0910G SPECTACULAR 备考日记 by ddcmj519 [Dies]--苦辣百味只为回首一笑

ddcmj519UID：176326

继续私藏文章= =

关键词：领导人，个体与团体

Idea
Open-book managementJun 8th 2009
From Economist.com

This is the unconventional idea that firms are most effective if their accounts are left open for all their employees to see as and when they wish, at the same time as the employees are taught to understand better the full financial picture. Traditionally, only a handful of senior executives are made to feel responsible for whether a business makes money or not. Open-book management attempts to extend this feeling of responsibility to everybody in the organisation.

It is described by John Case, the man who claims to have invented the expression, as the idea “that companies do better when employees care not just about quality, efficiency or any other single performance variable, but about the same thing that senior managers are supposed to care about: the success of the business”. It spread the burden of P&L responsibility—the responsibility for the profit and loss account of a business unit that is generally given as a reward to rising managers—to everyone in the organisation. With open-book management, the idea is that everyone has a certain amount of P&L responsibility.

Open-book management is based on the same sort of logic that persuades parents to leave household bills lying around in sight of their teenage children, in the (frequently vain) hope that the children will make different economic choices if they can see that their telephone bills are much the same as the price of a Caribbean vacation. A corporation’s gain from open-book management comes from the extra motivation that employees may get from knowing its true situation, and from feeling that they are trusted not to abuse that information. The danger is that proprietary information will be spread to rivals, and that if business is bad, employees will be damagingly demotivated. Moreover, not every employee wants details of their salary to be widely bandied about.

Although John Case, once a journalist with Inc. magazine, claims credit for the invention of the expression, the idea of open-book management was pioneered by a company called Springfield ReManufacturing Corporation. It opened its books to its employees in 1983, and a book called “The Great Game of Business”, written by Jack Stack, the company’s president, documented its experience. Every other Wednesday, 35–40 Springfield employees would sit around a U-shaped table and receive a financial presentation from the company’s finance director. Departments would also report their results to the meeting. The exercise is said to have made the company’s employees act more like business people and less like hired hands.

Several companies have used open-book management as part of an attempt to generate intrapreneurship (see article). They have also used it in line with compensation schemes related to the business’s performance. In one company, the boss quizzed employees on the company’s profit and loss account and rewarded correct answers with $50 bonuses handed out on the spot.

When R.R. Donnelley, the world’s largest printing firm, adopted open-book management it found that it failed to live up to expectations. However, Case claimed to have found over 100 US-based companies that had raised profits by opening up their books in one form or another. But even he admitted that it takes up to four years to make the culture change that is necessary for open-book management to work.


Further readingCase, J., “Open-book Management: The Coming Business Revolution”, HarperBusiness, 1995
Case, J., “Opening the Books (open-book management)”, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1997
Davis, T.R.V., “Open-book management: its promise and pitfalls”, Organisational Dynamics, Winter 1997
Stack, J., “The Great Game of Business”, Doubleday, 1992

ddcmj519UID：176326

Light workJun 4th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Being watched may not affect behaviour, after all(这个太让我联系某篇A了。。。)

WHEN America’s National Research Council sent two engineers to supervise a series of industrial experiments at a large telephone-parts factory called the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago in 1924, it hoped they would learn how shop-floor lighting affected workers’ productivity. Instead, the studies ended up giving their name to the “Hawthorne effect”, the extremely influential idea that the very act of being experimented upon changes subjects’ behaviour.

The idea arose because of the perplexing behaviour of the women who assembled relays and wound coils of wire in the Hawthorne plant. According to accounts of the experiments, their hourly output rose when lighting was increased, but also when it was dimmed. It did not matter what was done; so long as something was changed, productivity rose. An awareness that they were being experimented upon seemed to be enough to alter workers’ behaviour by itself.

The data from the illumination experiments had never been rigorously analysed and were believed lost. But Steven Levitt and John List, two economists at the University of Chicago, discovered that the data had survived the decades in two archives in Milwaukee and Boston, and decided to subject them to econometric analysis. The Hawthorne experiments had another surprise in store for them. Contrary to the descriptions in the literature, they found no systematic evidence that levels of productivity in the factory rose whenever changes in lighting were implemented.

