[舊聞]： They call you a sucker

也是一篇舊文（聞）重貼，um they call you a "sucker".... 

---

PHD Comics: World Cup vs. PhD via kwout

[Video] Stand By Me

鴻兔大展

這是同事為我準備的賀卡，一定要秀一下的啦！

是的，我們都需要祝福和勇氣

三杯通大道，一斗合自然

Drunk scientists pour wine on superconductors and make an incredible discovery

又一個舉杯的理由，薄酒不僅能讓墨客「酒發雄談，劍增奇氣，詩吐驚人語」，還能提升科研成果，突破瓶頸。「方知一杯酒，猶勝百家書」，古人誠不我欺！

日本國立材料科學院，一個研究超導體的研究團隊，在某次慶功小聚中，喝的有點多的研究人員，酒意上頭之後，決定把研究材料放到“許多、許多”酒 （原文是 many many liquor）中。

事後檢測，這批泡過慶功酒的材料，傳導性比平日的實驗結果好得多 （疑問：這些人原本要慶祝什麼？）。 進一步比較後發現，日本燒酒的成績比平日材料好 23%，泡過紅酒的材料則改善了 62%。但是根據報導，這宴會還供應威士忌和啤酒，莫非這兩種酒的表現不大好！？

我想，以嚴謹為尚的研究人員，應該還要比較混合不同酒類比例，以及不同廠牌的影響才是。

不論如何，一定很多人愛死這篇報導的結論了，”So, a little sip of something turns out to make potential superconductors much better at their jobs. And, perhaps, scientists better at their jobs as well.“。

三杯通大道，一斗合自然，如果喝一斗，就能生一篇SCI文章，....

Get used to it

ted 在 Friendfeed 上分享了據說是比爾蓋茲在一所高中所發表的演說，提出學子們在學校學不到的十一件事。雖然天下雜誌網站上用令人誤會的排版和行文說『專輯精采重點：原文時代雜誌十大最成功的大學輟學生』，但是時代雜誌的Top 10 College Dropouts 文中並沒有這一段演講摘要，不過這十一點的原文Some rules kids won't learn in school可在網路上找到（感謝谷歌），事實上這不是比爾蓋茨說的，而是 Dumbing Down Our Kids 一書作者 Charles J. Sykes 於1996年9月19日發表在 San Diego Union-Tribune 上 op-ed 專欄的短文。根據 About.com，原文共有十四點，不是十一點：

• Rule No. 1: Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teen-ager uses the phrase, "It's not fair" 8.6 times a day. You got it from your parents, who said it so often you decided they must be the most idealistic generation ever. When they started hearing it from their own kids, they realized Rule No. 1.
• Rule No. 2: The real world won't care as much about your self-esteem as much as your school does. It'll expect you to accomplish something before you feel good about yourself. This may come as a shock. Usually, when inflated self-esteem meets reality, kids complain it's not fair. (See Rule No. 1)
• Rule No. 3: Sorry, you won't make $40,000 a year right out of high school.
• And you won't be a vice president or have a car phone either. You may even have to wear a uniform that doesn't have a Gap label.
• Rule No. 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait 'til you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure, so he tends to be a bit edgier. When you screw up, he's not going to ask you how you feel about it.
• Rule No. 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grand-parents had a different word of burger flipping. They called it opportunity. They weren't embarrassed making minimum wage either. They would have been embarrassed to sit around talking about Kurt Cobain all weekend.
• Rule No. 6: It's not your parents' fault. If you screw up, you are responsible. This is the flip side of "It's my life," and "You're not the boss of me," and other eloquent proclamations of your generation. When you turn 18, it's on your dime. Don't whine about it, or you'll sound like a baby boomer.
• Rule No. 7: Before you were born your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning up your room and listening to you tell them how idealistic you are. And by the way, before you save the rain forest from the blood-sucking parasites of your parents' generation, try delousing the closet in your bedroom.
• Rule No. 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers. Life hasn't. In some schools, they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. Failing grades have been abolished and class valedictorians scrapped, lest anyone's feelings be hurt. Effort is as important as results. This, of course, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life. (See Rule No. 1, Rule No. 2 and Rule No. 4)
• Rule No. 9: Life is not divided into semesters, and you don't get summers off. Not even Easter break. They expect you to show up every day. For eight hours. And you don't get a new life every 10 weeks. It just goes on and on. While we're at it, very few jobs are interesting in fostering your self-expression or helping you find yourself. Fewer still lead to self-realization. (See Rule No. 1 and Rule No. 2.)
• Rule No. 10: Television is not real life. Your life is not a sitcom. Your problems will not all be solved in 30 minutes, minus time for commercials. In real life, people actually have to leave the coffee shop to go to jobs. Your friends will not be as perky or pliable as Jennifer Aniston.
• Rule No. 11: Be nice to nerds. You may end up working for them. We all could.
• Rule No. 12: Smoking does not make you look cool. It makes you look moronic. Next time you're out cruising, watch an 11-year-old with a butt in his mouth. That's what you look like to anyone over 20. Ditto for "expressing yourself" with purple hair and/or pierced body parts.
• Rule No. 13: You are not immortal. (See Rule No. 12.) If you are under the impression that living fast, dying young and leaving a beautiful corpse is romantic, you obviously haven't seen one of your peers at room temperature lately.
• Rule No. 14: Enjoy this while you can. Sure parents are a pain, school's a bother, and life is depressing. But someday you'll realize how wonderful it was to be a kid. Maybe you should start now.

對於已經過了 n 個 25 歲生日的你（妳），抽煙還是禁果之類的忠告早就失去失效（expired）了。但每吹熄一次生日蛋糕上的蠟燭，你（妳）益發明白生活是不公平的，實在太XD有道理了。不幸地，對於這點，唯一的對策就是習慣它吧！

昨日之日不可留

今天下午，終於決定回到業界公司任職，下個月初上任報到。新單位的總經理本為舊識，在他的辦公室裡面「氣氛良好」的聊了十分鐘後，我們爽快的達成共識，人資專員效率驚人，五分鐘後把熱騰騰的 offer letter 送進辦公室，兩人當場完成一式兩份文件的簽字手續。

距離通過博士論文口試（dissertation defence）將滿三個月，過去九十天，時而興奮時而惶惑，心神始終在不知所謂的狀態下，白天半睡半醒的在網際網路上閑逛，晚間邊啜着烈酒邊改寫十年來從沒更動過的簡歷和自傳。拿到證書那天，發現這個學年度，我有資格投寄簡歷的學術單位，竟然只有兩個。因為決定「衝關」的時間太晚，註定趕不上這個學年度的人事作業，雖然對於大環境的不利早有心裡準備，但要真正直面關閉的「大門」，心內怎能不惻然。

考慮個把月，和老朋友聊聊後，還是回到產業界，這回因為有「學位傍身」，新的定位是產品研發部門的主管。不再像以前需要那麼頻繁的「拋頭露面」或是要打理公司的 daily operation。但是我很明白，新的角色在半年到一年內，不太需要我過去五年在校園所學，主要仰賴的還是我的管理和協調的經驗；如果一切順利，我才能在  R&D 的這個 R 字上有所著墨。面對這樣的結果，除了點一首 C'est La Vie 給自己，還能說什麼呢？

新單位開發的產品有二，一是資料庫（數據庫）性能調校，第二個也是未來幾年的重點則是資料庫稽核（ Database Activity Monitoring , DAM），兩者和我熱愛的 cyber culture 、recommender 距離都有點遠。未來幾個星期，要努力的掃蕩各相關業者的白皮書和市場報告，網際網路的議題是要暫且放下一段時間了。 Data Mining 在 DAM 領域還是有些「文章」可做的，如果我能撐到把新單位的 R&D 兩個面向都做出點成績，那時或許可以整理點東西出來吧。

總覺得說什麼「告一段落」或是「展望未來」都是廢話，這時心裡翻來覆去的只有一句：昨日之日不可留....

情人節

技術團隊的主管角色定位

朋友力邀我對他公司的研發部門的管理制度提供意見，但我覺得沒有充分理解之前指手劃腳是件很危險的事情，所以只答應大家一起坐下來先聊一聊。在溝通的過程中，我覺得在過去幾年，這團隊已經摸索和磨合出一套團隊的運作機制，運轉的還不錯，只是熱愛技術的團隊缺少一點歸納整理 daily practice ，進而再優化的意識，我覺得這不是太嚴重的問題。

在聊天中，我感受到技術主管對於技術的熱情和期望擺脫管理細節的熱切，不禁想起前陣子看過的一篇文章 Want to Know the Differences Between a CTO and a VP Engineering，作者 Mark Suster 用管理流程和技術能力兩個維度，把技術團隊的所需的管理角色，定位在不同的象限裡（見下圖）。管理這回事，沒有「絕對」 的標準答案，必須依照關鍵人物的專長、優缺點做調整，Mark Suster 建議的 Team Matrix 可以作為參照和思考的輔助。 。

-------
延伸閱讀：

• Want to Know the Differences Between a CTO and a VP Engineering
• CTO .vs. VP Engineering
• CTO vs. VP Engineering (another take)
• The Different CTO Roles
• CTO/VP Engineering – What's the Difference?   

