BB 

K

八月三十日

跟各位唱K很好玩!

睏

八月二十九日

沒法睡
加上Monday blue
令一早上去了上水Urban Landscape我有點頹

幸好中午和大家在exp/2吃飯
再逛逛又一城
心情好像好了點
好喜歡這班新同事啊

下午去GS見到張大俠
好悶
臨走時有人來不及出升降機
連伯伯都忍不住要取笑

乘的士往Urban Parking途中
遇著個應該七天沒說過話的司機

下班後和大家逛apm
有很多很多很多東西想買!

好睏

Insomnia

May I sleep?


Please...

新同事

八月二十五日

好開心啊!
大家都好o岩玩!
快d一齊唱k修甲啦!

八月二十四日

八月二十四日

早上去了Urban Group

Beyond expectation!

精美早餐+精彩lecture+靚靚親善大使+相架連相+"大學"證書
我們都受寵若驚

下午參觀了惠康清潔
悶

再去僑樂
我明白老闆想我們學多點
但1.5小時的參觀overrun了1.5小時
實在是...嘩!

晚上為著區小姐的一句話忐忑不安

巴士廠

八月二十三日

不習慣
這兩晚睡得很差

今天上午參觀了柴灣新巴城巴廠
嘩!
好好玩
我們坐在特別為預備的0號單層巴士在廠內四處遊覽
還連人帶車穿過了洗車機
又看了如果何維修各部分等等
我們興奮得手舞足蹈
像小學生

下午去了兩間公司聽兩個悶死人的簡介
早了半小時下班

然後...
還以為你會想見我

開工大吉

八月二十二日

真的放晴!

第一天上班
早上在總公司跟其他十二位MT一起辦手續
對將來三年的工作開始知道個大概
要努力!
(很久沒有聽過自己叫自己努力了^.^)

大家都很nice
一群年輕人嘻嘻哈哈
好像o-camp

這個多星期都是orientation
每日visit不同的子公司
第一天下午是會展
...
想起了不少當記者時在會展的經歷

在welcome party上見了很多位高層和同事(早知著低胸啦)
看來很nice
希望將來工作愉快!

p.s.快點出糧吧!要還卡數和買衫買鞋買袋買化妝品...

最後一個暑假的最後一天

八月二十一日

本打算在開始上班前好好的跑步
但膝蓋說不
算

其實一早已想好明天該穿什麼
但還是花了大半個小時試試試試試
又練習了前天看"都市閒情"時學的set頭方法
為新工作我就只預備了這些
對不起
我就是這麼膚淺

Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time兩天便看完了
誠意推薦
Cofession by a Shopaholic也好看
發覺自己只喜歡用第一人稱寫的故事
自我中心的小女孩

晚上煲了瑤柱瘦肉冬瓜湯
加味千拉麵
以後該沒時間認認真真的玩煮飯仔了吧

如果明天放晴
你說多好

p.s.忽然很想吃印度咖哩

Dog and callgirl

Now reading: "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon

Just finished: "Callgirl" by Jeannette Angell

Both are fun. Enjoy.

雨

八月十九日

雨下得很兇
沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了沒完沒了

小時候很喜歡雨天
最喜歡跟雨先生談話
常覺得掉在我家窗邊的雨水們很可憐
不可以像別的小雨點一樣自由自在的四處遊玩

昨天在A-one坐在落地玻璃前吃了最愛的新鮮出爐提子麥包
想起有些人在滂沱大雨中工作、受苦
我覺得好慚愧

Pornography can make you blind

Cor blimey

Aug 18th 2005, From The Economist print edition

Gory and erotic images can affect your vision

IT'S true. Pornography can make you blind. Look at a smutty picture and, according to research by Steven Most, of Yale University, and his colleagues, you will suffer from a temporary condition known as emotion-induced blindness.

Dr Most made this discovery while studying the rubbernecking effect (when people slow down to stare at a car accident). Rubbernecking represents a serious lapse of attention to the road, but he wondered if the initial reaction to such gory scenes could cause smaller lapses. The answer is, it does. What he found was that when people look at gory images—and also erotic ones—they fail to process what they see immediately afterwards. This period of blindness lasts between two-tenths and eight-tenths of a second. That is long enough for a driver transfixed by an erotic advert on a billboard to cause an accident.

