犹豫中

On 2009/07/06, in 老马日记, by Yue Ma

一台初代iPod touch到底有没有必要升级到iPhone 3.0呢?

 

不动产

On 2009/07/03, in 岁月随想, by Yue Ma

看了这个新闻,就知道了,在中国,投资不动产是绝对不会赔地!房子卖的差不多后把楼弄倒,剩下的就是银行和买主的事儿了。

不动产这个词在别的地方,不动的是地和房,产是变的,能涨能跌;而在中国,不动的是产,只涨不跌,但房和地是动的,说倒就倒了。

哎,这年头儿,有的豆腐不按块儿卖了,按平方米卖,一平米动辄两万,但是还是不如按块儿卖的豆腐有营养。

 

Speedtext@iPodTouch

On 2009/07/03, in 老马日记, by Yue Ma

本贴全部在初代iPodTouch上完成。

 

以前几次提到过日本的博士后问题。简单地说就是从事研究的年轻人越来越多而提供给他们的固定教职却紧缩,造成合同工“博士后”的数量在日本近年激增,如何给他们(我也在其中)找出路成了一个社会问题。

这不,又推出了一个新政策:高度研究人才活用促进事业。为了鼓励企业来雇用博士后,政府为提供职位的企业每人480万日元的补助。这就相当于企业雇用博士后可以将近一年不用给开工资。此计划7月1日实施,截止到8月10日。预计可以处理掉100个人左右的博士后。不知道这个计划能不能在一个多月的时间里花掉政府准备的这5亿日元的预算。如果在期限内没有那么多企业来给萝卜挖坑,政府岂不是很尴尬啊。

瞧,这就是我们的生存环境,要倒贴钱,还不一定有人要。

Tagged with:
 

刚刚搞定了一个iPhone用的手写笔。跟大家分享一下。

iPhone&iPod Touch因为不是压感的输入,所以不是随便一个棍子就可以实现输入的。而手指有的时候还是太粗,不好控制;用手指和握笔不一样,写字也比较难看,所以,一个笔状的东西有些时候还是必要的。有两个条件必须满足:一,导电;二,要有足够大的接触面积。网上有用铜丝的,有用按扣的,甚至还有用火腿肠的,都各有利弊,但都不是顺手拈来。刚刚考虑这个问题看到桌角堆的一堆用没电了的电池,抓来哗啦哗啦还真行。

(1)五号电池有点儿粗,和手指差不多了。(2)正极的头有点儿小,没反应。(3)七号电池的负极正好。(4)还是稍稍有点儿硬,偶尔有反应不良。(5)电池的型号不同也许性能也不同,试着找到自己的合适选择。(6)两三节粘到一起就更像笔了。

来看看写字的效果。用手指是很难写这个大小的字的。

注:写字画画有很多Application,这张用的是Sketch Pad。

再来一个用iShodo和电池在iPod Touch上画的字。

 

PRL求精

On 2009/06/30, in 岁月随想, 有关学术, by Yue Ma

在这个“学术”论文泛滥的年代,期刊杂志作为论文露脸的地方,通常也是“与时俱进”,原来一月一期的变一周一期,原来200页一期的出500页,同时还有各式各样的“新”杂志如雨后春笋,于是现在放眼看去就是一片茂密的笋,还挺立的竹子越来越少。

比较典型的事例就是,年初的时候Chaos, Solitons & Fractals这个杂志的主编M. S. El Naschie退休,他在任期间自己发表了数百篇文章,很显然恐怕是没有什么“审稿”。而且该杂志几乎没有什么标准地接收文章,致使年初时居然有900余篇in Press(现在已经剩下400多篇了),于是不得不做出“暂”不接收任何投稿的决定。

Currently we have many accepted Chaos, Solitons and Fractals papers waiting to be published. We feel it is inappropriate to keep scientists waiting too long before their research paper is published and therefore, for the moment, we are not accepting any new submissions to the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

We trust you understand our decision and we hope you will find another suitable journal for publication of your research paper (please have a look at: www.elsevier.com). We apologise for any inconvenience and please do consider us again for your next upcoming research paper.

与此相对,刚刚有PRL(物理评论快讯)的编辑的群体邮件,说他们觉得目前每周80篇的文章太多了。从今往后需要提高标准,只让更好的文章出现。下面是邮件全文:

We at Physical Review Letters always look for ways to do better at our core mission, which is to provide the physics community with accounts of crucial research in a convenient format. PRL at present publishes about 80 Letters per week, and we Editors, and many readers of PRL, have concluded that these cannot all discuss crucial research, and that it is too large a number to be convenient. This view is also held by our editorial board and by others, as we know from a wide range of exchanges with our colleagues.

As a result we will reaffirm the standards for acceptance for PRL. The criteria will not change fundamentally, but we will work to apply them with increased rigor. To meet the PRL criteria of importance and broad interest, a Letter must

1) substantially advance a particular field; or

2) open a significant new area of research; or

3) solve a critical outstanding problem, or make a significant step toward solving such a problem; or

4) be of great general interest, based, for example, on scientific aesthetics.

We are confident that this initiative will lead to a journal that is better able to attract the best papers, because it will provide a more exclusive platform for those papers, and thus impart a higher profile to the most significant results. We also anticipate that a renewed focus on the characteristics that underlie importance and broad interest, as listed above, will lead to a more accurate selection process. As we reinvigorate the PRL criteria, we will also make every effort to make decisions promptly. This will enable results to reach the community in a timely fashion, whether in PRL or in a more suitable venue.

For this effort to be successful, authors must submit only results that meet at least one of the above criteria. Referees must judge breadth of interest based on impact both in the specific field and across field boundaries, and must support favorable recommendations with substantive reasons to publish. Editors will be more discriminating in both their own evaluation of manuscripts and their interpretation of referee reports. In support of these efforts we will revise our statement of Policies and Practices and our Referee Response Form.

We will carefully monitor the impact that application of reaffirmed standards has on the physics community. The process will necessarily be gradual, as authors, referees, Editors, and Divisional Associate Editors become familiar with more rigorous application of PRL requirements. This will also allow time to correct for any unexpected deleterious effects. Although we do not plan a specific numerical target, we do wish to make a significant change in the number of papers we publish.

We note that there are many papers that are valid and important in their area, but are not at the level of importance or broad interest that is necessary for PRL. There are also papers of great importance for their field and/or of broad interest that simply cannot be presented in a letter format. The Physical Review journals have high standards and unmatched reputations and are natural venues for such papers.

We know that these changes will lead to some disappointments. We are convinced, however, that a more selective PRL will communicate the best physics more efficiently.

Sincerely,
The Editors

如此,才是一个顶尖杂志的本色,才是对学术界负责的态度。

Tagged with: