s*a
2 楼
UX / Web Designer
Must-haves: UX, Wireframing, Photoshop, Web Design
Company site: www.pefin.com
******
This position is based out of NYC. Please apply ONLY if you can work on site
in NYC.
Applicants not residing in the US will not be relocated for this role.
Non US citizens or permanent residents need authorization to work in the US
in order to apply. We will help transfer an H1B if you qualify for the
position.
FULL TIME ONLY. No freelancers, contractors, or software consultants
considered.
******
Pefin, Inc. is a fintech startup based in NYC. Our platform makes it easier
than ever to secure a happy financial future.
We have an immediate opening for a UX/Web Designer. The ideal candidate
should enjoy the challenge of thinking from first principles and coming up
with original UX designs from the ground up. Candidates should have
experience with UX for the web -- specifically overall layout, interaction,
and navigation. You should be able to put yourself in a user's shoes and
create designs that reflect how a user would perceive, interact, and
navigate through the product.
Candidates should have a strong portfolio which highlights work in digital
media (print and graphic design are not sufficient!), and can speak to the
thought process that resulted in a final design.
Though not required, preference will be given to candidates who understand
the importance of code. As a designer, knowing how to code can help you
understand the limitations of digital media and allow you to design better.
We are launching our product this year and this is a rare opportunity to
participate in the launch process, refine designs based on user feedback,
and grow your skills while working on a extensive consumer facing
application.
What do we offer you?
-Competitive salary and benefits (DOE and your portfolio)
-Relaxed, team-oriented work environment
-Equity participation
Qualifications.
-1-3 yrs Professional Experience in UX/web design -- including layouts,
navigation, user flows.
-Comfortable with ground up UX design
-Good communication skills -- can work with the CEO and business
stakeholders to align design with business requirements.
-Good knowledge of visual design and ability to work with style guides
-Strong foundation in Photoshop, Illustrator, and other creative
applications. -- ability to create wireframes and detailed mockups.
- Ability to understand / code in HTML5 and CSS3 a plus.
Must-haves: UX, Wireframing, Photoshop, Web Design
Company site: www.pefin.com
******
This position is based out of NYC. Please apply ONLY if you can work on site
in NYC.
Applicants not residing in the US will not be relocated for this role.
Non US citizens or permanent residents need authorization to work in the US
in order to apply. We will help transfer an H1B if you qualify for the
position.
FULL TIME ONLY. No freelancers, contractors, or software consultants
considered.
******
Pefin, Inc. is a fintech startup based in NYC. Our platform makes it easier
than ever to secure a happy financial future.
We have an immediate opening for a UX/Web Designer. The ideal candidate
should enjoy the challenge of thinking from first principles and coming up
with original UX designs from the ground up. Candidates should have
experience with UX for the web -- specifically overall layout, interaction,
and navigation. You should be able to put yourself in a user's shoes and
create designs that reflect how a user would perceive, interact, and
navigate through the product.
Candidates should have a strong portfolio which highlights work in digital
media (print and graphic design are not sufficient!), and can speak to the
thought process that resulted in a final design.
Though not required, preference will be given to candidates who understand
the importance of code. As a designer, knowing how to code can help you
understand the limitations of digital media and allow you to design better.
We are launching our product this year and this is a rare opportunity to
participate in the launch process, refine designs based on user feedback,
and grow your skills while working on a extensive consumer facing
application.
What do we offer you?
-Competitive salary and benefits (DOE and your portfolio)
-Relaxed, team-oriented work environment
-Equity participation
Qualifications.
-1-3 yrs Professional Experience in UX/web design -- including layouts,
navigation, user flows.
-Comfortable with ground up UX design
-Good communication skills -- can work with the CEO and business
stakeholders to align design with business requirements.
-Good knowledge of visual design and ability to work with style guides
-Strong foundation in Photoshop, Illustrator, and other creative
applications. -- ability to create wireframes and detailed mockups.
- Ability to understand / code in HTML5 and CSS3 a plus.
w*s
3 楼
Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-he
If you follow the news about health research, you risk whiplash. First
garlic lowers bad cholesterol, then—after more study—it doesn’t. Hormone
replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, until
a huge study finds that it doesn’t (and that it raises the risk of breast
cancer to boot). Eating a big breakfast cuts your total daily calories, or
not—as a study released last week finds. Yet even if biomedical research
can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.
But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more
scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t
just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge.
Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter,
leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst
dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians
astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm
you.
(Gallery: Medical Breakthroughs: The Good and the Bad)
It’s a disturbing view, with huge im-plications for doctors, policymakers,
and health-conscious consumers. And one of its foremost advocates, Dr. John
P.A. Ioannidis, has just ascended to a new, prominent platform after years
of crusading against the baseless health and medical claims. As the new
chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center, Ioannidis is
cementing his role as one of medicine’s top mythbusters. “People are being
hurt and even dying” because of false medical claims, he says: not
quackery, but errors in medical research.
