[ZZ]Da Vinci sleep schedule

The Da Vinci sleep schedule, also known as the "sleep of genius" or polyphasic sleep, is a type of sleep pattern which involves sleeping not more than 5 hours a day. Some experts are more strict, arguing that to follow the Da Vinci sleep schedule, a person must become accustomed to sleeping an average of two hours a day, which is how much Leonardo Da Vinci himself slept; others take the term more loosely, allowing practicants to sleep a few hours a night.

The Da Vinci sleep schedule is better suited to people who can control their daily schedules. Basically, the system requires followers to sleep in several 10-minute bursts, for a total of two hours a day. A variation of the Da Vinci sleep schedule requires people to sleep 20 minutes for every four hours that they are awake. This technique, known as "power napping" or the "Uberman's sleep schedule" is actually in use in many corporations as a way to up production of their employees.

People who try the Da Vinci sleep schedule often go through a very difficult adjustment period. Experts agree that the first two weeks can be extremely difficult and can lead to lack of coordination, low energy levels, and drop in their alertness level. Others experience nausea, headaches, or lost of appetite. All the symptoms go away on their own after 10-14 days, and the body goes back to reacting normally.

The main benefits of the Da Vinci sleep schedule include free time, more vivid dreams, and a strict control over your body. Proponents of the method is so effective that a lot of people throughout history are said to have used during their most intense times, including poet Lord Byron, Thomas Jefferson, and Napoleon. The main drawbacks of the Da Vinci sleep schedule are the difficulty of the system. Because it requires repeated naps throughout the day, it is unlikely that it can be used by people working a regular schedule. It is also not a good option for people with low blood sugar or certain medical conditions, since the additional stress on the body can lead to medical problems.

转载一篇搞笑的response letter

同时继续寻求写给期刊编辑response letter的正确写法指南或例文，有写过的或知道怎么写的兄弟姐妹请不吝赐教。

Sample Cover Letter for Journal Manuscript Resubmissions
by Roy F. Baumeister
Dear Sir, Madame, or Other:

Enclosed is our latest version of Ms # 85-02-22-RRRRR, that is, the re-re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have again rewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed the goddamn running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough by now to satisfy even you and your bloodthirsty reviewers.

I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single change we made in response to the critiques. After all, it is fairly clear that your reviewers are less interested in details of scientific procedure than in working out their personality problems and sexual frustrations by seeking some kind of demented glee in the sadistic and arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power over helpless authors like ourselves who happen to fall into their clutches. We do understand that, in view of the misanthropic psychopaths you have on your editorial board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they weren't reviewing manuscripts they'd probably be out mugging old ladies or clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batch of reviewers, C was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you not ask him or her to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombs to four or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so if you send the manuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed.

Some of the reviewers' comments we couldn't do anything about. For example, if (as review C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeed drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has improved and benefited. Thus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by 5 pages, and we were able to accomplish this very effectively by altering the margins and printing the paper in a different font with a smaller typeface. We agree with you that the paper is much better this way.

One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions #13-28 by Reviewer B. As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews before doing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works that he/she felt we should cite in this paper. These were on a variety of different topics, none of which had any relevance to our work that we could see. Indeed, one was an essay on the Spanish-American War from a high school literary magazine. The only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author, presumably someone whom Reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be more widely cited. To handle this, we have modified the Introduction and added, after the review of relevant literature, a subsection entitled "Review of Irrelevant Literature" that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more asinine suggestions in the other reviews.

We hope that you will be pleased with this revision and will finally recognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, then you are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of human decency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from be the butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, however, we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout this process and to express our appreciation of your scholarly insights. To repay you, we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; please send us the next manuscript that any of these reviewers submits to your journal.

Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnote acknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we liked the paper much better the way we originally wrote it but you held the editorial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshuffle, restate, hedge, expand, shorten, and in general convert a meaty paper into stir-fried vegetables. We couldn't, or wouldn't, have done it without your input.

Sincerely,

----------------




To: Authors, MS #85-02-22-RRRRRR

From: Editor, Journal of Educational Psychology

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my decision letter concerning the above-referenced piece of excrement.

I have asked several experts who specialize in the area of research in which you dabble to have a look at your pathetic little submission, and their reviews are enclosed. I shall not waste my LaserJet ink reiterating the details of their reviews, but please allow me to highlight some of the more urgent points of contention they raise:

1. Reviewer A has asked me to inform you that, as his suggestions were not mentioned in my previous decision letter, he resents you calling him sadistic and imbecilic. He has no quarrell with arbitrarily tyrannical.
2. Reviewer B suggests that you cite his work EXCLUSIVELY in the introduction. He has asked me to remind you that he spells his name with a final "e" (i.e., Scumbage), not as you have referenced him in the last version.
3. Reviewer C indicates that the discussion can be shortened by at least 5 pages. Given the fact that the present Discussion is only three pages long, I am not certain how to advise you. Perhaps you might consider eliminating all speculation and original ideas.
4. Reviewer D has asked that you consider adding her as a coauthor. Although she has not directly contributed to the manuscript, she has made numerous comments that have, in her view, significantly improved the paper. Specifically, she believes that her suggestions concerning the reorganization of the acknowledgments paragraph were especially important. Please note that she spells her name with an em-dash, and not with the customary hyphen.
5. My own reading of the manuscript indicates that the following problems remain:
* By "running head," we do not mean a picture of your son's face with legs attached. Please provide a four- or five-word title for the paper that summarizes the report's most important point. May I suggest, "Much Ado About Nothing"?
* Please make certain that you have adhered to APA stylebook guidelines for publication format. Please direct your attention to the section entitled, "Proper Format for an Insignificant Paper" (2001, p. 46).
* Please submit any revision of the paper on plain, blank stationery. Submitting the article on Stanford letterhead will not increase your chances of having the article accepted for publication.
* Please doublecheck the manuscript for spelling and grammatical errors. Our experience at the Archives is that "cycle-logical" slips through most spellcheck programs undetected.
* Although I am not an expert in quantitative methodology, it is my understanding that the "F" in F-test does not stand for "f___ing". Please conduct a word search and correct the manuscript accordingly.

Yours sincerely,


Editor, Journal of Educational Psychology

p.s. - If your original submission had been as articulate as your most recent letter, we might have avoided this interchange. It is too bad that tenure and promotion committees at your university do not have access to authors' correspondence with editors, for it is clear that you would be promoted on the basis of your wit alone. Unfortunately, it's the publications that count, and I'm sorry to say that JEdP is not prepared to accept this revision. We would be perfectly ambivalent about receiving a seventh revision from you.

Java 6

最近需要调用以前的一个程序重新计算一遍，发现当时竟然是用的Java 6编译，在jre 1.5.0死活不能运行。想到那个java 6可能还是个beta就感到非常的汗。在Google上搜索了一下，发现java 6还是有很多重大改进的。转载如下：

	第 1 部分，Instrumentation 新功能 （2007 年 5 月 16 日） 本文介绍了 Java SE 6 在 Instrumentation 方面的新特性。在 Java SE 6 里面，instrumentation 包被赋予了更强大的功能：启动后的 instrument、本地代码 instrument，以及动态改变 classpath 等等。

	第 2 部分，HTTP 增强 （2007 年 6 月 28 日） 本文介绍 Java SE 6 与 HTTP 相关的诸多新特性，这使得 Java SE 平台本身对网络编程，尤其是基于 HTTP 协议的因特网编程，有了更加强大的支持。

	第 3 部分，JMX 与系统管理 （2007 年 7 月 23 日） 本文介绍了 Java 管理扩展（JMX） 架构及其框架，以及在 Java SE 5 中新引入的 JMX API -- java.lang.management 包， 最后讲述了此 API 在 Java SE 6 中的相关改进和对未来版本的展望。

	第 4 部分，编译器 API （2007 年 8 月 10 日） 本文介绍 JDK 6 中新增加的编译器 API（JSR 199）。利用此 API，您可以在运行时调用 Java 编译器，可以编译不同形式的源代码文件，还可以采集编译器的诊断信息。

	第 5 部分，Java DB 和 JDBC 4.0 （2007 年 8 月 31 日） 本文介绍 Java SE 6 在数据库编程方面的新特性，包括嵌入在 JDK 中的 Java DB （Derby）和 JDBC 4.0 的一部分。

	第 6 部分，对脚本语言的支持 （2007 年 9 月 28 日） 本文介绍 Java SE 6 新引入的对 JSR 223 的支持，它旨在定义一个统一的规范，使得 Java 应用程序可以通过一套固定的接口与各种脚本引擎交互，从而达到在 Java 平台上调用各种脚本语言的目的。

第 7 部分，XML API 与 Web 服务 （2007 年 10 月 31 日） 本文主要介绍了 Java SE 6 中提供的 XML 处理框架，以及在此框架之上结合注释（Annotation） 技术，所提供的强大的针对 Web 服务的支持。

About SVN in eclipse

Finally, google blogger comes back again. I will post all technical and academic articles here.

With a plugin called subclipse, eclipse can work well with subversion. The most important point is that you have to checkout a branch as another project in your workspace, since you cannot have two runable copies of one project. For example, you have built a project in eclipse, and shared it(import it into repository of subversion). Then you can make a branch from the working copy, and you will see a branch directory appears in the project. However, the newly appeared source code cannot run. You have to explicitly check it out as another project such as project-1 to run or to debug it.
One thing seems right that both trunk and braches are nothing but directories.

R in microarray data analysis.

Following the lastest release of R 2.5.0, Bioconductor 2.0 was released 26 April, 2007. This a package designed for processing biological data such microarrays and sequences. You can find detail about bioconductor at http://www.bioconductor.org/.