I had a thing for a girl once.
And I had a shot at her,but I didn't take it.
For a little while,I'd lay in bed every night,wondering if it was a mistake.
Wondering, if...
I'd ever stop thinking about her.
And now I can barely remember what she looks like.
I mean,her face
It's...
she's just gone,and she ain't never coming back.
So...
Is three years long enough to get over someone?
Absolutely!
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
时隔半年，DSRP终于又被我配置起来了
虽然原来的文档还是比较详细的，可是呢，当时对于Makefile的修改写的不是很详细，导致这次转换平台后原来的Makefile不能直接移植过来，比较郁闷。出了不少问题，郁闷的是一开始开以为是Tcl的问题呢，看了两天，终于弄好了。累。
明天可以做DSRP的攻击实验了。
看到我得学习一下怎么样来写Patch了。
明天可以做DSRP的攻击实验了。
看到我得学习一下怎么样来写Patch了。
Thursday, October 30, 2008
HTTP协议状态码的含义
协议状态sc-status，是服务器日记扩展属性的一项。
下面是各状态码含义列表:
"100" : Continue
"101" : witching Protocols
"200" : OK
"201" : Created
"202" : Accepted
"203" : Non-Authoritative Information
"204" : No Content
"205" : Reset Content
"206" : Partial Content
"300" : Multiple Choices
"301" : Moved Permanently
"302" : Found
"303" : See Other
"304" : Not Modified
"305" : Use Proxy
"307" : Temporary Redirect
"400" : Bad Request
"401" : Unauthorized
"402" : Payment Required
"403" : Forbidden
"404" : Not Found
"405" : Method Not Allowed
"406" : Not Acceptable
"407" : Proxy Authentication Required
"408" : Request Time-out
"409" : Conflict
"410" : Gone
"411" : Length Required
"412" : Precondition Failed
"413" : Request Entity Too Large
"414" : Request-URI Too Large
"415" : Unsupported Media Type
"416" : Requested range not satisfiable
"417" : Expectation Failed
"500" : Internal Server Error
"501" : Not Implemented
"502" : Bad Gateway
"503" : Service Unavailable
"504" : Gateway Time-out
HTTP协议状态码的含义。
"505" : HTTP Version not supported
下面是各状态码含义列表:
"100" : Continue
"101" : witching Protocols
"200" : OK
"201" : Created
"202" : Accepted
"203" : Non-Authoritative Information
"204" : No Content
"205" : Reset Content
"206" : Partial Content
"300" : Multiple Choices
"301" : Moved Permanently
"302" : Found
"303" : See Other
"304" : Not Modified
"305" : Use Proxy
"307" : Temporary Redirect
"400" : Bad Request
"401" : Unauthorized
"402" : Payment Required
"403" : Forbidden
"404" : Not Found
"405" : Method Not Allowed
"406" : Not Acceptable
"407" : Proxy Authentication Required
"408" : Request Time-out
"409" : Conflict
"410" : Gone
"411" : Length Required
"412" : Precondition Failed
"413" : Request Entity Too Large
"414" : Request-URI Too Large
"415" : Unsupported Media Type
"416" : Requested range not satisfiable
"417" : Expectation Failed
"500" : Internal Server Error
"501" : Not Implemented
"502" : Bad Gateway
"503" : Service Unavailable
"504" : Gateway Time-out
HTTP协议状态码的含义。
"505" : HTTP Version not supported
Friday, October 17, 2008
My "Issue" Essay, No.13
TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
WORDS: 579 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2008-10-17 15:31:17
In this statement, the speaker recommends that whether a citizen obeys a law depends on whether the law is justice. I admit that the initial potential of the speaker is to make our society better; however, this statement is too simple to analyze such a complex issue- one that discussing the definition of justice. I argue that we cannot simply resist laws but should find a practical method to ensure that our law is just.
To begin with, I agree with the speaker can we need just laws and the unjust ones should be abandoned. Law is the standard for people's behavior whose function is to support people's rights, to ban someone's harmful actions to others, to settle conflicts within the people. When we meet social problems, the first reaction is referring to the law, as a symbol of justice. If law itself is unjust, there could be no justice in the society. In medieval, law was made by the feudalists, who use laws, to rule their kingdom, to control their people, to extract tax. Similarly, in ancient China, emperors made, revised, and abandoned laws arbitrary to meet their needs and profits. Those laws are not just law to the common people and thus brought about chaos and revolutions. When we consider these situations, we may simply admit that we should also disobey and resist unjust laws in our society.
