for about two monthes. I have done nothing at all. Just wondering, I have no power and interest to study and deal with the matters. 在这两个月中，我每天都过的很颓废，他不是原因只是我逃避的借口。这一切是我人生信念的倒塌而造成的，别人的错都被我的错给掩盖了。像个寄生虫一样，毫无意义，不应该如此活着，这样是有问题的，后果很严重。 马冬有错吗？ 1、利用我的无知和对爱情的憧憬，欺骗我的感情和肉体！并且是赤裸裸的欺骗。 以爱之名，行欺骗之实。 我有错吗？ 1、自不量力，想去get the stuff more than you can，贪欲。是的， 你是真心爱他的，是真心付出的，是用自己的生命在爱他，我的世界里只有他，可是他的世界是big world。是理智，是博弈，是适者生存，是玩弄和欺骗利用，是一笔取之不尽用之不竭的资源，并且可以随时抛弃！总而言之，他不爱你，你只是他的猎物。 2、我当日的种种闹腾，难道都是我的原因吗？不爱，不在乎，他又有错吗？也许他的名字是假的，家庭是假的，我们之间只是可怜的一个电话号码维系，你认为一切是真的吗？怎么可能，他是在玩你而已。 3、在以后的数年之间，你都沉浸在悲伤痛苦的日子中，他有care过你吗，路人甲而已。而你把这种痛苦加在别人的身上，没有他，你今天会是什么样子。你把所有的责任都归咎于他，其实错的一直都是你，你的纵欲，你的玩世不恭，你的懈怠，你的懒惰，难道是别人的责任。我可以理智的对待别人，可始终无法理智的对待你，我心中的爱，从未消失过，我心中的痛，一直无法释怀，一切随风而逝是句屁话。心中难以割舍的爱，其实一直是自己在爱自己，而又让自己受苦。在这场爱情里，注定是我一个人的独舞。永远都是。。。 4、so long time，you still so stupid to have hope to look forward his back。stupid！不要相信命运，不要相信转世轮回，不要相信因果报应，不要相信会有补偿。一切都过去了，留下的只有心中这永远的痛！走掉的人就永远不该也不会再回来。珍惜身边的人，不要伤害其他人。 5、你没那么重要，沧海一粟，but you should struggle to prove who you are，for your love and who love you。 6、学会放下。。。
去年，我们实验室在内含子进化方面做出了一些自我感觉不错的研究结果。字斟句酌地整理好论文，兴致勃勃地投到了我们这个领域最好的期刊Molecular Biology and Evolution。若干星期之后，收到审稿意见。评审人指出了一些问题，所有问题我们都是可以改的，但主编没有给修改的机会。理由是期刊稿件量太多，他们只能接受最好的论文。没办法，换了一个期刊，又换一个期刊。都不行。但每一次，我们都按审稿意见认真修改了。 最后，我们把论文投往本领域的普通期刊BMC Evolutionary Biology。这一次，两个审稿人对稿件都很满意，仅提出一些小的修改意见。在审稿意见中Level of interest 一栏，两位审稿人的一致评价是: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field（1）。很少的一点问题，我们很快就修改完成。没想到，小小的修改又审了很久。看到审稿状态显示审稿意见已经回到编辑部，主编做决定又拖了好多天。这段时间，对他们真得很不满意。 没想到，久等的编辑部来信竟然是个意外的惊喜。经过征求专业编委的意见，编辑部认为我们的论文达到了他们的旗舰期刊BMC Biology的要求。让我们选择在BMC Biology还是继续在BMC Evolutionary Biology上发表我们的论文。他们的提示是，前者读者面更广、影响更大。我们毫不犹豫地选择了BMC Biology。除了读者面广外，还有很现实的考虑，研究生评奖学金的把握大小和我的科研津贴的多少。 与BMC Evolutionary Biology相比，BMC Biology的出版费贵了225英镑。相应地，编辑部在论文上的投入明显大于该公司出版的BMC Evolutionary Biology等普通期刊。他们在编辑格式时，对论文语言做了一次全面修改，相当于一次语言公司的修改。一般期刊只要求语言上没有明显问题就算了。另外，论文发表后，编辑部为每一篇论文都写一个“Editor's summary”，从编辑的角度、用通俗的语言简单介绍一下文章的结果。个别优秀的论文，他们还会邀请专家写评论文章“Commentary”。当然，这些投入是要花费时间的，如果选择在专业期刊上发表，论文online的时间估计会快一个星期以上（根据同期我评审的他人论文的审稿发表时间估计的）。 经过这次投稿经历，对BMC系列期刊的好感明显增加。该网站上介绍说，作者还可以把论文直接投给BMC系列的两个旗舰期刊BMC Biology和BMC Medicine。这两个期刊如果退稿，审稿意见应作者要求可以直接转给BMC系列的专业期刊（2）。 简单地发几句感慨。有些内容不错的论文，因为论文组织写作不够完美，最初作者投的好期刊不接受。但作者按审稿意见认真修改好了论文，原来的期刊又不接受重投。经过反复退稿，作者也心灰意冷了。不想再受刺激了。这种情况下，BMC系列的专业期刊无疑是一个好的选择。 相关博文： 《科学》最新报道：退稿有益 1）、BMC系列期刊审稿时要求审稿人评价一下论文的意义大小。他们将学术论文的意义大小分为6个层次： An exceptional article (相当于Cell, Nature和Science等顶级期刊论文的水平) An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field (相当于各领域最好的专业期刊论文的水平) An article of importance in its field An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests An article of limited interest An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal 2）、Nature、PLoS等出版多个层次专业期刊的机构也有类似的服务，但只有向下单向传递审稿意见。如PLoS的PLoS Computational Biology等期刊退稿时，编辑会建议作者考虑将论文投往PLoS One，他们可以把审稿意见转过去。但PLoS One审稿中发现的好论文不会转到PLoS Biology等好一些的期刊发表。
Dear Prof. Peiyang: New articles: colleagues in your discipline have identified the following article(s) as being of interest: Article Title Discipline Rele- vance News- worthiness Medication Adherence Interventions: Comparative Effectiveness. Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science. Evid Rep Technol Assess Endocrine 6 5 Respirology/Pulmonology 6 5 General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 3 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 3 Improving Health Care and Palliative Care for Advanced and Serious Illness. Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science. Evid Rep Technol Assess Oncology - Palliative and Supportive Care 6 4 General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 4 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 4 Nephrology 5 3 Cardiology 4 4 Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science. Evid Rep Technol Assess Pediatric Neonatology 6 6 Surgery - General 6 4 Infectious Disease 5 5 The effects of graded motor imagery and its components on chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Psychiatry 5 4 Effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions to improve antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Br J Gen Pract General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 4 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 4 Postoperative subcutaneous instillation of low-dose ketorolac but not hydromorphone reduces wound exudate concentrations of interleukin-6 and