PDF Search Engine
http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/

Ebook Search Engine
http://www.ebook-search-engine.com/

Search PDF eBook
http://search-pdf-books.com/

PDF geni.com
http://www.pdfgeni.com/

Rapid4Me
http://pdf.rapid4me.com/

不過最近快要離開學校了，
該搬的東西都得搬一搬，
就在想要把這個blog搬到哪去，
第一個念頭是乾脆轉到blogspot去，這樣後端不用自己管理，也蠻方便的。

於是找到下面這個網站，
http://wordpress2blogger.appspot.com/

只要先把wordpress從dashboard export出來成xml檔，
再把export的xml檔上傳至上面那個網站，
它會自動幫轉成blogspot格式的xml檔，並下載至本地端。
接著再把blogspot格式的xml檔import至blogspot就大功告成了。
不用花到五分鐘。

大部分的資料都轉的還不錯，
post, comment, tag，category轉過去都大致正確。
只是tag跟category會結合成一類。
private的文章會變成publish。

比較麻煩的是，很多post排版都亂了。
我有四百多篇post，整理起來會起笑~
 

　　In the beginning of the book, Buchanan said that when people think about physics, they think about quantum theory, Newton’s three laws of motion, Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity, black holes and so on. However, physics has moved a way beyond that. Modern physics has also branched out into another topic of interest. Not only did physicists concern with the fundamental equations, but they were keen to know how organization can emerge by itself. For example, they studied why the same water molecules can turn to solid when they are put into the freezer, and why they can change into vapor when boiled. Another question physicist was inquisitive to understand is why the same carbon atoms make up both diamond and graphite. In short, the answer of above questions is that a new and totally different material can emerge just by putting the same atoms together in a different pattern. In other words, the vital key for us to understand is the pattern of self-organization but not atoms themselves. From the same point of view, Buchanan claims that social science is like physics, pattern matters more than individual. And the complex social outcomes can result from potentially simple rules of individual behavior. That means we can explain and even predict a wide variety of human behaviors by using the observations akin to physics. What is more, he creates a new term called “Social Physics” for this approach.

　　Buchanan then gives far-reaching examples to show that regardless of people thinking of ourselves as self-determined individuals making up their own mind, they usually behave instinctively and act strongly rely on others around us. One of interesting example is that when you observe carefully the crowd on the street, either those who are shopping or just flooding out of a stadium after a big baseball game, you may find some intangible structure of the crowd. In the first place, everyone goes in different directions so that the crowd movements look like somewhat chaotic. In the meantime, some people begin to follow another in an effort to avoid collisions, and they gradually form narrow streams of movement. In the streams everyone moves in the same direction and flows along with one another. Furthermore, as more people join such streams, there is a greater pull on others to join the flow. This kind of herding behavior is not intended or planned by anyone, but the emerging pattern, the pedestrian stream, is somehow improvisatory and self-organizing. The motivation of the individual is simple, following with others in order to readily avoid colliding with the rest of the crowd, but the outcome is a complex collective behavior pattern. The idea is that we human being, just as social atoms, work by simple rules in the most daily life situations. If we learn more similar patterns in our social life at different levels, we will be able to anticipate social phenomena accurately.

　　Another compelling example given by Buchanan in the book is the well-known neighborhood segregation model in social science. In the US, spatial separation of the races is a long-standing phenomenon; white people and black people are often living in different communities. Most people think intuitively the cause is racism. But Thomas Schelling, awarded the 2005 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, showed us racial segregation could be just another collective pattern similar with the streams in a crowd but not related to racism. In 1971, Schelling designed a board game with dimes and pennies which stand for two races of people. At first he premises that no one is racist, but they are reasonably tolerant of diversity and only move when they find themselves in a clear minority group within their neighborhood. More specifically, they follow a rule like “If fewer than 30% of my neighbors belong to my race, then I will move.” The simulation game starts with a well-integrated community, and two races of people are mixed together randomly. In each run, every individual checks their surrounding and decides to move or stay by using the simple rule. After a short time, every individual stops moving and keeps a stable status. They surprisingly end up dividing themselves into sharply segregated group livings, even though the outcome is not intended by any individual. It is very counterintuitive and the link between individual attitudes and collective outcome is not straightforward. Buchanan said: “This is the power of pattern over people, and you can easily get an outcome that absolutely no one desires or intended… Next time you see racial segregation you can’t conclude that is racial discrimination.”

　　The work of Schelling unveils the fact that micro-motives lead to surprising macro-behavior, and enlighten many scientific fields. Recently, several physicists, computer scientists and social scientists have used computer simulation models to study patterns by regarding people as social atoms and endowing them with simple rules to interact with each other. The works include simulating human trails, traffic jams, panic behavior of pedestrians, riot situations, market crushes and bubbles, and social epidemics. They show that the thought with respect to our human society has been changing. Human behavior could be often simpler than what we think; to understand the human world better, we need to think of patterns, not just people. At any rate, if you would like to understand this new trend in social science, the book The Social Atom is definitely the best book for your reference. 

  　　The Law of Few is roughly comparable to the famous Pareto Principle, also called 80/20 rule, which means a few influential people can disproportionately incite social and behavioral epidemics. These key people usually have remarkable social skills and social contacts to effectively disseminate their information or ideas; Gladwell groups them into three types of personalities: Connector, Maven, and Salesman.

　　Connectors are individuals who know and contact lots of various people, and establish large social networks. They collect people/acquaintances like other people collect stamps, and maintain the “weak ties” across different communities. Furthermore, their influential social capital bringing different people together make our world smaller, which is also why the impetus can be carried around every corner of the world.

　　Another group of individuals are kind of professional shoppers; Maven is the name Gladwell makes for them. Mavens love to gather information no matter what market is – computers, electronics, clothes, desserts – that is why they can always find out where the cheapest or best bargain products exactly are. Indeed, they know well about all the state-of-the-art stuffs and have one first forever. In addition, they enjoy sharing what they have found with friends, and at most time people also are inclined to look for advice from them.

　　While Connectors are social glue and Mavens are data banks, Salesmen are opinion makers who are charming, enthusiastic, and convincing. Although Salesmen may not have knowledge as much as Mavens, their innate charisma, verbal or non-verbal social skill can zap magically persuasive signals leading people to do what they do or agree with what they believe. Once in a while even neither Salesmen nor we are aware of this powerful influence, but we just unconsciously copy their style and want to be more like them.

　　The epidemics of idea usually start with Maven, because they are faithful first adopters of the new stuffs. Next, Connectors get information from Mavens or the friends of Mavens occasionally, and distribute the idea over different communities or countries. Finally once the spread idea gains enough approval of Salesmen, the snowball starts rolling! Sometimes the epidemic process can be more complex, because a single person can serve multiple or all three roles. Although these three key personalities contribute much effort to idea contagion, it may not be able to reach the tipping point to incite a total change if the idea is not sticky enough to be retained by new recipients.

　　Therefore, the second premise Gladwell made about tipping point is The Stickiness Factor which relates to the content of the message. It means that the message should grab the listener’s attention, get stuck in their mind and move them into action. He also illustrates that little changes in the presentation or package of idea can have large effect on stickiness by giving the example of Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues.

　　The last ingredient of the social epidemics is The Power of Context. Gladwell first takes the well-known psychological study Prison Experiment, made by Stanford University in 1971, as an example to show how environment turns a good-natured college student into a crucial perpetrator. Then he presents the eminent Broken Window theory: “If a building with a few broken windows which are left unrepaired, passersby may consider that nobody cares about it and no one is in charge. Soon, a few more windows were damaged and finally the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street in front of it.” Finally he describes how New York City government based on the theory improved the subway environment by the crackdown on graffiti and fare-beating. And afterward it is dramatically yielding a big drop in crime rates of the whole New York City. The main idea which Gladwell wants to emphasize here is that epidemics are sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of the times and places where they occur. Furthermore, a seemingly small detail may clue people how to behave.