It turns out that idiosyncrasies in the way the experiments were conducted may have led to misleading interpretations of what happened. For example, lighting was always changed on a Sunday, when the plant was closed. When it reopened on Monday, output duly rose compared with Saturday, the last working day before the change, and continued to rise for the next couple of days. But a comparison with data for weeks when there was no experimentation showed that output always went up on Mondays. Workers tended to beaver away for the first few days of the working week in any case, before hitting a plateau and then slackening off.（工人们一般都会在每周停滞和放松之前努力工作个几天）
崩塌。。鲜亮亮的他因= =

Another of the original observations was that output fell when the trials ceased, suggesting that the act of experimentation caused increased productivity. But experimentation stopped in the summer, and it turns out from the records of production after the experiments that output tended to fall in the summer anyway. Perhaps workers were just hot.楼主不行了。。居然让我看到这种类似A范文。。。笑傻了。。当然也说明。。Aw无处不在~~~

There is a suggestion in the data that productivity was more responsive to changes in artificial than natural light.貌似有篇A 就是说灯光问题的= = This could be interpreted as a subtler version of the Hawthorne effect, if you believe that workers were aware that changes in artificial light were induced by the experimenters, whereas natural light was changing on its own. But even this evidence is weak. For something so influential and intuitively appealing, it turns out that the Hawthorne effect is remarkably hard to pin down（使明确说明，使评述；确定，证实）.

ddcmj519UID：176326

BOSTON LEGAL一点字幕。。
（这两天准备考试。。饶恕我吧。。）

地区教育董事会投票决定在八年级的科学课上同时教授神创论和达尔文进化论，教师们拒绝，校长解雇了他们，于是教师们起诉校长。Shirley Schmidt和Lori Colson为校长辩护
证人1：
原文：
Walter Fife: We actually call it Intelligent Design. Basically the idea is, life is so complex, a Greater Power has to be at play.
Lori Colson: The Greater Power being God?
Walter Fife: We’re by no means...shutting down Darwinism or suggesting that evolution is inaccurate.
Lori Colson: Do you believe in evolution, Mr Fife?
Walter Fife: I happen to believe in both God and evolution. I don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive.
Lori Colson: So, why not simply offer the Intelligent Design theory in religion courses? Why Science?
Walter Fife: Well, we thought long and hard about that. But the simple truth is, more and more scientists, scientists, not theologians have said that when you examine the intricacies of the human cell, the mathematical equations of DNA, you simply cannot conclude that it’s all explained by natural selection. Another Power has to be at work.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: God?
Walter Fife: Well again, we never mention Him by name.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: You’re aware of the separation of Church and State?
Walter Fife: I’m aware.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: And you’re also aware that the Supreme Court has banned the teaching of Creationism.
Walter Fife: Well. As I said, technically we’re not calling it Creationism.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: But you admitted that’s what’s going on. And Creationism holds that God created the world about 6,000 years ago in 6 days?
Walter Fife: That’s not my view.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: But it’s a view you’re insisting your teachers explain in the Science class?
Walter Fife: As a theory.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: A theory with no Scientific bases other than to say… “Gee, evolution can’t account for it all.”

证人2：
原文：
Roberta Turner: At the beginning of the school year we got the word at our teacher’s assembly, that moral values would be one of our educational objectives. Which was fine. But to have Evolution bumped for Creationism.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: Well! To be fair, Evolution isn’t being displaced. Creationism is just being included.
Roberta Turner: Evolution is a tough subject matter. We cannot cut into what little class time we have to service a political agenda. To teach…
Lori Colson: Objection! This is non-responsive.
Judge William Howe: Please limit your answers to the questions, ma’m.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: Why can’t you view Intelligent Design as a Science, Ms Turner?
Roberta Turner: Because! There is simply no scientific data to support it. How are we to maintain any credibility as Science teachers if we say, “Gee! Despite all this data, there’s also another possibility.” Intelligent Design makes a mockery of Science. If you wanna teach it as religion course? Fine! But as a Science? It’s simply preposterous.