This is Ioannidis’s moment. As medical costs hamper the economy and impede
deficit-reduction efforts, policymakers and businesses are desperate to cut
them without sacrificing sick people. One no-brainer solution is to use and
pay for only treatments that work. But if Ioannidis is right, most
biomedical studies are wrong.
In just the last two months, two pillars of preventive medicine fell. A
major study concluded there’s no good evidence that statins (drugs like
Lipitor and Crestor) help people with no history of heart disease. The study
, by the Cochrane Collaboration, a global consortium of biomedical experts,
was based on an evaluation of 14 individual trials with 34,272 patients.
Cost of statins: more than $20 billion per year, of which half may be
unnecessary. (Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, responds in part that “managing
cardiovascular disease risk factors is complicated”). In November a panel
of the Institute of Medicine concluded that having a blood test for vitamin
D is pointless: almost everyone has enough D for bone health (20 nanograms
per milliliter) without taking supplements or calcium pills. Cost of vitamin
D: $425 million per year.
Ioannidis, 45, didn’t set out to slay medical myths. A child prodigy (he
was calculating decimals at age 3 and wrote a book of poetry at 8), he
graduated first in his class from the University of Athens Medical School,
did a residency at Harvard, oversaw AIDS clinical trials at the National
Institutes of Health in the mid-1990s, and chaired the department of
epidemiology at Greece’s University of Ioannina School of Medicine. But at
NIH Ioannidis had an epiphany. “Positive” drug trials, which find that a
treatment is effective, and “negative” trials, in which a drug fails, take
the same amount of time to conduct. “But negative trials took an extra two
to four years to be published,” he noticed. “Negative results sit in a
file drawer, or the trial keeps going in hopes the results turn positive.”
With billions of dollars on the line, companies are loath to declare a new
drug ineffective. As a result of the lag in publishing negative studies,
patients receive a treatment that is actually ineffective. That made
Ioannidis wonder, how many biomedical studies are wrong?
His answer, in a 2005 paper: “the majority.” From clinical trials of new
drugs to cutting-edge genetics, biomedical research is riddled with
incorrect findings, he argued. Ioannidis deployed an abstruse mathematical
argument to prove this, which some critics have questioned. “I do agree
that many claims are far more tenuous than is generally appreciated, but to
‘prove’ that most are false, in all areas of medicine, one needs a
different statistical model and more empirical evidence than Ioannidis uses,
” says biostatistician Steven Goodman of Johns Hopkins, who worries that
the most-research-is-wrong claim “could promote an unhealthy skepticism
about medical research, which is being used to fuel anti-science fervor.”
Even a cursory glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies
keep falling by the wayside. Two 1993 studies concluded that vitamin E
prevents cardiovascular disease; that claim was overturned by more rigorous
experiments, in 1996 and 2000. A 1996 study concluding that estrogen therapy
reduces older women’s risk of Alzheimer’s was overturned in 2004.
Numerous studies concluding that popular antidepressants work by altering
brain chemistry have now been contradicted (the drugs help with mild and
moderate depression, when they work at all, through a placebo effect), as
has research claiming that early cancer detection (through, say, PSA tests)
invariably saves lives. The list goes on.
Despite the explosive nature of his charges, Ioannidis has collaborated with
some 1,500 other scientists, and Stanford, epitome of the establishment,
hired him in August to run the preventive-medicine center. “The core of
medicine is getting evidence that guides decision making for patients and
doctors,” says Ralph Horwitz, chairman of the department of medicine at
Stanford. “John has been the foremost innovative thinker about biomedical
evidence, so he was a natural for us.”
Ioannidis’s first targets were shoddy statistics used in early genome
studies. Scientists would test one or a few genes at a time for links to
virtually every disease they could think of. That just about ensured they
would get “hits” by chance alone. When he began marching through the
genetics literature, it was like Sherman laying waste to Georgia: most of
these candidate genes could not be verified. The claim that variants of the
vitamin D–receptor gene explain three quarters of the risk of osteoporosis?
Wrong, he and colleagues proved in 2006: the variants have no effect on
osteoporosis. That scores of genes identified by the National Human Genome
Research Institute can be used to predict cardiovascular disease? No (2009).
That six gene variants raise the risk of Parkinson’s disease? No (2010).
Yet claims that gene X raises the risk of disease Y contaminate the
scientific literature, affecting personal health decisions and sustaining
the personal genome-testing industry.
