Profil de LeThe Milky WayPhotosBlogListes Outils Aide

Blog


26 octobre

3200米和5000米

周五跑了3200(bull run),今天跑了5000(Great Eastern Women 10K),前一个的主办商
是新交所,后一个是Great Eastern,本地的保险公司。

今年的速度(粗略):
3.2k  20分钟(人太多,起跑很久后才挪的开步子)
5k    34分钟  (和10k冠军跑完10k的时间差不多,人家是34分55秒[:O]

3.2公里20分钟,比去年慢了近2分钟。基本满意吧,过去一年没有好好做运动,不敢拼得
太狠。今天也是,身体第一,量力而行。5公里是第一次跑,觉得没有想象中可怕,但想想
那些跑10公里的人,心中还是生出无限的敬意。

到了终点后,我看到工作人员在发小铜牌,上面写着2008 Great Eastern Women 10K,我
也想去拿一个,却被告知只有参加10k的人才有,我这样只参加5k的没有。虽然有点遗憾,
还是很真诚地同意,they deserve it.

周五参加Bull Run的时候大家突然觉得有点伤感。特别是我和饺子这样连续参加过两年的
人,这种一年一次的活动特别能提醒人时光流逝之快。而明年我们中的一些人可能会离开
新加坡,明年此时,再不会这么多相熟的mm聚在一起,run, and have fun.

--
Emily Le Jia
------------------------
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but  the one most responsive to change."   —Charles Darwin

失败的减肥月(续《跳舞+跑步=减肥月》)

今天大早爬起来,去参加了8:30开始的5千米长跑。跑完后,跳舞+跑步=减肥月
中提到的内容算是全部完成。

称一下体重,貌似没有瘦。

痛定思痛,总结原因如下:

我们firm trip时住的酒店的自助早餐很好吃,所以我放开肚皮吃了两天,估计把前两个星
期跳舞减下去的膘都吃回来了;

前天跑完3200米后,我们就去饭店大吃了一顿,给朋友庆生;

周末我们自己在家做饭,太好吃了,经常吃撑(而且我还经常负责扫底);

还有,本月因为经常做运动,导致俺本来就很好的胃口更好了,于是……

[:
25 octobre

ITunes-U

今天发现苹果的ITune有一个激动人心的功能,就是ITunes-U。在这里,你可以看到无数顶尖学府、博物馆和机构免费提供的讲座和教学片。如果你有ipod,iphone,就可以下载了随时看了哦。:)
 
这里是介绍短片。
 
ps:Itunes是可以免费下载在各种电脑上用的。不一定要借助ipod,iphone。
--
Emily Le Jia
------------------------
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but  the one most responsive to change."   —Charles Darwin
23 octobre

zz:问题家庭成就美国总统?from wsj

问题家庭成就美国总统?英 | 大 | 中 | 小2008年10月23日07:40

看着自己的孩子长大成人,最终成为总统,这一直被认为是为人父母的典范。

如果你身为父母,或许应对此重新思考一下。

这些养育出美国总统的家庭并不总是伟大的楷模。事实上,他们都明显表露出具有严重缺陷的趋势。根据对历史学家和家族史学者的采访和总统传纪的研究,过去的一些总统在儿童时代都经历了异常程度的父亲角色缺失,因此得到了母亲过多的照顾,有时甚至达到了反常的程度,她们可以被视为是最早一批"直升机父母",即过分保护和关爱子女的父母。

道格•韦德(Doug Wead)着有两本有关总统家庭的书籍。他说,会毁掉大多数孩子的儿提时代事件看来在某种程度上反而激发了未来领导人身上伟大的一面。对于今年竞选总统的两位候选人迥然不同的家庭背景,韦德甚至认为麦凯恩和奥巴马在不同程度和截然不同的方式上都符合他所说的模式,即都是"妈妈的乖男孩,而父亲角色的不足被这些孩子认为是至关重要的因素"。

当然,从遥远的历史脉络中分析家庭的模式可能会有失简单。许多总统的家庭,包括约翰•亚当斯(John Adams)、哈里•杜鲁门(Harry Truman)和德怀特•艾森豪威尔(Dwight Eisenhower)的父母,都是相对正面的范例。但在这样一个父母完美主义的时代,研究不同寻常的人物能够让父母们看到希望:我们的孩子也能超越我们的弱点和失败。韦德说,除了任何特殊的事情之外,过去那些总统成功的关键在于更难以界定的内在动力。

新泽西州作家、精神病学家和家庭疗法专家莫妮卡•麦戈德里克(Monica McGoldrick)说,在问题家庭,不想默默无闻的孩子就必须变得更为卓越,才能生存。当你没有两个能够非常支持你的好父母时,你就要寻找和发现坚毅和卓越的源泉,这样你就变得卓尔不群了。