More is less?

選擇是人生中最艱難的挑戰，我們永遠也不知道如何在各種情境做正確的選擇，依照 Murphy's Law，不管你選擇在那個服務窗口排隊，你選擇的隊伍一定最長最慢；當你擁有眾多的選項可以選擇，事情變的更為麻煩，所謂「亂花漸欲迷人眼」，因為選擇太多，不知道要選哪個才好。

心理學家 Mark Lepper 及 Sheena Iyengar 曾經針對這種現象做了一個有名實驗，這幾位心理學家在加州的一個超級市場裡設置了果醬試吃攤位，參與試吃的消費者分成兩組，一組提供 6 種口味，另一組則提供24種口味，試吃的消費者可以得到購買果醬的折價券。研究人員發現，試吃6種口味的消費者，購買果醬的總消費金額遠遠超過試吃24種口味的消費者。這兩位學者將實驗結果整理後撰寫論文 When the choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? ，於章於2000年發表在美國心理學會期刊 Journal of personality and social psychology 。

Barry Schwartz 用禪味十足簡潔有力的「多即是少（More Is Less）總結這種情形，他在《The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less》引用上述實驗，作為多即是少的強力佐證。事實上，在現實生活中，因為太多選擇而無所適從，甚至因而做了錯誤決策的Analysis Paralysis 情形更是俯拾皆是。

但是也有人對這個已經被許多人深信的「偈語」提出挑戰，Tim Harford 去年底在 Financial Times 上發表的 Given the choice, how much choice would you like? 和 AAAS  EruekALert! 服務刊出的新聞 Too many choices? New study says more is usually better，都提到學者Benjamin Scheibehenne、Peter Todd 和 Rainer Greifeneder 所做的研究 - Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta‐Analytic Review of Choice Overload。

Tim Harford 在報導中說：Scheibehenne 做了十個實驗，實驗結果顯示，更多選擇並沒有對受測者造成困擾。甚至研究者還預言，如果進一步探討，答案應該是沒有影響 。

After designing 10 different experiments in which participants were asked to make a choice, and finding very little evidence that variety caused any problems, Scheibehenne and his colleagues tried to assemble all the studies, published and unpublished, of the effect.  The average of all these studies suggests that offering lots of extra choices seems to make no important difference either way.

究竟 More is Less 有沒有道理呢，這還真是個有趣的問題呢！

笑容

[Infographic] The flowchart to happiness

via swiss-miss.com

Posted via email from imrchen's posterous

結束

統計是科幻？

在編輯 anobii 書庫上的資料時，發現有人把「統計，讓數字說話!」這本書分類為「科幻與奇幻」，嘿嘿，這又是看圖不說話的一個好例子。

EQ 何解？

在推特的時間線上看到一句話：「聰明的女人，在知道自己的錯誤後，會原諒自己的丈夫！」，看到這句話的當下，忍不住想嚎啕大哭。見好就收，明白進退，在今日是多麼難得的美德，這是何等令人神往的 EQ。套用一句我從大陸同胞那兒學來的說法，看到這推就忍不住內牛滿面啊。

我沒出息的「內牛滿面」被妻知悉，只換得默然和冷臉。對於被寵壞的，不知 EQ 為何物的人們，這句話不啻是挑戰一言堂的另一種說法吧。

[Video] Weird, or just different?

fcamel在他的部落格裡介紹了一個 CD Baby 創辦人Derek Sivers 的演說:"Weird, or just different?"，內容很有趣，短短兩分多鐘，主旨就是：縱然你有很好的理由相信你自己是對的，但千萬要記住，與你相反的意見也可能是對的 （Whatever brilliant ideas you have or hear, the opposite may also be true.）。