Nevertheless, the speaker failed to consider how to define a just law if he/she wants to use this standard to divide different laws. Unlike those kings' laws in the past, our laws are more formal and well designed, so we cannot easily distinguish an unfair law like our ancestors did. Different people tend to pursuit different profits, and their profits maybe conflict with each other. For instance, when we discussing labor law, there are two sides of people- the employees and the employers, whose interests are totally opposite. While the bosses emphasize on longer serving time of employees, lower cost of hiring, and higher business revenues, the workers may appeal for shorter working hours and higher salaries. As a result, in their views, the definition of just law is different. Similarly, individual cannot form a uniform standard to define whether a law is just or not.
Finally, I argue that a practical method should be taken to revise or abandon our laws. As no individual has right to resist laws and no government can revise laws arbitrary, a reliable law-revising mechanism of a nation is the protector of justice. Taking United States Constitution for example, the fifth of its seven original articles is "Process of Amendments", which guaranteed a reliable method to revise the Constitution and other laws. Now the Constitution has 27 amendments in all, with the last one ratified in 1992. Other countries have followed United States' example, in their constitution, the process of making, revising, abandoning a law is clearly defined. In short, we should protect the justice by obeying laws, not by resisting them.
Most people know that the justice of law has great impact on the society, and whether the law system is just can determine the future of a nation. But the speaker failed to consider that it is too difficult for ordinary people to judge a law's justice. In my view, social system and the entire society, not individual, can revise laws. For every individua, what they can do is to advocate for a change, not to resist some so-called "unjust" laws.
WORDS: 579 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2008-10-17 15:31:17
In this statement, the speaker recommends that whether a citizen obeys a law depends on whether the law is justice. I admit that the initial potential of the speaker is to make our society better; however, this statement is too simple to analyze such a complex issue- one that discussing the definition of justice. I argue that we cannot simply resist laws but should find a practical method to ensure that our law is just.
To begin with, I agree with the speaker can we need just laws and the unjust ones should be abandoned. Law is the standard for people's behavior whose function is to support people's rights, to ban someone's harmful actions to others, to settle conflicts within the people. When we meet social problems, the first reaction is referring to the law, as a symbol of justice. If law itself is unjust, there could be no justice in the society. In medieval, law was made by the feudalists, who use laws, to rule their kingdom, to control their people, to extract tax. Similarly, in ancient China, emperors made, revised, and abandoned laws arbitrary to meet their needs and profits. Those laws are not just law to the common people and thus brought about chaos and revolutions. When we consider these situations, we may simply admit that we should also disobey and resist unjust laws in our society.
Nevertheless, the speaker failed to consider how to define a just law if he/she wants to use this standard to divide different laws. Unlike those kings' laws in the past, our laws are more formal and well designed, so we cannot easily distinguish an unfair law like our ancestors did. Different people tend to pursuit different profits, and their profits maybe conflict with each other. For instance, when we discussing labor law, there are two sides of people- the employees and the employers, whose interests are totally opposite. While the bosses emphasize on longer serving time of employees, lower cost of hiring, and higher business revenues, the workers may appeal for shorter working hours and higher salaries. As a result, in their views, the definition of just law is different. Similarly, individual cannot form a uniform standard to define whether a law is just or not.
Finally, I argue that a practical method should be taken to revise or abandon our laws. As no individual has right to resist laws and no government can revise laws arbitrary, a reliable law-revising mechanism of a nation is the protector of justice. Taking United States Constitution for example, the fifth of its seven original articles is "Process of Amendments", which guaranteed a reliable method to revise the Constitution and other laws. Now the Constitution has 27 amendments in all, with the last one ratified in 1992. Other countries have followed United States' example, in their constitution, the process of making, revising, abandoning a law is clearly defined. In short, we should protect the justice by obeying laws, not by resisting them.
Most people know that the justice of law has great impact on the society, and whether the law system is just can determine the future of a nation. But the speaker failed to consider that it is too difficult for ordinary people to judge a law's justice. In my view, social system and the entire society, not individual, can revise laws. For every individua, what they can do is to advocate for a change, not to resist some so-called "unjust" laws.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
My "Issue" Essay, NO.9
TOPIC: ISSUE51 - "Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."
WORDS: 588 TIME: 00:50:00 DATE: 2008-10-16 14:28:20
In this statement, the speaker points out that the educator should design every student's education plan for their own needs and interests. In my view, I also admit the importance of taking different method of education according to every single student; however, I argue that this method is not practice in the present condition and we need to find a compromising way.
