有个朋友纠结要买非中国出品的玩具带回家，结果找到了一家商场：http://112katong.com.sg/stores/#!zero2six/0/
他买了法国出品的。
这家店的网站: http://www.zero-six.com
记下 有需要的朋友可以看看。
Monday, September 23, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
虫子
Warning:如果你正在吃饭，或者刚吃饱，请勿读一下文章，否则如果有呕吐的征兆，恕不负责。
最近几天发现吃虫子的频率有点过分。有次，喝了一杯隔夜的水，喝了一会儿，发现里面竟然有很多的蚂蚁浮在水面上。。。。然后最近，在SUTD都喝咖啡，有一次，发现里面有未融的咖啡，仔细一看竟然是指果蝇。。。。不过这次幸好最多就喝了苍蝇拌的咖啡，于是把苍蝇倒掉，发现还碰碰跳跳，想说这生命力特强，命不该绝，于是想救它一把，就回到位置去拿张卫生纸把它粘起来放到户外去。到自己位置的时候，发现一群人在聊天，就加入也聊了一阵，忽然把它忘了。。然后回去的时候，发现它被水淹死了。。。
总的来说，虽然虫子有蛋白质，但是喝多了，还是感到有点恶心，于是乎现在都多多注意自己喝的饮品是否有多余的蛋白质。
最近几天发现吃虫子的频率有点过分。有次，喝了一杯隔夜的水，喝了一会儿，发现里面竟然有很多的蚂蚁浮在水面上。。。。然后最近，在SUTD都喝咖啡，有一次，发现里面有未融的咖啡，仔细一看竟然是指果蝇。。。。不过这次幸好最多就喝了苍蝇拌的咖啡，于是把苍蝇倒掉，发现还碰碰跳跳，想说这生命力特强，命不该绝，于是想救它一把，就回到位置去拿张卫生纸把它粘起来放到户外去。到自己位置的时候，发现一群人在聊天，就加入也聊了一阵，忽然把它忘了。。然后回去的时候，发现它被水淹死了。。。
总的来说，虽然虫子有蛋白质，但是喝多了，还是感到有点恶心，于是乎现在都多多注意自己喝的饮品是否有多余的蛋白质。
中秋节
这个中秋， SUTD 有一系列的活动，还四处挂了灯笼，这是中秋节当天的灯笼，里面放的是小灯泡。听说今年7:13pm月亮是最圆的，七年后才会见到 八月十五的圆月，于是跑出去看月亮，发现乌云密布，所以也没有见到那颗号称最圆的月亮。
.JPG)
SUTD的活动，我们也去参与了，主要是蹭个月饼和柚子。那个活动有点类似野餐，大家席地而坐，团团吃月饼，挺有气氛的。后来这个活动结束后，有大批大批的月饼没吃完，于是大家自己吃了点，然后各自打包送亲戚朋友去。
Friday, September 6, 2013
Joke of cross street
Share a joke that is posted by my former school teacher:
Went for the AWS big data monthly meet up today...first time going there. Exit at ChinaTown MRT, walked in the wrong direction. Students called told me to find 23 Church Street. I whipped up my old nokia phone. So glad that it has GPS system. The phone voice message told me Cross Street. I was so amazed that the "Phone App actually teclls me to cross the street"...wow. After crossing the street, it is still telling me to cross the street. I crossed again....finally, one elderly gentlemen told me, "Dude, it says you are at Cross Street." It took me bloody 1 hour walking in the rain to the venue.
(Background: cross street is a street in singapore)
Went for the AWS big data monthly meet up today...first time going there. Exit at ChinaTown MRT, walked in the wrong direction. Students called told me to find 23 Church Street. I whipped up my old nokia phone. So glad that it has GPS system. The phone voice message told me Cross Street. I was so amazed that the "Phone App actually teclls me to cross the street"...wow. After crossing the street, it is still telling me to cross the street. I crossed again....finally, one elderly gentlemen told me, "Dude, it says you are at Cross Street." It took me bloody 1 hour walking in the rain to the venue.
