將華碩主機板內建的音效卡 spdif out 接到時基校正器，接數位禪一代 DAC，然後進綜合擴大機。播放直接用 foobar2000 播 EAC 抓下來的 cue + wav，resample 到 48 KHz.
另一邊是，Revox B226 接綜合擴大機，直接放CD.
電腦的各種聲音（人聲跟樂器）形體都太龐大，解析很差，saxophone 的換氣，人聲的喉音等等全不見了，AB Test 一做，我就知道用電腦當音源器的夢暫時還得等等…
懷疑主要問題是出在 44.1 KHz -> 48 KHz 的 resample，因為音效晶片只能用48輸出。
我一直認為硬碟會是比任何 CD 轉盤更好的數位訊源，然而在實行過程中卻一直碰到許多問題。最大的問題我想會是在數位輸出的時基誤差，以及 44.1 KHz 到輸出的「直通」。
2005年1月5日
Really really interesting story
Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story.
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer." The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if fullcredit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.
I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.
In the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building." At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit.
While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.
For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units." "A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think.
The name of the student was Niels Bohr. (1885-1962) Danish Physicist; Nobel Prize 1922; best known for proposing the first 'model' of the atom with protons & neutrons, and various energy state of the surrounding electrons -- the familiar icon of the small nucleus circled by three elliptical orbits... but more significantly, an innovator in Quantum Theory.
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer." The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if fullcredit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.
I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.
In the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building." At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit.
While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.
For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units." "A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think.