interleukin-10 and improves analgesia following cesarean delivery. J Pain Obstetrics 6 6 Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. Evid Rep Technol Assess Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists 6 5 Internal Medicine 6 5 Effect of acetazolamide and autoCPAP therapy on breathing disturbances among patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome who travel to altitude: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 6 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 6 High- versus low-stimulation current threshold for axillary plexus blocks: a prospective randomized triple-blinded noninferiority trial in 205 patients. Anesth Analg Anesthesiology 6 5
循证医学临床证据 EvidenceUpdates for: 12/3/2012 Dear Prof. Peiyang: New articles: colleagues in your discipline have identified the following article(s) as being of interest: Article Title Discipline Rele- vance News- worthiness Omentoplasty for esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Surgery - Gastrointestinal 5 5 General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 7 5 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 7 5 Ultrarush versus semirush initiation of insect venom immunotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Allergy and Immunology 6 6 Phenylephrine infusion versus bolus regimens during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a double-blind randomized clinical trial to assess hemodynamic changes. Anesth Analg Obstetrics 6 5 Anesthesiology 5 4 A single preoperative dose of gabapentin does not improve postcesarean delivery pain management: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding trial. Anesth Analg Anesthesiology 5 5 Obstetrics 4 3 A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a classification-based system for subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Surgery - Orthopaedics 4 4 Endometrial Cancer Risk Factors by 2 Main Histologic Subtypes: The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Am J Epidemiol Gynecology 5 5 Oncology - Gynecology 5 4 Effects of intensity of arm training on hemiplegic upper extremity motor recovery in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil Neurology 5 4 Can a six-week exercise intervention improve gross motor function for non-ambulant children with cerebral palsy? A pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil Pediatrics (General) 5 5 Analysis of Florida and New York state hospital discharges suggests that carotid stenting in symptomatic women is associated with significant increase in mortality and perioperative morbidity compared with carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg Surgery - Vascular 6 6 Effectiveness of a video-based therapy program at home after acute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil Neurology 6 5 Effects of fibrates in kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol Cardiology 4 4 The effect of age on outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery compared with balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stent implantation among patients with multivessel coronary disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from 10 randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Surgery - Cardiac 5 5 Endovascular versus conventional medical treatment for uncomplicated chronic type B aortic dissection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Surgery - Cardiac 6 5 Cardiology 5 4 Oral immunotherapy for milk allergy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 6 6 Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adults: A Systematic Review to Update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 6 4 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 6 4