结案陈词：
原文：
Attorney Daniel Gellman: These are bad times for Science your Honor. Especially at the hands of moral values. The government has systematically distorted or worse, suppressed findings by the FDA and EPA when it comes to contraception, stem cell research. AIDS, global warming, pollution…
Judge William Howe: Let’s just stick to the case, Counsel, and leave politics out of it.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: This case is all about politics. It’s about getting religion back into schools. Creationism is religious doctrine; it is not supported by scientific data. I’m a Christian. My wife is a Jew. We have wonderful debates. And this country, as a whole should be more theologically literate, but it’s not Science! What’s happening here today is an attack on evolution. It’s clever. Let’s call it Intelligent Design. Let’s not mention God. But, come on! The Supreme Court banned the teaching of Creationism in the public schools. They were right then, they remain right today, and my client’s discharge was unlawful, as well in violation of our time honored tradition of separating Church and State. Of course we have a legitimate Cause of Action.
Shirley Schmidt: That was almost Evangelical. The Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of, or discrimination against any particular religion. But it was never meant to extinguish the notion of a Higher Power. I certainly believe in evolution. Who here among us, while watching the presidential debates could deny that we all come from monkeys. But, what’s so wrong with suggesting, as a possible theory, that a Higher Power might
have also played a part? As for Church and State, we go to war over God-given rights to Democracy. Let’s face it. God is big here. We love God, and we as a nation have an overwhelming belief He had something to do with the creation of human-kind. But, teach that in a Science class? Perish the thought. Nobody here is trying to squash evolution, and I would agree with Mr Gellman, it isn’t good Science to suppress information. But, I would ask the court, who here today is trying to do the squashing?

法官陈述：
原文：
Judge William Howe: Nobody, is more frightened than I am of the Religious Right getting a strangle hold on our values. It seems as long as you do it in the name of the Almighty, one is free to abandon not only common sense and Science, but also the facts. But I am also concerned about a secular society squeezing faith out of our lives. We’ve all witnessed the ridiculous lawsuits to stop Nativity scenes at Christmas, to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. God has always been a part of who and what we are as a nation. On our currency it reads, ‘In God we trust.’ The Declaration of Independence speaks of God. How we are created, endowed by our creator it references our Supreme Judge of the world and Divine Providence, God. And I’m sorry, anybody who has ever held a new born child in his hands must make room for the chance that a Higher Power exists. And it shouldn’t offend you west Scientists to say, “Hey! We just don’t know.” I find the decision to include Intelligent Design along with evolution into the Science curriculum does not violate the establishment cause of the First Amendment. I’m ruling in favor of the defendant. This lawsuit is dismissed. He pounds his gavel.

ddcmj519UID：176326

back。今天写俩A去。。写完一个= =
167还真有点抽。不过写完感觉还不错~

ddcmj519UID：176326

今天issue终于限时上400了  T~T
奔泪哇~~~（主要是写着写着发现跟190？貌似是。。很像。。。于是偏向那个扯了。。。）

然后A没到300- -
。。。。。。。。
这就是个悲剧。。。
写到后面发现根本没啥可写的了。。。结尾段都没写。。。灰心丧气。。。
决定下午刨66的几篇A出来研究下。。。他因。。强悍的他因。。。
add oil。。

出去觅食。。

ddcmj519UID：176326

忏悔。。昨天没看完就睡觉了。。。

British democracy
A happy cacophony Jun 10th 2009
From Economist.com
A state of mind, not just a state
“WE KNOW of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality.” Far be it from your humble correspondent to gainsay the late Thomas Macaulay, but as the row about the expense claims of Britain’s MPs drags on into its second month, the politicians are giving the public a run for their money.写的很精彩~

The details of the scandal are out of all proportion to its actual effects. From dubious claims for moat-cleaning, plasma-screen televisions, artificial duck islands and mortgages on second homes has emerged a game of constitutional one-upmanship, with the leaders of all three big parties competing to offer the most radical medicine. Proportional representation, fixed-term parliaments, even a National Council for Democratic Renewal—all are offered as essential medicine to a nation that has supposedly lost faith in its political system. MPs are claimed (by one of their own) to be contemplating suicide. We are told the spectre of the xenophobic British National Party stalks the land, growing fat on public outrage, and though they did pick up two seats in the European elections, this hardly seems another Reichstag fire. There is dark talk of a “crisis of democracy.”