(Background: cross street is a street in singapore)
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
电脑 vs 人
最近上网站和真人下棋，不过因为我的棋技太烂，所以就用了电脑软件来帮我下棋。这当然是几乎缝玩比赢，不过在这过程中，也注意到人和电脑的差距。
1. 电脑是以全局最优，纵然策略性失去几个棋子，但是最后都是胜利的。人大部分是局部最优(greedy method), 就下看起来显而易见的棋子，但是从而忽略了全局最优的思考。
2. 人在残局-当所有主攻的棋子都失去的时候特就显得特别没耐性，有些干脆认输了，但是电脑一直以全局最优思考，完全不为失子所困，最后取得胜利。
总体而言，(普通的)人的缺点是:没耐性+局部最优。
1. 电脑是以全局最优，纵然策略性失去几个棋子，但是最后都是胜利的。人大部分是局部最优(greedy method), 就下看起来显而易见的棋子，但是从而忽略了全局最优的思考。
2. 人在残局-当所有主攻的棋子都失去的时候特就显得特别没耐性，有些干脆认输了，但是电脑一直以全局最优思考，完全不为失子所困，最后取得胜利。
总体而言，(普通的)人的缺点是:没耐性+局部最优。
Monday, September 2, 2013
Why I Voted Against Syria Intervention
From http://on.wsj.com/13312hd, feel that the whole argument is quite logical, therefore sharing here:
Two and a half years ago, Britain sent troops to Libya to stop a massacre. Parliament emphatically endorsed the United Nations-backed military intervention and its aim of protecting Libyan citizens from Moammar Gadhafi’s troops.
Perhaps that is why some were shocked when, last Thursday, Parliament ruled out any military role for Britain in Syria. Just like Libya in 2011, Syria is plagued by civil war and led by an embattled, evil dictator who is prepared to slaughter his own people to keep power. How could MPs produce two totally different answers to the same question?
In fact, the similarities between Libya and Syria are only skin-deep. With Libya, there was a clear moral case for intervention. Gadhafi’s forces were closing in on the last rebel-held areas, a humanitarian catastrophe was on the cards, and it was clear that military action could stop this from happening. In Syria, such military action would almost certainly make things worse.
The Syrian regime is undoubtedly evil, but we have known this for years. Parliament was asked to support military action against President Assad not simply because his regime is despotic, but because evidence emerged that it has killed hundreds of Syrian civilians with nerve gas.
The use of chemical weapons is a truly horrendous crime, but it is only one on a long list of horrendous crimes conducted by both sides in Syria’s civil war.
Assad’s forces have shelled, bombed and shot their opponents with impunity. The U.N. puts the death toll at more than 100,000. Civilians have been gunned down by snipers, burned to death by napalm, dismembered by bombs and crushed in falling buildings. These are no less unpleasant than getting caught in a gas attack. Many of us were left asking last week why, after sitting on the sidelines of this war for more than two years, the British government was suddenly in a rush to launch cruise missiles.
What’s more, the recent reports of chemical-weapon attacks raise more questions than they answer. Both the British and American governments say only Assad could have carried out the gas attacks, but the evidence is not clear-cut. Even the U.K. government’s own Joint Intelligence Committee admits it cannot understand why Assad would use chemical weapons when he knows this could force the West to intervene on the rebels’ side.
This also raises questions about how much Assad knew about the gas attacks. American spies have reportedly intercepted phone calls in which a furious Syrian military commander demanded to know why army units had deployed chemical weapons. This could suggest the attacks were ordered by rogue or panicking officers, without Assad’s knowledge or permission. It might suggest they took everyone in the Syrian army by surprise.
The gas attacks may even have been the work of the Syrian rebels. President Obama previously identified the use of chemical weapons as a red line for the U.S., and with Assad gradually gaining the upper hand, the rebels have a clear motive for trying to drag America into the conflict. There have been some credible reports, one from a U.N. representative in Syria, that Assad’s opponents have some access to sarin and are not afraid to use it. Without better intelligence about what is really happening on the ground, Britain risks being tricked into battle.
In last week’s parliamentary debate, David Cameron’s government said Assad should be “punished” for his crimes. It is far from clear what this would achieve. First, Syria boasts a powerful military, and could respond to any punitive air strikes. Second, even the precision-guided missiles that British forces would have used against Syria are not always as accurate as advertised. In previous wars, a significant number misfired or missed their target. By attempting to punish Assad, we would almost inevitably have caused more civilian deaths.
What is more, any military intervention would have consequences far beyond Syria’s borders. Vladimir Putin has supplied Assad’s regime with anti-aircraft missiles. If we attacked Syrian military targets, Russia would respond in kind. Whatever British cruise missiles destroyed in Syria, Mr. Putin would replace twice over. Punitive attacks could easily push peace further out of reach.
It is always uncomfortable to see your own prime minister defeated in the House of Commons. However, while the government’s motive was clear—to prevent the deaths of more innocent civilians—its strategy was not.