At a time of rising interest in new forms of teaching to effect greater learning, Harvard Magazine asked Harry Lewis, Gordon McKay professor of computer science , to recount how he rethought his—and his students’—roles in creating a new course, and what he learned from teaching it. ~The Editors Computer science is booming at Harvard (and across the country). The number of concentrators has nearly tripled in five years. For decades, most of our students have been converts; barely a third of recent CS graduates intended to study the field when they applied to college. But sometime in 2010, we realized that this boom was different from those of earlier years, when many of our students came to computer science from mathematics, physics, and engineering. Today many seem to be coming from the life sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Never having studied formal mathematics, these students were struggling in our mathematically demanding courses. Their calculus and linear algebra courses did not teach them the math that is used to reason about computer programs: logic, proofs, probability, and counting (figuring out how many poker hands have two pairs, for example). Without these tools they could become good computer programmers, but they couldn’t become computer scientists at all. It was time to create a new course to fill in the background. I’ve developed big courses like CS 50, our introduction to the field. Courses for specialists, like CS 121 (“Introduction to the Theory of Computation”) and CS 124 (“Data Structures and Algorithms”), the theory courses in the CS concentration. A lecture course mixing math and public policy—my “Bits” course, part of the Core and General Education curricula. Even a freshman seminar for 12, outside my professional expertise: on amateur athletics—really a social history of sports in America, heavily laced with Harvardiana. So I figured I knew how to create courses. They always come out well—at least by the standard that I can’t possibly do a worse job than the previous instructor! This time was different. Figuring out the right topics was the easy part. I polled faculty about their upper-level courses and asked them what math they wished their students knew. I looked at the websites of courses at competing institutions, and called some former students who teach those courses to get the real story. (College courses are no more likely to work as advertised than anything else described in a catalog.) Thus was born CS 20, “Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science.” But once I knew what I needed to teach, I started worrying. Every good course I have ever taught (or taken, for that matter) had a narrative. CS 121 is the story of computability, a century-long intellectual history as well as a beautiful suite of mathematical results. “Bits” is the drama of information freedom, the liberation of ideas from the physical media used to store and convey them (see “Study Card” ). CS 20, on the other hand, risked being more like therapy—so many treatments of this followed by so many doses of that, all nauseating. “It’s good for you” is not a winning premise for a course. And what if students did not show up for class? I had no desire to develop another set of finely crafted slides to be delivered to another near-empty lecture hall. I’ll accept the blame for the declining attendance. My classes are generally video-recorded for an Extension School audience. I believe that if the videos exist, then all my students should have them—and they should have my handouts too. In fact, I think I should share as much of these materials with the world as Harvard’s business interests permit. I could think of ways to force students to show up (not posting my slide decks, or administering unannounced quizzes, for example). But those would be tricks, devices to evade the truth: the digital explosion has changed higher education. In the digital world, there is no longer any reason to use class time to transfer the notes of the instructor to the notes of the student (without passing through the brain of either, as Mark Twain quipped). Instead, I should use the classroom differently. So I decided to change the bargain with my students. Attendance would be mandatory. Homework would be daily. There would be a reading assignment for every class. But when they got to class, they would talk to each other instead of listening to me. In class, I would become a coach helping students practice rather than an oracle spouting truths. We would “flip the classroom,” as they say: students would prepare for class in their rooms, and would spend their classroom time doing what we usually call “homework”—solving problems. And they would solve problems collaboratively, sitting around tables in small groups. Students would learn to learn from each other, and the professor would stop acting as though his job was to train people to sit alone and think until they came up with answers. A principal objective of the course would be not just to