From your correspondent’s perch in the corner of the Penderel’s Oak, a chain pub not far from Covent Garden, the crisis is hard to spot. The place is packed: easily 100 are crammed into a downstairs room. A lucky few have tables; the rest are standing or sitting on the floor. They have come to show their support. This is a benefit gig for Simon Singh (pictured), one of Britain’s best-known popular science writers. Mr Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he wrote, questioning chiropractic’s usefulness, in the course of which he made a remark which, the court has held, bore a meaning he says he did not intend and does not actually believe. It is a slightly obscure subject, perhaps, but the attendees are passionate. Vigorous applause greets the speakers (including a comedian, a blogging lawyer and a journalist). An MP addresses the crowd, and his joke about expenses (“Sorry I’m late. I was haggling with the cab driver”) is received in good humour. Mr Singh himself is cheered to the rafters.

The whole experience is a welcome antidote to the cynicism that tempts anyone who spends time in or around politics. The crowd is unusual; most would describe themselves, with considerable pride, as nerds, interested in science and how to apply it. The talks cover complicated ground, and range beyond the matter immediately at hand. They cover the nature of scientific evidence, whether a court is a suitable place to discuss which medical treatments work and which don’t and the appeal of Britain’s absurdly strict libel laws (which, in a reversal of the usual legal arrangements, require the defendant to prove his innocence) to jet-setting “libel tourists” seeking a favourable jurisdiction.【法律】

After the speeches are finished, a lady from Sense About Science, a charity, collects e-mail addresses for a mailing list. A petition is promised. Most of the pub-goers hang around, at least for a while—many are regulars of an organisation called Sceptics in the Pub, which meets here every few weeks to discuss science and society. It’s loud, messy and disorganised—and very democratic.

It seems a world away from the incipient revolution proclaimed on the nightly news. Admittedly voter turnout is low and falling. People are cynical and distrust their MPs, although that isn’t new (the proportion of voters who say they trust their MPs is the same today—18%—as 20 years ago). The recession is sharpening grievances, and the news that many MPs have had their hands in the till doesn't help.

But politicians risk confusing the public’s opinion of Parliament and the government with its opinion of democracy. The two are not the same; there is more to democracy than 650 people sitting in a faux-gothic pile on the banks of the Thames. Democracy is as much a state of mind as a collection of institutions. A cynic might even suspect them of deliberately conflating the two—after all, by menacing voters with the scary prospect of a collapse of democracy, MPs could deflect some of the public's anger over their behaviour.

Admittedly, it was only one night in one pub in one town in Britain. The assembled nerds at the Penderel's Oak would doubtless shy away from drawing any broad conclusions about society from such a limited and self-selecting sample as one of their own meetings. But it’s a little piece of evidence that, despite all the sound and fury, the democratic spirit is alive and well.这段写的巨好！！

ddcmj519UID：176326

崩~
今天下午有个考试，然后赶了一个期末报告= =
然后就这个点了~！！

看A题库去。。。

ddcmj519UID：176326

翻历史的时候居然翻到那么犀利一篇文。。嗯。。
存一下~
http://liming1944.blog.sohu.com/67245038.html

一谈到历史，中国人很快就全都兴奋起来了。最近中央电视台开展的“百家讲坛”，除了于丹讲的非常糟糕的《论语》、《庄子》的“心得”和刘心武讲的《红楼梦》的探奇之外，其余讲的也全都是“历史”。而且当下的影视，也大半都是历朝历代帝王将相们的“历史”。
看来，中国还真是一个历史的大国，而中国人也真是一个最关心历史的民族了。可是，这些“历史”真是有人性意义的“历史”么？中国真是一个历史的大国么？中国人真是一个最懂得创造历史的民族么？

