共勉之

改善了賣相　認清方向
免得變成了她身邊其中一個敗將

Ku Klux Klan

This is not come out because Stetson Kenndy was courageous or reolute or unflappable, even though he was all of these. It happened because he understood the raw power of information. the Ku Klux Klan ─ much like politicians or real-estate agents or tockbrokers ─ was a group whose power was derived in large part from the fct that it hoarded information. Once that information falls into the wrong hands (or, depending on your point of view, the right hands), much of the group's advantage disappears......

......Information is a beacon, a cudgel, an olive branch, a deterrent ─ all depending on who wields it and how. Information is so powerful that the assumption of information, even if the information does not actually exist, can have a sobering effect. Consider the case of a one-day-old car.

They day that a car is driven off the lost is the worst day in its life, for it instantly loses as much as a quarter of its value. This might seem absurd, but we know it to be tru. A new car that was bought for $20000 cannot be resold for more than perhaps $15000. Why? because the only person who might logically want to resell a brand-new car is someone who found the car to be a lemon. So even if the car isn't a lemon, a potential buyer assumes taht it is. He assumes that the seller has some information about the car that he, the buyer, does not have ─ and the seller is punished for this assumed information.

And if the car is a lemon? The seller would do well to wait a year to sell it. By then, the suspicion of lemoness will have daded; by then, some people will be selling their perfectly good year-old cars, and the lemon car blend in with them, likely selling for more than it is truly worth....


Chaper 2, Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

就期待三十年後交匯十指可越來越緊
願七十年後綺夢浮生比青春還狠

Who Cheats?

Well, just about everyone, if the stakes are right. You might say to yourself, I don't cheat, regardless of the stakes. And then you might remember the time you cheated on, say, a board game. Last week. Or the golf ball you nudge out of its bad lie. Or the time you really wanted a bagel in the office break room but couldn't come up with the dollar you were supposed to drop in the coffee can. And then took the bagel away. And told yoruself you'd pay double the next time. And didn't.

For every clever person who goes to the trouble of creating an incentive scheme, there is an army of people, clever and otherwise, who will inevitably spend even more time trying to beat it. Cheating may or may not be human nature, but it is certainly a prominent feature in just about every human endeavor. Cheating is a primordial ECONOMIC ACT: gettign more for less. So it isn't just the boldface names－inside-trading CEOs and pill-popping ballplayers and perk-abusing politicians－who cheat. It is the Wal-Mart payroll manager who goes into the computer and shaves his employees' hours to make his own performance look better. It is the third grader who, worried about not makeing it to the fourth grade, copies test answer from the kid sitting next to him.......

......If morality represents the way we would like the world to work and economics represents how it actually does work, the the story of Feldman's bagel business lies at the very intersection of morality and economics. Yes, a lot of people steal from him, but the vast majority, even though no one is watching over them, do not. This outcome may surprise some people－including Feldman's economist friends, who counseled him twenty years ago that his honor-system scheme would never work. But it would not have surprised Adam Smith. In fact, the theme of Smith's first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was the innate honesty of mankind. "How selfish soever man may be supposed," Smith wrote, "there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."

There is a tale, "The Ring of Gyges," that Feldman sometimes tells his economist friends. It comes from Plato's Republic. A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates - who, like Adam Smith, argued that people are generally good even without enforcement. Glaucon, like Feldman's economist friends, disagreed. He told of a shepherd named Gyges who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside that wore a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behavior, Gyges proceeded to do woeful things－seduce the queen, murder the king, and so on. Glaucon's story posed a moral question: could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? Glaucon seemed to think the answer was no. But Paul Feldman sides with Socrates and Adam Smith－for he knows that the answer, at least 87 percent of the time, is yes.

Chapter 1, Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

solemn declaration

I will never offer to fly back and forth twice in 4 days again.
NEVER AGAIN.