The researchers conducted two experiments. In the first, the results of which will be published in next month's Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, the experimental subjects were shown a sequence of images. Some of these images were gory (violent injuries and mutilated bodies) while others were photographs of landscapes and buildings—things thought to be emotionally neutral. The subjects were asked to watch out for a picture that had been rotated, without being told what was in it. Between the horror picture and this target were two to eight neutral pictures. The closer the grim picture was to the target, the less likely the subjects were to spot the target. When the gory pictures were substituted by erotic ones, the outcome was the same.
Dr Most thinks that the explanation for this temporary blindness is that there is an information-processing bottleneck in the brain when it is presented with important stimuli. When the human brain was evolving, such stimuli would not have been two-dimensional images. They would, rather, have been part of the real world. Gory scenes would have had survival value (ie, “am I going to be next?”), while erotic ones would have had reproductive value. Paying attention to the landscape would have been a distraction.

In the age of photography, though, it is the image that is the distraction, and if the distracted individual is travelling at speed in a car, such distraction could be fatal. So the team carried out a second series of experiments, still unpublished, that were intended to discover whether their subjects could override this emotion-induced temporary blindness by using what they rather grandiloquently called an “attentional strategy” (ie, focusing harder on the target image). This was arranged by asking the subjects to find not any rotated photo, but a rotated photo of a building, in the array of images. The fact that they had to pay attention to both content and orientation meant they focused harder. As the researchers had expected, in this version of the experiment subjects were, on average, better at spotting the target image.

But that average concealed some interesting differences that depended on a subject's personality. The researchers knew from previous studies that the more neurotic someone is, the worse he is at controlling his attention, so they decided to see how a measure of neuroses known as the harm-avoidance scale correlated with their results. The harm-avoidance scale is a measure of a person's reaction to negative or frightening stimuli. They found that the lower a subject's score on this scale was, the more successful he was at detecting the target. This information might be useful when considering the reliability of witnesses to crimes.

http://economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4292593

Starving for the cameras

Starving for the cameras

Aug 18th 2005
From The Economist print edition

People dying from hunger like those in Niger should not have to wait for the TV crews to arrive

THE Famine Early Warning Systems Network, known as FEWS Net, monitors the threat of mass hunger in some of the poorest parts of the world. It is hardly surprising, then, that FEWS Net has published an inquiry into the world's failure to respond to food shortages in Niger and the rest of the Sahel. The report is subtitled simply: “What went wrong?” That is the right question to ask. But what is surprising, and disconcerting, is that the report was written in 1997, not 2005.

This illustrates two things: Niger's present nightmare is a recurring one; and whatever went wrong in 1997 was not put right by 2005. In both cases, signs of distress were recognised early, but the response was dilatory. In both cases, relief agencies and donors failed to settle on an assessment of need. The decisive difference is that, in 1997, the international media were largely absent. In 2005, by contrast, the drought of attention eventually turned into a deluge. The Niger appeal received more money in the ten days after the media arrived on the scene than it had in the previous ten months. As a result, the worst may now be over there.

Unfortunately, the media will always arrive late, if at all. Famine is a complex process, not a single, abrupt event. Food prices rise, families sell their assets, some migrate in search of work or wild foods. As hunger sets in, the body's own assets decline. It is only after stomach muscles have wasted that the distended bellies so sadly familiar from television pictures appear. These images have become necessary to the genre. The falling livestock prices that long preceded them are not as telegenic.

Hunger also prevails far beyond the media spotlight. According to FEWS Net, many more people are affected by continuing food crises in Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Sudan. In each of those countries, there are also many hungry and dying babies. But the bright light the media sheds on its chosen subject throws everything else into shadow.

The bandwagon dilemma
The media attention now devoted to Niger and the political weight it carries pose a tactical dilemma for the aid agencies. Do they slow the bandwagon down to try to redirect it to other destinations it might otherwise bypass? Or do they take advantage of the media spotlight to wring as much money out of donor governments as they can?