To begin with, I concede that if we want to cultivate a child successfully, the best way is that take his/her individual situation- including needs and interests- into consideration. Twenty-five centuries ago, the great thinker and educator, Confucius, pointed out a similar educational theory- "educating according to one's characteristic", which means what knowledge a student should learn and what kind of method his/her teacher takes should be determined by the very student's private conditions. In Confucius' age, human's knowledge was quite limited, in comparison to our time. Now we have too many academic fields: from art to logic, from linguistics to science, from history to engineering. Even in the field of engineering, there are also hundreds of specified subject: electric engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, biological engineering, etc. It is hard for one person to study more than two of them, let alone all these subjects. One the other hand, common sense informs me that, every student is unique, and has his/her her own talent to perform excellent in one of these fields. As a result, one can be trained to success, if he/her is educated with suitable discipline and suitable method.
Nevertheless, I am obliged to point out that it is not possible to train every single child in this way, for the cost is too high for our society to afford. If educators have to design training plans for every student, the amount of work is so large that our current number of teachers and indicator is far from enough. In most counties in the world, like United States, or United Kingdom, the expense of education takes less than ten percent of the GDP and people worded in educational career is also insignificant. Although the method is definitely a good one, our current educational resource is not adequate to afford it.
To trade off the revenue and the expense, I propose a compromising solution. This solution includes two parts: (1) classifying the students into different groups, (2) providing different method to students in different studying period. Maybe we cannot offer different education for every student, but we can divide students into groups. In every group, students have similar background and characteristics. Thus, we do not to prepare millions of educational plan; instead, perhaps one hundred plans are enough, if we classify students into one hundred groups. In each group, students are trained to work in different fields in future. The other part of the solution is that, we do not need to design specified plan for students in every grades. When children are below 15 years old, what they need is almost the same: extensive but basic knowledge in every field, so we can provide the same educational plan to every student. When they step into high school or college, we are obliged to provide different plans to meet their further needs. Finally, to those graduate students, educator must provide unique plan for every single student, as they have reached the top level of our education level.
In conclusion, I argue that, considering the present social resource for education is limited, the best way of education cannot be practice, but we can take some alternative methods that might help us to form a better education system.
WORDS: 588 TIME: 00:50:00 DATE: 2008-10-16 14:28:20
In this statement, the speaker points out that the educator should design every student's education plan for their own needs and interests. In my view, I also admit the importance of taking different method of education according to every single student; however, I argue that this method is not practice in the present condition and we need to find a compromising way.
To begin with, I concede that if we want to cultivate a child successfully, the best way is that take his/her individual situation- including needs and interests- into consideration. Twenty-five centuries ago, the great thinker and educator, Confucius, pointed out a similar educational theory- "educating according to one's characteristic", which means what knowledge a student should learn and what kind of method his/her teacher takes should be determined by the very student's private conditions. In Confucius' age, human's knowledge was quite limited, in comparison to our time. Now we have too many academic fields: from art to logic, from linguistics to science, from history to engineering. Even in the field of engineering, there are also hundreds of specified subject: electric engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, biological engineering, etc. It is hard for one person to study more than two of them, let alone all these subjects. One the other hand, common sense informs me that, every student is unique, and has his/her her own talent to perform excellent in one of these fields. As a result, one can be trained to success, if he/her is educated with suitable discipline and suitable method.
Nevertheless, I am obliged to point out that it is not possible to train every single child in this way, for the cost is too high for our society to afford. If educators have to design training plans for every student, the amount of work is so large that our current number of teachers and indicator is far from enough. In most counties in the world, like United States, or United Kingdom, the expense of education takes less than ten percent of the GDP and people worded in educational career is also insignificant. Although the method is definitely a good one, our current educational resource is not adequate to afford it.
To trade off the revenue and the expense, I propose a compromising solution. This solution includes two parts: (1) classifying the students into different groups, (2) providing different method to students in different studying period. Maybe we cannot offer different education for every student, but we can divide students into groups. In every group, students have similar background and characteristics. Thus, we do not to prepare millions of educational plan; instead, perhaps one hundred plans are enough, if we classify students into one hundred groups. In each group, students are trained to work in different fields in future. The other part of the solution is that, we do not need to design specified plan for students in every grades. When children are below 15 years old, what they need is almost the same: extensive but basic knowledge in every field, so we can provide the same educational plan to every student. When they step into high school or college, we are obliged to provide different plans to meet their further needs. Finally, to those graduate students, educator must provide unique plan for every single student, as they have reached the top level of our education level.
In conclusion, I argue that, considering the present social resource for education is limited, the best way of education cannot be practice, but we can take some alternative methods that might help us to form a better education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
