主题：104 
2006/08/21
固步自封
人都是偏见得，包括对自己和他人以及环境的看法。不可固步自封。何必独行。不要独行。亦不能独行！
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-08-21 17:06 阅读( 460) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/06/02
张朝阳－－看问题的时间尺度
没错，看问题需要时间尺度，当然还有其他诸如空间的尺度。所以要放眼量。
文化的传承需要代代相传，孤立的讨论能得出的结论当然也会是孤立的结论。动辄中国人，外国人的讨论失去时间尺度有何意义。可以说五四以后的中国人彻底失去自信，失去了方向。传统多么希望被踩在脚下，彻底扔掉。全盘西化。汉字要拉丁话，如薛勇类人所说，第二天醒来全民都说英语。MY God！不知当法语流行的时候，英国人是否第二天醒来时全部说法语。中文简化字割断了新中国的中国人从文字中继承传统的纽带。可能更多的人是尤恐避之不及。之乎者也。变成了腐朽的古董。正体字保留的地方没见得因为为可怕得文字阻碍了经济的发展。倒是普及了简化字教育的很多人在网上粗俗不堪。简化字就只是叫人识字？！老天那！
那些愿意启蒙别人的人。你是否是那个能造一块自己都举不起来的万能的上帝？！
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-06-02 08:09 阅读( 538) 评论( 1) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/05/27
Professor who escaped life of drudgery wins Asian award
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-05-27 17:07 阅读( 395) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/05/08
中国拿什么震撼世界？
中国拿什么震撼世界？
中国人民大学企业改制研究所秘书长李寿双
2006年5月8日 星期一
英国《金融时报》前驻北京首席记者金奇，今年出版了他的新书《中国震撼世界：饥饿之国的崛起》(China Shakes the World: the Rise of a Hungry Nation）。这是继《One Billion Customers》之后的，又一本关于中国的畅销书。
中国热已经成为不争的事实，英国《金融时报》中文网登载了一篇“英美证交所争相吸引亚洲企业”的文章，提到美国证监会(SEC)主席克里斯托弗·考克斯(Christopher Cox)和香港证监会主席韦奕礼(Martin Wheatley)的口舌战。而口舌战的背后是利益战，中国建设银行(China Construction Bank)决定在香港进行规模高达92亿美元的IPO，想必让考克斯“很生气”。
时间进入21世纪，中国人突然发现，上个世纪倍受列强凌辱的老大帝国，成了各国竞相“拉拢”的香饽饽。不少人在惊呼“中国世纪”来临了。中国的魔力到底在哪里呢？中国拿什么来震撼世界？
在讨论这个问题之前，我们先来看看俄罗斯。欧洲很大一部分能源供应都依赖俄罗斯，直到现在，欧洲各国还一直在争相获得俄罗斯的天然气供应，这使它们任由俄罗斯摆布。俄罗斯处于主导地位：天然气供应中断会立即令欧洲经济陷入混乱，欧盟对俄罗斯及其邻国的态度和政策，受到了能源依赖的重大影响。前苏联解体后，俄罗斯的国力大衰，但上天的眷顾，使得俄罗斯可以凭借天然气的“天然”优势，震撼欧洲，震撼世界，天然气成为普京的杀手锏。
但中国又能凭借什么呢？美国《基督教科学箴言报》曾刊登一篇题为《没有“中国制造”的一年》的文章，该文指出：美国一位家庭主妇想进行一次尝试，在一年中坚持不买中国商品，看看生活将会怎样。结果她失败了，经过一年没有中国商品的日子后，她得出的结论是：“没有中国商品的生活一团糟”。消息传到国内，舆论大喜，《人民日报》登载了徐步青先生的文章，得意之情溢于言表。言语之中，似乎中国的商品供应可以左右得了整个地球。但是，这种非原材料的初级商品供应优势，系基于劳动力廉价，以及制度性补贴（如税收、土地等）形成的，而这一切并不具有天然气和石油那样的不可替代性。亚洲其他国家，如印度、越南，劳动力价格越来越低于中国，而且可以提供比中国更优惠的投资条件，形成冲向底部（run to bottom）的竞争。在这种竞争中，中国的供应优势可能越来越不明显。或者说，这种低端产品的供应，本来就构不成震撼世界的优势。
中国的优势实际不在供应，而在需求。当年提出而今倍受指责的“市场换技术”战略基于的正是这种需求优势。《One Billion Customers》一书详细讲述了当年波音和麦道两大航空公司的兴衰，而麦道衰，波音兴，一个很重要的影响力量就是中国政府的采购。到1989年底，中国总共向波音公司购买了10架707，34架737，33架757，10架767和3架747，而同时期，麦道仅在上海生产了大约12架麦道82型飞机。中国的采购，在麦道最终被波音收购的命运转折中，扮演了重要角色。中国巨大的采购力量，完全可以改变跨国公司之间的竞争格局，影响经济力量对比，进而影响外国政府的对外决策。换句话说，正是这种“决定让谁赚钱”的力量，成为中国震撼世界的砝码。
但是，这种力量的背后，却是中国以廉价的低端产品和原材料，交易国外的技术密集型高端产品，存在巨大的贸易结构不平衡。形成贫穷的中国补贴富裕的发达国家，却被发达国家责怪输出通货紧缩的尴尬局面。在此背景下，吴敬链先生提出了发展战略转型，中国的十一五规划，也打算改变这种粗放型的发展思路，摈弃市场换技术的幻想式方略，改为提倡自主创新，提高竞争实力。中国的战略转型，势必造成两方面影响，一方面，低端产品供应能力的削弱，另一方面，市场开放度有可能会逐步走低。这样以来，导致上面提到的供应优势和采购优势的全面下调，中国还能否继续震撼世界呢？
讨论至此，似乎形成一个悖论，中国采取自主创新战略，反而削弱了影响世界的能力。这一结论在短期看，是正确的。在长期看，则是错误的。中国目前震撼世界的力量，是以牺牲长期发展的能力为代价的，不具有可持续性。而新的发展战略，则注重内在竞争力的提高，如果实施见效，则能在贸易对等的基础上，展现自身的影响力，是可持续的发展方向。但战略转型，将会使中国面临一个“回调”过程，短期内出现外资等的下降，经济表现不再那么好看，但长期则能从根本上提高中国的经济实力和国际地位。
但现在的面临的最大问题是，长期依赖于经济高速发展所隐藏的社会问题，是否会在“回调”过程中爆发出来，导致回调战略的失败？如何协调经济发展与各种社会问题，是一大难题。这也正是胡温政府提出“建设和谐社会”的深意。
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-05-08 15:31 阅读( 281) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/04/28
www.savetheinternet.com
今天美国发生的是就是明天我们要发生的.或许已经发生!?要拯救INTERNET,在这能用这法子吗?