To downplay the crisis carries a big risk: there is a high political price to pay if one is seen as not doing enough in the face of such hardship. But there are equal and opposite dangers. Inevitably, the media sometimes overstate things. Loose talk of famine and millions of starvation deaths can do more harm than good. Such talk can tempt private traders to hoard grain, either out of fear that they, too, will succumb to famine or out of greed, anticipating the higher prices an international relief effort will pay. Media reports may also have prompted Niger's neighbours, from which it normally buys food, to restrict exports of grain to the country.

Famine is preventable because it is predictable. The job of foreseeing it falls to the early warning systems, such as FEWS Net, which is funded by the American government, and its UN counterpart. The job of preventing it falls first and foremost to the World Food Programme, another UN agency, plus a long train of private agencies. The job of funding their efforts falls to no one in particular. But then, when the cameras arrive, it falls to everyone at once.

Last year, Hilary Benn, Britain's minister for international development, made two proposals that now look more timely than ever. The most obvious one is to establish a standing fund on which relief agencies can draw. Such a fund should not free these agencies from accountability to their donors. But it should spare them from the need to court their paymasters in a panicked response to every emergency.

Early interventions are not only cheaper than belated ones. They can also avoid some of the dangers of food aid. Cheap food dumped on local markets for long periods might save some from starvation, but it can also hurt farmers, perversely eroding a country's agricultural capacity in the name of food security. In Ethiopia, which in 2003 received food aid equivalent to 15% of its annual cereal production, agricultural yields have stagnated. An early intervention that arrives before people's livelihoods are destroyed and before they are too weak to work can offer cash or vouchers with which to buy food on the market, rather than emergency rations to keep them alive.

Mr Benn's second proposal is that one agency, such as the European Commission's humanitarian agency ECHO, be designated a “financier of last resort”, a kind of swing provider of aid, whose job is to cater to the crises every other donor neglects. Both proposals have merit. The world's system for fighting the direst cases of mass hunger should not rest on a global sympathy contest umpired by television cameras.

http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4293207

七月十四

八月十八日

早上跑步
有點慢
好!明天加速!
多流汗更爽

試用了LF的Perfect Lip三天
但好像沒有什麼大變化
臨睡前還是用Vaseline護唇最好
頭髮愈來愈旱
每天乾折的情況也愈來愈嚴重
近年已差不多隔天用VO5
也有吃點芝麻什麼的
但也沒有起色
買了橄欖油
聽說可以護髮
希望有效
背部曬傷的地方仍在甩皮
快點回復正常吧

晚上
一個人在家
廳燈忽明忽暗
原來今天是
七月十四

好想快點脫離這種生活

雜記

八月十七日

好幾天沒跑步了
昨晚一睡竟然就是九小時
醒來仍是迷迷糊糊的
勉強自己更衣做gym
但亂來了一會便回家了
好想打波好想玩

忽然想起ocamp也差不多要開始了吧
好想玩水戰跳camp fire舞好好的瘋狂幾天

下午約了糖和Angy看Charlie and the Cholocate Factory
在電影中心做了問卷調查
紀念品竟然是戲票一張!
哈哈!真幸運

Johnny Depp很精彩
好喜歡那些小矮人和歌舞場面

大道理有點土

有些情節和場面明顯地可以更好

整體上很像Clockwork Orange
Anyway,值得一看

又發了一個脾氣
又吃了一個漢堡包

蔡瀾:看女人

蘋果日報 2005-08-17

外國雜誌選出全球最有權力女性排行榜，美國國務卿賴斯，是第一位。

也是最醜的。

醜女見得多，像賴斯那麼醜得出色的難見，小眉小眼，額頭比朱元璋的下巴還要長，梳了個僵硬得像假髮一邊劉海，遮也遮不住。一張血盆大口，中間露出一個泰利．湯馬士一樣的大牙縫，呀哎哎，中國古代人一看到，一定嚇死。雖說權力最大，也要拍男人總統的馬屁才行。

