這段改編自 2010 年 3 月 6 日的對話。
… humility is the mother of all virtues …
— Stephen R. Covey
（安：會不會有另一個可能性是，你某個朋友有雖然人格有問題，但他十分願意改善。只要你暫時容忍，加上你盡力協助他修正自己，他最終會變成一個人格完整的人？）
如果有這樣的一個人，我非常願意和他做朋友。
但是，一個人的人格問題越嚴重，他就越覺得自己的人格沒有問題。所以，你所講的「人格有問題但又十分願意改善的人」，本身原本的人格問題一定不會太大。他們和人格完整的人一樣，都是稀有動物。要找到他們做朋友，難如登天。
還有，既然他們本身的人格問題不大，而又十分願意改善，他們很可能一早就已經修正了自己。到你找到他們時，他們已經變身成人格完整的人。
一個人只要願意修正自己，幾乎所有人格問題都不會是最終問題。
— Me@2011.12.05
2011.12.05 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Themes
.
Memory, time, and technology
“Cole has been thrust from another world into ours and he’s confronted by the confusion we live in, which most people somehow accept as normal. So he appears abnormal, and what’s happening around him seems random and weird. Is he mad or are we?”
— Director Terry Gilliam
.
.
12 Monkeys studies the subjective nature of memories and their effect upon perceptions of reality. Examples of false memories include:
* Cole’s recollection of the airport shooting which is altered each time he has a dream.
* A “mentally divergent” man at the asylum who has false memories.
* Railly telling Cole “I remember you like this” when a barely recognizable Cole and Railly are seen in disguise for the first time.
References to time, time travel, and monkeys are scattered throughout the film, including the Woody Woodpecker “Time Tunnel” cartoon playing on the TV in a hotel room, The Marx Brothers movie Monkey Business (1931) on TV in the asylum and the subplots of monkeys (drug testing, news stories and animal rights). The film is also a study of modern civilization’s declining efforts to communicate with each other due to the interference of technology.
– Wikipedia on 12 Monkeys
.
.
.
2011.01.23 Sunday ACHK
這段改編自 2010 年 5 月 18 日的對話。
照亮他人，毋須燃燒自己。
燃燒自己的話，你幫到的人會很少。
— Me@2007.10.17
— Me@2011.10.11
這個社會有一個很奇怪的結構。從事某個行業，往往會令你做不到你加入該個行業時，原本想做的事情。例如，如果我做歌星的話，大部分時間會被迫花在宣傳工作上。真正可以用來 鑽研音樂、練歌 和 唱歌 的時間會很少。又例如，我以前做中學教師時，有太多非教學的工作要處理。而那些非教學工作，太部分是損己不利人的。
還有，另一個問題是，有太多學生，導致每個學生所分到的時間很少。有部分學生，我只記得他們的名字。我從來沒有跟他們對話過，甚至從來未聽過他們的聲音。那樣，我由始至終，也不知道他們的想法。教學時，我就沒有辦法「對症下藥」。
「教育」並不如一般人所想，可以「大規模生產」。比喻說，一個醫生如果要同一時間幫助很多人的話，他可以搞一些大型的講座，傳授健康知識。但是，「診症」本身，並不可以「大規模生產」。同一個醫生，在同一個時間，只可能為同一個病人診症。
試想想，如果我現在還是在中學教書的話，我哪會有時間，詳細解答你們的數學問題？
— Me@2011.10.11
2011.10.11 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
這段改編自 2010 年 5 月 18 日的對話。
照亮他人，毋須燃燒自己。
— Me@2007.10.17
（HYC: 你會不會重回中學教書？）
不會。在中學教書，並不如我以前的想像，可以有效率地幫助到別人。
在中學教書的近乎唯一好處是，對於初學者來說，有一個難得的機會，高度集中地磨練表達技巧。試想想，有什麼工作崗位，需要一天做幾場充滿技術細節的演講呢？
做了中學教師三年，對我來說，就好像讀了一個「溝通傳意碩士」一樣。但是，我已經過了那個階段，我現在的主要目標，除了研究物理外，是傳授一些「非一般」但「極有用」的知識。
— Me@2011.10.08
2011.10.08 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Futurama‘s production history has not always been easy. From difficult upbringings, network difficulties and cancellation to revivals, cost cuts and salary negotiation collapses.
Yet, Futurama has produced some of the better episodes and gags in the history of animated television.
When Matt Groening and David X. Cohen originally pitched Futurama to Fox, they were not met with initial support. In fact, the show had scared them somewhat with its setting and unusual characters, so in fact they told them to bring them a more down to Earth episode, which became “I, Roommate”, unfortunately their reaction to it was plainly “worst. episode. ever“, which made its runners conclude that they’d just do the show they wanted to do, rather than appease 20th Century Fox.
But Futurama did not have it easy on the Fox Network, where they treated it carelessly by moving its airings on and off, to little avail for fans to find them. In addition, they ended up airing them out of order. When ratings suffered as a result, they did not want to order a fifth production season, and said they should consider that season 4 might be their last season they’ll do, so better make their series finale something special.
— The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
2011.10.05 Wednesday ACHK
Here’s to the Crazy Ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
They’re not fond of rules.
And they have no respect for the status quo.
You can quote them, disagree with them,
disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing that you can’t do, is ignore them.
Because they change things.
They invent. They imagine. They heal.
They explore. They create. They inspire.
They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or, sit in silence and hear a song that hasn’t been written?
Or, gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
We make tools for these kinds of people.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world,
are the ones who do.
— Think Different
— Apple
2011.09.07 Wednesday ACHK
踏單車 2
* In skating over thin ice our safety is in our speed.