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-04-28 17:19 阅读( 332) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/04/27
人也不是理性的动物
援引自新语丝
朝三暮四。不都是算不开这七个数嘛，人在决策的时候受太多的其他因素影响。理性只是模型。
人也不是理性的动物
·方舟子·
这是一则在中国妇孺皆知的寓言：一个养猴子的人拿橡子喂猴子，对猴子们说：
“早上给三个，晚上给四个。”猴子们都很不高兴。于是他又改口说：“那就改成
早上给四个，晚上给三个。”猴子们就全都高兴了。“朝三暮四”后来讹变成了反
复无常的意思，但是庄子讲这个寓言的本意，却是为了说明虽然事物的本质一样，
但是在形式上改一下，就会影响到人的喜怒（“名实未亏而喜怒为用”）。
的确，许多人在做决定的时候，和这则寓言中的猴子并无多大的区别。心理学
家曾经做过这么个问卷调查。假定你决定去看一场演出，门票一张十块钱。到了剧
院后，你发现你丢了十块钱。如果你口袋里还有钱，你是否还愿意花十块钱买票看
演出？心理学家问了180多人，88％的人都说愿意。
现在把问题改一下。假定你已经花了十块钱买了门票，在进场之前发现票丢了，
你必须再买一张票才能进去。你是否愿意再花十块钱买票进去看演出？心理学家问
了200人，只有46％的人说愿意。
在这两种情形中，后果实际上都是一样的：你为了看这场演出，多付出了十块
钱。但是由于发生的经过不同，人们就像“朝三暮四”中的猴子，做出了不同的反
应。在第一种情形中，丢掉的钱和票的价钱似乎是无关的两件事，丢了十块钱并
没有影响到人们的买票决定。但是在第二种情形中，丢掉的票的价钱和补票的价钱
看上去是联系在一起的，人们会觉得花两倍的钱买一张票比较亏。
对同一个问题用不同的方式看待它，就会给出不同的答案。这表明我们在做决
定时，并非总是理性思考的结果，而深受感情因素的影响。这在人们做出经济方面
的决定时，表现得非常明显。有一门称作行为经济学的学科试图回答这么个问题：
为什么人们并非总是理性地做出经济决定？行为经济学家在做研究时，借鉴了心理
学的方法，现在他们也开始与神经生物学家合作，看看大脑中的哪个特殊区域会影
响到经济决定。
在一个实验中，有两组人做同一个简单的投资游戏，一组是正常人，另一组人
的大脑中控制感情的区域因为中风等原因受到了伤害，使他们无法体会恐惧、焦虑
等情感，但是他们大脑中控制逻辑推理的区域仍保持完好。这个简单的投资游戏是
这么做的：每个人分到20元钱，用抛硬币赌输赢的方式赌20次，每一次如果赌赢，
赢得2.5元，赌输了则输1元钱；每一次也可以弃权，不输不赢。
很显然，理性的做法应该是每次都赌，而不应该弃权，因为每次输赢的概率相
等，而赢的回报却高于输的损失，对玩家有利。这个简单的道理人人明白，但是在
实际操作中，玩家对是否要下赌却很受前面输赢结果的影响，会因为害怕输而一再
弃权。实验的结果是，正常人下赌的次数只有58％，而大脑受损的人下赌的次数
却高达84％。由于不会感到害怕，大脑受损的人在这个投资游戏中的收入因此超过
了正常人，在游戏结束时，他们每人平均获得25.7元，而正常人平均只获得22.8元。
行为经济学家因此认为，杰出的投资者之所以能大获成功，可能就是因为他们
在投资时很善于控制自己的感情，在某种程度上很像这些无法体验恐惧的患者。但
是参加这个投资游戏的患者在实际投资活动中并不怎么成功。在实际生活中，他们
中有四分三的人曾经破产。由于不会感到害怕，他们会采取过分冒险的举动，或者
被别人所利用。
如此看来，即使是像恐惧这样的感情因素也并非总是坏事。恐惧其实是动物保
护自己的一种机制。在一个充满危险的世界中，并非什么结果都是可以做出合理的
预测的，知道害怕的动物会有更多的生存机会。但是在一个比较安全的环境中，这
个保护机制有时候又会反应过度，使人们过分小心谨慎而做出错误的决定。我们所
处的现代社会与石器时代的祖先所处的危险重重的世界大不相同，本不必时刻提心
吊胆，但是我们的生理、心理结构和我们的祖先并无二致，无法摆脱感性因素的影
响。在不知不觉中，我们还是会经常做出非理性的决定。
2006.4.24.
（中国青年报2006.4.26.）
(XYS20060426)
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-04-27 09:54 阅读( 339) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/04/25
The Great Microsoft Blunder
援引
如果微软放弃捆绑IE,对微软或许是好事,但OPERA,和FIREFOX也会被订上,有IE在前面顶着.未尝不是件幸事.
By John C. Dvorak
I think it can now be safely said, in hindsight, that Microsoft's entry into the browser business and its subsequent linking of the browser into the Windows operating system looks to be the worst decision—and perhaps the biggest, most costly gaffe—the company ever made. I call it the Great Microsoft Blunder.