一些总统就出自著名的问题家庭。普利策奖获得者、历史学家朵丽丝•柯恩斯•古德文(Doris Kearns Goodwin)在所写的有关林肯总统的《竞争者的团队》(Team of Rivals)一书中讲到,在林肯母亲去世后不久,林肯的父亲托马斯•林肯(Thomas Lincoln)为了寻找新欢,抛弃了9岁的小林肯和他12岁的姐姐几个月之久。林肯的继母──萨拉•布什•约翰斯顿(Sarah Bush Johnston)后来写道,当托马斯最终跟她一起返回家中时,发现两个孩子蓬头垢面,衣裳褴褛,如同野人一般。

古德文说,林肯的父亲经常不让他上学、让他同其它农民一起干活偿债,或是嘲笑他懒惰,因为他总是把时间花在了读书上。她和其他历史学家都交口称赞亚伯拉罕的母亲南希•汉克斯•林肯(Nancy Hanks Lincoln)和继母给林肯带来了关怀和爱心,最终促使他成为了领袖。林肯在谈到他的母亲时说,我现在的成就或是以后所希望的成就都应归功于她。

还有另一个著名的问题家庭。根据大卫•麦兰尼斯(David Maraniss)的传记,比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton)的父亲在他出生前就去世了;他的继父沉迷于酒色,经常殴打他的母亲弗吉尼亚(Virginia)。尽管在弗吉尼亚温和慈爱的照顾下,克林顿成为了家中受人羡慕的中心,但他后来也说过,他常常会想念他的生父。

韦德说,很多领袖人物都把有问题的上一辈转化为了成长动力。奥巴马的父亲是个失败的肯尼亚政客,在奥巴马两岁的时候就和妻子分居了,奥巴马童年时只见过他几周时间,他在奥巴马21岁的时候就去世了。不过,正如奥巴马在《来自父亲的梦想》(Dreams from My Father)一书中所写的,他小时候从亲戚那里听到的却是父亲"品德高尚"的伟大故事。他着重强调了父亲的优点──一个聪明、有天分、有远大梦想和抱负的演说家,并将其视为希望的化身。奥巴马写道,即使在他不在我身边,他强大的形像也使我的成长有了坚强的堡垒,我要么无愧于他,不然就会令他失望。

历史学家说,更明显的一个情况是,很多总统都有一位强势而古怪的母亲。韦德说,威廉•麦金利(William McKinley)就任总统后,他在白宫和俄亥俄州的母亲家之间设了一条电话专线,以便每天都可以说说话。历史学家桃乐丝•费伯(Doris Faber) 1968年在一本有关总统母亲的书中写道,年幼的富兰克林•罗斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)曾经因患腥红热而被寄宿学校隔离,他的母亲萨拉•罗斯福(Sara Delano Roosevelt)找了一个梯子,每天爬到他的窗边探望他。

林登•约翰逊(Lyndon Johnson)的传记作者古德文说,当约翰逊的父亲不在家的时候,他母亲会让他睡在她的房间里,她把他放在了自己生活的中心。这样的母子关系帮助培养了约翰逊勇于进取的雄心壮志。包括伍德罗•威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)和林登•约翰逊在内的一些总统实际上就曾自称是"妈妈的宝贝儿子"。麦凯恩在《父辈们的信念》(Faith of My Fathers)中也自称是"我妈妈的宝贝儿子"。

韦德说,即使是有着显赫将门背景的麦凯恩家庭也遵循这个模式:父亲长期不在家,强势的母亲既当妈又当爸。麦凯恩的父亲是位令人尊敬的四星海军上将,曾在越战中担任太平洋部队的指挥官。不过在麦凯恩小时候,父亲大部分时间都不在家。麦凯恩为父亲感到骄傲,家人曾教导他要把父亲的长期不在家视为"一种荣耀,而非一种缺失"。

不过,麦凯恩也用了大量的笔墨描写父亲的缺点。他写道,他是在"一个缺少关爱和保护的家庭"中长大的。他将父亲描述成是"一位遥不可及又难以琢磨的一家之长";谈到父亲与酗酒的斗争时,麦凯恩写道,"当他喝醉的时候,我就不认得他了"。接着他写到了母亲,"她总是心胸博大,给于她的孩子们世上最多的关爱和照顾。(两位候选人都通过发言人拒绝就本文接受采访。)

韦德说,2005年他写了《如何培养一位总统》(The Raising of a President)一书,希望找到培养未来领袖人物的"一些小要素"。不过他说,他发现总统们的父母和任何家长一样神经质、占有欲强、表现差劲;作为一位家长,他觉得这一发现"是一个大解脱"。关键是这些总统如何能够超越这些经历,或是以此作为激励发奋图强。

家长要付出些什么呢?韦德说,爱是关键。即使是在缺乏管教的家庭里,未来的总统们通常也能在其他地方找到约束,比如军队或是学校里。不过韦德说,有了足够的父母之爱这种关键成分,孩子就能意识到,"我不必拘束于自己的过去"。

Seeing your own little Johnny or Jenny grow up to be president has traditionally been regarded as a pinnacle of parenting.

If you're a parent, you might want to rethink that.

The families that have produced U.S. presidents aren't always great role models. In fact, they show a striking tendency to be deeply flawed. The childhoods of past presidents have been marked to an unusual degree by absent fathers, mothers so overinvolved that they could easily have been the original helicopter parents, and in some cases outright dysfunction, based on interviews with historians and family-history scholars and a review of presidential history books.

Childhood events that would destroy most children seem somehow to spark greatness in leaders-to-be, says Doug Wead, author of two books on presidents' families. As two candidates with highly unusual family backgrounds vie for the presidency, Mr. Wead even sees Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama -- to different degrees and in starkly different ways -- fitting a pattern he describes as 'Mama's boys with absent fathers who were perceived by the sons as high achievers,' he says.

To be sure, analyzing family patterns from afar, through the veil of history, risks oversimplifying them. Many presidents' families, including the parents of John Adams, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, serve as relatively positive examples. But in this era of parental perfectionism, studying the unusual ones can lend hope to parents that our children, too, can rise above our foibles and failings. Beyond any particular thing, Mr. Wead says, the key to success for past presidents was a harder-to-define internal drive.

In troubled families, children 'who don't fall through the cracks really have to become transcendent to survive,' says Monica McGoldrick, a Highland Park, N.J., author, psychiatrist and family-therapy expert. 'When you don't have two nice parents who are very supportive . . . you seek out and find sources of resilience and transcendence -- and you become amazing.'

Some presidents' families have been famously dysfunctional. Thomas Lincoln abandoned 9-year-old Abraham and his sister, 12, for several months in their frontier cabin right after the death of their mother, while he went to find a new wife, says Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and author most recently of 'Team of Rivals,' a book about Lincoln. When Thomas finally returned with their new stepmother, Sarah Bush Johnston, the couple found them 'wild -- ragged and dirty,' seeming barely human, the stepmother later wrote.

Abraham's father was 'constantly taking him out of school or making him work off debt with other farmers or making fun of him that he was lazy because he was reading' so much, Ms. Kearns says. She and other historians credit his mother, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, and stepmother with providing the nurturing and love that propelled him to leadership. 'All that I am or ever hope to be,' Lincoln said of his mother, 'I owe to her.'

In another notably troubled family, Bill Clinton's father died before Bill was born; his stepfather was a womanizer and an alcoholic who beat his mother, Virginia, according to biographer David Maraniss. Although Virginia, a warm, nurturing woman, made her son the adored centerpiece of the family, President Clinton said later that he often pined for his birth father.

Many leaders manage to draw inspiration from troubled legacies, Mr. Wead says. Sen. Obama's father, a failed Kenyan politician, separated from Barack's mother when their son was 2 years old, saw Barack for only a few weeks during his childhood and died when Barack was 21. Yet the senator as a child experienced relatives' larger-than-life stories about his father as 'a morality tale,' he wrote in his book, 'Dreams from My Father.' He focused on his father's good qualities -- as a brilliant, gifted orator with high ideals and ambitions -- and came to regard him as the embodiment of hope. 'Even in his absence,' Sen. Obama wrote, 'his strong image had given me some bulwark on which to grow up, an image to live up to, or disappoint.'

In an even stronger pattern, historians say, many presidents had dominant and eccentric mothers. When Nancy McKinley's son William became president, he set up a special telephone wire from the White House to her home in Ohio so they could talk every day, Mr. Wead says. And when young Franklin Roosevelt was quarantined with scarlet fever at his boarding school, Sara Delano Roosevelt found a ladder and climbed to his window to inspect him daily, wrote historian Doris Faber in a 1968 book on presidents' mothers.

Lyndon Johnson's mother had Lyndon sleep in her bedroom when his father was away; she 'put him at the center of her life,' says Ms. Goodwin, his biographer. That bond helped create in her son 'that ambition to go forward in the world.' Some presidents, including Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson, have actually called themselves 'Mama's boys.' In his book 'Faith of My Fathers,' Sen. McCain, too, calls himself 'my mother's son.'

