Sunday, March 27, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
日本人缴获东北军的装备
日本人缴获1931年的东北军的装备
飞机262架，迫击炮和各种口径大炮3019门、装甲战车26辆、各式机关枪5864挺、各种步枪和手枪118206支。
其中
“步枪（含机枪）约15万支，子弹约3百万发，迫击炮约6百门，炮弹约40万发，山、野、重炮约250门，炮弹约10万发，火药约40万磅”为张学良从法国进口，直到太平洋战争爆发，日军的装备中，尚没有可与其媲美者。
“步枪（含机枪）约15万支，子弹约3百万发，迫击炮约6百门，炮弹约40万发，山、野、重炮约250门，炮弹约10万发，火药约40万磅”为张学良从法国进口，直到太平洋战争爆发，日军的装备中，尚没有可与其媲美者。
在九一八事变中，由于飞行员都在休假，来不及将飞机启动撤离或组织抵抗，东北空军全军覆没，262袈飞机全部落入敌手。东北军的航空炸弹都堆成山。实际上，日军后来大量使用缴获东北空军的飞机与义勇军和后来的东北抗日联军作战，这些飞机在当时世界处于先进水平而且种类齐全，颇成系列。
另外，东北军奉天兵工厂有 240mm口径大炮生产线，这些在当时都是及其先进的。也被日军缴获了。
//注：大家（各路军阀）都以为常凯申空军很强大，没有1000架飞机也有800。其实，一直到1937年，常凯申中央军才有300架飞机，没比1931年的东北军强多少。
1931年东北军的海军，比中央军1946年以前的任何一年都强（那年之前，中央军有过“海军”没有都难说）。
德国造折叠式机动冲锋舟，别说1931年缴获它们的日本人没见过，就是中央军，到1949年都没使用过！
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Lasting Relationships Come Down To 2 Basic Traits-kindness and generosity
Science says lasting relationships come down to—you guessed it—kindness and generosity.
Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.
Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people.
The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction.
Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book "The Science of Happily Ever After," which was published earlier this year.
Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were.
Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?
Psychologist John Gottman was one of those researchers. For the past four decades, he has studied thousands of couples in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. I recently had the chance to interview Gottman and his wife Julie, also a psychologist, in New York City. Together, the renowned experts on marital stability run The Gottman Institute, which is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships based on scientific studies.
John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab and watched them interact with each other.
With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects' blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they produced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were still together.
From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters. The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages.
When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the electrodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.
But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal — of being in fight-or-flight mode — in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger.
Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For example, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”
The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.
Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat.
He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study — one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.
Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife — a sign of interest or support — hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.
The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.
People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t — those who turned away — would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”
These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.
By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples — straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not — will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility? “There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”
“It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”
Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there.
People who give their partner the cold shoulder — deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally — damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they also kill their partner's ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.
Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved. “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.
There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.
“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”
In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connection will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment in the one who is being ignored.
The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind. Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relationship.
“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.” John Gottman elaborated on those spears: “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’ Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”
For the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married each June — and for the millions of couples currently together, married or not — the lesson from the research is clear: If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship, exercise kindness early and often.
When people think about practicing kindness, they often think about small acts of generosity, like buying each other little gifts or giving one another back rubs every now and then. While those are great examples of generosity, kindness can also be built into the very backbone of a relationship through the way partners interact with each other on a day-to-day basis, whether or not there are back rubs and chocolates involved.
One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions. From the research of the Gottmans, we know that disasters see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there. An angry wife may assume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her. But he may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down.
Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to show up to their date on time after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they could spend a romantic evening together. But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a store to pick him up a gift for their special night out.
Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions charitably can soften the sharp edge of conflict.
“Even in relationships where people are frustrated, it’s almost always the case that there are positive things going on and people trying to do the right thing,” psychologist Ty Tashiro told me. “A lot of times, a partner is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent.”
Another powerful kindness strategy revolves around shared joy. One of the telltale signs of the disaster couples Gottman studied was their inability to connect over each other’s good news. When one person in the relationship shared the good news of, say, a promotion at work with excitement, the other would respond with wooden disinterest by checking his watch or shutting the conversation down with a comment like, “That’s nice.”
