3月13号惨败，在职备考人4月27二战，学习的道路，没有捷径

phoebe0624

MM在暴力RC啊！！！
来看看你，不要有压力哈！

evamimi

2012年04月09日

周末正式实施了workshop的策略做题
尼玛果不其然速度慢了将近一倍，正确率也就还好吧，能有一点点的提升
于是我悲催的想到这下完蛋了.....速度本来就不算快，这下更惨了

鉴于没有什么更好的办法的情况，只能多加练习提高整体读题速度，理解速度，把时间留给reasoning

看了下数学狗已经超过100了 ，我准备开始做前100题，不看讨论稿 ，只对答案即可，二战数学再上不了50我真是对不起数学老师了，连老公都说我的数学错的一点技术含量都木有T T

听说新prep出来了，我是要做呢还是不做呢时间各种不够啊

evamimi

鉴于部分阅读狗出世，并附有部分英文参考文献，今天的小分队任务改成详细分析这些文章。

第一篇，咖啡分析

Is that Folgers coffee in your cup or Maxwell House? Now you no longer have to rely on your nose to tell. Researchers have developed an analyzer that can distinguish between 10 commercial brands of coffee and can even tell apart coffee beans roasted at various temperatures for different times. The advance could help growers determine within minutes whether a particular batch of coffee is just as good as the previous one or whether it's undrinkable.

Researchers have been trying for years to come up with a simple way to analyze coffee. But it's no easy task. The challenge is that the aroma of roasted coffee beans consists of more than 1000 compounds that change with roasting temperatures and time. Traditional methods of chemical analysis like gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry generally have difficulty distinguishing between compounds that are very similar to one another. And "electronic noses," an array of dyes, and other sensors that change color or chemical properties when they react with certain molecules suffer from the same drawback.

Over the past decade, chemist Kenneth Suslick and colleagues at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have refined the electronic nose approach. In the new study, they used dyes that interact strongly with other chemicals, making them more specific. They then put drops of 36 dyes on a polymer film the size of a nickel. The pigments in the dyes belonged to a range of chemical classes, including metalloporphyrins (a class of molecules which give blood and chlorophyll their distinctive colors); pH indicators; and molecules that change color with certain chemical vapors.
The device produced a pattern of colors as each coffee's mixture of volatile compounds interacted with the dyes. When the investigators pumped vapors from various coffees including Starbucks Sumatra Roast and Folgers Grande Supreme Decaf-over the arrays, all generated unique color patterns, like a molecular "fingerprint," they report this month in Analytical Chemistry.

The array doesn't give any information about the individual compounds in the aromas. "The important thing is that we can easily tell the difference between different roastings and coffees," notes Suslick. And that should help growers quickly and cheaply analyze problems with coffee, such as burnt flavors, during their initial screening process says food scientist Felix Escher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

开篇说研究人员发现了一种新的东西可以区分各种牌子的咖啡豆，甚至连烤豆的温度和时间都能说出来。这东西还能帮种咖啡的人区分某种豆是和之前的一样好还是根本不能喝。

研究人员之前花了很多年想用简单的办法来分析咖啡，但是这不是个容易的事情。因为咖啡的香气中含1000多中化学物质，随着温度和时间而改变。传统的化学分析方法比如气体色谱分析法（with xxxx） 很难区分非常类似的化学物质。另外一种“electronic noses” （一种列阵染料？？）以及另外一种在跟某些分子发生反应的时候改变颜色的 传感器，都有类似的缺点。

在过去10几年中，化学家KS精确了en的结果。在最新研究中，他们用了某种很独特的染料，这染料可以和其他化学物质发生强烈反应。然后他们滴了36种染料到nickel那么大的薄膜上。在染料中的颜料？？属于一系列的化学种类，ph 值以及跟某些化学气体在一起就会变色的分子。
Anyway这段基本就在说ks做了一种实验，其中用了某些很好的染料

然后就让这些染料和咖啡混合气体挥发物反应。当调查者抽取各种starbucks和f的咖啡时，都generate不同的颜色样式，就像指纹一样。他们在这个月的AC上发表了这报告。

