Recently, Kevin Smith, a well known Hollywood director, was kicked off a flight for being too fat. He was furious and started a twitter storm. His flamebuoyant communiques aroused media coverage and strong opinions everywhere. Fat people have rights too! They proclaimed. Besides, the number is on their side. The US shall have more and more fat people. Airline had better cater to their needs, lest losing their patronage.

Airline coach seats are about 18 inches wide with 32 inches “pitch” (the distance between two rows of seats). They are good for skinny and short people. (An average American woman has a hip width of 19.7 inches, and man 17.2.) Strapped in one of them is a discomfort that most people wish to get over as quickly as possible. It’s torturous if your seat-mate is nosy, noisy, smelly, messy, or, the worst, fat. Few things can bring up more terror than being squeezed against a stranger’s skin in a tight space.

---

A group of Californian students are seeking reversal of proposition 209, passed in 1996 to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. Under this law, the UC system would consider only academic merits — GPA, SAT scores, etc. — to admit students.

In 2007, Latino, black, and Native American students comprised 45.1 percent of California’s high school graduates but those groups comprised only 16.9 percent and 19.9 percent of new freshman admits at UC Berkeley and UCLA, respectively. This is an outrage and a social explosion waiting to happen.

Prior to Prop 209, UC has the infamous affirmative action system that give each ethnic group a quota in the new admission pool. The graduation rate of those disadvantaged ethnic groups were miserable. UC system wasted precious resources, and admission slots, for those academically ill-prepared students that essentially robbed the education opportunities from those who were otherwise qualified.

---

In the study of ethics, there are the concepts of just, utilitarian, fairness, and equality. It is not just to violate any individual’s rights. But utilitarian will strive for the most good for the most people, usually sacrificing the minority. Kevin Smith may have his right as a passenger, but many more passengers suffer if airlines accommodate too much for fat people, directly with discomfort or indirectly through delay, lost of available seats, or increased price from reduced capacity.

The group that sued UC called themselves “Equality by Any Means Necessary.” Equality is an economic concept of the allocation of resources. (Five dollars for you and five for me will be equal.) Fairness means all considerations be merit-based. (We each get paid by how much we contributed will be fair.) It is obvious that UC admission system has not been equal. But is it fair? To answer, ask if the admission is merit-based.

---

Ethics is a complicated subject. Topics are controversial because different approaches do not arrive at the same result. We would like things to be just and good for the most, fair and equal too. Choose your stance based on an ethic yardstick, not whether you are fat or slim, Asian or Latino.

As a luddite, I did not pay much attention to those 2G, 3G mumble jumble. I turn on my cell phone when I wake up. I would make several phone calls in a day and send/receive some text messages. That’s about it. For richer networking experiences and services, I fire up my trusted laptop, connect with a broadband services, and surf the net the old fashion way. I ignored all MMS (text messages with a video or picture) and never surfed the net with my cell phone. I shook my head, inside, on those iPhone junkies who are hopelessly addicted.

This nice shell shattered when a friend showed me her dongle a couple of years ago in Asia. With her 3G services (based on HSPA, offered universally to all subscribers in that small country she lives), she would remove the SIM card from her cell phone, insert it into this dongle, insert the dongle into her laptop USB port, and surf the net at the speed comparable to a typical WiFi (slightly better than 5Mbs).

There used to be three ways to connect to the Net: fixed line, WiFi, and dial-up. Now we have the fourth: 3G wireless. Operators around world have pretty much all converted to 3G and are now gearing up on 4G deployment with a technology called LTE. Simply put, 4G network allow one to surf the net at two to ten times faster than a typical WiFi hotspot today.

This means, with that magic dongle, I would no long need to hunt for hotspots. I would have broadband wherever, via a fundamental telephony technology. What does that mean if I would skype through this service? Do I pay skype rate (that is usually free) or a voice rate (that is, currently, expensive for international calls). My guess is that operators would simply offer flat rate for global voice services, since distance or geo-political boundaries are no longer a factor in costs.

Why would I need that home wireless router if everyone in the family can simply connect whenever and wherever? To avoid everyone suffling their SIM cards between their cell phone and computer, I would like a box that accept a single SIM card and essentially NAT (Network Address Translation, a way to allow multiple computers to connect to outside via a single point) between those computers at home. This box is like a FemtoCell, with a small twist in access control.

This luddite still insists using his phone only for voice and text. I would still carry a laptop that would blue-tooth to my cell phone when I an on the road. Otherwise, I would connect via either a company connection or my home box. Since my laptop connection would be ubiquiteous, I would store my data on the Internet (in one of those clouds) so that it would be light and cheap. The laptop and the cell phone are essentially the same, only the former has a better keyboard, mouse, and screen.

After so many decades, 4G wireless finally would solve the “last mile” problem. Funny, it is not Fibre to the Home (FTTH) as so many pundits predicted. It would be LTE. I bet whoever coined that name is regreting greatly. Long Term Evolution? Come on!