teach the material but to persuade these budding computer scientists that they could learn it. It had to be a drawing-in course, a confidence-building course, not a weeding-out course. I immediately ran into one daunting obstacle: there was no place to teach such a course. Every classroom big enough to hold 40 or 50 students was set up on the amphitheater plan perfected in Greece 2,500 years ago. Optimal for a performer addressing an audience; pessimal, as computer scientists would say, for students arguing with each other. The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) had not a single big space with a flat floor and doors that could be closed. Several other SEAS professors also wanted to experiment with their teaching styles, and in the fall of 2011 we started talking about designs. In remarkably short order by Harvard standards, SEAS made a dramatic decision. It would convert some underutilized library space on the third floor of Pierce Hall to a flat-floor classroom. In this prototype there would be minimal technology, just a projection system. Thanks to some heroic work by architects and engineers, the whole job was done between the end of classes in December and the start of classes in late January 2012. The space is bright, open, and intentionally low-tech. The room features lots of whiteboards, some fixed to the walls and others rolling on casters, and small paisley-shaped tables, easily rearranged to accommodate two, four, or six seats. Electric cables run underneath a raised floor and emerge here and there like hydras, sprouting multiple sockets for student laptops, which never seem to have working batteries. A few indispensable accouterments were needed—lots of wireless Internet connectivity; push-of-a-button shades to cover the spectacular skylight; and a guarantee from the building manager that the room would be restocked daily with working whiteboard markers. About 40 brave souls showed up to be the guinea pigs in what I told them would be an experiment. To make the point about how the course would work, I gave on day one not the usual hour-long synopsis of the course and explanation of grading percentages, but a short substantial talk on the “pigeonhole principle”: If every pigeon goes in a pigeonhole and there are more pigeons than pigeonholes, some pigeonhole must have at least two pigeons. I then handed out a problem for the tables to solve using that principle, right then and there: prove that if you pick any 10 points from the area of a 1 x 1 square, then some two of them must be separated by no more than one-third of the square root of two. They got it, and they all came back for the next class, some with a friend or two. (Try it yourself—and remember, it helps to have someone else to work with!) After a few fits and starts, the course fell into a rhythm. We met Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 10 to 11 a.m. The course material was divided into bite-sized chunks, one topic per day. For each topic I created a slide presentation, which was the basis for a 20-minute mini-lecture I recorded on my laptop while sitting at home. The video and the slides were posted on the course website by the end of a given class so students could view them at their convenience before the next class. I also assigned 10 to 20 pages of reading from relevant sources that were free online. (A standard text for this material costs $218.67, and I just couldn’t ask students to spend that kind of money.) The students, in turn, had to answer some short questions online to prove they had done the reading and watched the video before showing up for class. Once in class, I worked one problem and then passed out copies of a sheet posing three or four others. Students worked in groups of four around tables, and each table wrote its solution on a whiteboard. A teaching fellow (TF), generally a junior or senior concentrating in math or computer science, coached and coaxed, and when a table declared it had solved a problem, finally called on a student to explain and defend the group’s solution. (This protocol provided an incentive for the members of a group to explain the solution to each other before one of them was called on.) At the end of the class, we posted the solutions to all the in-class problems, and also posted real homework problems, to be turned in at the beginning of the next class. We took attendance, and