I am not an anti-interventionist, but I am not an automatic interventionist either. When military action is on the table, it must be clear what that action is designed to achieve. In the case of humanitarian intervention, the cornerstone must be to protect civilians. It is hard to see how this could be accomplished in Syria by adding cruise-missile strikes to an already volatile situation.
However desperate the circumstances might appear, it is never right to rush into war armed with plenty of missiles but only half of the facts, least of all when there are so many “known unknowns” on top of the “unknown unknowns.” Parliament was right last week to stop the government in its tracks.
Two and a half years ago, Britain sent troops to Libya to stop a massacre. Parliament emphatically endorsed the United Nations-backed military intervention and its aim of protecting Libyan citizens from Moammar Gadhafi’s troops.
Perhaps that is why some were shocked when, last Thursday, Parliament ruled out any military role for Britain in Syria. Just like Libya in 2011, Syria is plagued by civil war and led by an embattled, evil dictator who is prepared to slaughter his own people to keep power. How could MPs produce two totally different answers to the same question?
In fact, the similarities between Libya and Syria are only skin-deep. With Libya, there was a clear moral case for intervention. Gadhafi’s forces were closing in on the last rebel-held areas, a humanitarian catastrophe was on the cards, and it was clear that military action could stop this from happening. In Syria, such military action would almost certainly make things worse.
The Syrian regime is undoubtedly evil, but we have known this for years. Parliament was asked to support military action against President Assad not simply because his regime is despotic, but because evidence emerged that it has killed hundreds of Syrian civilians with nerve gas.
The use of chemical weapons is a truly horrendous crime, but it is only one on a long list of horrendous crimes conducted by both sides in Syria’s civil war.
Assad’s forces have shelled, bombed and shot their opponents with impunity. The U.N. puts the death toll at more than 100,000. Civilians have been gunned down by snipers, burned to death by napalm, dismembered by bombs and crushed in falling buildings. These are no less unpleasant than getting caught in a gas attack. Many of us were left asking last week why, after sitting on the sidelines of this war for more than two years, the British government was suddenly in a rush to launch cruise missiles.
What’s more, the recent reports of chemical-weapon attacks raise more questions than they answer. Both the British and American governments say only Assad could have carried out the gas attacks, but the evidence is not clear-cut. Even the U.K. government’s own Joint Intelligence Committee admits it cannot understand why Assad would use chemical weapons when he knows this could force the West to intervene on the rebels’ side.
This also raises questions about how much Assad knew about the gas attacks. American spies have reportedly intercepted phone calls in which a furious Syrian military commander demanded to know why army units had deployed chemical weapons. This could suggest the attacks were ordered by rogue or panicking officers, without Assad’s knowledge or permission. It might suggest they took everyone in the Syrian army by surprise.
The gas attacks may even have been the work of the Syrian rebels. President Obama previously identified the use of chemical weapons as a red line for the U.S., and with Assad gradually gaining the upper hand, the rebels have a clear motive for trying to drag America into the conflict. There have been some credible reports, one from a U.N. representative in Syria, that Assad’s opponents have some access to sarin and are not afraid to use it. Without better intelligence about what is really happening on the ground, Britain risks being tricked into battle.
In last week’s parliamentary debate, David Cameron’s government said Assad should be “punished” for his crimes. It is far from clear what this would achieve. First, Syria boasts a powerful military, and could respond to any punitive air strikes. Second, even the precision-guided missiles that British forces would have used against Syria are not always as accurate as advertised. In previous wars, a significant number misfired or missed their target. By attempting to punish Assad, we would almost inevitably have caused more civilian deaths.
What is more, any military intervention would have consequences far beyond Syria’s borders. Vladimir Putin has supplied Assad’s regime with anti-aircraft missiles. If we attacked Syrian military targets, Russia would respond in kind. Whatever British cruise missiles destroyed in Syria, Mr. Putin would replace twice over. Punitive attacks could easily push peace further out of reach.
It is always uncomfortable to see your own prime minister defeated in the House of Commons. However, while the government’s motive was clear—to prevent the deaths of more innocent civilians—its strategy was not.
I am not an anti-interventionist, but I am not an automatic interventionist either. When military action is on the table, it must be clear what that action is designed to achieve. In the case of humanitarian intervention, the cornerstone must be to protect civilians. It is hard to see how this could be accomplished in Syria by adding cruise-missile strikes to an already volatile situation.
However desperate the circumstances might appear, it is never right to rush into war armed with plenty of missiles but only half of the facts, least of all when there are so many “known unknowns” on top of the “unknown unknowns.” Parliament was right last week to stop the government in its tracks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)