Web 2.0 Awards

http://web2.0awards.org/

http://esnips.com/signin/index.jsp提供了1G的免费空间,功能丰富,tags管理。

最好的wiki是这个:http://wetpaint.com/

其他还有很多东西,慢慢找吧。

国内的同行要创业的,这下有丰富的模仿对象了。

Advertisements

jdbc access

老早的问题,现在竟然找到了解决办法。

就是java直接访问ms access数据库,而不要到控制面板->管理工具->ODBC源专门设置一番。

方法这样,直接设定url像这样

url = jdbc:odbc:DRIVER={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};DBQ=data\\retreat.mdb;

driver仍然是sun.jdbc.odbc.JdbcOdbcDriver

这样的话,程序copy到其他机器上就直接能用了。//不过现在还不确定是否可以插入删除修改

另外,有个问题把我折腾了半天,开始总是冒exception

java.sql.SQLException: [Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Not a valid file name.

如果把路径改成data\retreat.mdb就会出现这个结果。上面那个url我可是写在单独的一个配置文件里的,但是,也必须用\\。另外,如果将\\改为/也可用。

meeting

今天是第三次跟老师group meeting了。老师Marcus上个星期就给我们发了一封信,问进展如何。我没回,partner也没回。这个星期二,老师又发了封信,要跟我们meeting。坦白地说,自从上次跟老师meeting后,我就把这门课完全扔一边了,扔了两个多星期,其间也没跟老师反馈,也没跟Chris交流。我觉得,倒时编个程序,一个星期也就足够了,所以,急啥?结果老师比我们还急,三番五次写信骚扰我们。今天meeting,开门见山就问:“How is your project’s status?”我不好说,因为啥都没做。Chris很直接,“Not good”。说实话,面对Chris我很不好意思,上次meeting他因看牙医没来,而我跟老师meeting后也没把meeting内容跟他说,这样一拖就过了几个星期。老师说我们应该加强交流,毕竟是一个group project。哎,我现在怀疑我是不是一个典型的单干者?不愿意跟人家去交流?其实我也知道这是一个很好的学习机会,奈何贱性不改。哎,人怎么做成这样?我本来meeting之前花了半个小时准备了一些东西,也就是一些想法。不过meeting的时候一条也没说,因为既然Chris也有想法,那就把话语权全部让给他好了,否则可能最终idea也不是他的,编程也不是他的,那这个group project可能就对他有些不公平。所以,我打定主意,你们说干啥就干啥吧,你们要用netlogo那就用netlogo吧,总之,你们说什么我就干什么。

meeting确实有不少帮助,起码逼着我俩开始合作了,而且,老师很明确,先做一个简单的,无论什么,要开始做了,之后发现问题,或者想扩充,就还会有时间。老师的意见我深表赞同。我这个懒人,不拍拍屁股,是不会动身的。

不过project的方向改了很多,超乎了我的想象范围。不过不管了,说怎样就怎样吧。

meeting完我让Chris写信把他的idea告诉我,因为meeting的时候很多没听清楚。他说"same to you"。

中午收到老师的一封长信,是meeting的总结,以及给我们详细描述的project方向。

老师说很多组已经有runnable model了。哎,感觉又被打了一下屁股。

不一样

屋里有个女人就是不一样

她会不遗余力地清扫屋里的每一个角落

把厕所和厨房的每一寸地方都擦得干干净净,不留一个污点

似乎有些不干净的地方她们睡觉都觉得不舒坦

所以,以后rommate这样把mm引进来的事情,要多多鼓励,多多支持

乱七八糟

pattern。

听一首曲子。听/唱了一句才知道下一句。旋律是分割的,离散的,分段的。前后两个段子是相连的。第一个段子不会连到第三个段子。某些特殊的段子会单独想起,大部分段子需要有前面的段子才能勾起。

先后发生的场景碎片连接构成经验。

连接的场景碎片也构成容易被某个相似细节勾起的回忆。

重复的场景碎片构成习惯。比如起床后刷牙洗脸。比如时间到了要吃饭。

一切都是连接的碎片。

碎片连接而能表示整体。

所有信息只能以碎片的方式感知,传播。

馒头需要一口一口啃完。信息需要一块一块吸纳。

生活由一块一块的碎片构成。有快乐的碎片,也有郁闷的碎片。

一些段子

//摘自The Origin of Minds

We are intrinsically social animals.