we collected the homework submissions at the beginning of class, to make sure people showed up on time. I had serious doubts about whether this protocol would actually work. Required attendance is countercultural at Harvard, as is daily homework to be submitted in class. And education requires the trust of the students. To learn anything, they have to believe the professors know what they are doing. I really didn’t, though I had observed a master teacher, Albert Meyer ’63, Ph.D. ’72, MIT’s Hitachi America professor of engineering, utilize this style with great skill. There was also the choppiness, the lack of a dramatic story line for the whole course. I took the cheap way out of that problem—I threw in some personal war stories related to the material. How Bill Gates ’77, LL.D. ’07, as a sophomore, cracked a problem I gave him about counting pancake flips and published a paper about it called “Bounds for Sorting By Prefix Reversal.” How Mark Zuckerberg ’06 put me at the center of his prototype social-network graph (so pay attention to graph theory, students, you never know when it might come in handy!). With no camera on me, I used the intimacy of the classroom for topical gossip—including updates on the five varsity athletes taking the course, three of them on teams that won Ivy championships during the term. Student feedback was gratifyingly positive. Anonymous responses to my questionnaire included “I’ve found this to be the most helpful teaching method at Harvard” and “Oh my goodness, the in-class problem-solving is beautiful! We need more of it.” Even the negative comments were positive. One student said, “The TFs are great. Professor Lewis’s teaching is not good. …I find it more useful to…talk to the TFs than listen to his lectures.” Fine, I thought to myself, I’ll talk less. My TFs have always been better teachers than I am, anyway, and lots of them are top professors now, so this is par for the course. My favorite: “You might say the class is a kind of start-up, and that its niche is the ‘class as context for active, engaging, useful, and fun problem-solving’ (as opposed to ‘class as context for sitting, listening, and being bored’).” Yes! Discrete mathematics as entrepreneurial educational disruption! What have we learned from the whole CS 20 experiment? Thirty-three topic units were a lot to prepare—each includes a slide deck, a recorded lecture, a selection of readings, a set of in-class problems, and homework exercises. The trickiest part was coordinating the workflow and getting everything at the right difficulty level—manageable within our severe time constraints, but hard enough to be instructive. Fortunately, my head TF, Michael Gelbart, a Princeton grad and a Ph.D. candidate in biophysics, is an organizational and pedagogical genius. When our homework problems were too hard and students became collectively discouraged or angry, we pacified the class with an offering of cupcakes or doughnut holes. We kept the classroom noncompetitive—we gave the normal sorts of exams, but students were not graded on their in-class performance, provided they showed up. That created an atmosphere of trust and support, but in-class problem-solving is pedagogically inefficient: I could have “covered” a lot more material if I were lecturing rather than confronting, in every class, students’ (mis)understanding of the material! Harvard’s class schedule, which allots three class hours per week for every course, is an anachronism of the lecture era; for this course we really need more class time for practice, drill, and testing. I relearned an old cultural lesson in a more international Harvard. Thirty-five years ago I learned the hard way never to assign an exam problem that required knowing the rules of baseball, because (who knew?) in most of the world children don’t grow up talking about innings and batting averages. This year I learned (happily, this time, before I made up the final exam) that there are places where children aren’t taught about hearts and diamonds, because card games are considered sinful. I also responded to some familiar student objections. Having weathered storms of protest in 1995 over randomizing the Houses, I anticipated that students would prefer to pick their own table-mates, but (true to type) I decided that mixing up the groups would make for greater educational dynamism. It worked, but next time I will go