中国根本就不是一个真正意义上的历史大国，而中国人也根本就不是一个真懂得创造真正有高度人性意义的历史的民族，尽管中国具有五千年“悠久”的文明，可是中国的历史早在两千多年前的汉代，就几乎已经终结了，而近两千多年的历史，却全都只不过是过去历史的重重复复的拷贝而已。一直到今天，中国人的历史还依然没有完全走出这个传统的拷贝历史的时代。在这两千多年之中，几乎所有出现的历史人物，即使如最著名的唐宗、宋祖、朱元璋、康熙、乾隆，近代的慈禧、袁世凯，乃至现代的蒋介石、毛泽东，他们全都只不过是中国传统“拷贝”历史舞台中的“提偶”，全都没有资格成为创造中国真正新的拥有高度人性历史的人物。什么是“提偶”？“提偶”就是木偶剧中的被后面的“谁”提着长线来表演的“木偶”。这个“谁”是谁？后面会讲到，事实上即孔夫子及其儒家传统“五毒”的“幽灵”。

人类的历史至少还必须分有如下的三个部分：
第一个部分是人类的生物史，或生命史；
第二个部分是人类的社会史；
第三个部分是人类的精神史。
人类的生物史或生命史，是目前人类已获得初步认识的人类的全部生命基因密码子。按照人类的共同属性而言，这样的密码子总共有十万组，而超出这十万之数的其他的密码子只能被称作“乱码”。换言之，这十万之数的生命基因密码即决定了人类全部生命的历史特征。再换言之，这十万之数的生命基因密码子中所蕴含的信息，即人类到今天为止的基本上已经终结的生命的全部记录——人类的生物史，或生命史。尽管人类还将继续生存下去不知多少万年，甚至上亿年，但作为人类生命历史的生命基因密码子的信息数量的记录却基本上已趋于饱和，或者说即使有新的增加，数量上也极其微略。即是说，人类生命基因密码子所含信息量的历史记录不必随着时间的累积而无限地增加。说到底，人类的生物史或生命史，几乎已经终结了。
人类的社会史是到目前为止人类已经创造出来的所有文化基因所含信息量的记录。人类中的民族或国家不同，他们所拥有的文化基因的信息的数量级也将不同。如果说上述的人类生物史或生命史是由人类的生命基因的信息量来决定的话，那么人类不同民族或国家的社会史，则将由他们各自所拥有的文化基因的信息量来决定。
很显然，在接触到西方文化之前，中国的文化基因的信息量早就已经停止了有效的增长。从秦汉到明清，中国的历史几乎全都只在作“分久必合，合久必分”的重重复复的拷贝运动。按照日裔美国人富兰克林．福山的说法，到２０世纪末，西方的历史也同样进入了终结的阶段；现在还有历史（文化基因信息增量）变化的民族或国家，基本上已不再在西欧和北美，而更多集中在亚、非、拉美等洲的民族或国家，它们正在以飞快的速度吸取西欧、北美人类的信息（作为他们固有历史的新的信息增量），并迅速向已经终结的西欧、北美人类社会的历史模型靠拢，实质上是被西欧、北美的“历史模型”飞快地同化，一旦完全被同化，他们也将立即进入历史的“终结”。这就不能不讲到人类历史的最重要的第三部分了。
第三部分是人类的精神史。如果说西方人的历史“终结”了，那是因为西方人类的精神史，也即他们的哲学史在２０世纪中期就已经处于停顿状态了。什么是人类的精神史？人类的精神史其实就是人类文化基因的“自由”创新史，增量史，或人类文化发展和创新的“自由”的运动史。在我看来，因为《西方哲学死了》，所以西方人类的精神史也已到顶了，再也难以前进了。而在过去，西方人的文化基因的信息量之所以能够远远高于其他人类，特别是高于中国人，那是因为他们的哲学具有着强大的创造新文化基因的“自由”的动力（能量），而中国人的精神，却几乎早在两千多年前开始确立“独尊儒术”的汉代以来，就已经变得完全僵死了，文化基因“自由”创新的动力源泉事实上早就枯竭了；然而到了现在，西方哲学的“自由”动力也同样进入了强弩之末，所以，西方人的总的历史，也正如福山所言：“终结了”。虽然亚、非、拉美等洲民族或国家的历史暂时还没有“终结”，但它们也只不过是在加速被“同化”地走向欧、美式的“终结”而已，它们自己内部甚至更缺乏创造新文化基因的“自由”能量，或者如同中国，他们固有的历史在若干个世纪之前早就已经“终结”了。