菲律賓的阿羅約夫人，未做總統之前假扮得小鳥依人狀。權力一抓，母夜叉一個，貪污被人轟，怎麼說也不肯下台。賴斯那個名字應該留給她，叫為賴死。

有權力的女人，長得最像樣是昂山素姬，但她是身不由己的，父親留下的宿命感，迫她上台。如果身置和平世界，她做個聯合國的兒童或環保大使，那就更加美麗。

上帝造人，是公平的，要是長得醜，只有求上進，成功的例子很多，但是醜人多作怪屢見不鮮。

阿羅約時常作囂張狀，鼻邊那顆痣也愈長愈大，和她的自大狂一樣。

賴斯的表情也令人難於接受，派那麼一個國務卿到中東去，一輩子也得不到酋長們的歡心。

好在去年第八位的印尼前總統梅加瓦蒂跌出排行榜，她不止醜，而且胖。

胖女人有兩種，胖得結實的不要緊，胖得肌肉鬆弛，一定很懶。結實女人又分兩種，面目可愛的，多數是好人。相貌可憎的，危險得很。

個子矮小的女人血液循環得快，所以腦筋靈活，但也分兩種，長得美的多數不差，難看的也很陰險，把你的骨頭吃掉了你還不知道。

女人，還是高大的好。她們較蠢，但沒甚麼心機。高大的女強人少之又少，但做起老婆或情婦，一流的。

President Bush and evolving ideas of evolution

New Yorker
Issue of 2005-08-22Posted 2005-08-15

How did we-not just Americans but human beings in general—come to be? Opinions differ, but for most of recorded history the consensus view was that people were made out of mud. Also, that the mud was originally turned into people by a being or beings who themselves resembled people, only bigger, more powerful, and longer-lived, often immortal. The early Chinese theorized that a lonely goddess, pining for company, used yellow mud to fashion the first humans. According to the ancient Greeks, Prometheus sculpted the first man from mud, after which Athena breathed life into him. Mud is the man-making material in the creation stories of Mesopotamian city-states, African tribes, and American Indian nations.

The mud theory is still dominant in the United States, in the form of the Book of Genesis, whose version of the origin of our species, according to a recent Gallup poll, is deemed true by forty-five per cent of the American public. Chapter 2, in verses 6 and 7, puts it this way:
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Mud is not mentioned by name, but you'd have to be a pretty strict Biblical literalist not to infer that mud is what you get when you add water to dust.
A competing theory is that people, along with the rest of the earth's animals and plants, evolved over billions of years, beginning as extremely simple organisms and, via the accumulation of the tiny fraction of random mutations that turn out to be useful, developing into more complex ones. This view has gained many adherents since it was conceived, a century and a half ago, by Charles Darwin. It commands solid majorities in most of the developed world, and, thanks to the overwhelming evidence for its validity, has the near-unanimous support of scientists everywhere. Here in the United States, according to Gallup, it is subscribed to by about one-third of the populace—still running second to mud, but too large a market share to ignore altogether, especially in some of the battleground states.

On the one hand this, on the other hand that. George W. Bush is not normally the type to endorse shilly-shallying, but this time he went for it. At a “round table” with Texas reporters, the President was asked to comment on “what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design” and whether “both should be taught in public schools.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think—as I said, harking back to my days as my governor—both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, people—so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT : I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting—you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Looked at one way, this colloquy is an occasion for national shame, albeit with a whiff of the risible: here is our country's leader, the champion-in-chief of educational standards, blandly equating natural science and supernatural supposition as “different schools of thought.” Looked at another way, it represents progress of a sort. Twenty-five years ago, Ronald Reagan, then the Republican candidate for President, endorsed the teaching of “creationism”; five years ago, George W. Bush did the same. “Creationism” holds that dinosaurs and people coexisted, and that the fossil record is a product of Noah's flood. Next to that, “intelligent design” represents a scientific advance, or a tactical retreat, or maybe just the evolutionary process at work. I.D. recognizes that the age of the universe is measured in billions, not thousands, of years; that fossils are evidence, not divine tricks to test believers' faith; and that organisms change over time, sometimes via natural selection. This is tantamount to an admission that the Genesis story is poetry, not history; allegory, not fact.

