adoption and application in developed and developing world. But my question would be, how biofuel crops affect the resilience of farmers who adopted them out of economic interest?
I asked this because I thought of farmers in China. If they know this is going to make money you can bet they will begin to plant sugarcanes overnight. However, their relatively slow rate to access relevant information means they are very likely to encounter market failures and have losses. On the other hand, the question is also about long-term perspectives. If one day we suddenly do not need biofuel and fossil fuels anymore (invention of safe and cheap hydrogen/nuclear/solar/you-name-it energy technologies), will the farmers be able to quickly and easily turn to other income sources?
Dr. Bullin's answer to the questions, as I perceived, is that the market will determine what the farmers plant, the adoption of new energy will not be sudden, but a gradual process. The competition between various biofuel crops means the farmers will not be trapped in one crop and cannot get themselves out. They can always turn to another kind of biofuel. Of course, in the market, there is always risk.
I did not mention resilience or China's immature market in my question, which may change his answer a bit. On a second thought, the farmers may not always have alternatives due to climate and hydrology restrictions. I still would like to know whether farmers can turn their sugar cane field into, say, potato garden quickly enough. There have already been some studies on biofuels and resilience. Many of them expressed optimistic evaluation of this new technology concerning long-term gains and resilience, stating their positive role in the conservation of forest and reduction of carbon. However, I do think there is some negative issues that should be scrutinised carefully, for example, increased food price [1], changed land use and threat to natural area/food production [2], and Fairtrade concerns.
1. [Kill king corn](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/449637a). Nature 449, 637 doi: 10.1038/449637a (2007).
2. [Fuelling controversy -- can biofuels slow the speed of climate change?](http://www.panos.org.uk/PDF/reports/climatetoolkit1.pdf)
I asked this because I thought of farmers in China. If they know this is going to make money you can bet they will begin to plant sugarcanes overnight. However, their relatively slow rate to access relevant information means they are very likely to encounter market failures and have losses. On the other hand, the question is also about long-term perspectives. If one day we suddenly do not need biofuel and fossil fuels anymore (invention of safe and cheap hydrogen/nuclear/solar/you-name-it energy technologies), will the farmers be able to quickly and easily turn to other income sources?
Dr. Bullin's answer to the questions, as I perceived, is that the market will determine what the farmers plant, the adoption of new energy will not be sudden, but a gradual process. The competition between various biofuel crops means the farmers will not be trapped in one crop and cannot get themselves out. They can always turn to another kind of biofuel. Of course, in the market, there is always risk.
I did not mention resilience or China's immature market in my question, which may change his answer a bit. On a second thought, the farmers may not always have alternatives due to climate and hydrology restrictions. I still would like to know whether farmers can turn their sugar cane field into, say, potato garden quickly enough. There have already been some studies on biofuels and resilience. Many of them expressed optimistic evaluation of this new technology concerning long-term gains and resilience, stating their positive role in the conservation of forest and reduction of carbon. However, I do think there is some negative issues that should be scrutinised carefully, for example, increased food price [1], changed land use and threat to natural area/food production [2], and Fairtrade concerns.
1. [Kill king corn](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/449637a). Nature 449, 637 doi: 10.1038/449637a (2007).
2. [Fuelling controversy -- can biofuels slow the speed of climate change?](http://www.panos.org.uk/PDF/reports/climatetoolkit1.pdf)
2007年10月22日星期一
Preliminary Image Availability Survey
I am looking for satellite images over Anduo County, Tibet Autonomous Region, China.
- AVHRR： Search at EarthExplorer gives 11577 images in daylight condition, most focus on Indian subcontinent, but should be enough for me. Dates are from 1980 to 2000s.
- Declassified Satellite Imagery-1: Low and medium images taken in 1960s, earliest 1961, from CORONA, ARGON and LANYARD satellites. Most are medium to low resolution (15-30 m). A large portion are cloudy. $30 per frame.
- Declassified Satellite Imagery-2: Much higher camera resolution at 2 to 4 feet and 20 to 30 feet, from KH-7 and KH-9. Taken in 1964-1965 and 1973. Large swath, relatively lower cloud mask. $30 per frame.
- EO-1: no images.
- Landsat 1-5 MSS: From 1972 to 1992. Some scan line can be seen. Less cloud. $200 per frame.
- Landsat 4-5 TM: July 1982 to Present. Good resolution, less cloud. $425 per frame.
- Landsat 7 ETM+ International Ground Stations: No reviews available. No uniform price.
- Landsat 7 ETM+: From 1999 to 2003, some are a bit cloudy. Most are usable. $475-600 per frame.
- Landsat 7 ETH+ SLC-off: More difficult to process and probably data loss. From 2003 to Present. Can be downloaded with ordering. $200-275 per frame.
Landsat 7 ETM+ scenes acquired from 5/31/03 - 7/14/03 and 9/3/03 - 9/17/03 are not available. - SPOT: no image from USGS.
Powered by ScribeFire.