開始聽三國，總共上百回．有空聽聽，也得年把才聽的完．

曹操聚了各路諸侯，以袁紹為首伐董卓，第一個就碰到華雄．他把袁軍殺的一榻糊塗．終於關羽以馬弓手的低職，一刀取了華雄的首級，揚名立萬．

如果水滸講的是政府腐敗，三國就是政治權謀的黑暗了．曹操有名的”寧教我負天下人，休教天下人負我”． 袁術怕孫監搶功，不發糧草．孫監因此敗陣，差點丟了腦袋．三國的軍事政治鬥爭，於此舖開．

靈劍 鄭丰 978-986-6712-74-6

靈劍是天關雙俠的前集.鄭丰被捧成”女版金庸”.神雕三部是永遠的經典,她的武俠也比的上金庸的二級作品了.靈劍的情節誨暗悽慘,鄭丰兩集都把虎嘯山莊安排的很不幸.其實”醫俠”是個很有詩意的想法,凌霄也有英雄的特質,典型武俠他不左擁右抱,稱霸武林,也至少能贏得美人歸.但鄭丰兩本都給他悲劇黑暗,這是她對武俠的突破嗎?我讀了40年武俠,還不大習慣離開那模式呢.

傳統的武功已經是超能了,鄭丰還加上了靈能及巫毒.天關裏,主角的武功平常(他是百花掌門,下毒的).這部有改善,但被天關中傳頌的大決戰,卻只有一點篇幅帶過.筆墨放在了燕龍偉大的犧牲上.可惜那過程太”成人”,鄭丰不能寫的露骨.遺憾.

武俠就是中國的007,不論如何的公式化,讀者都要能忘了這現實,看完了得不能自及的幻想自己是那英雄主角.天關還行,靈劍看完還真有點失落,沒那期待的滿足感.

鄭丰有個部落格.可以去給她加點人氣.

How do you set a price of something that has zero variable cost (it costs nothing to make copies and distribute them to the customers) and a limited set of customers? Well, that’s online media: newspapers, magazines, music, video, and books that are distributed over the Internet. Once made, each copy costs the company practically zero.

Classic marketing taught four P’s: product, places, promotion, and prices. First have the right things to sell, then choose where to sell them (or the channels to distribute them), then seduce customers for wanting, last extract money from those customers. Companies used to control all four. In modern societies, no longer. Now, for online media, the distributors and and product makers are in battle over the prices.

With the arrival of iPad, book publishers are now revolving against Amazon that insisted on selling eBooks at $10, whatever the price of the paper equivalent. Since Kindle has dominated the eReader market, publishers did not have any bargaining power. Apple’s iPad changed that balance and Amazon reluctantly yielded some power to the publishers. In this case, the arrival of stiff competition actually result in the increase of prices.

For anything, there is an “impulse buy” price. I am willing to pay “retail” for newspapers and magazines online. I routinely pay $10 for a paperback and will so for a copy on my iPod. For movies, I can accept $2 for titles that I will “give it a try” and $5 for a “must see.” For music, $1 is too much for me to “throw away” if I don’t like the song. As such, I buy only when I have heard it from somewhere else, for free. That can be radio, TV, or friends.

Beyond the impulse price range, I go through a relatively simple process:

• How much they want for it?
• Can I negotiate for a better price? If no or not worth the effort, skip the next step.
• Negotiate. This may be a jousting with the vendor or a search on the net.
• Am I OK with the price? Is it worth the money or can I afford it? If no. I am not buying. If yes, money exchanges hands and I have the thing.

Apple and Amazon took the simplistic approach. Every songs or books will be the same price and it will be at the impulse level. I am on the publishers’ side that pricing should be more sophisticated and they should have more say in this matter.

That said, the publishers are moving toward the wrong direction to raise prices. They knew, like music and movies, that each title has a limited set of customers and wanted to optimize their profit by charging more. Book readers are furious about this. I expect electronic books to cost at 25% to 50% of their paper equivalent. I believe both the authors and the publishers will still have the same profit at that level. Until that day, I am not spending $500 for an eBook reader and another $15 for each book.

At the center of 4 Ps is a C, the customer. Many compete for our money and attention. Publishers, heed our preferences or perish.

A top Senate Democrat is asking 30 leading technology, Internet and communications companies to provide detailed descriptions of their operations and human rights practices in China.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois sent letters to the companies on Tuesday seeking information about their business in China and their plans for protecting human rights, free speech and privacy there.

Durbin’s letter comes nearly three weeks after Google said it would stop censoring search results in China and threatened to pull out of the country altogether after uncovering a hacking attack emanating from China and attempts to snoop on dissidents.

When I was living in Beijing, I got requests like this about once a year. Some US governmental figures would come to this capital of China, gather a roomful of representatives from US companies, and seek information from us. About half of the room would be bi-lingual (I was one) and others will be Mandarin-challenged. We would have lived in Beijing for one to 15 years. Every time, we would leave the room shaking our heads.

There would be two primary purposes for such information gathering: they had a foregone conclusion and needed data to back them up; they were seeking re-election and needed a check mark next to China on their resumes. Of course, like all good politicians, they all sounded sincere when they listened.