But I.D.—whose central (and easily refuted) talking point is that certain structures of living things are too intricate to have evolved without the intervention of an “intelligent designer” (and You know who You are)—enjoys virtually no scientific support. It is not even a theory, in the scientific sense, because it is untestable and unsupportable by empirical evidence. It is a last-ditch skirmish in a misguided war against reason that cannot be won and, for religion's sake as well as science's, should not be fought. If the President's musings on it were an isolated crotchet, they would hardly be worth noting, let alone getting exercised about. But they're not. They reflect an attitude toward science that has infected every corner of his Administration. From the beginning, the Bush White House has treated science as a nuisance and scientists as an interest group—one that, because it lies outside the governing conservative coalition, need not be indulged. That's why the White House-sometimes in the service of political Christianism or ideological fetishism, more often in obeisance to baser interests like the petroleum, pharmaceutical, and defense industries-has altered, suppressed, or overriden scientific findings on global warming; missile defense; H.I.V./ AIDS; pollution from industrial farming and oil drilling; forest management and endangered species; environmental health, including lead and mercury poisoning in children and safety standards for drinking water; and non-abstinence methods of birth control and sexually-transmitted-disease prevention. It has grossly misled the public on the number of stem-cell lines available for research. It has appointed unqualified ideo_logues to scientific advisory committees and has forced out scientists who persist in pointing out inconvenient facts. All this and more has been amply documented in reports from congressional Democrats and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in such leading scientific publications as Nature, Scientific American, Science, and The Lancet, and in a new book, “The Republican War on Science,” by the science journalist Chris Mooney.

Mooney's book is more judicious than its move-product title, which, as he acknowledges in an opening chapter, is not meant to apply to moderate Republicans past (such as Dwight D. Eisenhower) or present (such as John McCain). Anyway, a few small fissures are beginning to appear in the stone wall. Bill Frist, M.D., the Senate Majority Leader, has broken with the White House on stem-cell research. The White House science adviser, John H. Marburger III, evidently embarrassed by his boss's evolutionary equivocations, told the Times that “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” And the cover story in the current National Journal, a well-informed and relentlessly nonpartisan Washington weekly, reports that growing numbers of Republican politicians and corporate chieftains “who once dismissed as unproven the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is causing a harmful rise in Earth's temperature have now concluded that global warming is real—and very dangerous.” As a result, the magazine says, “Advocates of muscular governmental efforts to slow or reverse global warming predict that the United States will eventually take strong action—but they doubt that such action will come on Bush's watch.” In this White House, science's name is mud. And, unlike those intelligent designers in the sky, all this crowd knows how to do is sling it.


— Hendrik Hertzberg

www.newyorker.com

女體

八月十六日

最會挑剔自己:
頭髮太乾
眼睛太小
雙眼皮向內
黑眼圈太深
皮膚偏黃,常敏感
嘴唇不夠嫩紅,唇紋太多
肩膀太瘦
有byebye肉和Canadian fat
...
下刪五萬字

女孩子投資在外表的時間心機金錢實在無法估計
焗油做mask搽lotion做運動節食買衣服化妝...

我和你們一樣
每天就這樣忙碌地生活著

p.s.已不去想為什麼,只盡情享受上街有人望有人撩有人讚靚的虛榮

Surprise!

八月十五日

Surprises!

1. "She" finally comes!
2. 完美午餐: 煙三文魚蘆筍白汁雞肉意粉配三文魚生!
3. 新奇下午茶: 綠茶咖啡鴛鴦原多士配熱奶茶
4. 陪你到Le Saunda買鞋,結果自己也買了一對,特價後買滿$1000還再減$100,抵!
5. 抽獎贏了$100 cash coupon!

好開心啊!

自欺欺人

八月十四日

新紀錄!
跑了五公里!
雖然明知不算快也明知可能只是跑步機出錯
但仍有丁點的成功感

中午煮了個味千豬骨拉麵獎勵自己
包裝上說100克拉麵只有39kcal,湯料也只有31.3kcal
一個110克的麵豈不是只有約100kcal?!
太不可思議了吧
看著只下了三分一湯料但仍呈奶白色的湯的我
雖然很懷疑
但仍告訴自己這午餐不油膩
讓自己好過點
(可惜太重味精了,害我渴了大半天)

傍晚又吃了大半個A-one的合桃提子粿麥包
我又對自己說
晚上少吃一點,不怕
嘻嘻

每天我們就這樣自欺欺人地生活著吧

八月十三日

陪你買了新電話
發了一個脾氣
原因是覺得你亂花錢太浪費
兩分鐘後已經覺得自己好無謂

晚上陪家人和親戚到稻香吃海鮮
好吃好吃
但總覺得酒樓的菜很油膩
不敢多下箸
結果回到家有點餓
真矛盾
明明滿桌肥美佳餚
自己卻吃不飽

明天一定要跑步!