The name of the student was Niels Bohr. (1885-1962) Danish Physicist; Nobel Prize 1922; best known for proposing the first 'model' of the atom with protons & neutrons, and various energy state of the surrounding electrons -- the familiar icon of the small nucleus circled by three elliptical orbits... but more significantly, an innovator in Quantum Theory.
標籤：
culture
2004年12月16日
從蔣方良談起
蔣方良去世了。我竟然感到如此欷吁。
蔣經國大概是六年級的共同回憶。小學時蔣經國去世 (1988)，自此以後開始李登輝主導的本土化進程。這代表一個時代的結束。
然而蔣方良卻是沈默的。離鄉背井的一生、摯愛夫婿去世後面對私生子的存在、白髮人送黑髮人的晚年，她像許多那時代的婦女一般，以沈默與忍耐面對種種命運。
就如同我年紀越大，對外婆就越是了解、不忍與疼惜。我不明白我的心是如何把這兩個人聯繫在一起，但直覺告訴我，我能夠體會部份他們的感情。光是那淺薄的一部份，就足以使我心酸。
沒法說太多。講太多只會牽涉到太多隱私。我只能說台灣這個島嶼上，充滿各種先來後到的移民者，也充滿各自的歷史故事與悲情。對話管道的欠缺，互相的不了解，許多善良的人民間竟由此而摩擦仇視。
福佬人的歷史，已經重見天日。所謂四百年悲情，也出現種種脈絡。這段時間足夠悠久，如同拉丁美洲脫離西班牙裔也不過兩百年光陰，拉丁民族便已經出現。然而在這種種出頭天的狂潮中，誰來為失根的外省人寫歷史？
外省第一代已垂垂老矣，第二代從柴米油鹽步入退休，第三代如我，中國意識淡薄，具有良好的教育機會與生活條件，對於祖父母輩的人生經歷，雖然能夠想像體會，終究已經隔了厚厚一層時間隔膜。
再過十年，第一代便會消失殆盡了。所謂老芋仔一詞，也將走入歷史。「中國」傳統以土為親、終歸故土的情感，將在台灣土地上懷抱著遺憾而凋零。原住民要保護、客家人有客委會保存文化，然而就在此時此刻，一個真正的弱勢族群即將消失，而他們一直是沈默的。
在國民黨中央黨部嘶吼的老公公老太婆到底是為了什麼？這些「心懷祖國」、「不認同台灣」、「賣台」的老不死，心中到底在想什麼？他們的生命走過了什麼樣的經歷，是什麼造成如今的行為？
他們受的是傳統文化教育。他們不懂得在民主狂潮中傳達自己的心思。他們沒有走過台灣那段民主啟蒙的時期。他們懷著不被理解的悲情。
許多人講到台灣可以侃侃而談。前幾天跟一位同事討論政治問題，他很明顯是一位自認想清楚了的獨派，也很聰明。對過去時代有些了解，雖說可能並不如我多，但基本上對許多事情的看法是與我相同的。
然而他完全不理解外省人。他不理解他們的想法、他們的遭遇跟心情。想當然爾的結果是許多錯誤的臆測，而正是這些臆測，造成台灣種種分歧。
誠實面對歷史，將事實開誠布公，而不妄加解釋。我深信台灣人有足夠的水準與智慧，只要了解了全部的真相，一種建設性的對話便可以展開。唯有如此，所有過去的傷口，才能真正開始癒合、平復。
德國面對納粹屠殺、南非正視種族隔離，都產生了正面結果。台灣，什麼時候才可以跳脫情感的擺弄，公正客觀的還原一切，從分割的固票操作，轉向真正的和解？
蔣經國大概是六年級的共同回憶。小學時蔣經國去世 (1988)，自此以後開始李登輝主導的本土化進程。這代表一個時代的結束。
然而蔣方良卻是沈默的。離鄉背井的一生、摯愛夫婿去世後面對私生子的存在、白髮人送黑髮人的晚年，她像許多那時代的婦女一般，以沈默與忍耐面對種種命運。
就如同我年紀越大，對外婆就越是了解、不忍與疼惜。我不明白我的心是如何把這兩個人聯繫在一起，但直覺告訴我，我能夠體會部份他們的感情。光是那淺薄的一部份，就足以使我心酸。
沒法說太多。講太多只會牽涉到太多隱私。我只能說台灣這個島嶼上，充滿各種先來後到的移民者，也充滿各自的歷史故事與悲情。對話管道的欠缺，互相的不了解，許多善良的人民間竟由此而摩擦仇視。
福佬人的歷史，已經重見天日。所謂四百年悲情，也出現種種脈絡。這段時間足夠悠久，如同拉丁美洲脫離西班牙裔也不過兩百年光陰，拉丁民族便已經出現。然而在這種種出頭天的狂潮中，誰來為失根的外省人寫歷史？
