一条狗和一块石头的差别

  1. 特定的组构
    狗的体内存在细胞,有机化合物;石头体内没有细胞、有机化合物。
  2. 新陈代谢
    狗需要主动从外界获取能量,为体内的化学反应(也就是新陈代谢)提供能量;石头不需要主动从外界获取能量,便可存在。
  3. 稳态和应激性
    狗体内的新陈代谢需要在一定的物理、化学条件(温度、pH等)下才能进行,这叫做稳态;狗有许多调节机制去维持这种条件的相对稳定,并且当环境发生某些改变时也能做到,这叫做应激性。石头体内存在化学反应,但是石头的稳定存在的最佳环境是不发生任何化学反应去改变石头的状态;当环境发生改变时,石头不会主动应答,也就是不存在应激性。
  4. 生殖和遗传
    狗会主动产生子代,也就是进行生殖;产生的子代与亲本具有相似的性状,这叫做遗传。石头不会主动进行生殖活动,也就不存在遗传。
  5. 生长和发育
    狗会生长,他的细胞会从小变大,从少变多,狗也会发育,比如他的组织器官的形态建成、性成熟、衰老等。石头可能会变大,但是不存在发育。
  6. 进化和适应
    狗不断生殖,也就是在不断进化,因为生殖产生子代必然会引入突变,无论是简单的SNV还是SV;通过发生这些突变,会生成一些新的性状,在群体范围内,带有不适应环境的新性状的个体被淘汰,适应的个体存活,使得群体朝着更加适应该环境的方向进化。石头没有生殖,所以没有进化;石头无论存在于哪里,都不会根据环境去调整自己,所以不存在适应。
  7. 综述
    综上所述,狗和石头之间存在巨大的差别,而这种差别是广泛存在于生物和非生命体之间的。
  8. 运动
    狗可以并且会自发运动,而石头不会自发运动;
  9. foo­bar

Three Rs and Five Freedoms

The Three Rs tenet (Replace­ment, Reduc­tion and Refine­ment) guides sci­en­tists on the eth­i­cal use of ani­mals in sci­ence.

  • Replace­ment refers to meth­ods which avoid or replace the use of ani­mals in an area where ani­mals would oth­er­wise have been used
  • Reduc­tion refers to any strat­e­gy that will result in few­er ani­mals being used
  • Refine­ment refers to the mod­i­fi­ca­tion of hus­bandry or exper­i­men­tal pro­ce­dures to min­i­mize pain and dis­tress

The Five Freedoms Are:

  1. Free­dom from hunger and thirst (by ready access to fresh water and a diet to main­tain full health and vigour).
  2. Free­dom from dis­com­fort (by pro­vid­ing an appro­pri­ate envi­ron­ment includ­ing shel­ter and a com­fort­able rest­ing area).
  3. Free­dom from pain, injury and dis­ease (by pre­ven­tion or rapid diag­no­sis and treat­ment).
  4. Free­dom to express nor­mal behav­iour (by pro­vid­ing suf­fi­cient space, prop­er facil­i­ties and com­pa­ny of the animal’s own kind).
  5. Free­dom from fear and dis­tress (by ensur­ing con­di­tions and treat­ment which avoid men­tal suf­fer­ing).

relat­ed infor­ma­tion:

http://www.ccac.ca/en_/standards/guidelines
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/about/
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/about/three-rs.html
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/about/animal-welfare.html

How to Write a Peer Review for an Academic Journal: Six Steps from Start to Finish by Tanya Golash-Boza

PhD2Pub­lished has sev­er­al infor­ma­tive posts about writ­ing jour­nal arti­cles, and more recent­ly has fea­tured a post out­lin­ing a poten­tial­ly rev­o­lu­tion­ary col­lab­o­ra­tive peer review process for this kind of pub­lish­ing. Todays post offers an alter­na­tive per­spec­tive; that of the jour­nal arti­cle peer review­er. Doing peer reviews pro­vides impor­tant expe­ri­ence for those writ­ing their own papers and may help writ­ers con­sid­er what they should include based on what peer review­ers are look­ing for.

At some point in your schol­ar­ly career, you like­ly will get asked to review an arti­cle for a jour­nal. In this post, I explain how I usu­al­ly go about doing a peer review. I imag­ine that each schol­ar has their own way of doing this, but it might be help­ful to talk open­ly about this task, which we gen­er­al­ly com­plete in iso­la­tion.

Step One:  Accept the invi­ta­tion to peer review. The first step in review­ing a jour­nal arti­cle is to accept the invi­ta­tion. When decid­ing whether or not to accept, take into con­sid­er­a­tion three things: 1) Do you have time to do the review by the dead­line? 2) Is the arti­cle with­in your area of exper­tise? 3) Are you sure you will com­plete the review by the dead­line? Once you accept the invi­ta­tion, set aside some time in your sched­ule to read the arti­cle and write the review.

Step Two: Read the arti­cle. I usu­al­ly read the arti­cle with a pen in hand so that I can write my thoughts in the mar­gins as I read. As I read, I under­line parts of the arti­cle that seem impor­tant, write down any ques­tions I have, and cor­rect any mis­takes I notice.