Statistical flukes also plague epidemiology, in which researchers look for
links between health and the environment, including how people behave and
what they eat. A study might ask whether coffee raises the risk of joint
pain, or headaches, or gallbladder disease, or hundreds of other ills. “
When you do thousands of tests, statistics says you’ll have some false
winners,” says Ioannidis. Drug companies make a mint on such dicey
statistics. By testing an approved drug for other uses, they get hits by
chance, “and doctors use that as the basis to prescribe the drug for this
new use. I think that’s wrong.” Even when a claim is disproved, it hangs
around like a deadbeat renter you can’t evict. Years after the claim that
vitamin E prevents heart disease had been overturned, half the scientific
papers mentioning it cast it as true, Ioannidis found in 2007.
The situation isn’t hopeless. Geneticists have mostly mended their ways,
tightening statistical criteria, but other fields still need to clean house,
Ioannidis says. Surgical practices, for instance, have not been tested to
nearly the extent that medications have. “I wouldn’t be surprised if a
large proportion of surgical practice is based on thin air, and [claims for
effectiveness] would evaporate if we studied them closely,” Ioannidis says.
That would also save billions of dollars. George Lundberg, former editor of
The Journal of the American Medical Association, estimates that strictly
applying criteria like Ioannidis pushes would save $700 billion to $1
trillion a year in U.S. health-care spending.
Of course, not all conventional health wisdom is wrong. Smoking kills, being
morbidly obese or severely underweight makes you more likely to die before
your time, processed meat raises the risk of some cancers, and controlling
blood pressure reduces the risk of stroke. The upshot for consumers: medical
wisdom that has stood the test of time—and large, randomized, controlled
trials—is more likely to be right than the latest news flash about a single
food or drug.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-he
If you follow the news about health research, you risk whiplash. First
garlic lowers bad cholesterol, then—after more study—it doesn’t. Hormone
replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, until
a huge study finds that it doesn’t (and that it raises the risk of breast
cancer to boot). Eating a big breakfast cuts your total daily calories, or
not—as a study released last week finds. Yet even if biomedical research
can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.
But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more
scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t
just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge.
Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter,
leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst
dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians
astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm
you.
(Gallery: Medical Breakthroughs: The Good and the Bad)
It’s a disturbing view, with huge im-plications for doctors, policymakers,
and health-conscious consumers. And one of its foremost advocates, Dr. John
P.A. Ioannidis, has just ascended to a new, prominent platform after years
of crusading against the baseless health and medical claims. As the new
chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center, Ioannidis is
cementing his role as one of medicine’s top mythbusters. “People are being
hurt and even dying” because of false medical claims, he says: not
quackery, but errors in medical research.
This is Ioannidis’s moment. As medical costs hamper the economy and impede
deficit-reduction efforts, policymakers and businesses are desperate to cut
them without sacrificing sick people. One no-brainer solution is to use and
pay for only treatments that work. But if Ioannidis is right, most
biomedical studies are wrong.
In just the last two months, two pillars of preventive medicine fell. A
major study concluded there’s no good evidence that statins (drugs like
Lipitor and Crestor) help people with no history of heart disease. The study
, by the Cochrane Collaboration, a global consortium of biomedical experts,
was based on an evaluation of 14 individual trials with 34,272 patients.
Cost of statins: more than $20 billion per year, of which half may be
unnecessary. (Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, responds in part that “managing
cardiovascular disease risk factors is complicated”). In November a panel
of the Institute of Medicine concluded that having a blood test for vitamin
D is pointless: almost everyone has enough D for bone health (20 nanograms
per milliliter) without taking supplements or calcium pills. Cost of vitamin
D: $425 million per year.
Ioannidis, 45, didn’t set out to slay medical myths. A child prodigy (he
was calculating decimals at age 3 and wrote a book of poetry at 8), he
graduated first in his class from the University of Athens Medical School,
did a residency at Harvard, oversaw AIDS clinical trials at the National
Institutes of Health in the mid-1990s, and chaired the department of
epidemiology at Greece’s University of Ioannina School of Medicine. But at
NIH Ioannidis had an epiphany. “Positive” drug trials, which find that a
treatment is effective, and “negative” trials, in which a drug fails, take
the same amount of time to conduct. “But negative trials took an extra two
to four years to be published,” he noticed. “Negative results sit in a
file drawer, or the trial keeps going in hopes the results turn positive.”
With billions of dollars on the line, companies are loath to declare a new
drug ineffective. As a result of the lag in publishing negative studies,
patients receive a treatment that is actually ineffective. That made
Ioannidis wonder, how many biomedical studies are wrong?
His answer, in a 2005 paper: “the majority.” From clinical trials of new
drugs to cutting-edge genetics, biomedical research is riddled with
incorrect findings, he argued. Ioannidis deployed an abstruse mathematical
argument to prove this, which some critics have questioned. “I do agree
that many claims are far more tenuous than is generally appreciated, but to
‘prove’ that most are false, in all areas of medicine, one needs a
different statistical model and more empirical evidence than Ioannidis uses,
” says biostatistician Steven Goodman of Johns Hopkins, who worries that
the most-research-is-wrong claim “could promote an unhealthy skepticism
about medical research, which is being used to fuel anti-science fervor.”