煩惱時請想起(我)媽媽

有煩惱時會想起媽媽的話

A-Level放榜當日
得知成績後我非常激動
立即打電話給母親大人
我(泣不成聲,渾身發抖):媽,我有5個A呀
媽:吓?gum其他科呢?
我(當堂冷靜清醒哂):我考5科ja
爸:點解人地有10個A 9個A o既?
我:er...

以為三年前這爸媽這幾句話已算精警
誰料高處未算高

前陣子為著不知在兩個offer中如何取捨而煩惱
認真詳細地分析給媽媽聽兩者的利弊
媽媽是個很棒的生意人
打算問問她的意見
她聽過後
沉默地想了一會,說:
gum我聽日去問下黃大仙好冇?
原本眉頭深鎖的我立即洩了氣
當堂整個人輕鬆下來

所以
煩惱時想想我媽媽
立時壓力全消
正!

八月十二日

八月十二日

Pen帶了我和Alison去虞家媽媽晚飯
討論我們的創業大計
Alison條裙好靚!
在Lane Crawford逛了逛
好想買鞋
可惜它們不是太高就是沒有size(好彩!)

這兩天吃得很放肆
也沒有運動
>.<

玩!

八月十一日

跟爸媽上茶樓後
已是十一時多
趕緊回家換衣服

你陪我打ping pong
自知運動細胞有限
不敢奢望可以將球正常地跟對方有來有回
但今次居然例外
好開心
這個半小時的遊戲令我重拾了一丁點自信

下午跟你吃了個泰式下午茶
hope you find it HOT enough

晚上約了吳山老師,MsLiu和子喬在旺角晚飯
同場還有Kirsty, Kat, Agnes, Tracy 和 Sylvia
好多女人
吵死
^.^說起中學時的趣事

直落LKF
好玩!
凌晨四時多才回到家
雖然睏
但臨睡前仍堅持要自己做個保濕mask
怕夜睡皮膚會乾ma~

吸引力勝粉臉酥胸 青年男士愛異性美臀

not mine

「天使面孔、魔鬼身材」是不少女士夢寐以求，也是 不少男士的夢中女神。一項調查發現，三十歲以下的被訪 成年男士，有六成認為女性的臀腿部分，較臉孔更有吸引力。
記者：黃穎妍

一家內衣公司上月以網上問卷形式，訪問了本港一千五百名年齡介乎二十至四十九歲的男女，當中男女比例為一比二，以了解本港男性及女性最重視女性身體哪一部位。結果顯示，六成被訪女士認為臉孔最能吸引異性，其次是臀腿，佔兩成。

雖然整體而言，三成五被訪男士認為女性臉孔最吸引，其次才是女性臀腿，有三成男士認為這部分最吸引；不過，在二十至二十九歲組別中，有高達六成被訪男士認為女性臀腿最具吸引力，比率遠高於選擇臉孔的三成及胸部的兩成。四成九的被訪男士，認為女性的臀腿最能凸顯女性的美態。

調查又顯示，四成五的受訪女士最希望改善臀腿線條，因可令穿衣更好看；當中八成受訪女士曾嘗試不同方法，包括運動、服用減肥藥、參加美容院療程及穿矯形內衣等改善臀腿線條。但八成被訪女性卻因運動時沒有針對性的肌肉鍛煉、或不能持之以恆等原因，認為成效不大。

「T-BACK」不能好好承托
該公司的市場推廣部主管許妙斯表示，女性胸、腰、臀最佳比例為一點三比一比一點三，她表示只要符合比例便可以，三圍數字不定是愈大愈好。該公司更列舉多位美臀明星，他們的身體比例都較勻稱。她指出，本港女士因生活習慣及缺乏運動，令臀部出現「鬆弛」現象，多做運動才是「治本」之道。