We’ve all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough. But research shows that being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality. How someone responds to a partner’s good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship.
In one study from 2006, psychological researcher Shelly Gable and her colleagues brought young adult couples into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They psychologists wanted to know how partners would respond to each other’s good news. They found that, in general, couples responded to each other’s good news in four different ways that they called: passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active constructive.
Let’s say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school. She would say something like “I got into my top choice med school!”
If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event. For example, he might say something like: “You wouldn’t believe the great news I got yesterday! I won a free t-shirt!”
If her partner responded in a passive constructive way, he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-hearted, understated way. A typical passive constructive response is saying “That’s great, babe” as he texts his buddy on his phone.
In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news his partner just got: “Are you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!”
Finally, there’s active constructive responding. If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing and engaged wholeheartedly with her: “That’s great! Congratulations! When did you find out? Did they call you? What classes will you take first semester?”
Among the four response styles, active constructive responding is the kindest. While the other response styles are joy-killers, active constructive responding allows the partner to savor her joy and gives the couple an opportunity to bond over the good news. In the parlance of the Gottmans, active constructive responding is a way of “turning toward” your partners bid (sharing the good news) rather than “turning away” from it.
Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Gable found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intimacy between partners.
There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career, friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart.
In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.
Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.
Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people.
The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction.
Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book "The Science of Happily Ever After," which was published earlier this year.
Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were.
Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?
Psychologist John Gottman was one of those researchers. For the past four decades, he has studied thousands of couples in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. I recently had the chance to interview Gottman and his wife Julie, also a psychologist, in New York City. Together, the renowned experts on marital stability run The Gottman Institute, which is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships based on scientific studies.
John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab and watched them interact with each other.
With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects' blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they produced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were still together.
From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters. The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages.
When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the electrodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.
But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal — of being in fight-or-flight mode — in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger.
Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For example, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”
The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.
Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat.
He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study — one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.
Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife — a sign of interest or support — hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.
The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.
People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t — those who turned away — would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”
These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.
By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples — straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not — will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility? “There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”
“It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”
Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there.
People who give their partner the cold shoulder — deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally — damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they also kill their partner's ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.
Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved. “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.
There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.
“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”
In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connection will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment in the one who is being ignored.
The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind. Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relationship.
“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.” John Gottman elaborated on those spears: “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’ Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”
For the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married each June — and for the millions of couples currently together, married or not — the lesson from the research is clear: If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship, exercise kindness early and often.
When people think about practicing kindness, they often think about small acts of generosity, like buying each other little gifts or giving one another back rubs every now and then. While those are great examples of generosity, kindness can also be built into the very backbone of a relationship through the way partners interact with each other on a day-to-day basis, whether or not there are back rubs and chocolates involved.
One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions. From the research of the Gottmans, we know that disasters see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there. An angry wife may assume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her. But he may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down.
Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to show up to their date on time after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they could spend a romantic evening together. But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a store to pick him up a gift for their special night out.
Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions charitably can soften the sharp edge of conflict.
“Even in relationships where people are frustrated, it’s almost always the case that there are positive things going on and people trying to do the right thing,” psychologist Ty Tashiro told me. “A lot of times, a partner is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent.”
Another powerful kindness strategy revolves around shared joy. One of the telltale signs of the disaster couples Gottman studied was their inability to connect over each other’s good news. When one person in the relationship shared the good news of, say, a promotion at work with excitement, the other would respond with wooden disinterest by checking his watch or shutting the conversation down with a comment like, “That’s nice.”
We’ve all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough. But research shows that being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality. How someone responds to a partner’s good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship.
In one study from 2006, psychological researcher Shelly Gable and her colleagues brought young adult couples into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They psychologists wanted to know how partners would respond to each other’s good news. They found that, in general, couples responded to each other’s good news in four different ways that they called: passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active constructive.
Let’s say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school. She would say something like “I got into my top choice med school!”