这排列（或者说结果吧） 并不能说明香味中的每个化学物质。S说： “重要的是我们可以很容易区别各种咖啡的不同”  “然后可以帮助种植者在筛选程序刚开始的时候快速和经济的分析咖啡中的问题，比如口味” 一个食品科学家FE在SFITZ上说。

evamimi

第二篇， 乌鸦是否有智力

尼玛这篇文章真心好长啊，看了一半看不动了，不过看狗主的内容貌似不大一样，一篇几乎是原文，V2就像是另外一篇文章的样子

Some of you know that Bernd Heinrich has spent many winters studying ravens and their behavior. This month, Heinrich and his colleague, Thomas Bugnyar, published an article in Scientific American that explores the intelligence of ravens. In this article, they investigate the question; do the birds consciously contemplate alternative behaviors and choose the most appropriate ones, or are they merely relying on instinct or learning to perform specific actions by rote?
reputed to behave intelligently. They state that other relatives of the ravens -- the corvids, such as crows, jays, magpies and nutcrackers -- appear to possess surprising and sophisticated mental abilities. They even mention that these birds' capacities appear to be equivalent to or to even surpass those of the great apes. For example, nutcrackers have the capacity to recall thousands of locations where they have cached food items -- a capacity that exceeds that of humans.
Which leads us to ask; do corvids rely on logic to solve problems or are they relying on instinct? Do corvids distinguish between each other and alter their behaviors accordingly? To more precisely determine the mental capacities of ravens, the largest of the corvids, Heinrich and Bugnyar designed several tests. The first experiment consisted of food hanging from a string below the bottom of the wire cage (pictured right, bigger). To get this treat, the bird had to reach down from a perch and grasp the string in its beak, pull up on the string, place the loop of string on the perch, step on this looped segment of string to prevent it from slipping down, then let go of the string and reach down again and repeat its actions until the morsel of food was within reach.
They found that some adult birds would examine the situation for several minutes and then perform this multistep procedure in as little as 30 seconds without any trial and error -- as if they knew exactly what they were doing. Because there was no opportunity for the birds to be confronted with a similar problem in the wild, the simplest explanation is that they were able to imagine the possibilities and to perform the appropriate behaviors. The authors also found that successfully performing this behavior required maturity: immature birds were unable to do it while year-old birds performed a variety of trials before they were able to succeed.
assert that, basically, knowing how to do something requires few or no trials, whereas trial-and-error learning requires no logic. In fact, it was possible that the birds were rewarded by having the meat become closer with each looping behavior. So as a result, the authors designed another experiment to find out how the birds were solving the problem by presenting them with a situation that was not immediately rewarding because it was counter-intuitive: a string that must be pulled down to cause the food to move upwards towards the bird (pictured left, bigger).
In this situation, the ravens were still interested in the food but none of them managed to solve the problem of obtaining it even though they would have had to use the same sequence of actions. The authors concluded that the pull-up method of obtaining the meat was mastered quickly because it was logical -- a capacity that is lacking or present only to a limited extent in most animals.
Thinking and logic can be quite unreliable and can cause their own set of problems. For example, paper wasps rely on precise hard-wired behaviors to manufacture paper into a nest with a very precise architecture. No learning is required to create the nest, although the environment can modify some genetically programmed behaviors. So why are corvids different? What is special about their social environment that favored the evolved of intelligence as the source for complex behaviors?

狗到这里结束，下面翻译

说BH这人花了很多个冬天研究乌鸦的行为。本月这人和他同事TB在SA上发表文章关于乌鸦行为。文中阐述了他们的研究结果，就是关于这鸟到底是会有意识的思考，然后选择个最合适的方法还是根本的依赖直觉或者是根据某种死记硬背/生搬硬套来学习的

应该是漏了一些
说这些鸟被认为是有智力的。他们说其他乌鸦的近亲，鸦科，例如c,j m和n都表现出令人惊讶的复杂思维能力。他们甚至提到了这些鸟表现出超过大猿的能力。例如，n可以回忆起几千个他们曾经觅食的恶地方，这能力甚至超越了人类

然后人就像问鸦科到底是依赖逻辑思考解决问题还是直觉，他们能够区分各种不同的方案然后因此而改变行为么？为了精确确定这思维能力H和B做了许多实验。第一个是将食物绑在一个笼子的底部。为了得到这个食物，乌鸦必须做一系列的动作，并重复以得到食物（过程太复杂了看不明白）