許妙斯最後提醒一眾女士選購尺碼合適的內衣褲，「不少女士常誤以為穿小一個碼，可令身形看來更好，但其實應穿合身及把臀部包藏得更好的內褲。」她指出近年愈受歡迎的「T-BACK」不能好好承托臀部，只是女士們為「襯衫」美觀而穿。

p.s.我覺得美腿仲緊要喎!
p.p.s.我想割左自己下半身

中環

八月九日

不知是否因為快要到中環上班
愈來愈喜歡這地方

經過新世界大廈
你忽然說:喂喂,你老細呀!
原來是鄭家純在路邊等車
你說:你行過果陣佢望你喎!你已經踏出成功o既第一步~!

晚上在中環禾民吃飯
^.^

乖

八月八日

一早去稻香開位比爸媽飲茶
晏晝煲左菊花
仲專誠攞去舖頭比佢地
今日好乖^.^

p.s. I love my OL look

跳水

八月七日

早上做gym
好幾天沒跑步了
小腿說要休息休息

下午去了黃埔的"天下第一腩"
你吃牛腩麵
我吃牛肚米
好吃好吃
其實我可以再吃多一點
不過你說要減肥
陪你忍口吧

黃埔今天有澳洲跳水隊和韻律泳隊表演
嘩
水池直徑頂多三米
水深只有兩米半
表演者仍然可以從容從十七米高跳板跳下來
絲毫無損
精彩!
最重要的是
佢地好靚仔呀!仲有腹肌潻!

失望

八月六日

期待已久的一年一度小學同學聚會
因為不停的瀉
不能出席
名副其實的Shit





p.s. Quote of the day: "我覺得同你一齊愈來愈辛苦"

Appetites: Why Women Want

<> by Caroline Knapp

For 3 years, Caroline ate the same food everyday: a sesame bagel for breakfast, a Dannon yoghurt (coffee flavor) for lunch and an apple with some cheese for dinner. She once suffered from anorexia and weighed only 83 lbs. Hunger was once the only way to make her feel secure and peaceful...

All about eating disorder, motherhood, feminism, consumerism and most of all, desire.

妖言惑眾的大學排名可以休矣

饒美蛟﹕妖言惑眾的大學排名可以休矣

8月 5日 星期五 明報

作者為嶺南大學副校長

由時美真主持的香港專業教育網（「教育網」）又公布了所謂的每年一度的「香港最佳大學排名榜」，其所依據的指標數據部分源自香港大學民意研究計劃（主持人為鍾庭耀）進行的市民電話調查所得，另一部分則由教育網自訂的若干指標。
今年的調查，民意的調查方法沒有什麼變化，自訂的指標及其計算方法則有大更改。令人困惑的是，教育網在過去幾年進行的大學排名榜，不斷更改其排名所用的評價指標及計算方法，隨其偏好而決定，而且完全不加以解釋，筆者有理由相信，背後有玄機。如果篇幅許可，筆者可以詳加說明，這裏暫且不說。

陳坤耀校長周前在接受記者採訪時，用了「妖言惑眾」四字斥責時美真與鍾庭耀二人多年來採用的民調與大學排名方法。以陳校長的社會地位與聲望，如果沒有實據，他不會信口開河作出如此強烈的評語。本文現就下列港大民意研究計劃的調查，以及教育網新的指標及計算方法提出嚴重質疑﹕

本人一直認為，教育網與港大民意研究計劃根據普通市民的意見來評定大學的師資、研究水平、課程多元化及院校的畢業生表現是何等的荒謬。根據他們的調查方法與樣本，筆者向他們提出以下兩項挑戰﹕

兩個挑戰提案 每題10萬港元
第一，請舉出國際上有哪一所大學排名機構是採用以工人、文員、主婦、學生及中學程度水平以下的市民評估大學的師資、研究水平的（鍾的評分由0至10分）﹖
第二，請舉出有哪一位人士（不一定是學者）採用只有兩個或3個自稱為僱主的市民樣本來評定院校畢業生的表現，並據此在國際期刊上發表論文﹖（鍾庭耀今年的市民樣本，浸大有3個，嶺大、教院及城大各為2。）

