Edison’s Blog

First of all, i got these information from the internet. This is just a repost.

download url:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/1/7/01748be7-83a7-4cb1-a42e-d8d2fb34794d/Enterprise.exe

SN:

V9MTG-3GX8P-D3Y4R-68BQ8-4Q8VD

TP3FH-CVJR2-MR7G7-W2HFW-TJCHD

VM98J-C9X4C-MM7YX-93G64-BJMK3

activation:

Locate the following registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\Software\\Microsoft\\Office\\12.0\\Registration

Note You may also find another subkey that resembles the following subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Office\\12.0\\Registration\\{91120000-0011-0000-0000-0000000FF1CE}

If you find additional subkeys that reference Microsoft 12.0registration, open each subkey, and then identify the product by theProductName entry.

For example:

ProductName=Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007

When you find the subkey for the product from which you want toremove the existing product license key, delete the following entries:

DigitalProductID

ProductID

Find C:\\Program Files\\Common Files\\Microsoft Shared\\OFFICE12\\Office Setup Controller\\Proof.enProof.XML
change <OptionRef Id=”AlwaysInstalled”/> to
<OptionRef Id=”NeverInstalled”/>

原文来自MathDL

Evolutionary Modeling of National Cuisines Reveals a Remarkable Stability

August 25, 2008

Mathematical modeling of the evolution of three national cuisinessuggests that today’s culinary tastes are largely the same as they wereabout 100 years. The idiosyncrasies of British, French, and Braziliancooking have remained largely intact, despite many other culturalchanges in those countries over the years. We are what our ancestorsate.

Osame Kinouchi, Adriano J. Holanda, Antonio C. Roque, Rosa W. Diez-Garcia, and Pedro Zambianchi of the University of S?o Paulo came to this conclusion by researching recipes and ingredients from the medieval cookbook Pleyn Delit as well as several editions of more modern volumes: The New Penguin Cookery Book, Larousse Gastronomique, and Do?a Benta. Their results appear in the paper “The Non-Equilibrium Nature of Culinary Evolution,” published in the New Journal of Physics.

The researchers examined the cookbooks, using the number ofingredients in dishes and the number of recipes published in eachcookbook as variables. The authors discovered that one important factorthat influenced national cuisines is the “founder effect.” In biology,the term refers to the loss of genetic diversity when a new colony isestablished by a small number of individuals from a larger population.Traits that happen to dominate among the individuals play adisproportionately large role in the new colony. Applied to foods, thefounder effect may explain why idiosyncratic ingredients continue to bepart of national cuisines.

In three editions (1946, 1969, and 2004) of the Brazilian cookbook Do?a Benta,they found that the rank and importance of an idiosyncratic ingredientsuch as chayote, for instance, remained much the same over the years.The prevalence of certain improbable local ingredients, the authorsnoted, are like frozen “cultural” accidents.

The researchers also discovered that the statistical hierarchy ofingredients in each country’s cookbook can be represented by Zipf’slaw: the frequency of each food item being inversely proportional toits rank in the frequency table. The authors found that thisstatistical distribution holds true for each cookbook, with theidiosyncratic ingredients having higher positions in the nationallists. By comparing ingredients with similar rankings across thecookbooks, the authors concluded that national menus evolve in similarways.

So, next time you’re enjoying an English breakfast, an Aussie BBQ,an American hamburger, a German sausage, or a Canadian pancake,consider the evolutionary reasons for what you’re doing.

PS:
奇普夫定律——齐普夫定律是美国学者G.K.齐普夫于本世纪40年代提出的词频分布定律。它可以表述为：如果把一篇较长文章中每个词出现的频次统计起来，按照高频词在前、低频词在后的递减顺序排列，并用自然数给这些词编上等级序号(rank)，即频次最高的词等级为1，频次次之的等级为2，……，频次最小的词等级为Ｄ。若用f表示频次，r表示等级序号，则有fr＝C(C为常数)。人们称该式为齐普夫定律。

调料或者材料只要能用，好用，自然用的次数就会比较多。用的次数多了，传播的范围自然也就广了。传播的广了，在历史浪潮中保留下来的可能性就大了。既然能保留下来，那么用的频率肯定就会不断增加。

Simple AS3 是Josh Tynjala为设计师、动画师、兼职编程人员开发的framework，在AS3中实现了一些AS2中才有的特性（如下）。他放弃了强类型检查以使用prototype原型来定义一些附加的方法。因此，对于大一点的项目，很容易引起拼写错误等运行时的问题。不过对于简单的项目，确实能提高不少编码速度。

Global Shortcut Functions

• Open Webpages with getURL()
• Load XML Files with loadXML()

A Simplification of the Display List

• Access the root and stage From Anywhere!
• Load Images and SWFs at Runtime with loadChild()
• Create Library Symbols with attachChild()
• The parent Property is Easier Again. No Casting!
• Use Child Properties Instead of getChildByName() More Often!

Let Events Turn You On!

• Listen to Events with onEvent Functions
• Stop Listening to Events with endOnEvent Functions
• Pass Extra Arguments to Event Handlers
• Create Custom onEvent() Functions
• Fire Custom Events Without Creating Yet Another Event Class

原文来自SimpleAS3

You’ve been given a few common tasks to complete for a Flash project. First, you need to load an image. Next, you need make it clickable like a button. Finally, you need to open a webpage when it is clicked.