他们发现成年的鸟会花几分钟分析情况然后在30秒内作出这样的行动，没有任何错误，就像他们真心知道自己在干啥一样。因为在野外，不可能让鸟面临相同的情况，所以最简单的解释就是他们可以分析并行动。并且这俩人发现要这么做必须是成年鸟，幼鸟就不行，老鸟在行动前会作出各种尝试，判断是否能成功。

因为知道如何做并不需要尝试和判断，而且尝试-失败的学习模式不需要思维。事实上，很有可能这鸟每次拉动绳子的时候就让肉更加的靠近了。所以这俩人又做了另外一个实验来检查鸟如何解决不是立刻就能发现如何做的那种非直觉的情况（尼玛太复杂了就是需要思考嘛！！）然后另外一个复杂实验（ 略去）

这种情况下，虽然乌鸦仍然对食物有兴趣，但是没有一个鸟愿意去解决这样问题，然后获得食物，虽然他们只需要重复跟之前一样的行为顺序。于是这俩人就认为这种获得食物的方法需要逻辑思维，这是大部分动物所没有的能力。

思考和逻辑非常不可靠而且会造成问题。例如纸蜂（有这种东西？）依赖精确的hard-wired 行为来把纸造一个特定结构的巢。不需要掌握造巢，即使环境可以修正一些基因类的行为。（这句太奇怪了）所以为什么乌鸦就不一样呢。造就他们青睐并演变的智力作为复杂行为的来源的社会环境有什么不一样？

evamimi

到此为止，我可以认为作者是倾向认为乌鸦是没有思维逻辑的，因为很明显，在面对需要逻辑思维的情况下，乌鸦不行动了。这是第二个实验的目的。以上为狗的范围。

evamimi

下面是其他的内容，挺有意思的，虽然跟狗已经没关系了

Much of the natural history of ravens suggests that they evolved under circumstances that required them to cope with rapidly changing short-term situations. These birds are opportunists who do some hunting on their own, but are mainly dependent upon food that other animals have killed. The predators that inadvertently provide the birds with food are unpredictable and thus, can also kill ravens. Under these circumstances, trial-and-error is evolutionarily untenable because the first mistake in dealing with an unpredictable predator could cost the birds their lives.
Food bonanzas provided by mammalian carnivores are often quickly consumed by them. As a result, it pays ravens to get an early start in feeding -- often, side-by-side with these carnivores. To do this, the birds must be able to predict the carnivores' behavior, such as when they might attack, how far they can jump and how to distract them, and some of that knowledge needs to be in place before the bird itself is distracted by feeding.
Juvenile birds learn these things early in life by interacting with the predators through testing their reactions. Juvenile ravens often will land nearby and nip them from behind. This so-called risky "play activity" is dangerous but ultimately aids in the birds' survival by providing information about the capabilities of various predators. By deliberately provoking them, ravens learn which animals they can trust and how far away they must stay to remain safe.
Ravens also cache food -- busily hauling it away, burying it in secret locations and eating it later. Because ravens have a nearly nonexistent sense of smell, they must memorize the precise location of this stored food, as is the case for other birds that also engage in caching. However, unlike most other caching birds, ravens observe caching of their competitors and thereby memorize the precise locations of not only their own caches, but also those of their competitors. Because of this, ravens prefer to cache their food in private.
As newly-fledged birds that are still being fed by their parents, young ravens practice caching by hiding inedible items. Not only are the young birds learning which items are edible, but equally important, they were also learning to predict their siblings' behavior -- namely, cache pilfering. To better understand practice caching and pilfering behavior, the authors acted as surrogate parents to several young birds. One person was designated the "thief" and always stole a young bird's cache, whereas the other person consistently examined the young birds' caches but never pilfered them.