If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event. For example, he might say something like: “You wouldn’t believe the great news I got yesterday! I won a free t-shirt!”
If her partner responded in a passive constructive way, he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-hearted, understated way. A typical passive constructive response is saying “That’s great, babe” as he texts his buddy on his phone.
In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news his partner just got: “Are you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!”
Finally, there’s active constructive responding. If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing and engaged wholeheartedly with her: “That’s great! Congratulations! When did you find out? Did they call you? What classes will you take first semester?”
Among the four response styles, active constructive responding is the kindest. While the other response styles are joy-killers, active constructive responding allows the partner to savor her joy and gives the couple an opportunity to bond over the good news. In the parlance of the Gottmans, active constructive responding is a way of “turning toward” your partners bid (sharing the good news) rather than “turning away” from it.
Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Gable found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intimacy between partners.
There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career, friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart.
In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Data Frame Column Vector
We reference a data frame column with the double square bracket "[[]]" operator.
For example, to retrieve the ninth column vector of the built-in data set mtcars, we write mtcars[[9]].
We can retrieve the same column vector by its name.
We can also retrieve with the "$" operator in lieu of the double square bracket operator.
Yet another way to retrieve the same column vector is to use the single square bracket "[]" operator. We prepend the column name with a comma character, which signals a wildcard match for the row position.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
It is not the will to win that counts, it is the will that prepare to win that makes the difference
If you want change the unsatisfied status quo, go and work for it, fight for the change, work hard to make it happen. Change will never be possible if you just sit there and think how much you want to change, you have to move out of the comfort zone and enduring the harsh of labor and the bitterness of fight.
Happiness, Respects, Securities and Successes are earned, you have to fight for it.
It is not the will to win that counts, it is the will that prepare to win that makes the difference.
Happiness, Respects, Securities and Successes are earned, you have to fight for it.
It is not the will to win that counts, it is the will that prepare to win that makes the difference.
Friday, September 19, 2014
txStart and txEnd
txStart, txEnd: These columns contain the start and end coordinates for
transcription of the gene.
cdsStart, cdsEnd: These columns contain the start and end coordinates for
the coding region of the gene.
transcription of the gene.
cdsStart, cdsEnd: These columns contain the start and end coordinates for
the coding region of the gene.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
安全驾乘 幸福一生
又是开学季节，中国留学生陆续返校，
先考驾照再上路。6月初，
合理合规驾乘。某年春节前，麻州一留学生在纽约完成节目排练后，
租车有讲究。一中国留学生与朋友租车外出，
冷静处理事故及警察询问。高速路上发生一般事故及意外时，
人们常说：车祸猛于虎！人祸猛于虎！Monday, September 8, 2014
I am the lucky one cherish and fight
Heard the sad story from a friend fighting to find a job but can't, knowing that life here can be very very hard.
Cherish and Fight for my Happiness and American Dream.
Cherish and Fight for my Happiness and American Dream.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Install and Configure Apach
| Download | $ lynx http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
|
| Extract | $ gzip -d httpd-NN.tar.gz |
| Configure | $ ./configure --prefix=PREFIX
|
| Compile | $ make |
| Install | $ make install |
| Customize | $ vi PREFIX/conf/httpd.conf |
| Test | $ sudo PREFIX/bin/apachectl -k start |
In many cases, the testing would have some problem mostly because people just forget the "sudo" .
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Monday, August 18, 2014
Persistence
Persistence is the common trait of anyone who has had a significant impact on the world.