[看圖不說話] 如果這是歷史

我知道全世界（好吧，說全世界有點誇張，資訊界的某些人）都在辯論 Facebook 會不會比 1984 裡面的老大哥還可怕，而信奉水果教的信徒們，則在擔心為了要看色情影片 的而背叛教主 Steve Jobs 的隱私會不會被人揭露。像我這種只關心小我得失，一點都沒有身為地球公民的覺悟的角色，實在是太自私了，我的想法是：管他的，活到這把年紀，自私一點又何妨！？

See Also:

• 改論文的心情
• AAUGH

誰來教我 (II)

SEO by the SEA 的 Bill Slawski 一口氣列出 14 種寫作部落格文章的破題手法，你最常用的是那一種（幾種）？  （看到 Bill Slawski 的分析，突然想到兩年半前的舊文：誰來教我 寫博文）

• a. Using a journalistic inverted pyramid style, where you begin your post with the most important text first, answering typical journalist questions such as ‘who,’ ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘how’? paragraph.
• b. With a story or anecdote or case study that might capture visitors’ attentions rather than first providing the central fact or opinion behind your post.
• c. With a statistic that might surprise or generate responses or both.
• d. In a question and answer format, where you provide a set of questions and their answers, possibly starting with what you might consider to be the most important question and answer.
• e. Following a narrative or timeline, where you begin at the beginning and work forward in time.
• f. In a conventional essay style like you might have learned at school, where you build a foundation for an idea or set of concepts and then show the conclusion.
• g. By referring to someone elses’ blog post or article or a news story, and stating that you agree with some of it, all of it, or none of it, and then explaining why.
• h. Asking your reader to imagine some hypothetical situation, or asking them to call up some memory.
• i. With a straightout question, meaningful or even rhetorical, possibly in a ploy to generate comments and discussion.
• j. Addressing a specific person, and writing to them.
• k. By disclosing something about yourself that your readers may not have known.
• l. With a definition that describes a concept that is central to your post.
• m. With a picture or illustration that highlights some aspect about what you want to blog about.
• n. By laying some foundation for your expertise on a subject based upon your previous experiences or education or both?

誰還記得 TSR

最近蘋果陣營裡面除了 iPad 首賣之外，另外一個同樣受人矚目的消息就是蘋果透露 iPhone OS 4.0 將要推出的新功能了。iPhone OS 4.0 將要支持多工（multitaksing）是蘋果宣布的消息裡面，很受人矚目與議論的項目，在眾媒體與評論家的回饋反應中，我最欣賞 Geek and Poke 的 Finally Apple Has Discovered TSR ！

Geek and Poke 說的妙，今夕何夕？ TSR，好遙遠卻又能激發我熱血的字眼，從大學畢業之後，我的第一份工作的第一個項目，就是用 Turbo C 開發一個 TSR 呢！！！

Really? WOW!

企業主管最不爽 IT 的八件事

一位專注於讓企業主管理解資訊科技價值的企管顧問 Susan Cramm 根據她甫出版的新書，整理出一份簡報：企業主管最不爽 IT 的八件事。這份清單最早曾經在 Harvard Business Review 部落格發表過，第一版 的文字有點拗口，經過沉澱後，書裡面清單的第二版淺白易懂多了。

不管這份清單有多長，八點也罷，十點也好，我試着把企業主管們的怨念翻譯成白話如後：IT 總是不說些正常人能聽懂的話，沒人知道他們在幹啥，這幫技客只顧着想方防設法從公司口袋裡挖錢買些昂貴無用的“玩具”，根本不在乎公司需要；更可惱的是，花了錢卻沒有把事情辦好。

Susan Cramm 的第一版和第二版清單摘要條列於下，有興趣的讀者請點擊連結讀詳細文字說明，不過我想上面的白話說明，已經足夠了。

第一版

• IT Limits Managers' Authority
• They're Missing Adult Supervision
• They're Financial Extortionists
• Their Projects Never End
• The Help Desk is Helpless
• They Let Outsourcers Run Amok
• IT is Stocked with Out-of-Date Geeks
• IT Never Has Good News

第二版

• IT Limits Managers' Authority
• Consists of condescending techies who don't listen
• Doesn't understand the true needs of the business
• Proposes "deluxe" when "good enough" will d do
• IT projects never end
• Is reactive rather than proactive
• Don't support innovation
• IT never has good news