Even the McCain family, with its tradition of distinguished military service, fits the pattern of an absent father and an overinvolved mother who fills the gap, Mr. Wead says. Sen. McCain's father was a respected four-star Navy admiral and commander of Pacific forces in the Vietnam war, but he was mostly absent from home during Sen. McCain's childhood. Sen. McCain reflects pride in his father and was taught to regard his long absences 'not as a deprivation, but as an honor.'

But he also spends a fair amount of ink on his fathers' failings. He writes that he grew up lacking 'a loving and protective family.' He describes his father as 'a distant, inscrutable patriarch'; of his father's battle with alcoholism, he writes that 'when he was drunk, I did not recognize him.' He turned to his mother as a result, writing, 'Her heart has always been large enough to encompass her children with as much love and care as any mother's child has ever enjoyed.' (Both candidates declined through spokesmen to be interviewed for this column.)

Mr. Wead undertook his 2005 book, 'The Raising of a President,' hoping to discover 'some little key' to parenting children who rise to leadership, he says. But, he found the presidents' parents 'were as neurotic and possessive and awful as anybody's,' he says -- a discovery he found 'very liberating' as a parent. Instead, the unifying thread was 'how these presidents were able to transcend these experiences or re-invent them as inspirational.'

What's the takeaway for parents? 'Love is the key,' Mr. Wead says. Even in families that lacked discipline, future presidents were often able to find it elsewhere, in the military or school. But with enough of the crucial ingredient -- parental love -- Mr. Wead says, a child can realize, 'I do not have to be a prisoner of my past.'

Sue Shellenbarger


19 octobre

zz:今日金句

 
在针对《资本主义失败了?》一文的回复中,网友penkiss评论说:

就比如有时勾引凯子未遂也感叹几句包办婚姻的好处,但是清醒正常的人还是提倡自由恋爱。

18 octobre

Fwd: Buffett Editorial at NY Times

October 17, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Buy American. I Am. 

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I've been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I'm talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation's many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Let me be clear on one point: I can't predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven't the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor's best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America's future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn't. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky's advice: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been."

I don't like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I'll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: "Put your mouth where your money was." Today my money and my mouth both say equities. Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.


--
Emily Le Jia
------------------------
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but  the one most responsive to change."   —Charles Darwin
17 octobre

Anonymouslawfirm

Dear all 

http://www.anonymouslawfirm.com/

Check it out

Have fun


 

9 octobre

“人们是如此迷恋特权"

"这个小家庭,像很多受害家庭一样,处于中国社会的中下层,他们选择三鹿奶粉,因为它是全国性的名牌,又价格低廉。就在这些父母惊慌失措的拥挤在医院门口,等待为自己怀中婴儿测试时;另一些父母则相当平静,他们的宝宝一直喝的是进口奶粉。它或许也解释了为何中国社会的竞争是如此的激烈,人们是如此迷恋特权。只有你在人群中的最上层,才可能过上一个基本安全的生活;只有特权,才可能尽量减少生活中残酷一面对你的压迫,或许正是因为饱尝那些压迫,那些人一旦获得特权,立刻表现出变本加厉的冷漠和傲慢。"
 
 
这段引文,来自许知远最新的专栏文章。
 
"人们是如此迷恋特权"
 
诚哉斯言。

--
Emily Le Jia
------------------------
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but  the one most responsive to change."   —Charles Darwin
8 octobre

哈佛研究挑战长尾理论

科技大观

哈佛研究挑战长尾理论

| |

果150年前就有PowerPoint的话,梭罗(Thoreau)可能会警告我们,不仅要谨防那些要求新衣服的企业,还要谨防那些需要新范例的企业。

每隔一段时间总会有一些理论或书籍面世,迫使我们重新思考我们自以为了解的社会运作方式。2006年的《长尾理论》(The Long Tail)就是其中之一。该书认为,互联网及其似乎无限的选择正在改变经济和文化的面貌。如今,发表在《哈佛商业评论》(Harvard Business Review)上的一篇文章对此予以了驳斥,并表示,当今社会出现的任何变化都可能是完全不同于以往的类型。

长尾理论的提出者、《连线》(Wired)杂志编辑克里斯•安德森(Chris Anderson)认为,我们的文化和经济重心正在加速转移,从需求曲线头部的少数大热门(主流产品和市场)转向需求曲线尾部的大量小众产品。

原因很简单,互联网赋予了消费者无限的选择空间让一切成为可能。一家唱片店只有放得下固定数量唱片的货架空间,而对iTunes来说,只要服务器存储容量够,它就可以连接几百万首歌曲。 因此,安德森认为,面向特定小群体的产品和服务可以和主流热点具有同样的经济吸引力。由此,企业管理者不得不相应调整他们的商业计划。