　　The Tipping Point is a powerful and fascinating book that cuts across a variety of fields of interest ranging from marketing study cases to psychological and sociological experiments. Gladwell also provides far-reaching examples and compelling ideas within the book to support the three main principles he advocates: the Law of Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context. Besides that, his excellent writing really makes it easier for readers to catch the points and be persuaded. A fly in the ointment I think of, however, is that the author cite a multitude of concepts and coalesce together to convince reader, but do not clarify rigorously the correlation between the three principles and the tipping point. Maybe the reason is that the social epidemics always start from a series of small events and influences, grow in an insensible way, and then lead to rapid change, but often stop quite sharply and frequently leaving no subsequent track of itself. For any sake, The Tipping Point undoubtedly gives a profound insight of the social epidemics and inspires me much. 

最後還給我漂亮的分數 -- 95分。

Li 笑著說，這是他口試以來，看過口委給最高的分數。

聽到Li 這麼一說..

不禁讓我想起，大三爭取做Li的專題生時，每天都在等Li 的 e-mail，

那時因為知道自己實力不如其它的優秀同學，所以一直很擔心無法進IMLAB。

2005.12.25 11:26，終於，我等到Li的e-mail，

抱著即期待又怕受傷害的心情從outlook 打開這封信。

迅速瞄了一眼後，我幾乎高興地從椅子上跳了起來。

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

Hi,

Thank you for choosing my research group for your CS project course in the

coming semester.

I am glad to inform you that I have decided to choose you as my first

priority.

If you are still interested in choose my group, please confirm by replying

to this message as soon as possible.

Thanks!

為了確認沒有會錯意，又把這封信反覆看了好幾遍，才敢相信自己終於如願以償進了IMLAB。

這封信對我而言具有極重要的意義，是第一次被自己仰慕敬重的人視為first priority。

碩論口試結束時，Li 笑著對我說，這是他口試以來，看過口委給最高的分數。

一方面要感謝兩位口委大方的給予肯定，

另一方面也要感謝上天能讓我在生命中遇到如此重要的貴人-- Tsai- Yen Li 。

我以身為Li的學生、IMLAB的一員為榮 !! 

p.s. 最後謝謝老妹、阿德、高梁特地跑來為我加油打氣，
並感謝所有一直支持鼓勵我的IMLAB同窗戰友們。

還有, 天啊~ 我真的覺得我愛上這女主角了，I see you~
(雖然她長的一點也不像我的菜)
另外下面這clip最尾處，她騎在飛鳥上的嘶吼，我真的超愛的！

另一個魅力無限的女角

電玩感覺弱掉許多..

Trailer最後這句台詞，再聽一次還是好熱血!
"They send the message that they can take whatever they want,
  and we'll send them the message, that is, this is our land! "

幕後製作過程
 

p.s. 最早聽到Avatar這個詞，是來自UO，指的是地球人在Britannia大陸世界的化身..
       不過目前在VR或3D Game的領域，被玩家操縱的虛擬角色， 似乎都通稱Avatar了..
       這從個角度來想，詹導Avatar這部大作，很可能是未來世界的online game雛型。

日軍用槍坑殺掃射投降的中國士兵，這個穚段最令我印象深刻。

因為被捊擄的中國士兵數量遠大於掃射他們的日本士兵，

心想：儘管那些日本士兵拿著槍，但是大家一起反撲，還有可能存活的機會不是嗎？

今天在Randall Collin的 << Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory >> 

看到下面這幾段的解釋：

Detailed examination of the Nanking case gives insight into another feature of the dynamics of such massacres. The Chinese troops greatly outnumbered the Japanese troops on the scene; once it became apparent they were being slaughtered, why didn't the Chinese fight back? Although they generally lacked weapons, they could have mounted some resistance and at least have gone down fighting, or possibly overpowered small groups of Japanese. In fact, the Japanese soldiers themselves quickly acquired an attitude of contempt for the Chinese soldiers for passively going to their deaths. This attitude enhanced the feeling of dehumanization, making it easier for the Japanese to carry out the killing. (p.102)