— Ralph W. Emerson
2011.08.08 Monday ACHK
To be great is to be misunderstood. – Emerson
（安：你的網誌引述過 Dilbert 的一個講法，指出與平凡人的對話，可以用來測試你自己的意念，是否偉大的創見。
當你不肯定自己的意念偉不偉大時，你可以試試把它說給一個平凡人聽。如果他認同你的話，你的意念就不會是偉大的。）
Paul Graham 都有類似的講法。
… smart people by definition have odd ideas. — Paul Graham
One difference I’ve noticed between great hackers and smart people in general is that hackers are more politically incorrect. — Paul Graham
— Me@2011.08.06
Hacker here means a great programmer, not a computer criminal. — Me
2011.08.06 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
To be attractive to hackers, a language must be good for writing the kinds of programs they want to write. And that means, perhaps surprisingly, that it has to be good for writing throwaway programs.
A throwaway program is a program you write quickly for some limited task: a program to automate some system administration task, or generate test data for a simulation, or convert data from one format to another. The surprising thing about throwaway programs is that, like the “temporary” buildings built at so many American universities during World War II, they often don’t get thrown away. Many evolve into real programs, with real features and real users.
I have a hunch that the best big programs begin life this way, rather than being designed big from the start, like the Hoover Dam. It’s terrifying to build something big from scratch. When people take on a project that’s too big, they become overwhelmed. The project either gets bogged down, or the result is sterile and wooden: a shopping mall rather than a real downtown, Brasilia rather than Rome, Ada rather than C.
Another way to get a big program is to start with a throwaway program and keep improving it. This approach is less daunting, and the design of the program benefits from evolution. I think, if one looked, that this would turn out to be the way most big programs were developed. And those that did evolve this way are probably still written in whatever language they were first written in, because it’s rare for a program to be ported, except for political reasons. And so, paradoxically, if you want to make a language that is used for big systems, you have to make it good for writing throwaway programs, because that’s where big systems come from.
— Paul Graham
— Me@2010.08.07
2011.08.02 Tuesday ACHK
Google had become a big company by thinking like a small company.
— In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, p.272
2011.06.22 Wednesday ACHK
人生有如踏單車，不斷高速向前，才能保持平衡。
—
2011.06.18 Saturday ACHK
Only useful programs can have “bugs”.
If a program doesn’t work at all, we won’t be able to see its “bugs”.
— Me@2010.01.22
2011.06.17 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Ideas, he explained, were like babies — everything about their environment said they shouldn’t exist.
But they do. You can’t dwell on problems too early, or they will swamp the virtues and you will decide not to do the project.
— In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, p.342
2011.06.13 Monday ACHK
One of the most dangerous illusions you get from school is the idea that doing great things requires a lot of discipline. Most subjects are taught in such a boring way that it’s only by discipline that you can flog yourself through them. So I was surprised when, early in college, I read a quote by Wittgenstein saying that he had no self-discipline and had never been able to deny himself anything, not even a cup of coffee.
I’m not saying you can get away with zero self-discipline. You probably need about the amount you need to go running. I’m often reluctant to go running, but once I do, I enjoy it. And if I don’t run for several days, I feel ill. It’s the same with people who do great things. They know they’ll feel bad if they don’t work, and they have enough discipline to get themselves to their desks to start working. But once they get started, interest takes over, and discipline is no longer necessary.
— Paul Graham
2011.06.07 Tuesday ACHK
DDJ: In the presentation before the awarding of the Japan Prize today, you were quoted on the distinction between research and development. [The former, Thompson stated, was directionless, whereas development had a specific goal in mind.] So in that context, is Go experimental?
— Interview with Ken Thompson
— By Andrew Binstock, May 18, 2011
2011.05.24 Tuesday ACHK
I think the life of an entrepreneur is a life of setbacks, challenges, disappointments, and failures.
— Bob Davis, Founder, Lycos
— Founders at Work
2011.05.19 Thursday ACHK
Above all else, never hire a B player – B players hire C players and then you find yourself with a mediocre team. My best advice is to always hire someone more competent than yourself.
— Jessica Livingston
2011.05.16 Monday ACHK
反白論 ＝ 名實（通常）相反論
— Me@2010.11.18
2011.05.11 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
大世界 4
Intellect 3
Intellect is invisible to the man who has none.
— Our Relation to Others, § 23
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Intellect is invisible to those have none.
（安：那是什麼意思？）
不聰明的人是不會感受到，聰明的東西究竟聰明在什麼地方。
假設有一個平庸的人，他的智力只有 100 個單位。假設有一篇上佳的文章，它的內容「智力」有 150 個單位。如果你把那篇上佳文章給那個平庸的人的話，他會覺得，那篇文章只值 100 個單位。他不會感受到那額外的 50 分在哪裡，因為以他自己的智力，不足以領會那高於他智力的 50 分。他會覺得，那篇上佳文章是沒有價值的。
而最麻煩的地方是，他因為沒有能力領會那高於他智力的額外 50 分，他根本不會覺得，自己的智力低於那篇文章。結果，他不單不會質疑自己的智力，反而只會責怪那篇文章的作者，浪費他的時間。
– Me@2011.05.01
2011.05.01 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
diff 3b
.
Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things.
— Arthur Schopenhauer
.
Anything that does not change you cannot see, because it falls into the background.
你不會到留意「正常」的事物，因為，它們會化成「背景」。
— Me@2011.04.22
.
想知一件事物的價值，你先要嘗試失去它。
你不會到留意「正常」的事物，因為腦部毋須處理「正常」的事物，所以會自動忽略它們，以節省資源去解決「問題」。（「問題」就是不如意的事物。）
— Me@2011.04.24
.
.
2011.04.24 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Physics Town 
You must be logged in to post a comment.