一个试验:120朵蓝色的花,120朵黄色的花。每朵蓝色的花上都放上两粒糖;而对于黄色的花,其中40朵每朵放上6粒糖,剩余80朵一粒也不放。蜜蜂会如何表现?结果是Bees go to the "safe," constant-yield, blue flowers 85 percent of the time. It needs a reliable glucose fix, rejects the yellow flowers as a bee version of a Las Vegas casino, and concentrates on the blue flowers for its meal ticket.

Bees, like all animals, are energy loss-averse. When their strategy is not working, they revise it long before they are in difficulty.

At any given moment, avoiding loss is more critical than increasing a surplus. (人性化的方式,你可以说这是一种现实的悲观主义)

For a surplus – no matter how large – means that you are safely above a baseline. A loss, however, means you are courting disaster. No organism can afford to persist in behaviors that result in a bioenergetic bank balance in the red. In nature, debt is death.

===================================

Look at the key components of the bee’s guidance program.

First, it needs a core instinctual mechanism. An evolved connection between a sensory stimulus in the environment and a specific behavioral response.

In addition to this instinct, the bee needs sensory systems, such as visual and olfactory systems that were previously arbitrary but now become associated with the availability of food.

Third, it needs a plastic neural substrate – like your neocortex – in which these new associative network connections ("adaptive representations") can be formed.

Finally, it needs a neural mechanism to build and modify these representations in light of experience. (Remember, these representations automatically self-adapt with the outcome of each relevant experience, increasing or decreasing their strength as a function of the value of the acquired "goods.")

Complexity of Cooperation

牛人(Axelrod, Robert M)写的东西就是不一样。清晰、可读、启发、实用。不像上次看的两篇paper,特别是人工智能杂志的那一篇,虽然N长,引用了N百篇论文,但看半天都不知道说什么。只知道关于cooperation这个问题,嗯,东西很多很多,而且,那个牛人提的理论,是有问题的,针对那些问题,又有什么什么人作出什么什么改进。可惜那些改进看起来都如此复杂,都不知道说什么。而且,那两篇paper,基本上都没有提任何应用背景,没提那些假定怎么来的,所以,搞得那些文字就像一堆堆的数学公式,也就是一堆堆不知所以的符号,让人不知所云。

这个牛人不像一般只知道搞paper的学者,他的所有研究都是有实际背景的,而且是很牛逼的背景:

The Evolution of Cooperation, with its focus on the Prisoner’s Dilemma,
was written during the Cold War. Indeed, one of its primary motivations
was to help promote cooperation between the two sides of a
bipolar world. My hope was that a deeper understanding of the conditions
that promote cooperation could help make the world a little safer.

不仅如此,他的研究成果也确实在实际中得到了巨大的应用,甚至是超乎他所预料的应用。比如:

My earlier work on the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Axelrod 1984) illustrates
this theme. My main motivation for learning about effective strategies
was to find out how cooperation could be promoted in international politics,
especially between the East and the West during the Cold War. As it
happened, my tournament approach and the evolutionary analysis that
grew out of it suggested applications of which I had not even dreamed.
For example, controlled experiments show that stickleback fish use the
tit for tat strategy to achieve cooperation based upon reciprocity (Milinski
1987).
At a political science convention, a colleague came up to me and said
she really appreciated my work and found it helpful for her divorce. She
explained that my book showed her that she had been a sucker during
her marriage, always giving in to her husband. I asked whether the book
helped save her marriage. “No,” she replied. “I didn’t want to save my
marriage. But it certainly helped with the divorce settlement. I started to
play tit for tat, and once he learned that I couldn’t be pushed around, I
got a much better deal.”

著名的囚徒困境,胡萝卜加大棒策略,他的那些研究结果其价值也许不下于博弈论。而关于博弈论和理性选择,他的描述也很精彩,让人眼前一亮,原来这样:

Throughout the social sciences today, the dominant form of modeling
is based upon the rational-choice paradigm. Game theory, in particular, is
typically based upon the assumption of rational choice. In my view, the
reason for the dominance of the rational-choice approach is not that
scholars think it is realistic. Nor is game theory used solely because it
offers good advice to a decision maker, because its unrealistic assumptions
undermine much of its value as a basis for advice. The real advantage
of the rational-choice assumption is that it often allows deduction.

Axelrod, Robert M. Complexity of Cooperation : Agent-Based Models of Competition & Collaboration.
Ewing, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 1997. p 4.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/asulib/Doc?id=10035852&ppg=15

Copyright © 1997.  Princeton University Press.  All rights reserved.

看书,一定要看牛人写的书。

牛人写的书,一定要看。