2007年10月21日星期日
再看 Contact
Contact (1997)
首先表示对小p同学的感谢，感谢他从 Sheffield 把 DVD 带给我。
不太记得上次看这个片子是什么时候了，不过可以确定的是那时候我已经有了电脑，同时还没有从高中毕业，因为我看完电影以后不久就下载了 SETI@Home 的客户端，然后问我的一位同学有没有看这个片子。那位同学高中毕业后就很少联系，直到不久以前才在北京又见到。这样算来，我上次看 Contact 已经是至少6-7年前的事了。
对于这部电影，我想我这样一个工科生的语言并不能表达它是怎样带给我兴奋和长期的激励──关于科学和理想主义的激励。借用女主角的一句话：“Poetry....They should send a poet!”它提醒了我们，习惯于在家购物，网上冲浪，足不出户的现代人，还有一些东西是“out there”，有一些东西是“above us”的。我们所受的关于科学的教育告诉我们，不要好高鹜远，要在前人的基础上慢慢前进，但这部影片对我的作用，无异于在泥沼中缓慢前行时头顶的星空，它提醒我，在单调重复的科学研究背后，永远都有值得追求的美丽的“Truth”。
六七年过去了，我电脑里运行的分布式计算程序已经从 SETI@Home 变成了更加 practical，也许甚至更加 profitable 的 Folding@Home，我身上的理想主义色彩也早已淡去不少。但是重新看到 Ellie 这个角色，仍然让我兴奋。电影里她也面临着寻求经费的压力，同行的排挤，来自社会各界的怀疑和反对，她缺少的是其他电影里科学家都有的先进的设备，花不完的经费，还有聪明又性感的助手──当然她的助手是很聪明的──而她的理想主义，或者说她的信念，始终支撑着她。我们在老一辈科学家的故事里也常能看到这种理想主义的存在，而科学界的现实也许是排斥这种理想主义的，但我确实相信科学发现的背后，必须要有独立于 Practicality 和 Profitability 之外的动机。所以我喜欢 Ellie 这个角色，喜欢她代表的理想主义精神。
除了“信念”，影片的第二个主题，关于科学与宗教的关系，几乎每篇关于 Contact 的影评都会提到。我在这里不想深入。当看到电影里 Ellie 被问到是否相信上帝时，我也试图帮她回答。做为一个受科学教育长大的人，我不相信人造的宗教，也不相信做为人类创造物而反过来主宰宇宙命运的上帝──那只是一种人类沙文主义的 delusion。但我确实相信这个复杂的世界是被一些更高的原则所决定的，为了方便理解，我们可以称其为上帝，但它肯定不是我们所创造出来用来膜拜的偶像，住在九天之上俯瞰众生。相反，它可能只是一些可以从量子力学方向试图理解的“弦”，或者其他更渺小而基本的东西，组成了我们，组成了世界。但是，纯粹地从科学的角度理解这些原则可能也是危险的，至少从我们现在的认识，我们知道像“爱”“信仰”这样的东西不能被分析，不能被量化，所以我们在科学之外还需要 humanity 来帮助我们更好地理解自己。对于影片的这个主题，我认为与其说它是科学与宗教的共存与和解，不如说是科学与人性的共存与和解。可能唯有如此，我们才能认识自己和宇宙，成为宇宙大家庭中成熟的一员。
生活的压力让我们需要面对现实，对于科学家来说也是如此，但 Contact 在生动地刻画了科学家所面临的现实的同时，也提醒了我们还存在着一个广袤而美丽的宇宙，我们每一个普通人都是它的 small and trivial, yet unique and precious 的一分子，这足以引起我们的许多思考。也许有人认为这不过是畅销小说改编的好莱坞科幻片，但在我看来，它是一些真正有创造力的人对于人类的自省，是我们走向启蒙的一小步，也许这一小步会引领我们去接触智慧，接触未来。
首先表示对小p同学的感谢，感谢他从 Sheffield 把 DVD 带给我。
不太记得上次看这个片子是什么时候了，不过可以确定的是那时候我已经有了电脑，同时还没有从高中毕业，因为我看完电影以后不久就下载了 SETI@Home 的客户端，然后问我的一位同学有没有看这个片子。那位同学高中毕业后就很少联系，直到不久以前才在北京又见到。这样算来，我上次看 Contact 已经是至少6-7年前的事了。
对于这部电影，我想我这样一个工科生的语言并不能表达它是怎样带给我兴奋和长期的激励──关于科学和理想主义的激励。借用女主角的一句话：“Poetry....They should send a poet!”它提醒了我们，习惯于在家购物，网上冲浪，足不出户的现代人，还有一些东西是“out there”，有一些东西是“above us”的。我们所受的关于科学的教育告诉我们，不要好高鹜远，要在前人的基础上慢慢前进，但这部影片对我的作用，无异于在泥沼中缓慢前行时头顶的星空，它提醒我，在单调重复的科学研究背后，永远都有值得追求的美丽的“Truth”。
六七年过去了，我电脑里运行的分布式计算程序已经从 SETI@Home 变成了更加 practical，也许甚至更加 profitable 的 Folding@Home，我身上的理想主义色彩也早已淡去不少。但是重新看到 Ellie 这个角色，仍然让我兴奋。电影里她也面临着寻求经费的压力，同行的排挤，来自社会各界的怀疑和反对，她缺少的是其他电影里科学家都有的先进的设备，花不完的经费，还有聪明又性感的助手──当然她的助手是很聪明的──而她的理想主义，或者说她的信念，始终支撑着她。我们在老一辈科学家的故事里也常能看到这种理想主义的存在，而科学界的现实也许是排斥这种理想主义的，但我确实相信科学发现的背后，必须要有独立于 Practicality 和 Profitability 之外的动机。所以我喜欢 Ellie 这个角色，喜欢她代表的理想主义精神。
除了“信念”，影片的第二个主题，关于科学与宗教的关系，几乎每篇关于 Contact 的影评都会提到。我在这里不想深入。当看到电影里 Ellie 被问到是否相信上帝时，我也试图帮她回答。做为一个受科学教育长大的人，我不相信人造的宗教，也不相信做为人类创造物而反过来主宰宇宙命运的上帝──那只是一种人类沙文主义的 delusion。但我确实相信这个复杂的世界是被一些更高的原则所决定的，为了方便理解，我们可以称其为上帝，但它肯定不是我们所创造出来用来膜拜的偶像，住在九天之上俯瞰众生。相反，它可能只是一些可以从量子力学方向试图理解的“弦”，或者其他更渺小而基本的东西，组成了我们，组成了世界。但是，纯粹地从科学的角度理解这些原则可能也是危险的，至少从我们现在的认识，我们知道像“爱”“信仰”这样的东西不能被分析，不能被量化，所以我们在科学之外还需要 humanity 来帮助我们更好地理解自己。对于影片的这个主题，我认为与其说它是科学与宗教的共存与和解，不如说是科学与人性的共存与和解。可能唯有如此，我们才能认识自己和宇宙，成为宇宙大家庭中成熟的一员。
生活的压力让我们需要面对现实，对于科学家来说也是如此，但 Contact 在生动地刻画了科学家所面临的现实的同时，也提醒了我们还存在着一个广袤而美丽的宇宙，我们每一个普通人都是它的 small and trivial, yet unique and precious 的一分子，这足以引起我们的许多思考。也许有人认为这不过是畅销小说改编的好莱坞科幻片，但在我看来，它是一些真正有创造力的人对于人类的自省，是我们走向启蒙的一小步，也许这一小步会引领我们去接触智慧，接触未来。