乌鸦进化的历史要求他们在快速改变情况的。因为这些鸟虽然可以自己捕猎，不过大部分是依赖其他动物杀死后的东西，就是吃尸体啦。捕食者不但可以帮他们弄到食物，还可以杀死这些鸟。所以在这种情况下，判断-错误就尤为重要，因为如果第一个错误就会导致这些鸟挂掉。

食肉动物弄的食物会被他们自己吃掉，所以乌鸦就得早点去吃，经常的情况，就是呆在食肉动物 旁边。要这样的话，这些鸟必须预测食肉动物的行为，包括什么时候人家捕猎，他们可以跳多远啦攻击自己，以及其他的必要知识等等。

幼鸟在小的时候，在和捕食者互动（这词用得真是…）的时候学会测试他们的反应。幼鸟经常落在捕食者前面的地方，就是所谓的危险的游戏，但是这通过提供关于捕食者各种各样能力的行为极大地帮助幼鸟的生存。这样乌鸦就知道了什么动物是可以相信的以及他们要呆多远才安全。

乌鸦也会藏食物，拖到远的地方，然后埋掉，之后再吃。因为乌鸦几乎没有嗅觉，所以他们必须记住埋藏地。然而，不同于其他埋东西的鸟，乌鸦不但观察自己埋东西的地方，还观察其他竞争者埋的地方，然后记住。因为这样，乌鸦很倾向偷偷埋食物。

新生幼鸟仍然被老鸟喂养的时候，就练习藏不能吃的东西。不管是因为他们在学习什么能吃，更重要的事，他们还练习预测他们兄弟姐妹藏东西的行为，然后偷。为了更好理解藏和偷的行为，这俩人扮演了老鸟来养育一些小鸟。一个人扮演小偷，经常偷小鸟的东西，另外一个人则经常检查小鸟藏的东西，但是不偷

双色鹿

来看看EVA姐姐~姐姐加油哇~这些狗狗分析很棒哇，可以让几经整理的孩子收录进去~

evamimi

来看看EVA姐姐~姐姐加油哇~这些狗狗分析很棒哇，可以让几经整理的孩子收录进去~

-- by 会员 双色鹿 (2012/4/10 13:09:44)

额这纯粹是个人拙见，怕大神们笑话不敢太嚣张...

evamimi

今天的是共生关系的哈~~

The nature of this relationship is puzzling. It is difficult to discern how carrying another organism around can be advantageous. We speculated that in fact, amphipods mustbe considerably slowed down. By carefully measuring the swimming speeds of amphipods with and without seabutterflies, we found that amphipods carrying seabutterflies moved only half as quickly as similarly sized solitary amphipods.The situation simply made nosense. In reducing their mobility, the amphipods became more vulnerable topredators and less adept at capturing prey. Why, then,would amphipods go out of their way to abduct and carry sea butterflies?

Our experiments clearly demonstrated that something about the sea butterflies was repelling the fish, and we suspected that this deterrence was chemical. To find out, we conducted a second set of feeding experiments. We homogenized the seabutterflies and mixed the homogenate withfish-meal powder to make food pellets. As a control, we also made food pellets containing just the fish-meal powder. We offered both the experimental and the control pellets to fish, which always ate the control pellets and always rejected the pellets containing the homogenate. This provided compelling evidence that compounds might be responsible for the feeding chemical deterrence.

Our experiments demonstrated to us that the sea butterfly Can tarctica synthesizes a deterrent substance that the amphipod H. dilatata exploits for its own protection. This unique association - the abduction of one species by another - is unprecedented in the annals of behavioral and chemical ecology. Some decorator crabs are chemical ecology known to cover their upper carapace with a variety of objects,including the occasional sponge that might harbor defensive chemistry. But this appears to be a nonselective behavior.Crabs haphazardly decorate themselveswith whatever is at hand.

The association between the sea butterfly and the amphipod falls within the definition of symbiosis共生, where two dissimilar species live together in an intimate association. However, none ofthe relationships defined within the broad context of symbiosis - parasitism,comensalism or mutualism -appear to suitably describe the seabutterfly-amphipod relationship.

Parasitism implies that one species associates with another to the detriment伤害of one of them. Often, the parasite feeds off the tissues or body fluids of its host. Mutualism共生describes a relationship where both species benefit from the association. Commensalism describes organisms that live in benign and neutral中立or良性association with one another. Neither of the latter two interactions appropriately describes what we have observed, and parasitism provides only avery weak analogy to it. We feel that a new term might be needed to describe the "antagonistic symbiosis" that seems to describe most accurately this unique interaction.