one step further. I will re-scramble the groups halfway through the course, so everyone can exchange their newly acquired problem-solving strategies with new partners. With a good set of recorded lectures and in-class problems now in hand, the class could be scaled pretty easily; we could offer multiple sections at different hours of the day, if we could get the classroom space and hire enough conscientious, articulate, mathematically mature undergraduate assistants. Fortunately, the Harvard student body includes a great many of the latter, and I owe a lot of thanks to those who assisted me this year—Ben Adlam, Paul Handorff, Abiola Laniyonu, and Rachel Zax—as well as to Albert Meyer and my colleague Paul Bamberg ’63, senior lecturer on mathematics, who gave me good advice and course materials to adapt for CS 20. I had the added satisfaction, as a longtime distance-education buff, of finding out that this experience could be replicated online. With the support of Henry Leitner, Ph.D. ’82, associate dean in the Division of Continuing Education and senior lecturer in computer science, we tried, and seem to have succeeded. In CSci E-120, offered this spring through the Harvard Extension School, a group of adventurous students, physically spread out from California to England, replicated the CS 20 “active learning” experience. They watched the same lectures and did the same reading on their own time. They “met” together synchronously for three hours per week (in the early evening for some, and the early morning for others). Web conferencing software allowed them to form virtual “tables” of four students each. Each “table” collaborated to solve problems by text-chatting and by scribbling on a shared virtual “whiteboard” using a tablet and stylus. My prize assistant, Deborah Abel ’01, “wandered” among the rooms just as the teaching fellows were doing in the physical space of my Pierce Hall classroom. Most of all, the course was for me an adventure in the co-evolution of education and technology—indeed, of life and technology. The excitement of computing created the demand for the course in the first place. The new teaching style was a response to the flood of digital content—and to my stubborn, libertarian refusal to dam it up. The course couldn’t have been done without digital infrastructure—five years ago I could not have recorded videos, unassisted and on my own time, for students to watch on theirs. The distance version of the course is an exercise in cyber-mediated intercontinental collaboration. Yet in the Harvard College classroom, almost nothing is digital. It is all person-to-person-to-person, a cacophony of squeaky markers and chattering students, assistants, and professor, above which every now and then can be heard those most joyous words, “Oh! I get it now!” 原文见 http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/09/reinventing-the-classroom
Detailed historical account of LAOS rheometry can be found else where . I add here only my own interest in obsolete instrument designs. DAQ from a Weissenberg rheogoniometer R16 (Bogie 1966) The history of LAOS as a test condition is as old as that of oscillatory shearing rheometry . The use of Lissajous figure was first proposed as early as 1944. K. Weissenberg first proposed a harmonic analysis of LAOS data in 1964. In fact it was not easy for early experimentalists to maintain or measure small deformation esp. for complex fluids before necessary technology break through inactuatorsand transducers (e.g. linear voltage differential transformer, LVDT). LAOS was therefore more frequently reached in the past than in today whenever an oscillatory shearing was performed. Harmonic decomposition of the LAOS data was done in various way before the age of computer. One way was fitting the data with a Volterra intergral equation of a limited number of orders to find the corresponding high orderkernels (which was not a real decomposition). Solartron transfer function analyser (TFA) advertised on Sci. Am. (1959) The commercial success of Weissenberg rheogoniometer series evoke the desire to extract higher harmonics from the electric signals. One noticeable idea by Harris and Bogie was using the once-called ‘dynamic analysis’ system, product of Solartron Electronic Groups Ltd. It was inessencea cross-correlation method to obtain higher harmonic information on an analog circuit design. The system