KO

最近KO了香港的辣椒油，跟北京的麻辣串，像是我整個人都變了對不對。基本上我從不吃辣不喝咖啡不喝酒，現在吃辣了，還要覺得蠻好味，大概也可以試一下喝酒吧。咖啡就免了，我真心的不喜歡咖啡。

酒很怪的，其實只喝一點點我就會覺得睏。而我不喝，本來是因為覺得酒入口了就不好味。很辣很燙，跟我本來不吃辣的原因一樣，也許因為我整個人都太敏感，包括味蕾。但不否認酒的味道嗅起來好香。不喝酒好像令我輸蝕了什麼似的。例如要跟誰去家很高級的餐廳吃飯但仍然喝可樂好像很怪。所以，既然克服了辣的，就去試一下喝酒。希望下次要是你和我去高級餐廳吃飯時我可以點杯酒。

但。昨晚，証實了，未可以。

飯後我們去喝酒。一般來說我跟他們去喝酒的時候我都不喝酒，雖然我已經說了很多次我想試一下喝酒。前天從北京回來的時候，我看到整個免稅店都是平了很多的Black Lable，本想買一枝，卻又怕喝不來。所以昨晚他們又去喝酒的時侯，特地點了個 Black Lable on rock 試一試。我記憶中的酒很辣很燙（因為那是五樑液），這個第一口也很辣很燙，但沒想像中的辣和燙。OK，第一口（只很少的一口）很OK，很香的。停一會，再來一口少的，也OK，都很香的，然後又來一口少的。以前喝少少我就頭痛眼訓的了，這晚三口以後，我還整個人在 function 著，只是覺得有點熱。我開始以為我真的可以喝酒了。於是嘛，來一口大的。仍然是很香的一口，我最喜歡木的味道，以前連香水也要用 Rush homme 的，因為是檀香木味。

三十秒之後，賴野了。頭很漲，心跳很快。我差點就爭不開眼。可能因為坐著，所以有點辛苦，於是我說不如走了我好眼訓。在的士上我還以為大鑊了，回去肯定頭痛了。

回到家，整個人都醒了，也沒什麼痛。唯一問題是周身痕，但不知道是否跟酒精有關。後來很快走去睡了，而且還睡得很好。

其實我都可以喝少少，而且喝了會睡得好。Um.... 明天又去北京，後天會來，然後星期三又再去，星期四回來。可以買很多枝。哈哈哈。不過又吃辣又喝酒，是否代表我的味蕾有很多都死了。本來沒死的，但似乎都已經死了。

隔天飛一趟，我會否死得快過我的味蕾。

好想買一件N Hoolywood西裝。

陰謀

一．
小心眼的人們都紛紛議論著，我丟了電話是個陰謀，為的是換iPhone。連換新電話都要找藉口的人是可憐的啊。我都可憐，但未至如此。對上一次丟了電話是九年前。考畢最後一科，再回程的公車上丟掉的。

二．
丟了電話，我不為此而感任何不快。令人不快樂的，只是沒有任何一部手機好買。最後挑了這一部極 Lo Fi的LG。這是近年來我罕有的不多功能的Gadget。電話就是電話，僅此而已。

三．
其實我有想過不如不要電話。第一，我根本不喜歡講電話；第二，打來的電話多是工作相關，我根本就不想聽。

四．
只有蠢人和幹不了大事的人才會盡量把工作拖延。原來有很多這樣的人。

五．
我其實好眼訓。

難得的下午

工作的事總是腦人。就算在北京﹐麻煩的人不用整天對著﹐而吃的又比香港的便宜好吃﹐悶氣都仍然攻心。 本來這個下午有會議﹐但基於人的墮性﹐改了在明早location scouting之後。因為工作都塞到了明天﹐這個下午難得有點空閒﹐於是我又出去走走看看。去哪好呢？昨天已經替誰誰誰買了煙﹐今個星期還有誰誰誰生日 ﹐周末就是誰誰誰的婚宴﹐下個星期又是誰誰誰的farewell。嗯﹐應該有很多東西要買。去買東西吧。

北京的九月﹐陽光依然猛﹐灰塵依然滿天﹐不過已經不再炎熱。北京的白天原來都已經涼了。走著走著﹐好幾個電話打過來﹐又回了好幾個短訊。沒什麼好買﹐而且還是擔心工作﹐那就回去check check email﹐晚飯時再出來。

走出大望路﹐揮手就有車來了。上車﹐然後我整個人就開始雲遊。誰誰誰生日﹐誰誰誰結婚﹐誰誰誰要走了。想著想著﹐因為堵車而拖得很長的車程一下子又完了。給錢﹐拿發票﹐下車。去新世界買點喝的﹐因為酒店只有可樂。大陸的可樂其實很難喝。打個電話看看今晚去哪吃飯。我一手探進包裡拿電話。拿不到。啊。原來我已經把電話丟了....