自两年前问世以来,《长尾理论》一直在硅谷(Silicon Valley) 被奉为圣典。先前那些可预见商业前景一般的商业计划频频援引《长尾理论》加以佐证,原因是该书显然已经证明互联网不仅仅是少数大热门的领地。如果有人对此提出异议,他们会遭到遗憾和轻蔑的目光,就好像后者刚刚承认还在使用Kaypro电脑一样。

如今,这种情形可能就要发生改变了,这都要归功于哈佛商学院市场营销学教授安妮塔•埃尔贝斯(Anita Elberse)的一篇文章(网上链接:tinyurl.com/3rg5gp)。埃尔贝斯教授采用了严格的统计方法,对娱乐和文化产业的数据进行了分析,其严谨程度堪比棒球数据分析员的专业精神。

埃尔贝斯教授在分析了在线视频租赁和音乐购买数据后发现,消费者在网上的购买行为模式和在实体商店里基本一样。热门产品市场的重要性丝毫没有被"小众"产品削弱,而且有证据显示,互联网实际上正在使热门产品的地位不断增强,而不是萎缩。

Alamy
可别急着丢掉那些旧范例!长尾理论或许是错的。
对此,安德森在他的长尾理论博客thelongtail.com上回应道,他和埃尔贝斯教授的分析之所以有悖,大多是因为双方对"热门"和"非热门",或者《长尾理论》书中提到的"头"和"尾",的定义不同。除此之外,安德森对埃尔贝斯教授大加赞赏,并表示他欢迎这种对长尾理论的严格审视。

除了严谨的数据分析之外,埃尔贝斯教授还提醒读者,大量定性社会研究表明《长尾理论》在描述促使消费者选择网上购物的因素上可能是错误的。《长尾理论》认为,读者和电影观众急于摆脱实物库存带来的束缚,这样他们就能够在长长的尾巴上的成千、成百万的作品中流连忘返。

但是埃尔贝斯教授表示,研究显示即便在文化消费当中,我们也经常是非常从众的。我们喜欢体验别人正在经历的事情,仅仅是别人正在经历和喜欢某样东西的事实都会使我们对之青睐有加。我们远远不是对文化有着截然不同品位的个人主义者,我们中的大多数人都非常乐意有人提议我们应当追从什么。

热门还是冷门?
正方:2006年,《长尾理论》提出,互联网因为其提供的无限的"货架"空间,可能导致大热门产品市场的萎缩,冷门产品的高速成长。

反方:如今,一位哈佛大学教授发表的一项研究显示,互联网实际上是在巩固一小部分文化热门产品既有的绝对优势地位。

争论:消费者行为的要素。在形成自己的品位的过程中,我们是希望无限的选择,还是喜欢从众、跟随他人的好恶?
本专栏的忠实读者可能还记得,在《长尾理论》刚刚面市的时候,我们对它表示过的怀疑。现在回想起来,《长尾理论》 似乎也在遵循《连线》杂志许多文章的套路:选择一个半真半假、略有点意思、科技感十足的想法,铺天盖地地吹捧一番,然后把它归到能够颠覆世界的一类。

《长尾理论》畅销不衰的部分原因和这个理论本身一样有意思。首先,它不吝笔墨地奉承其读者──很多都身处科技行业,声称互联网正在改变一切。此外,由于许多科技精英对传统的文化供应商(如录音棚和电影工作室等)持有轻蔑的看法,他们倾向于欣赏一切预见传统文化势力遭到侵蚀的说法。

博客也在宣扬长尾理论方面扮演了特殊的角色,这也毫不意外,因为长尾理论宣称,即便是最不起眼的博客也可能赢得大量读者。但可悲的事实是,博客领域和其它文化产品一样也受到"热门驱动"理论的影响:只有很小部分的博客吸引了绝大部分的浏览量,还有很多博客根本无人问津。

互联网显然正在改变人们的文化消费习惯,但是这些变化似乎并没有涉及长尾理论预言的需求曲线急速变平的现象。虽然全新的文化产品──比如YouTube视频等确实正在崭露头角,但是它们似乎很快就陷入了"前谷歌(Google)时代"上演的"胜者为王"的老戏路。看着吧,可别急着丢掉那些旧范例!


Lee Gomes

(编者按:本文作者Lee Gomes是《华尔街日报》专栏"Portals"的专栏作家,栏目内容以科技、商业及相关的主题为主。)


--
Emily Le Jia
------------------------
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but  the one most responsive to change."   —Charles Darwin