以上兩個挑戰提案，每題10萬港元，請在兩個月內提出其他同樣的做法。第一提案去年已提出，但迄今沒有人提出。鍾庭耀去年企圖轉移視線，向傳媒提供說美國蓋洛普的民意調查與他進行的相同。事實上，前者的調查只是向美國人問了一個以下的簡單問題﹕「綜合各大學的要素，請你指出哪一家美國大學最佳﹖」蓋洛普並未要求為大學的師資及研究水平評分數﹗第2挑戰提案是今年本人特別增加的。

教育網今年新採用了「院校教師學生比率」作為排名指標之一，但在計算各院校的學生人數時，只計算修讀學士學位的學生，難道教資會資助各院校的研究學部及副學士課程的學子不是學生﹖這個嚴重的錯誤是基於無知抑或其他﹖

此外，其他嚴重的錯誤還包括，研究經費撥款及研究作品等指標的計算，只考慮總量而不是人均量，研究著作也是以量而非質為準，而且還把一些非研究作品也計算在內。在新生入學成績方面，使用的衡量尺度不一，把院校提供的各科目成績的中位數與平均值混合一起計算。而且中英語文成績亦不加以計算在內，得出的結果怎能正確﹖

最後再提一點，該網今年採用的新的「等距」計分法，其背後的邏輯令人百思不得其解。簡單而言，該網站按院校的各個評價指標得分而加以排序（由1至8），如某院校在某一個指標如排第1則得所佔權重百分比的滿分，排序第2者則得7/8的分數，餘此類推。這種等距離的計分法不能反映實際的得分差別情，因為排序之間的實際得分，差距可能不大或很細小，怎能胡亂給予等距離的評分﹖

由於等距的計算法，造成了各院校最後得分的嚴重偏差。以教育網的排序結果與得分來看，港大與科大分別排第1與第3，前者得分為93.8分，科大70.1分，兩校相差達23.7分。對熟悉香港高等院校的學術界人士來說，會馬上質疑﹕姑不論兩校的排序如何，兩校的得分差距有這麼大嗎﹖很明顯，這是錯誤的計分法使然。此外，在這種荒唐的評分法下，如以60分作為及格分數，04與05年有4至5所院校不及格（理大、嶺大、教育、浸大及城大），這幾所院校真的辦得如此差﹖教育網長期作此種方法的大學排名，是否要這幾所大學關門大吉﹖

生日快樂!

八月三日

行完山
先找個地方更衣沐浴化妝
當然啦
出席林小姐的廿二大壽生日晚宴
不打扮一下怎成

晚上在銅鑼灣Fat Angelo's晚飯
好多人
Cy, Florence, Agnes, Teresa, 文,鳳, Key, Catherine, 我和壽星女十人一起
順利成為全場最嘈吵的一枱
好想知道林小姐的生日願望是否跟楊千嬅的一樣:希望全世界o既女人都再冇水腫o既煩惱!^.^

本來打算到林小姐家過夜玩一晚
但雙腿實在疲勞
林小姐第二天也要上班
還是回家吧

然後和Agnes在After School跟Pen, Alison和詹坐了一會
好充實滿足的一天

八仙嶺

八月三日

陽光普照,氣溫32度
約了林小姐征服八仙嶺
幾年沒走過這路徑了
好興奮!

11時由鶴藪出發
期待已久的旅程,開始!
鶴藪圍->鶴藪水塘->屏風山->黃嶺->犁壁山->純陽峰->仙姑嶺->大尾篤
四時多完成全程
好滿足!

愛當空烈日
愛藍天白雲
愛在山脊上看到左右兩邊的無盡風光
愛走走走走走的感覺
愛你呀,林小姐!



p.s.戴了頂像防毒面具的防曬帽,厚厚的SUNPLAY塗滿手臉,晚上又敷了個美白Mask。以為萬無一失,更衣時才發現原來自己穿的背心是入膊的...背部忘了塗防曬,現在又紅又燙,好痛! >.<

跑!

八月一日

連續兩天跑步
每日4.5公里
感覺好爽

別以為我好健康
無聊而已