外省第一代已垂垂老矣，第二代從柴米油鹽步入退休，第三代如我，中國意識淡薄，具有良好的教育機會與生活條件，對於祖父母輩的人生經歷，雖然能夠想像體會，終究已經隔了厚厚一層時間隔膜。
再過十年，第一代便會消失殆盡了。所謂老芋仔一詞，也將走入歷史。「中國」傳統以土為親、終歸故土的情感，將在台灣土地上懷抱著遺憾而凋零。原住民要保護、客家人有客委會保存文化，然而就在此時此刻，一個真正的弱勢族群即將消失，而他們一直是沈默的。
在國民黨中央黨部嘶吼的老公公老太婆到底是為了什麼？這些「心懷祖國」、「不認同台灣」、「賣台」的老不死，心中到底在想什麼？他們的生命走過了什麼樣的經歷，是什麼造成如今的行為？
他們受的是傳統文化教育。他們不懂得在民主狂潮中傳達自己的心思。他們沒有走過台灣那段民主啟蒙的時期。他們懷著不被理解的悲情。
許多人講到台灣可以侃侃而談。前幾天跟一位同事討論政治問題，他很明顯是一位自認想清楚了的獨派，也很聰明。對過去時代有些了解，雖說可能並不如我多，但基本上對許多事情的看法是與我相同的。
然而他完全不理解外省人。他不理解他們的想法、他們的遭遇跟心情。想當然爾的結果是許多錯誤的臆測，而正是這些臆測，造成台灣種種分歧。
誠實面對歷史，將事實開誠布公，而不妄加解釋。我深信台灣人有足夠的水準與智慧，只要了解了全部的真相，一種建設性的對話便可以展開。唯有如此，所有過去的傷口，才能真正開始癒合、平復。
德國面對納粹屠殺、南非正視種族隔離，都產生了正面結果。台灣，什麼時候才可以跳脫情感的擺弄，公正客觀的還原一切，從分割的固票操作，轉向真正的和解？
標籤：
politics
2004年12月9日
預言
年底選舉民進黨不一定會過半，但席次會增長。在正名議題操作下，台聯勢力會維持或萎縮，最大受益者將是民進黨。泛藍席次會更少，絕對無法過半，未來國會將由民進黨及台聯與無黨籍主導。
由於陳水扁欠缺理想性的的現實性格，在符合基本票源期待以及力圖多數民意目的下，黨同伐異形成政治操作習慣。分割及固票形成選舉主要手法，而不是把餅做大。這造成立場激化，中道力量消失。
其實類似的情形一再發生：泛藍有李登輝內奸分化，所以6:4 變成 3:3:4。現在李登輝走人，換上連戰跟宋兩個聯姻不成，局面變成 3:2:5。
再講未來。目前台灣走向法西斯的過程其實並不是陳水扁或者是其他任何主政者心目中的願望。這只是追求政權中產生的副作用。還記得邱義仁今年稍早說的話嗎？年底立委選舉，本來就是割喉戰，現在的選舉語言如此慘烈，本就是可以預期的。
然而每次選後所釋出的善意修復，其實只是進三步退兩步，終究是修復不了。從教育以及政治帶頭全方位的思想改造，目的是創造票源，結果卻是創造出一隻民粹怪物。
就如同文化大革命。目的是政治鬥爭，卻形成一場浩劫。思想鬥爭一旦啟動，價值觀的不同一旦被妖魔化，惡獸就已經誕生。始作俑者若想不被反噬，就只有順勢而為。
這就是台灣的現狀。以「清帝殖民者」命名的「台灣」意識孵育，受詛咒的已經誕生，情勢已經不可逆了。剩下的，只是時間問題。
由於陳水扁欠缺理想性的的現實性格，在符合基本票源期待以及力圖多數民意目的下，黨同伐異形成政治操作習慣。分割及固票形成選舉主要手法，而不是把餅做大。這造成立場激化，中道力量消失。
其實類似的情形一再發生：泛藍有李登輝內奸分化，所以6:4 變成 3:3:4。現在李登輝走人，換上連戰跟宋兩個聯姻不成，局面變成 3:2:5。
再講未來。目前台灣走向法西斯的過程其實並不是陳水扁或者是其他任何主政者心目中的願望。這只是追求政權中產生的副作用。還記得邱義仁今年稍早說的話嗎？年底立委選舉，本來就是割喉戰，現在的選舉語言如此慘烈，本就是可以預期的。
然而每次選後所釋出的善意修復，其實只是進三步退兩步，終究是修復不了。從教育以及政治帶頭全方位的思想改造，目的是創造票源，結果卻是創造出一隻民粹怪物。
就如同文化大革命。目的是政治鬥爭，卻形成一場浩劫。思想鬥爭一旦啟動，價值觀的不同一旦被妖魔化，惡獸就已經誕生。始作俑者若想不被反噬，就只有順勢而為。
這就是台灣的現狀。以「清帝殖民者」命名的「台灣」意識孵育，受詛咒的已經誕生，情勢已經不可逆了。剩下的，只是時間問題。
標籤：
politics
2004年12月1日
Does community really work?
剛才看了無名小站 [http://www.wretch.cc/] 站長對未來的一段話。簡而言之就是要找錢，而為了永續經營，他認為商業化是無可避免的抉擇。
這讓我想到幾件事情。當然思考很亂，也不見得有直接關係。最大題目是：
Does community really work?