It looks like a whopper that keeps whacking the company. The most recent bash came from the Eolas v. Microsoft patent suit over aspects of the ActiveX usage in Internet Explorer. Microsoft lost and was slapped with a $521 million settlement.
If the problem is not weird legal cases against the company, then it's the incredible losses in productivity at the company from the never-ending battle against spyware, viruses, and other security problems. All the work that has to go into keeping the browser afloat is time that could have been better spent on making Vista work as first advertised.
All of Microsoft's Internet-era public-relations and legal problems (in some way or another) stem from Internet Explorer. If you were to put together a comprehensive profit-and-loss statement for IE, there would be a zero in the profits column and billions in the losses column—billions.
The joke of it is that Microsoft is still working on this dead albatross and is apparently ready to roll out a new version, since most of the smart money has been fleeing to Firefox or Opera. This means new rounds of patches and lost money.
This fiasco and the great Microsoft Blunder began when Marc Andreessen, then of Netscape, made some silly, off-handed remark about how the browser would become the next platform for applications and suggested, in so many words, that Microsoft would be destroyed. Instead of the boys at Microsoft laughing out loud and then ignoring this remark, they started scrambling around like ants on a hot stove.
The next thing you know, Microsoft went Internet slaphappy. Besides cobbling together a browser from any code it could license, it rolled out all sorts of Internet magazines and various Internet-centric ideas to the point where it was obvious to anyone watching that the company itself was believing all the hype coming from outside.
The main piece of propaganda among the Internet-centric ideas was that the personal computer is dead. "There'll be no computers in a few short years, as everything will be embedded and become appliances," said all the experts.
This appliance malarkey comes and goes, but always goes. We still have computers, we still need operating systems, and we still need Microsoft Office. Yes, there are alternatives to everything, but the gold standards for all these basics make most of the money, no matter what anyone idealizes to the contrary.
But Microsoft buys the fear. It must have some of the lowest corporate self-esteem for any dominant company in the history of modern business. The company is like the panicky old woman wondering how she lost a penny in her purse while giving exact change in the express line at the grocery store. Hey lady, you are holding things up!
So what can Microsoft do about its dilemma? First, it needs to face the fact that this entire preoccupation with the browser business is bad for the company and bad for the user. Microsoft should pull the browser out of the OS and discontinue all IE development immediately. It should then bless the Mozilla.org folks with a cash endowment and take an investment stake in Opera, to influence the future direction of browser technology from the outside in. Then, Microsoft can worry about security issues that are OS-only in nature, rather than problems compounded by Internet Explorer.
Of this I can assure you. People will not stop buying Microsoft Windows if there is no built-in browser. Opera and/or Firefox can be bundled with the OS as a courtesy, and all the defaults can lead to Microsoft.com if need be.
Of course we already know that this will never happen, since Microsoft is a creature of habit. So it will forever be plagued by its greatest blunder ever. Have fun, boys.
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-04-25 22:07 阅读( 277) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/04/04
Every Click You Make, They'll Be Watching You
信息过载，如何应对，商业利益如何处理．保证能否保证？！
援引地址
E-Commerce Report
Every Click You Make, They'll Be Watching You
By BOB TEDESCHI
Published: April 3, 2006
WOULD you trust a company enough to let it follow your every click online?
Claria, a company once vilified for raining pop-up advertisements across the Internet through its Gator software, is betting its business that the answer is yes. Claria said it would announce Monday the release of PersonalWeb, a service that will let people download a piece of tracking software and receive a home page filled with news stories and other information tailored to their interests.
If a man, for example, downloaded the software and surfed through stories about the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament and car reviews, his PersonalWeb home page would reflect those interests the next time he clicked to it. In addition to showing newer headlines about cars and college basketball, the page might also feature ads from car companies or for jerseys from the man's favorite team.
Claria says that because those ads are so closely aligned to the user's interests and recent behavior, marketers will be willing to pay more than they might on other sites for the ability to reach PersonalWeb users.