坚持是世界上成功人士共有的品质。
如果在被银行拒绝了242次之后，霍华德-舒尔茨放弃了，就不会有星巴克；如果在被出版社拒绝了数年之后，J.K.罗琳放弃了，就不会有《哈利波特》；如果他的主题公园被否定了302次之后，华特·迪士尼放弃了，就不会有迪士尼乐园……嗯，像傻逼一样坚持，才会有牛逼的结果。
坚持是世界上成功人士共有的品质。
如果在被银行拒绝了242次之后，霍华德-舒尔茨放弃了，就不会有星巴克；如果在被出版社拒绝了数年之后，J.K.罗琳放弃了，就不会有《哈利波特》；如果他的主题公园被否定了302次之后，华特·迪士尼放弃了，就不会有迪士尼乐园……嗯，像傻逼一样坚持，才会有牛逼的结果。
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
B1/B2签证有效期和在美停留时间的问题
一、关于签证有效期
首先我们要知道当我们历经困难从签证官手里拿到自己的签证的时候，签证上面有个时间
这个我们叫做签证有效期。
B1/B2一般是一年多次往返的，这个只跟你申请的签证类型有关，与你填表的时候写的预计赴美时间和在美停留时间实际上关系不大！
当B1/B2签证被美国外交部批准，一般来说会是一年多次往返（visa上会注明multiple)。这个一年是指从签证获准之日起后的365天，都是签证有效期。
在这个有效期内，你有权选择任何日子来美，也可以放弃这项权利。
多次往返理论上讲可以是今天飞来美国,明天飞回中国，第三天又飞来美国，... ..., 直到签证过期。
二、关于在美停留时间或者又叫有效居留期，停留时间
当我们历尽千辛飞到美国的第一站后，首先要同美国国土安全部（不同于之前的美国外交部，他们工作独立，无权互相干涉）的官员会面，由他们来决定父母在美国的居留时间，也就是通常所说的过海关。这之后才是正真意义上的踏上了美国国土。
对于B1/B2签证，停留期最长不超过183天。绝大多数情况下（人权上和道义上），会给到这个上限，即使是父母在同一个签证有效期内多次来美国。另外这个居留到期日理论上可以比签证到期日还晚。
例如父母在签证到期日前一天到达美国，也可以获得183天的居留权。
美国国土安全部的官员会将I-94出入境记录卡附在父母的护照上，离境时必须归还此卡。
总结，在签证有效期内，想什么时候来美国就什么时候来，想来几回就来几回，如同走大路。而居留时间长短则由不得你，从0天（遣返）到183天不等，天知道，如果你对美国国土安全或美国国家利益构成威胁，往少了数数，否则，往大了数。
首先我们要知道当我们历经困难从签证官手里拿到自己的签证的时候，签证上面有个时间
这个我们叫做签证有效期。
B1/B2一般是一年多次往返的，这个只跟你申请的签证类型有关，与你填表的时候写的预计赴美时间和在美停留时间实际上关系不大！
当B1/B2签证被美国外交部批准，一般来说会是一年多次往返（visa上会注明multiple)。这个一年是指从签证获准之日起后的365天，都是签证有效期。
在这个有效期内，你有权选择任何日子来美，也可以放弃这项权利。
多次往返理论上讲可以是今天飞来美国,明天飞回中国，第三天又飞来美国，... ..., 直到签证过期。
二、关于在美停留时间或者又叫有效居留期，停留时间
当我们历尽千辛飞到美国的第一站后，首先要同美国国土安全部（不同于之前的美国外交部，他们工作独立，无权互相干涉）的官员会面，由他们来决定父母在美国的居留时间，也就是通常所说的过海关。这之后才是正真意义上的踏上了美国国土。
对于B1/B2签证，停留期最长不超过183天。绝大多数情况下（人权上和道义上），会给到这个上限，即使是父母在同一个签证有效期内多次来美国。另外这个居留到期日理论上可以比签证到期日还晚。
例如父母在签证到期日前一天到达美国，也可以获得183天的居留权。
美国国土安全部的官员会将I-94出入境记录卡附在父母的护照上，离境时必须归还此卡。
总结，在签证有效期内，想什么时候来美国就什么时候来，想来几回就来几回，如同走大路。而居留时间长短则由不得你，从0天（遣返）到183天不等，天知道，如果你对美国国土安全或美国国家利益构成威胁，往少了数数，否则，往大了数。
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Delete columns of data frame in R
> head(data)
chr genome region
1 chr1 hg19_refGene CDS
2 chr1 hg19_refGene exon
3 chr1 hg19_refGene CDS
4 chr1 hg19_refGene exon
5 chr1 hg19_refGene CDS
6 chr1 hg19_refGene exon E3Cfc<-E3Cfc[,!(names(E3Cfc)=="pk.bound")]
> Data$genome <- NULL
> head(Data)
chr region
1 chr1 CDS
2 chr1 exon
3 chr1 CDS
4 chr1 exon
5 chr1 CDS
6 chr1 exon Data[2] <- NULL # Wojciech Sobala
Data[[2]] <- NULL # same as above
Data <- Data[,-2] # Ian Fellows
Data <- Data[-2] # same as above Data[1:2] <- list(NULL) # Marek
Data[1:2] <- NULL # does not work! Data <- Data[,-(2:3)] # vector
Data <- Data[,-(2:3),drop=FALSE] # still a data.frameDelete a list of elements from data frame in R
This might be an easy question but i still need some help for using R.