In this association the antagonist benefits greatly from the relationship. Remember that the amphipod must sacrifice its mobility and speed. Clearly the defense it acquires offsets these drawbacks. The seabutterfly, on the other hand, is atthe mercy of the amphipod. While it is being carried around, it cannot feed to sustain its energy.

我觉得前面肯定漏了一段，是说明a带着s走这件事情。
这种关系让人很困惑。因为很难辨别带着其他生物如何给自己带来好处。这些人推测，a带着s走肯定速度慢啊。在仔细测量a带着和不带着s的游泳速度来看，这些人（科学家吧）发现a带着s走速度下降一半。这情况就会让a在面临捕食者的时候变得相当脆弱。所以为什么a为啥要带着s走呢？

科学家认为s含有一些鱼不喜欢的东西，而且怀疑这些威摄物是某种化学物质。为了证明，他们做了两组？实验。他们提取了s身上的h，把h混到一部分鱼食里，另外一部分没混h。结果鱼只吃没混h的食物，拒绝含h的。结果非常明显的证明某种化学物质造成了这种结果。

实验还表明s可以分泌？某种物质保护他们自己。（这句话有错别字，看不太明白）这种独特的组织-被另外一种生物劫持，是行为生态学和化学生态学中史无前例的。一些化学生态学中已知的d螃蟹会用其他东西覆盖他们的甲壳，包括一些可以抵御化学物质的海绵。但是这看上去都是一些无选择性的行为。螃蟹会用他们手中的任何东西来装饰自己。

S和a的关系可以定义为共生symbiosis，是说两种不同的生物在一起和谐共处。然而，寄生p，共栖c或者互利共栖m都不属于这种定义范畴内，都不适用于s和a的这种情况。

寄生:一个伤害另一个，吃对方组织和体液。共生:双方都获利。commensalism共栖:中立，互相不干扰。这上面说的后两种科学家都没有木有观察到，寄生的话更不类似。所以科学家们认为应该用一种新的类似symbiosis来定义会更准确。

在这种关系下类似是双方都获益的，但是要记得a是牺牲了移动性和速度的，这显然是个缺点。而s这边，因为被a背着，不能吃东西啊有木有~~

evamimi

下一篇，月球形成理论
这篇跟狗不是完全一样，第一段已经包含了狗中1-2段的内容，which 后面几乎就是狗中2段的反驳内容。

英文第二段应该是狗要说的第三段，新理论的提出

Several mechanisms have been historically proposed for the Moon's formation 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago, some 30–50 million years after the origin of the Solar System.[15] These include the fission of the Moon from the Earth's crust throughcentrifugal forces,[16] which would require too great an initial spin of the Earth,[17] the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon,[18] which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of the Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon,[17] and the co-formation of the Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk, which does not explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon.[17] These hypotheses also cannot account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.[19]

The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hit the proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around the proto-Earth, which accreted to form the Moon.[20] Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[21]Unresolved questions are the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and impactor,[20] and how much material from these two bodies formed the Moon. However, recent oxygen isotope composition analysis of the Moon shows its oxygen isotope composition is more similar to the Earth's than this hypothesis would suggest.[22]

历史上很多关于月球在4.527b年前，太阳系形成后30-50m年后，形成的理论。包括1.月球从地壳中因为离心力被分离出去（这要求地球有很快的转速），2.地心引力抓住一个未成形的月亮（这需要不可思议的地球大气层来驱散通过的月球的能量），3.地月同时诞生的原始积蓄盘理论（这个理论不能解释月球上消耗的金属铁）。这些理论都不能支持地月系统的高角动量（尼玛物理是硬伤…）

当下最流行的理论（giant-impact）是说火星那么大 的东西撞到地球上然后弄出来了一小块东西飘到环绕地球的轨道，然后形成了月亮。这理论在早期太阳系形成时候很普遍。电脑模拟也跟地月系统的角动量也一致，跟月核的小型也一样。但是未解决的问题是原始地球的大小和影响，以及多少从地球上弄出来的东西形成了月亮。然而，近期氧同位素分析说月球的氧同位素跟地球的更加接近，大于假设的支持。

后面扯到地壳和地幔上的东西去了，我就没再仔细看，狗到这里好像就结束了