That part of Claria's plan is convincing enough for some analysts, and privacy advocates appear satisfied that Claria will stand by its pledge to track only the computer (whose owner it does not identify), not the personal information of the user. Whether many consumers will use the service anyway — and give marketers an audience worth pursuing — is the big question.
"I'm not convinced that consumers will place enough of a value on personalization that they'll be willing to download a piece of software and change their home page just to try it," said Kenneth Cassar, an analyst with Nielsen/NetRatings, an Internet consultancy. "And it remains to be seen whether Claria's personalization will yield something that much better than the typical home page of today."
Mr. Cassar said that very few people even changed the default home page that came installed with their browser, and relatively few people created personalized home pages on services like Yahoo, MSN and Google. According to ComScore MediaMetrix, another online consulting firm, 14 percent of Yahoo's 27 million visitors in February had a customized home page, and Yahoo's service was by far the most popular of its kind.
The chief executive of Claria, Scott VanDeVelde, argues that because PersonalWeb requires little work and delivers more relevant information than, say, MyYahoo, it should enjoy an advantage over competing services. "The ideal home page is one that always changes with your interests," Mr. VanDeVelde said. "And over time, this gets even smarter about serving you content you're interested in."
PersonalWeb's technology gathers information about all the users on the service, then ranks the pages they read according to how many other people visit those pages and how long they stay, among other things; people can suspend the tracking. Then, when someone surfs or searches for a specific category of information, Claria will identify relevant pages that the user didn't find, and post them on a PersonalWeb home page.
People can seed their home pages by choosing from a list of topics much the same way they might choose from suggestions when they customize their Yahoo home page, for instance. PersonalWeb includes about 600 such topics, from taxidermy to coin collecting.
Those who are not interested in customizing their page can simply wait until the service knows enough about them to serve up similar suggestions. How long they will have to wait is partly a function of how many other users with similar interests join in, since Claria must track people with similar interests before it can make good suggestions.
Mr. VanDeVelde said the company, based in Redwood City, Calif., would advertise the service online starting this month and would also market the service to other online publishers, which could offer it to their readers. For instance, he said, a city-oriented newspaper might let its readers create a home page largely made up of the paper's stories, but let PersonalWeb present other stories on topics outside of the paper's specialty.
Readers would visit the newspaper's Web site more often as a result, Mr. VanDeVelde predicted, thereby generating more advertising for Claria and the publisher to share. So far, Claria has signed no such agreements with United States publishers, but it has set up a joint venture with Yahoo Japan to possibly implement the technology there.
Claria's shift to the PersonalWeb platform culminates a transition that has been several years in the making, starting in 1999, when Claria, then called the Gator Corporation, helped spawn the pop-up advertising trend online. Gator's service tracked people's behavior then displayed pop-up ads for, say, Priceline.com when they visited Expedia.
Gator bundled its eWallet software with other free applications like Kazaa, the music-sharing software, then shared the ad revenues. Privacy advocates complained that Gator didn't clearly tell consumers they were installing tracking and pop-up software or give them and easy way to delete it. The company changed its name to get rid of the Gator stigma, among other reasons.
Companies on whose Web sites the ads appeared, including The New York Times, among many others, sued Gator for copyright and trademark infringement. The cases settled out of court, but even as Claria changed its practices to suit privacy advocates — and built a business that generated $100 million in advertising in 2004 — it could not shake its reputation as an Internet bully.
Last year, when its planned initial public offering failed, the company, still private, put its resources behind PersonalWeb. Online privacy advocates acknowledge that PersonalWeb bears little resemblance to the business that infuriated publishers and users in the past, but they continue to balk at the idea of tracking consumers in any way.
"Claria's likely to make a lot of people uneasy when they realize how much of their personal life is exposed through their Web surfing," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group.
While other companies are stopping short of asking consumers to expose their complete surfing habits, they are considerably more interested in personalizing their sites for consumers than they were a few years ago, said Michael Strickman, chief technology officer of ChoiceStream, which helps companies like Yahoo, America Online and others personalize the products or content they show to consumers.