Powered by ScribeFire.
2007年10月20日星期六
Trying to choose a plotting package
During the process of writing my review, I meet the problem of plotting. For now I can copy figures from other people's work but I think there will be times when I need to draw my own plot.
There are a number of plotting software packages out there. Some are used by a lot while some have a relatively small user base. For one who want to get some help from the community, it is important to choose one that has a friendly syntax/interface and a larger user base. For now I am looking at [Asymptote](http://asymptote.sourceforge.net/) and [gnuplot](www.gnuplot.info). They are both powerful packages with extensive features, both support LaTeX well. Both have good documentation, which make the choice even harder to make.
In terms of language they use, Asymptote seems to be more formal, using structures more like those of C++ and Java. gnuplot seems to be more similar to (Bourne Again) shell scripts. If I have C++ programming experience it should be easier to pick Asymptote, but in fact I am more familiar with shell scripts and a little bit Fortran.
Taking a closer look, I think gnuplot is better at plotting data and non-parameter functions, as it is easy to do so in a sequential way, and it can read inputs from standard output (Asymptote seems cannot). But for more complicated graphic, the language used by Asymptote really boost it to a higher level.
The best way seems to be to learn both packages, as they have different advantages. But learning both at the same time seems to be very challenging. Without much drawing at hand, perhaps I'll start with gnuplot.
There are a number of plotting software packages out there. Some are used by a lot while some have a relatively small user base. For one who want to get some help from the community, it is important to choose one that has a friendly syntax/interface and a larger user base. For now I am looking at [Asymptote](http://asymptote.sourceforge.net/) and [gnuplot](www.gnuplot.info). They are both powerful packages with extensive features, both support LaTeX well. Both have good documentation, which make the choice even harder to make.
In terms of language they use, Asymptote seems to be more formal, using structures more like those of C++ and Java. gnuplot seems to be more similar to (Bourne Again) shell scripts. If I have C++ programming experience it should be easier to pick Asymptote, but in fact I am more familiar with shell scripts and a little bit Fortran.
Taking a closer look, I think gnuplot is better at plotting data and non-parameter functions, as it is easy to do so in a sequential way, and it can read inputs from standard output (Asymptote seems cannot). But for more complicated graphic, the language used by Asymptote really boost it to a higher level.
The best way seems to be to learn both packages, as they have different advantages. But learning both at the same time seems to be very challenging. Without much drawing at hand, perhaps I'll start with gnuplot.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)