Here’s how you should it in standard ActionScript 3.0:

var imageLoader:Loader = new Loader();this.addChild( imageLoader );

var request:URLRequest = new URLRequest( "images/button.png" );imageLoader.load( request );

loader.addEventListener( MouseEvent.CLICK, imageClickHandler );function imageClickHandler( event:MouseEvent ):void{ var request:URLRequest = new URLRequest( "http://www.example.com/" ); navigateToURL( request, "_self" );}

Now, take a look at how you can do the same thing with SimpleAS3:

var loader = this.loadChild( "images/button.png" );

loader.onClick(function(){ getURL( "http://www.example.com/", "_self" );});

Which do you prefer?

请参考这里
因为Flex Builder是基于Eclipse开发的，所以这些也同样适用于Flex Builder.

Summary of regular-expression constructs

原文来自artima.com
Related Content

First there was the Internet, and then came the possibility ofputting up web pages. People started making pages containing lists ofother pages that they liked, and that’s how you found those pages.Essentially, by word of mouth.

Pretty soon there were far too many pages for people to find by wordof mouth. We needed a way to search for things on the web. All theusers knew this long before the first search engines appeared, and whenthose showed up they were pretty sucky. Understandably, the companiescreating these search engines were concerned about how they were goingto make money doing it, and this may have been more of a concern thancreating a good search engine.

Finally, Google came along with clever ways to do search anda way to monetize: targeted advertising. The jury is still out onwhether this advertising is all that effective, but it seems obviouslybetter to give people links to what they might be interested ratherthan slamming an ad for your thing in front of absolutely everyone.

I remember when Google first appeared; I found out by someonetelling me, in person. Other companies eventually realized that peoplewanted to actually search for what they wanted and so fixed theircompeting search engines (in particular, those engines that gave higherpriority to paying advertisers without telling you stopped, or went outof business).

In the meantime, the number of pages have continued to growexponentially or geometrically or by some other power function. And theeffectiveness of Google searches has been diminishing for awhile now.If you’re looking for something, you have to put more and more workinto finding what you really want.

(Web 2.0, which seems primarily to be “a way for users to putinformation back into the web,” has only had the effect of adding morepages to the Internet, so it’s part of the problem).

At the same time, newspapers, once the gatekeepers of information,have not been able to cope and are rapidly going out of business(albeit with thrashing along the way, but without any hope that theywill reinvent themselves to fit into the Web). First to go are thepeople who’ve been paid to collect news and give perspective on events;last to go are the advertising folks.

Apparently even television viewing has taken a big impact because ofthe Web. It’s even possible that people have started to trust theopinions of random people on the Web more than they do those oftelevision news — as if they suspect that advertisers are influencingthe news.

So people are going to the web for information, and theinformation-seeking machinery has already gotten creaky and is failing.What do we need next so that we can continue to solve the problem?

Not just searching, but filtering.

I’m not sure how this will work, but we need it. We have alreadyseen some attempted solutions for the problem. The most obvious one ispeople who make lists of things they have reviewed. If you trust thatperson, you look at their list. For example, Kevin Kelly’s Cool Toolsis full of interesting things he and his group have researched; I’vebought a number of items he has recommended. I have also found the Best Free Software List to be invaluable. Once you find reliable lists your life becomes vastly easier.

An essential aspect of recommendations is that you trust the personwho is doing it. The problem here is that if money changes hands, trustis reduced or eliminated, so how does the person make money for thetime they invest? Dedicated amateurs are great but they can only do somuch. Google ads might become a sort of disinterested intermediary, butI have my doubts.

We’ll still use search engines, but those engines need theadditional option of only searching trusted resources, things thatcan’t be gamed. There might also appear trust levels, at the top ahuman who has acquired some large number of “trust points” from users.

I think for any of this to work, we will need to solve the problemof digital identity. As long as people can remain anonymous, everythingcan be gamed. And it’s holding us back. (I don’t advocate that you beidentifiable, just that you have a unique identity so no one canpretend to be you, and you can’t pretend to be thousands of people). Ifnothing else, it could eliminate spam overnight.

Will Google solve the filtering problem? I wonder if they can, orwhether they’ve gotten stuck in the mire of their one trick. Perhapscompanies only ever get one trick, and then the success that ensuesbogs them down with collective stupidity. I’ve heard hints of a lot of interesting ideas coming out of Google, but those ideas never seem to materialize.

For example, I’m quite sure I once heard they were thinking of adsthat only cost the advertiser when a customer purchases. Would you haveany trouble buying such an ad? It would be a no brainer, since you’d betaking no risk at all. This approach might be prevented by the lack ofdigital identity.

And Google is spending lots of time and effort preventing its searchengine from being gamed, and dealing with AJAX issues — things thatdon’t move it forward. They seem to be making inroads against PayPalwith their much-more-attractive Google Checkout, but I haven’t seenmany big improvements in that for awhile. In general, the kinds of newthings I’ve seen from Google seem like those that could come from muchsmaller, less-well-funded companies.

From the user’s standpoint, the next big thing will be filtered,trusted information. Although the existing players like Google andYahoo would seem to be the ones that would pull this off (oops, Iforgot to mention Microsoft. Why is that?), it appears more likely thatwe’ll see it come from a new player with a fresh start on the problem.(I shall continue to be vexed by the fact that the big, successfulcompanies aren’t going to create the next big innovation).