Step Three: Write a brief sum­ma­ry of the arti­cle and its con­tri­bu­tion. When I am doing a peer review, I some­times do it all in one sit­ting – which will take me about two hours – or I read it one day and write it the next. Often, I prefer to do the lat­ter to give myself some time to think about the arti­cle and to process my thoughts. When writ­ing a draft of the review, the first thing I do is sum­ma­rize the arti­cle as best I can in three to four sen­tences. If I think favor­ably of the arti­cle and believe it should be pub­lished, I often will write a longer sum­ma­ry, and high­light the strengths of the arti­cle. Remem­ber that even if you don’t have any (or very many) crit­i­cisms, you still need to write a review. Your cri­tique and acco­lades may help con­vince the edi­tor of the impor­tance of the arti­cle. As you write up this sum­ma­ry, take into con­sid­er­a­tion the suit­abil­i­ty of the arti­cle for the jour­nal. If you are review­ing for the top jour­nal in your field, for exam­ple, an arti­cle sim­ply being fac­tu­al­ly cor­rect and hav­ing a sound analy­sis is not enough for it to be pub­lished in that jour­nal. Instead, it would need to change the way we think about some aspect of your field.

Step Four: Write out your major crit­i­cisms of the arti­cle. When doing a peer review, I usu­al­ly begin with the larg­er issues and end with minu­ti­ae. Here are some major areas of crit­i­cism to con­sid­er:

–          Is the arti­cle well-orga­nized?

–          Does the arti­cle con­tain all of the com­po­nents you would expect (Intro­duc­tion, Meth­ods, The­o­ry, Analy­sis, etc)?

–          Are the sec­tions well-devel­oped?

–          Does the author do a good job of syn­the­siz­ing the lit­er­a­ture?

–          Does the author answer the ques­tions he/she sets out to answer?

–          Is the method­ol­o­gy clear­ly explained?

–          Does the the­o­ry con­nect to the data?

–          Is the arti­cle well-writ­ten and easy to under­stand?

–          Are you con­vinced by the author’s results? Why or why not?

Step Five: Write out any minor crit­i­cisms of the arti­cle.  Once you have laid out the pros and cons of the arti­cle, it is per­fect­ly accept­able (and often wel­come) for you to point out that the table on page 3 is mis­la­beled, that the author wrote “com­pli­ment” instead of “com­ple­ment” on page 7, or oth­er minu­ti­ae. Cor­rect­ing those minor errors will make the author’s paper look more pro­fes­sion­al if it goes out for anoth­er peer review, and cer­tain­ly will have to be cor­rect­ed before being accept­ed for pub­li­ca­tion.

Step Six: Review. Go over your review and make sure that it makes sense and that you are com­mu­ni­cat­ing your cri­tiques and sug­ges­tions in as help­ful a way as pos­si­ble.

Final­ly, I will say that, when writ­ing a review, be mind­ful that you are cri­tiquing the arti­cle in ques­tion – not the author. Thus, make sure your cri­tiques are con­struc­tive. For exam­ple, it is not appro­pri­ate to write: “The author clear­ly has not read any Fou­cault.” Instead, say: “The analy­sis of Fou­cault is not as devel­oped as I would expect to see in an aca­d­e­mic jour­nal arti­cle.” Also, be care­ful not to write: “The author is a poor writer.” Instead, you can say: “This arti­cle would ben­e­fit from a close edit­ing. I found it dif­fi­cult to fol­low the author’s argu­ment due to the many styl­is­tic and gram­mat­i­cal errors.” Although you are an anony­mous review­er, the Edi­tor knows who you are, and it nev­er looks good when you make per­son­al attacks on oth­ers. So, in addi­tion to being nice, it is in your best inter­est.

GitHub

Repos­i­to­ry

A repos­i­to­ry is usu­al­ly used to orga­nize a sin­gle project. Repos­i­to­ries can con­tain fold­ers and files, images, videos, spread­sheets, and data sets – any­thing your project needs. We rec­om­mend includ­ing a README, or a file with infor­ma­tion about your project. GitHub makes it easy to add one at the same time you cre­ate your new repos­i­to­ry. It also offers oth­er com­mon options such as a license file.

Branch

Branch­ing is the way to work on dif­fer­ent ver­sions of a repos­i­to­ry at one time.

By default your repos­i­to­ry has one branch named mas­ter which is con­sid­ered to be the defin­i­tive branch. We use branch­es to exper­i­ment and make edits before com­mit­ting them to mas­ter.

Com­mit

On GitHub, saved changes are called com­mits.

Pull Request

When you open a pull request, you’re propos­ing your changes and request­ing that some­one review and pull in your con­tri­bu­tion and merge them into their branch. Pull requests show diffs, or dif­fer­ences, of the con­tent from both branch­es. The changes, addi­tions, and sub­trac­tions are shown in green and red.

GitHub Pages

Not­twya

GitHub Pages are pub­lic web­pages host­ed and pub­lished through our site.

You can cre­ate and pub­lish GitHub Pages online using the Auto­mat­ic Page Gen­er­a­tor. If you prefer to work local­ly, you can use the GitHub Desk­top or the com­mand line.

Pages are served over HTTP, not HTTPS, so you shouldn’t use them for sen­si­tive trans­ac­tions, like send­ing pass­words or cred­it card num­bers.

如何读文章?

  1. 读摘要
    通过摘要,我们能快速知道,这篇文章的主题、研究对象和实验结论等,这些能够帮助我们最终确定这篇文章是否含有我们需要的信息;
  2. 读图
    通过读图,我们能够迅速知道这篇文章比较凝练的信息,从而快速切入这篇文章的核心结论;此外,图片方便理解,通过图片能够帮助我们对文章建立初步认识;
  3. 选读
    在进行了上面两步以后,选定自己感兴趣的部分进行深入阅读。

LaTeX 随笔

  1. LaTeX在windows下认识的文件路径是“/”,而使用Perl的File::Spec包得到的路径使用的是“\”;
  2. 生成d­vi: latex filename.tex;
  3. 生成pdf: dvipdfm filename.dvi;