这是Apple介绍Ipad app store（http://www.apple.com/ipad/app-store/）用的图片，看到中间那个大大的脸 书了吧。。这个网站在中国并不存在，于是苹果中文版的图片是不一样的。。。
哈哈，没有错，居然换成了QQ。。。（http://www.apple.com.cn/ipad/app-store/）
苹果公司很了解中国用户，把脸书换成了QQ
百度首席产品设计师孙云丰评论谷歌退出中国事件
这是今天转的第二篇文章。
因为有些人说话实在是让人接受不了，小人。
google的事情还没有结束，过两天该写点儿自己的想法。面对这么大的事情，这么多的信息，我承认已经脑子乱掉了。等两天再说。让这个人和他的言论上耻辱柱吧。
声明：本文由 @dupola 备份。现原文已被删除。原页面截图在此 http://tweetphoto.com/8630311 ，感谢霍炬 @virushuo 帮忙。
update2010年1月13日20:22:51 又有截图：http://www.flickr.com/photos/46280976@N08/4271559306/sizes/o/ 感谢 @Bamind 提供。
关于谷歌退出中国_在地铁站 – http://hi.baidu.com/whomi/blog/item/2b1001e9be877834b80e2df6.html
作者：百度首席产品设计师孙云丰
google宣称要退出中国，所证明的，恰恰不是市面上的那些g粉所宣称的那样，google是个”人权斗士”，而刚好反了过来，正好证明google是个市侩分子。
google的首席法律顾问的调调让我感到恶心。因经济利益退出，就直白白的说好了，把自己涂脂抹粉一番，还煞有介事的提到google被中国人攻击，中国异议分子的Gmail信箱被攻击，把这些事情作为退出中国的铺垫，这种论调是侮辱中国普通老百姓的智商，但还真有可能迎合那帮目空一切，但从未到过中国、对中国没有丝毫了解，却又喜欢对中国说三道四的西方人的假想。
只提一个假设，如果谷歌占据了中国80%的搜索市场份额，google的高管，还会这么高调的宣称要do no evil，从中国退出吗？
整个事情给我的唯一感受，就是恶心。
科普一点：
信息不对称是造成社会不平等最主要的原因之一。而对普通百姓最为关键的信息，并非中南海秘闻，而是最为常规的经济、文化、科技等领域信息。尽可能的为普通老百姓对这些领域的信息提供便捷，并消弭信息占有的不对称，这是搜索引擎存在的最大社会政治意义之一。
从这个角度而言，尽可能的设法为百姓提供便捷的信息获取技术服务，提供切实的价值，而不是挂羊头卖狗肉的宣称自己do no evil和政府撕破脸皮搞壮烈，才是一种真切的负责态度。找台阶下可以，但不要拿一个高管制国家的民众感情来做台阶，这是极其不道德的。
政治环境短期内是无法改变的。在中国，每个企业或者个人，都必须戴着镣铐跳舞。其实在别国一样，只是程度之别。但这是现实。在有限的条件下，尽可能的提供自己勉力而为的一份子，才是一个真切的做企业、做人态度。
在我博客上乱喷的兄弟，甚至还有搞笑的喷我five毛党的，都回家好好的念点书，再回来喷吧。希望看得见点水平的，而不是除了咒死爹死娘就不知道说啥的。 80年代的愤青，可不是现在这副衰样儿。
————–
以上是作为一个曾经的忠实google用户而说的，和百度无关。市面上沾沾自喜于了解一点google的产品技术细节将google奉为道德楷模而自封G 粉的兄弟，请勿跟帖瞎喷，你们根本不懂什么叫搜索引擎，什么叫自由人权。
————–
btw，评论关闭。要喷到twitter上喷吧。我的地盘不欢迎。
A new approach to China
这篇文章，真的有骨气，像是一个有担当公司的做法。
传播吧。
Original link: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.
First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.
We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve’s blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.
We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.
We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.
Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
卢安克，不可理解的圣洁
一个片子和两篇文章，来自CCTV，柴姑娘。主人公是一个德国人，在中国的一个小山村里支教。具体的事情大家自己看吧。
或许在历史书里或者电影里我会对这样的事情很不以为然，因为这好像不过是一种理想化的描述，不会是真的。但是当看到摄像机就这样真真切切的录下了那位哥们儿和柴姑娘交谈的场面，当镜头后面的人说那哥们儿其实并不愿意接受采访，当我要怀疑柴姑娘的存在又想到亲眼见过这个姑娘在面前怀疑人生，我真的开始怀疑人生了：居然真的会有一个老外，像一个圣徒一样，什么都不图，在中国，当今的中国，做一件看不到明显收益的事情。
柴姑娘的博客标题已经说的很清楚，他所做的一切不可能改变现状，如果稍微缓和一下口气，不可能从根本上改变现状。卢安克在面对孩子的时候，纯净的就像个孩子。但是孩子不在的时候，面对柴静准备的由世俗世界送来的质疑，他一会儿像禅，玄秘而飘忽不定，但是句句在点子上，有时又有他老家那哲学家缜密的逻辑，似乎把中国的问题分析的十分透彻。
他说他曾经试图挣扎过，我不知道他是不是也像我们这些时而无奈失望时而愤怒绝对的年轻人一样不冷静犯错误，他把那些血气和愤怒都收起来了，变成了对孩子的包容和爱。
看片子的时候觉得不可思议，一晚上恍恍惚惚，现在一字一句的写起来觉得这个人的作为让我产生了从未有过的宗教感仪式感：他置身在这个变化巨大鸿沟巨大的中国，他想帮助这场巨大变革里的弱势者，但是他没有能力。在历史的洪流里，个人的力量太过渺小。他不再希求改变，他只愿弯下身子，让那些孤独无助的孩子趴在他的身上，成为他们的一份子，奉献出一点儿爱，然后埋没在历史里。
他的家庭也是那么神奇，天各四方，都在为人类做着志愿者。放弃了物质，不渴望狭隘的爱情，父母可以安然的生活，不需要儿女的抚养。说到这，想到了史记列传第一，伯夷叔齐列传。采薇而歌，看着旧的社会结构老去瓦解，新的形态在曲折的前进，与世无争，安然老去。
圣洁者，姑且用这样矫情的词汇，是极少数。我们大多数都被时代裹挟，在这大潮里挣扎啊挣扎。每个行业都有希望，没有行业也都有捣乱的。我们抱在一起打冷战，我们肩并肩一起奋斗，我们被既得利益者欺负，我们又歧视着比我们更弱势的人们。人人张皇失措，着急上火，都说着要努力，然后闭着眼睛到处乱撞，打打杀杀。
卢安克说，中国的问题他帮不上忙，中国的问题必须由中国人解决。他说中国人现在太着急了，来不及打好基础就要看见成果。他说的一点都没错，这种事情我们见得还少吗？
我们都是小人物，改变不了大环境。但是我们可以改变自己：踏踏实实的做足基础工作，不着急，要耐得住寂寞，要包容，要能接受各种不同的人和意见，从小事做起，
Drupal hacks: 改变CCK的“Add another item”
从今天开始，我要陆续把工作中遇到的一些跟Drupal有关的小问题发上来，希望会给其他同学一些参考。这些问题基本上都是Drupal Core和一些比较常用Contribututed Module衍生出来的，在不修改核心代码的前提下，通过Hook系统或者主题来完成我们想要的效果。
Drupal的CCK模块有一个很方便的特性：多值字段。在field的setting里面，可以选择Number of values。官方的Help是这样描述的：
Maximum number of values users can enter for this field.
‘Unlimited’ will provide an ‘Add more’ button so the users can add as many values as they like.
当选择Unlimited之后，编辑node的时候在这个field的下面会出现一个”Add another item”的按钮。这样用户可以添加无数个这样的字段。我们可以利用这个特性让用户上传无限量的文件，图片。
但是这里有一个问题，这个按钮上面的文字“Add another item”是硬编码到CCK模块里面的，这个不好。我们如果想做一个对用户友好的系统，不能让用户上传普通文件的时候显示”Add another item”, 上传图片的时候还是显示”Add another item”，我希望他们分别显示”Add another file”和”Add another image”。那我们该怎么做呢？
我的思路是：通过hook_form_alter来修改form的值。
function testmodule_form_alter(&$form, $form_state, $form_id) {
if( $form['#id'] == 'node-form') {
if(!isset($form['#field_info'])) {
return;
}
foreach($form['#field_info'] as $key => $info) {
if ( $info['type'] == 'field_image' ) {//假设图片的字段名是field_image
$form[$key][$key.'_add_more']['#value'] = t('Add another image');
}
}
}
这样图片字段的”Add another item”就变成”Add another image”了。但是这还不够。当你点击”Add another image”之后，这个按钮又变成了”Add another item”了，这是因为这是一个Drupal的AHAH调用。点击按钮触发了另外一个form，这个form的id不是node-form, 而是content_add_more_js。找到原因之后，我们只需要在前面的testmodule_form_alter函数里加上对content_add_more_js的修改：
if( $form_id == 'content_add_more_js' ) {
foreach($form as $key => $element) {
if ( isset($element[0]) && isset($element[0]['#type']) && $element[0]['#type'] == 'field_image' ) {
$form[$key][$key.'_add_more']['#value'] = t('Add another image');
}
}
}
好了，大功告成。
最后完整的form_alter是这样的：
function testmodule_form_alter(&$form, $form_state, $form_id) {
if( $form['#id'] == 'node-form') {
if(!isset($form['#field_info'])) {
return;
}
foreach($form['#field_info'] as $key => $info) {
if ( $info['type'] == 'field_image' ) {//假设图片的字段名是field_image
$form[$key][$key.'_add_more']['#value'] = t('Add another image');
}
}
}
if( $form_id == 'content_add_more_js' ) {
foreach($form as $key => $element) {
if ( isset($element[0]) && isset($element[0]['#type']) && $element[0]['#type'] == 'field_image' ) {
$form[$key][$key.'_add_more']['#value'] = t('Add another image');
}
}
}