Are human rights, freedom of speech, and privacy bad in China? Yes, they are. Do they affect business operations there? No, they don’t. Do most Chinese care as much as the US? No, they don’t. Do we assist the China government in those practices? Well, we obey laws of both countries.

Sen. Durbin no doubt is proud of these tenets of the USA values. I have certainly enjoyed and appreciated the freedom and justice here and wouldn’t dream of raising a family anywhere else. Like myself, many people came to the US because of these values and will stay for the same.

Our politicians and media, however, treat these values religiously — whoever disagree or practice differently are evil or wrong. They must be converted! This habitual imperialism came from the absolute superiority that we once were. It is now hurting the US, particularly economically.

I do not agree with China in many ways. I do not agree with the US in probably no less. I am comfortable, in fact enjoy, being a resident of both countries. I have friends in pretty much all major religions in this world, I enjoy talking to them on various religious matters. Those who tried to convert me would quickly lose my friendship and I certainly reciprocate the respect to those who do not.

“So you went to CalTech?” Asked the bartender, glancing the emblem on my baseball hat.

“Oh, no. I am not that smart,” I replied. “My kid did.”

“I heard they are, like, #2 or #3 in the world in something.”

“NUMBER ONE,” with a wry smile.

“Oh right. MIT is the #2 or #3.”

Yeah, he earned the fat tips.

What the Dog Saw Malcolm Gladwell ISBN: 978-0316075848

This is Malcolm’s best book.

I must be a Malcolm fan, having read every books he published so far. Before this one, the best was still the Tipping Point. I read others like I read Harry Potter #4 to #7: probably wouldn’t had I not read #1 to #3 already. Sequel power.

I made a mental note that this be my last Malcolm Gladwell when I picked up What the Dog Saw. The only other non-fiction writer that I have the complete collection was Michael Porter. Last chance, Gladwell. I delayed Black Swan for you. You’d better be brilliant for this one.

I was a turned off when I have read the preface. What?! He just collected his past shorter works into a book? That’s it?! He was milking me (like a cash cow). He did not work for this book. He was a paid writer for the New Yorker and now was re-selling his past works.

I read for entertainment that has different forms: positive emotional stimulus, intellectual enhancements through well presented facts, or deeper understanding of a worthy cause. This is why my favorite genre is SciFi. The good ones have all three.

Since each chapter in the book was not related and not too long, I paused whenever I finished one. It is a good bed-time book: one chapter then turn off the light. After the first two, I told Daughter, “Gladwell was just showing off his writing skills.” “That’s good,” she replied. “I like his style.” I did too.

Then they got better. I would have forgotten all about his writing skills and hooked by his stories that aimed to shed a new light into an old or familiar social issue. Malcolm was effective in moving, changing, or at least entertaining people. I felt myself changed, maybe not much, but perceivable, after reading his works. That’s exciting, I wanted to talk about what I read in dinner parties and expect others to get excited too.

OK, Malcolm, you just earned my money for your next book.

回北京前说要如此这般，飞机六点下地七点多进酒店，外面是刺骨的负5度，两人相望，“你要吃什么？”好像没家可以够值得出门的。商量已毕，全身重冬装备，两人硒硒嗦嗦，走了15分钟，进了亮马河边的印度小厨。点了烧鸡，Masala羊，印度豆腐，当然一堆的Nan及Parota，吃得不亦乐夫。精神和吃饭前完全不同了。

第二早上睡到日头，行步走到Kempinski的面包房，咖啡，面包，汤，甜点，当然是早午饭一起就打发了。下午办完事回到酒店后两人都累了，也没有太多与北京冬天奋战的心情。就下楼到酒店的西餐厅，打五折，不贵。做的挺好，服务也行。是个补充精神的一顿。

一夜无事，起来后中午有个茶宴，朋友问起，“回北京后吃了什么了？”我们厄然以对，头三餐居然没一顿中国菜。于是乎晚上大伙齐集日檀边的宏源涮肉，满桌的菌菜牛羊，一打烧饼，大大过瘾一番。回家一秤，重了4斤。

又个老北京朋友来电要请客，指定我选餐厅。想想说“川办”，居然北京还有我说得出的餐厅他们没吃过的？带了个孩子来，把菜单的都点完了。孩子一面吃一面叫好，一群人吃到撑，还带走了一大口袋。我们又聊到五点才散，回到酒店倒下就睡，八点才起来去鹿港小镇随便吃，加了个冰山。

过了两天，她说,“我们总要吃次鼎泰丰吧。”两人一车到东直门店，当然点了特色小笼，还有素饺，蟹粉小笼，蛋炒饭，芝麻包。这餐厅不是要不要来吃的问题，而是要吃几次的问题。

离京前的最后一餐，定了苏浙汇。目的是鲥鱼，其他菜也美味可口，干拌面尤其爽口。

上了飞机，她说，“你居然没吃烤鸭。” 奇怪，想都没想呢。