A forward panic arises in an atmosphere of total domination. Initially this comes about for military reasons: one side moves forward in a successful attack, the other disintegrates and is unable to resist. The emotional tunnel, the mood of slaughter, opens up through recognition of that situation, not so much rational and cognitive as emotional and collective in the broadest possible sense. The emotional mood is interactional; it is shared on both sides. The domination is emotional even more than physical; the victorious side feels ebullient, charged up; the losing side feels despairing, helpless, frozen, suffocated. These emotions circulate and reinforce each other: in a pair of feedback loops within each body of troops, the victors pumping each other up into the frenzy of destruction and the losers demoralizing each other; and in a third loop connecting the two loops, the victors feed off of the demoralization of the losers, and the losers are emotionally battered still further by the dominants. It is a process of asymmetrical entrainment; the winner becomes entrained in its own rhythm of attack, among other reasons, because its moves are reinforced by the moves of the losers. (p.102 ~ p.103)

The nature of conflict is not one of making independent, rational decisions - verbal sequences clearly going though their minds. Persons might make such decisions before the contact actually begins. Once locked in confrontation, they are caught up in a shared emotional field. There is contagion of emotion not only among persons on the same side of the conflict, but a contagion between the two antagonistic sides. It is the form of this emotional contagion above all that determines whether they will fight and how intensely, whether it will be a standoff, and who will win. At extremes, this emotional field turns into a dominance of mind and body by one side that produces atrocities. The hot rush and overkill of the victors is part of the same interactional mood as the stunned passivity of the victims; both are constitutive of each other. This cannot be explained by characteristics of the individuals themselves, but calls for a theory of violent interaction itself. (p.104)

但因為沒唸過高中，當然也沒學過高中化學和生物，

所以就在plurk上丟出問題： 催化劑是否可能具有自我複製的能力 ? 

尋求我那些優秀的同學、學長學弟們的幫助。

然後開始在網路上亂竄(超大的壞習慣)，結果找到了一些有趣的答案和model。

如: 

下面這個網頁發現了一種叫Manganese(II) ion  (化學表示式為Mn2+)的東東，

http://www.chemtopics.com/lectures/unit09/lecture4/l4u9e.htm 

可以做為下面這條化學反應式的催化劑。

5 C₂O₄^2- + 2 MnO₄^- + 16 H⁺ → 2 Mn²⁺ + 10 CO₂ + 8 H₂O

有趣的是，這個化學反應式又會產生這個身為催化劑的東東。

所以它應該可以算是一種具有自我複製能力的催化劑囉？

這樣的東東可以稱為autocatalyst (自動催化劑?) 或self catalyst

而過程可以稱為

auto-catalytic process

autocatalytic reaction

autocatalysis

autocatalytic set 
(這個頁面中總算提到self-reproducing RNA, complex systems了)

哈..剛又發現這種概念最早是由Stuart Kauffman在

At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity

所提出。

而且他是Santa Fe Institute的fellow。

看來我是遲早要認識他的，因為我是complex theory的忠實信徒啊~~

希望有昭一日能去Santa Fe Institute朝聖一下。

(2009/12/2 剛整理手上的文獻, 才發現有幾篇site到這本書..)

然後在autocatalytic reaction不小心找到下面這個模型，

Lotka–Volterra equation(predator–prey equations)

它可以解釋羊吃草 or spore islands這類artificial life game的population消長模型唷..

最後利用autocatalystic去問google大神，

居然找到Macro Dorigo的Ant Colony Optimization 演算法最初的technical paper唷~

(Ant System: An Autocatalytic Optimizing Process)

找到這些東西真是超興奮的。

不過代價就是3小時飛了~

>,<

　　The first stage can be dated back to September 11, 2001, the chairman of Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, set out to adjust the interest rate to historic low to keep economy strong. This policy made it easier for buyers to purchase a house, because they could pay less interest. Additionally, three kinds of participants could get benefits from it. They are the families which want to buy their own houses, the mortgage brokers and the lenders (banks). Most of families cannot afford to pay the full price for the house all at once, so they often save for down payment. If the family has good credit history and the proof of income, the broker will connect the family to the lender for helping them get their mortgage from lenders. During this stage, because of lower interest rate many families got the mortgage approvals and bought their own houses. The lender received the regular payments including principal and interest from house owners every year. Brokers also made nice commissions from connecting those house owners and lenders. Everything worked out nicely; the policy succeeded in growing the economy of the United States.

　　During second stage, from about 2002 to 2004, the lower interest rate not only attracted more families to buy houses, but also made the investment banks start searching for new avenues to improve their returns. The reason is that the lower the interest rates, the more money they could borrow to amplify the outcome of a deal. In finance, it is called leverage which is the major way that an investment bank makes money. The leverage, generally speaking, is borrowing money from somewhere to invest some financial instruments at a low price, selling out at a high price, paying off the debts and earning the large returns. In other words, the leverage allows people to make big profits with little capital. In 2001, a Chinese statistician, Xiang Lin Li, introduced an influential model which allowed for the rapid pricing of CDOs (Collateral Debt Obligation). The model made a CDO, a financial wizardry, which turns mortgages into securities in order to be sold in the global markets; therefore, it became a popular leveraged financial instrument for investment banks. From then on, both the lower interest rate and useful financial model made investment banks eager to borrow money to buy mortgages from lender banks, because they could package mortgages into CDOs and sell them out to global investors. Investors also love the CDO owing to the high returns and low risk. To sum up, during this stage CDOs made lenders offload risk, helping investment bankers to create a large leverage ratio, and offering a lucrative and safe returns for investors. Everything worked out perfectly. CDOs, just like alchemy, effectively pushed up economy growth, keeping house prices rising, and making every participant earn tremendous money.

　　The turning point occurred during stage three from 2004 to around 2006. The demand for mortgages and CDO s kept rising, while the families who were qualified for a mortgage to buy home became less and less. Thus, brokers and lenders started to expand their subprime lending program. Subprime lending is defined as extending credit to borrowers whose characteristics exhibit a significantly higher risk of default than traditional bank lending customers; in most cases, lenders avoided or restrained the subprime lending due to high risk. However, as economy and house prices kept growing by leaps and bounds, anyone who slowed down or fell behind would have been interpreted as a decline in their market share compared to others. At this moment, greed started to kick in, and a strong incentive for people to make more bets--speculating or gambling. That is why lenders and investment banks kept broadening the scope of the subprime mortgage lending, even though they knew those who with poor credit histories may bring about higher risk of default and resulting loan losses. Besides, they became over-confident as they all thought they had figured out how to take on risk and make money more effectively by CDOs. However, they just fooled themselves into thinking they were safe and high ground. 

　　In order to mitigate the housing bubble, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of Federal Reserve, began raising interest rates in July 2004. Then a series of rate hiked from 1% to 5.25% within two years. In 2006, the beginning of the last stage, as Greenspan wished, the great housing bubble finally started to deflate; nevertheless, it was also the detonator of the subprime mortgage crisis. First of all, as interest rates rose, more and more subprime borrowers could not afford the high payment. Therefore, they stopped paying their mortgage and their houses were in foreclosures which increased the supply of houses for sales. On the other hand, the high interest rate reduced the demand of the house. A simultaneous decrease in demand and increase in supply unquestionably placed downward pressure on house prices. Accordingly, the house price was not rising anymore; it fell down instead. This created an interesting and critical problem for house owners who still paid the mortgage. As all the houses of their neighborhood went up for sell, the value of their house went down together. They wondered why they should pay back the mortgage when their houses are not worth that much. Thereupon, they also defaulted on their mortgages one after the other, and which made house prices escalate into a crash. Brokers, lenders and investment banks really suffered from this bad situation, because they held large number of worthless houses in foreclosure which no one wants to buy. At the same time, they had been borrowing millions or billions of money, but they failed to pay back their loans. Hence, they finally fell into a financial crisis in 2008. For example, Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest US investment bank, went bankrupt; Merrill Lynch, HBOS, Alliance & Leicester were taken out by other banks; Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley are nationalized; Bear Stearns, RBS, Citibank, Freddie Mac and Bank of America received Federal bailout funds. On the other hand, the collapse of housing bubble also made CDOs become valueless; lots of investors watched their money burn up. Consequently, home owners forsook their houses; financial institutions lost most of their money and faced large debt problems; the confidence in market slumped; the whole financial system was frozen and dark.

　　As a matter of fact, we are still in the last stage of the crisis now, because the U.S. house price index signals a 30-35% potential drop in this coming year. That indicates that the world economic recession is not bottoming and the prospect of the world economy will not be bright in the short term. However, every cloud has a silver lining; most of the countries in the world have been pumping more money into their economy. There’s always hope and we will get through this.