consisted of a resolved component indicator (or transfer function analyser , as it was more frequently called) excited by a pair of in-phase / quadratic signals from a mechanical reference generator † . The transfer function analyser technique lasted for as long as one decade on Weissenberg rheogoniometer as its model upgraded from R16 to R18, but bolder try on a computer using FFT was performed in as early as 1971. The analog signal was sampled and input in a signal averager to raise the S/N ratio. From then on, the later development was not hard to imagine: smaller and faster computers coupled with more sensitive and accurate measurement systems. A major transition occurred, though, from Weissenberg rheogoniometer to the Rheometrics mechanic spectrometer (RMS) series during the 1970s, which also shift the LAOS and harmonic analysis to the new device. The device had a few of new feature compared to the Weissenberg counterpart. First, it directly gave the result of G’ and G” , otherwise the earlier rheologists had to manually calculated from the Lissajous curves. Second, it provided an oven chamber to perform high temperature experiment, a feature not easily achievable with old rheogoniometers . And third, it upgrade the driving system from gears-based to electronic motor †† . These features gained a wide acceptance very fast, and ARES soon became a standard of rheometer as well as the platform for LAOS, as the Weissenberg rheogoniometer once had been. † Interested readers may refer to a technical report of the former Royal Aircraft Establishment in 1964 about a measurement system for amplitude and phase available here , which may give a brief description of the technical status at that time. †† Interested readers are referred to Rev. Sci . Instrum . 1984 , 55, 1675 .
Max Neumann wa cultured and well read. He was an amateur poetin both Hungarian and German. At work he was an enlightened businessman who felt it fitting to consider the social desirability of businesses he was financing. Dinner-table discussions with his childrenoften touched on the social responsibilities of bankers. He tried tointerest his sons in banking by bringing home mementos of the businesses his firm was backing. Von Neumann's brother Nicholas speculated that Johnny's idea for computer punched cards was inspired bythe family'sdiscussion of the Jacquard 100m factory that Max's bank financed. ... From childhood, von Neumann was gifted with a photographic memory. At the age of six, he was able to exchange jokes with his father in classical Greek. The Neumann family sometimes entertained guests with demonstrations of Johnny's ability to memorize phone books. A guest would select a page and column of the phone book at random. Young Johnny read the column over a few times, then handed the book back to the guest. He could answer any questions put to him (who has number such and such?) or recite names, addresses, and numbers in order. The Neumann household was a congenial environment for a child prodigy's intellectual development. Max Neumann bought a library in an estate sale, cleared one room of furniture to house it, and commis sioned a cabinetmaker to fit the room with floor-to-ceiling bookcases. Johnny spent many hours reading books from this library. One was the encyclopedic history of the world edited by the once-fashionable German historian Wilhelm Oncken. Von Neumann read it volume by volume. He would balk at getting a haircut unless his mother let him take a volume of Oncken along. By the outbreak of World War I, Johnny had read the entire set and could draw analogies between current events and historical ones, and discuss both in relation to theories of military and political strategy. He was ten years old. Von Neumann was exposed to psychology through a relative, Sandor Ferenczi, a disciple of Freud who had introduced psychoanaly sis into Hungary. Von Neumann also had important exposure to Euro pean literature and music at an early age. His brother Nicholas recalls that Johnny was intrigued by the philosophical underpinnings of ar tistic works. Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author ap pealed to Johnny for its confusion of reality and make-believe. Bach's "Art of the Fugue" left an impression due to the fact that it was writ ten for several voices with the instruments unspecified. Johnny was so impressed with this that Nicholas credits it as a source for the idea of the stored-program computer. An early interest in science led him to conduct home experiments. Johnny and his brother Michael somehow got a piece of sodium and dropped it into water to watch the reaction. After the sodium had dissolved (producing caustic sodium hydroxide), they tasted the water. The worried family contacted a physician. From 1911 through 1921 von Neumann attended the Lutheran Gymnasium for boys, a high school with a strong academic reputation. Despite its religious affiliation, the gymnasium accepted students of all backgrounds and even provided appropriate religious training. Von Neumann's first math teacher at the gymnasium, Professor Laszlo Racz, quickly recognized his talent and called Max in for a conference. Racz recommended a special math study program for von Neumann and set about organizing it. Von Neumann was occasionally an exasperation to his teachers. He would confess that he had not studied the day's assignment, then par ticipate in the discussion more knowledgeably than anyone else. Johnny got straight A's in math and most of the academic subjects. He got C's in physical education. The Hungary of von Neumann's generation produced an extraordi nary number of geniuses. Von Neumann was a schoolmate of several. He was a year behind Eugene Wigner, later a renowned physicist, at the gymnasium. (In adulthood, Wigner said he realized he would be a second-rate mathematician compared with von Neumann and there fore turned to physics.) Johnny met Edward Teller in 1925 when both studied under a renowned teacher, Lipot Feher. Other notable Hun garians of the time included laser pioneer Dennis Gabor and physicist- turned-biologist Leo Szilard. Exerpt from PRISONER'S DILEMMA by William Poundstone
have identified the following article(s) as being of interest: Article Title Discipline Rele- vance News- worthiness Three postpartum antiretroviral regimens to prevent intrapartum HIV infection. N Engl J Med Pediatric Neonatology 6 5 GLUTAMICS-a randomized clinical trial on glutamate infusion in 861 patients undergoing surgery for acute coronary syndrome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Surgery - Cardiac 5 4 Performance of HbA1c as an Early Diagnostic Indicator of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Youth. Diabetes Care Pediatrics (General) 6 5 Effect of a Pharmacist Intervention on Clinically Important Medication Errors After Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists 5 6 Internal Medicine 5 6 Cardiology 5 3 Safety and long-term humoral immune response in adults after vaccination with an H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine with or without AS03 adjuvant. J Infect Dis Public Health 6 5 Effect of mindfulness training on asthma quality of life and lung function: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 4 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 4 Interventions for treating isolated diaphyseal fractures of the ulna in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Emergency Medicine 6 4 Surgery - Orthopaedics 5 5 Intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Pediatric Neonatology 6 5 Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev GP/FP/Obstetrics 6 5 Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Gynecology 5 4 A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 7 5 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 7 5 Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. J Adv Nurs GP/FP/Obstetrics 6 6
国际医学期刊编辑委员会（International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,ICMJE）发布了统一格式的利益冲突（Conflict of Interest）信息披露(Disclosure)表。包括Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA等所有ICMJE成员期刊都刊发了由多位主编联名的Editorial,介绍并鼓励生物医学的期刊和作者采用这一格式。 目前绝大多数的生物医学期刊都要求作者在投稿时披露相关的利益冲突（Conflict of Interest）信息，对于这种信息的披露格式和披露范围，不同的期刊之间可能会有些差异。同一个作者的利益冲突信息可能会以多种版本在不同的期刊上出现，对于作者来说，这增添了很多不必要的麻烦。对于读者来说，也可能会造成一些误解或混淆。故而ICMJE决定发布一个具有统一格式的信息披露表。 按照该表要求，作者需要披露四类信息：首先是与论文研究工作相关的直接或间接的财务支持，即论文作者是否接受了除工作单位之外的任何第三方提供的财务支持来进行这样研究工作；其次是在论文研究内容的直接领域或相关领域内，是否与任何商业机构有利益关系。换言之，只要有一点可能的利益关联，就应该予以披露；再次，任何涉及作者配偶和未成年子女的财务利益关系；最后，是可能与论文研究内容存在利益关系的非财务性关系（个人的、职业的、政治的、单位的、宗教的等等）。 这份表格所涵盖的内容比较完整，以可编辑的PDF格式供作者下载，使用起来也很方便，值得采用。 Editorial: http://www.icmje.org/format.pdf 信息披露表：http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf 信息披露表实例：http://www.icmje.org/sample_disclosure.pdf
标签: Interest