I have a data.frame (main_data), lets say..
I have a data.frame (main_data), lets say..
NAMES AGE LOC
Jyo 23 Hyd
Abid 27 Kar
Ras 24 Pun
Poo 25 Goa
Sus 28 Kar NAMES_list
Jyo
Ras
Poo NAMES AGE LOC
Abid 27 Kar
Sus 28 Kar |
Use
%in%: |
Monday, August 4, 2014
Resolve Problem in Installing RCurl
Resolve Problem in Installing RCurl, Problem stated as below.
> install.packages("RCurl")
Installing package into ‘/home/hufeng/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/3.0’
(as ‘lib’ is unspecified)
trying URL 'http://cran.rstudio.com/src/contrib/RCurl_1.95-4.3.tar.gz'
Content type 'application/x-gzip' length 879143 bytes (858 Kb)
opened URL
==================================================
downloaded 858 Kb
* installing *source* package ‘RCurl’ ...
** package ‘RCurl’ successfully unpacked and MD5 sums checked
checking for curl-config... no
Cannot find curl-config
ERROR: configuration failed for package ‘RCurl’
* removing ‘/home/hufeng/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/3.0/RCurl’
Warning in install.packages :
installation of package ‘RCurl’ had non-zero exit status
The downloaded source packages are in
‘/tmp/RtmpDnCukv/downloaded_packages’
I installed libcurl4-gnutls-dev and the problem was solved.
In your shell:
> install.packages("RCurl")
Installing package into ‘/home/hufeng/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/3.0’
(as ‘lib’ is unspecified)
trying URL 'http://cran.rstudio.com/src/contrib/RCurl_1.95-4.3.tar.gz'
Content type 'application/x-gzip' length 879143 bytes (858 Kb)
opened URL
==================================================
downloaded 858 Kb
* installing *source* package ‘RCurl’ ...
** package ‘RCurl’ successfully unpacked and MD5 sums checked
checking for curl-config... no
Cannot find curl-config
ERROR: configuration failed for package ‘RCurl’
* removing ‘/home/hufeng/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/3.0/RCurl’
Warning in install.packages :
installation of package ‘RCurl’ had non-zero exit status
The downloaded source packages are in
‘/tmp/RtmpDnCukv/downloaded_packages’
I installed libcurl4-gnutls-dev and the problem was solved.
In your shell:
sudo apt-get -y build-dep libcurl4-gnutls-dev
sudo apt-get -y install libcurl4-gnutls-devSunday, August 3, 2014
R which Function
which(x, arr.ind = FALSE, useNames = TRUE)
arrayInd(ind, .dim, .dimnames = NULL, useNames = FALSE)
x: logical vector or array. NAs are allowed and omitted (treated as if FALSE)arr.ind: logical; should array indices be returned when x is an array?ind: integer-valued index vector, as resulting from which(x).dim: integer vector.dimnames: optional list of character dimnames(.), of which only .dimnames[[1]] is useduseNames: logical indicating if the value of arrayInd() should have (non-null) dimnames at all> BOD
Time demand 1 1 8.3 2 2 10.3 3 3 19.0 4 4 16.0 5 5 15.6 6 7 19.8
> which(BOD$demand == 16)
[1] 4
> x <- matrix(1:9,3,3) > x
[,1] [,2] [,3] [1,] 1 4 7 [2,] 2 5 8 [3,] 3 6 9
> which(x %% 3 == 0, arr.ind=TRUE)
row col [1,] 3 1 [2,] 3 2 [3,] 3 3
> which(x %% 3 == 0, arr.ind=FALSE)
[1] 3 6 9
The do.call function
R has an interesting function called do.call. This
function allows you to call any R function, but instead of writing
out the arguments one by one, you can use a list to hold the
arguments of the function. While it may not seem useful on the
surface, a simple example will help to show how powerful do.call
is.