"Compared to a couple of years ago, we're doing a lot more taking of phone calls than banging on doors," Mr. Strickman said.
Part of the reason is that the technology is more refined than it was during the dot-com boom, when online personalization was more theory than reality. Still, Mr. Strickman said, the technology has limits.
"Getting things right is not easy," he said. "When you're showing an ad, it doesn't really matter if you get it wrong. But if you're saying, 'this is a list of things I recommend,' you'd better make sure there's nothing glaringly off, or the user will tune you out."
另外，Claria Blog援引这样说,没错＂online information overload is a tough problem to solve ,＂
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-04-04 10:26 阅读( 262) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/03/04
PCs not dull, admits Apple UK
字眼有意思
from
Apple UK doesn't believe PCs are as naff as its Stateside parent company does. Don't believe us? Just take a look at the company's TV adverts for Intel-based Macs. In the original, US-oriented ad, Apple takes a dig at "dull" PCs, but in the version cleared for UK audiences the d-word is peculiarly absent.
Compare and contrast. First, the US advert, premiered by CEO Steve Jobs at Macworld Expo in January this year:
"The Intel chip. For years it's been trapped inside PCs, inside dull little boxes, dutifully performing dull little tasks, when it could have been doing so much more. Stating today, the Intel chip will be set free and get to live life inside a Mac."
You can view the US ad here. And here's the UK voice-over:
"The Intel chip. For years it's only been inside PCs, dutifully doing all the things PCs were built to do. Stating today, the Intel chip will be set free and also get to do all the things Macs were built to do."
So where's the reference to 'dull' gone? Does the word not apply to PCs running in Blighty? Can it be they're not boring here, even though they (apparently) are in the US?
So why take a more cautious approach in the UK? Well, in the past, Apple's ads have run into trouble with Britain's advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Most famously, it banned a version of the Mac maker's Power Mac G5 television ad, which it deemed to be "misleading" in its claim that said desktop was "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer". A number of AMD fans didn't think so at the time, and the ASA agreed.
Or maybe we should turn to Intel. Its bosses were rumoured to be livid after Apple aired the US version of the ad - was it considered diplomatic to be less disrespectful when the advert was taken across the Atlantic? ®
Thanks to Reg Hardware reader Roger for the tip.
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-03-04 13:31 阅读( 479) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
2006/03/02
AMD's lawyers call on Skype
竞争只求结果，不论手法，龌龊？no from
As part of its ongoing antitrust case against Intel, Advanced Micro Devices on Tuesday served Skype with a subpoena demanding documents related to its deal to make one feature in Skype 2.0 available exclusively to Intel users.
The legal filing joins a long list of subpoenas AMD has filed in search of evidence that Intel has used its dominant market share of x86 PC and server processors to prevent AMD from winning business with certain partners. Intel has denied those accusations, and the companies are preparing for an antitrust trial that promises to reveal loads of details about the inner workings of the PC industry.
AMD is now focusing on a feature in Skype 2.0 that enables the ability to make 10-person conference calls only with Intel dual-core processors. Users with AMD dual-core chips or single-core chips are restricted to hosting five-person conference calls because only Intel's chips offer the performance necessary to host the 10-way call, according to Skype.
AMD disagrees. It believes Intel has provided Skype with incentives to limit the feature to Intel's chips, said Chuck Diamond, a partner with O'Melveny & Myers and lead counsel in AMD's antitrust suit against Intel. Intel has denied doing so, but even if no financial incentives were included in the deal, as a company with dominant market share, Intel is subject to different rules, he said.
"The law requires a monopolist to compete on the merits. This is not competition on the merits," Diamond said.
A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips. He also said that Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that function detects an Intel dual-core processor on start-up.
A Skype representative had no immediate comment on the subpoena. An Intel representative declined to comment.
freemanwqa 发表于 2006-03-02 15:41 阅读( 452) 评论( 0) 引用( 0) 胡言乱语