我提醒现在一切方面拥有良好自我感觉的人们，包括当今各方面的领袖人物，请以自己最大的努力，尽量站在人类文明最高的基点上，再一次清醒地认识您自己吧。否则，你们也依然很有可能只是一个传统中国历史舞台上的“提偶”。要想不做“提偶”，就请立即奋起文化批判的精神，彻底清算两千多年来孔夫子及其儒家的幽灵在中国的一切方面所制造的罪孽，尤其是在政治、文化、教育中的罪孽，并在自己的身上自觉地清除“五毒”（复古、唯上、独断、人治、专制）的残留。

什么是历史的意义？历史的意义，即在历史中，人类的文化基因能够不断地获得创新，从而在历史中，文化基因的信息量能够获得不断地增进。很显然，在近两千多年的中国历史中，严重地缺乏新的文化基因信息量的增进，所以中国长时期以来严重地陷入了文化发展停滞的状态。正是因此，这两千多年的中国历史的文字记录，尽管庞大到了数十亿，甚至上百亿的天文数字，然而实际上其中的绝大多数，却都只不过是属于毫无文化基因价值的“乱码”，是纯粹历史中的文字“垃圾”，而历代的儒家文人，则基本上是制造历史（文字）垃圾的自觉和不自觉的“白痴”或“骗子”。或者说，简直就是一群自愿吸毒、中毒的文化“废物”。
什么是历史的悲剧？历史的悲剧，即人类的精神史基本上已经变成了一片空白，或者说已完全丧失了创造新的人类文化基因的“自由”的动力源泉。如果一个民族或国家发生了这样的历史状况，即可以认为，该民族或国家事实上已处于严重的历史悲剧之中。处于历史悲剧中的民族或国家，除了不断地“拷贝”旧历史和不断地制造新的历史（文字）“垃圾”之外，根本就没有能力创造新的人类文化基因，创造新的人类历史。中国自从确立“独尊儒术”以来的两千多年之中，迄今这一大段的历史，我基本上认定，即是一个中国人的漫长的历史悲剧，或中国人的中世纪的悲剧，这个“悲剧”的最关键的制造者即孔夫子及其儒家文人（他们基本上是一群愈来愈成为文化“废物”的人们），以及历代蓄意根绝一切新的文化基因信息的“自由”创造的动力源的人治专制的统治者们——帝王将相们。

ddcmj519UID：176326

狂笑一阵。。issue 450了~！
（木写提纲，木有深入思考准备，就查了上面一个资料。。。）

还是不行。主要由于没思考好。所以有些地方还是卡壳思考一阵才写。
so if i had……
幻想。。

自pia飞。复习专业课去了~

ddcmj519UID：176326

某人消失ing。。。接下来三天三大科主科考试。。。
冒个泡= =

逃走。。。

firhadayUID：2287086

强力插入，哈哈，加油

ddcmj519UID：176326

啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊。我回来了。。。
今天继续消失吧。。。明天搞完某个怨念的当面演示= =
神啊。。。

jessicaluluUID：2471730

来看亲，进入7月了，俺好不容易回来了~ 泪奔~~

chenyue1986UID：2177076

偶也很纠结。

wisleUID：2578616

看了版的日记，内容太丰富啦