Suppose we have three comma-separated text files that have information on the same three variables. Here's a look at the first few lines in one of the files:
Suppose we have three comma-separated text files that have information on the same three variables. Here's a look at the first few lines in one of the files:
a,b,x,y
b,B,2.49778634403711,-0.351307445767206
b,A,-0.594683138631719,1.19629936975021
b,D,1.14857619580259,0.653315728121014
c,A,0.957476532595248,0.935608419299617
It's easy to read each one in with
read.csv, and then to call the rbind (combine by
rows) function to make one big data frame. (Remember that rbind
will only work if all the data frames being combined have the same variable
names.)> one = read.csv('1.csv')
> nrow(one)
[1] 21
> two = read.csv('2.csv')
> nrow(two)
[1] 25
> three = read.csv('3.csv')
> nrow(three)
[1] 27
> big = rbind(one,two,three)
> nrow(big)
[1] 73
As I said, that was pretty easy. But now suppose we have
20 csv files that we want to read and combine. We could do what we
did with the three files, but, not only would it get tiring, there's
a chance of making an error when we have to type so many commands.
In the past, when we've had problems like this, sapply was able
to help. Let's try it here, by writing a function that will take a
number, create a filename by pasting .csv at the end, and reading
in the data:> allframes = sapply(1:20,function(x)read.csv(paste(x,'csv',sep='.')))
> head(allframes)
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7]
a factor,21 factor,25 factor,27 factor,25 factor,27 factor,21 factor,24
b factor,21 factor,25 factor,27 factor,25 factor,27 factor,21 factor,24
x Numeric,21 Numeric,25 Numeric,27 Numeric,25 Numeric,27 Numeric,21 Numeric,24
y Numeric,21 Numeric,25 Numeric,27 Numeric,25 Numeric,27 Numeric,21 Numeric,24
[,8] [,9] [,10] [,11] [,12] [,13] [,14]
a factor,28 factor,23 factor,23 factor,22 factor,26 factor,24 factor,23
b factor,28 factor,23 factor,23 factor,22 factor,26 factor,24 factor,23
x Numeric,28 Numeric,23 Numeric,23 Numeric,22 Numeric,26 Numeric,24 Numeric,23
There were no errors, but the result certainly is strange
looking! While we haven't talked about it before, the "s" in sapply
stands for simplify, and the problem that we've just seen is that
sapply tried too hard to simplify our result. It created an
odd matrix, where each element represents one of the columns of one of
the files we read in. Fortunately, there's a function that's closely related
to sapply called lapply. The difference between sapply and
lapply is that lapply will never try to simplify its
results. It will always return a list, the same length as its first
argument, with each element of the list resulting in the function we
passed to lapply operating on one element of the first argument.
In our case, calling lapply instead of sapply will give
us a list of length 20, where each element is the result of calling
read.csv on one of the 20 files. This is where do.call
comes in. Instead of having to pass 20 data frames to rbind, we
can use do.call to pass all 20 of them to rbind, since they
are in a list, and that's exactly what do.call is looking for.> allframes = lapply(1:20,function(x)read.csv(paste(x,'csv',sep='.')))
> sapply(allframes,nrow)
[1] 21 25 27 25 27 21 24 28 23 23 22 26 24 23 25 29 28 30 27 29
> answer = do.call(rbind,allframes)
> nrow(answer)
[1] 507
We can combine all the data frames without storing them
separately or passing them individually to rbind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)