直接想到以純粹社群經營成功的 best practice 有幾個：
已有的成功模式是否能再複製呢？或者簡單些說：不論用任何手段，是否只要吸引到足夠的「帳號」，而不只是「眼球數」，就可以成為營利來源？
帳號可以做什麼呢？就以往資管的訓練而言，我們認為帳號非常重要。帳號的行為可以被觀察，與個人資訊相比對，就擁有個人行為的記錄。而社群之間的交流以及固定上站的行為就是營利的來源。
以交流來獲利代表使用費或抽成。使用費在社群已經具有相當規模後，是穩定的現金來源，相當好用。比如交友。然而費用的給付必須換來切實且立即的利益，例如異性，或是更大的硬碟空間，更好的服務。重點是：費用給付之前，必須「可用」，但處處受限。
至於抽成，通常由媒介買賣行為獲得。 eBay 以及奇摩拍賣利潤在此。
而穩定的眼球數…這表示廣告的可能。另一個獲利來源。在此善用資訊科技，以 google 模式收費，將可得到更精準的呈現目標以及更高的廣告主滿意度。
回到無名。以上思考對無名的情形，可以引發什麼新思維？
（功能面可以再敘。總之出現整合媒介取代BBS是遲早的事情。Blog + Album已經提供了一個有趣的方向）
然而拉里拉雜談到這裡，恐怕要問： Where the hell is business model?
這讓我想到幾件事情。當然思考很亂，也不見得有直接關係。最大題目是：
Does community really work?
直接想到以純粹社群經營成功的 best practice 有幾個：
- Yahoo
- eBay
- blogger (But, does it engage in making profit?)
已有的成功模式是否能再複製呢？或者簡單些說：不論用任何手段，是否只要吸引到足夠的「帳號」，而不只是「眼球數」，就可以成為營利來源？
帳號可以做什麼呢？就以往資管的訓練而言，我們認為帳號非常重要。帳號的行為可以被觀察，與個人資訊相比對，就擁有個人行為的記錄。而社群之間的交流以及固定上站的行為就是營利的來源。
以交流來獲利代表使用費或抽成。使用費在社群已經具有相當規模後，是穩定的現金來源，相當好用。比如交友。然而費用的給付必須換來切實且立即的利益，例如異性，或是更大的硬碟空間，更好的服務。重點是：費用給付之前，必須「可用」，但處處受限。
至於抽成，通常由媒介買賣行為獲得。 eBay 以及奇摩拍賣利潤在此。
而穩定的眼球數…這表示廣告的可能。另一個獲利來源。在此善用資訊科技，以 google 模式收費，將可得到更精準的呈現目標以及更高的廣告主滿意度。
回到無名。以上思考對無名的情形，可以引發什麼新思維？
- 無名有穩定使用者群。根基在自我表現慾（影像以及文字）以及對他人的窺視慾望。此為無名網站本質 － 人的交流，而非買賣行為或尋求知識。
- 根據此本質，「尋求認同」的慾望將是動機根源。
- 黑名單：阻擋一切行為。被擋者眼中此人將「不存在」。
- 白名單：自設「特殊」網誌，「特殊」相簿開放。
（功能面可以再敘。總之出現整合媒介取代BBS是遲早的事情。Blog + Album已經提供了一個有趣的方向）
然而拉里拉雜談到這裡，恐怕要問： Where the hell is business model?
- 廣告收入已經確定。停留在此，不要躁進。
- 將公司停留在網管以及程式設計師組成的規模，以有經驗的電子商務經理人帶領。現階段規模必須小。
- 以「使用者不收費」的方式擊倒目前以交流為主的社群網站。e.g. 奇摩。（based on 資訊不平衡，這是重點！）
標籤：
business
訂閱：
文章
(
Atom
)