Even a cursory glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies
keep falling by the wayside. Two 1993 studies concluded that vitamin E
prevents cardiovascular disease; that claim was overturned by more rigorous
experiments, in 1996 and 2000. A 1996 study concluding that estrogen therapy
reduces older women’s risk of Alzheimer’s was overturned in 2004.
Numerous studies concluding that popular antidepressants work by altering
brain chemistry have now been contradicted (the drugs help with mild and
moderate depression, when they work at all, through a placebo effect), as
has research claiming that early cancer detection (through, say, PSA tests)
invariably saves lives. The list goes on.
Despite the explosive nature of his charges, Ioannidis has collaborated with
some 1,500 other scientists, and Stanford, epitome of the establishment,
hired him in August to run the preventive-medicine center. “The core of
medicine is getting evidence that guides decision making for patients and
doctors,” says Ralph Horwitz, chairman of the department of medicine at
Stanford. “John has been the foremost innovative thinker about biomedical
evidence, so he was a natural for us.”
Ioannidis’s first targets were shoddy statistics used in early genome
studies. Scientists would test one or a few genes at a time for links to
virtually every disease they could think of. That just about ensured they
would get “hits” by chance alone. When he began marching through the
genetics literature, it was like Sherman laying waste to Georgia: most of
these candidate genes could not be verified. The claim that variants of the
vitamin D–receptor gene explain three quarters of the risk of osteoporosis?
Wrong, he and colleagues proved in 2006: the variants have no effect on
osteoporosis. That scores of genes identified by the National Human Genome
Research Institute can be used to predict cardiovascular disease? No (2009).
That six gene variants raise the risk of Parkinson’s disease? No (2010).
Yet claims that gene X raises the risk of disease Y contaminate the
scientific literature, affecting personal health decisions and sustaining
the personal genome-testing industry.
Statistical flukes also plague epidemiology, in which researchers look for
links between health and the environment, including how people behave and
what they eat. A study might ask whether coffee raises the risk of joint
pain, or headaches, or gallbladder disease, or hundreds of other ills. “
When you do thousands of tests, statistics says you’ll have some false
winners,” says Ioannidis. Drug companies make a mint on such dicey
statistics. By testing an approved drug for other uses, they get hits by
chance, “and doctors use that as the basis to prescribe the drug for this
new use. I think that’s wrong.” Even when a claim is disproved, it hangs
around like a deadbeat renter you can’t evict. Years after the claim that
vitamin E prevents heart disease had been overturned, half the scientific
papers mentioning it cast it as true, Ioannidis found in 2007.
The situation isn’t hopeless. Geneticists have mostly mended their ways,
tightening statistical criteria, but other fields still need to clean house,
Ioannidis says. Surgical practices, for instance, have not been tested to
nearly the extent that medications have. “I wouldn’t be surprised if a
large proportion of surgical practice is based on thin air, and [claims for
effectiveness] would evaporate if we studied them closely,” Ioannidis says.
That would also save billions of dollars. George Lundberg, former editor of
The Journal of the American Medical Association, estimates that strictly
applying criteria like Ioannidis pushes would save $700 billion to $1
trillion a year in U.S. health-care spending.
Of course, not all conventional health wisdom is wrong. Smoking kills, being
morbidly obese or severely underweight makes you more likely to die before
your time, processed meat raises the risk of some cancers, and controlling
blood pressure reduces the risk of stroke. The upshot for consumers: medical
wisdom that has stood the test of time—and large, randomized, controlled
trials—is more likely to be right than the latest news flash about a single
food or drug.
c*e
4 楼
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
donthurtme (烦着呢) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:50:56 2011, 美东) 提到:
发信人: deliver (自动发信系统), 信区:
标 题: donthurtme 封某版版主 churchance 在 bagua 版
发信站: BBS 未名空间站自动发信系统 (Mon Aug 22 12:50:37 2011)
【此篇文章是由自动发信系统所张贴】
由于 churchance 在 bagua 版的 配合aimer刷屏 行为，
被暂时取消在本版的发文权力 14 天。
版主:donthurtme
Mon Aug 22 12:50:36 2011
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:51:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
吃
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
donthurtme (烦着呢) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:52:22 2011, 美东) 提到:
你怎么这么没同情心阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
donthurtme (烦着呢) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:53:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
我虽然封了你, 但我也很痛心疾首阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:55:19 2011, 美东) 提到:
我刷就算了, 橙子身为板斧,竟然也刷, 震惊了...
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:55:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
就像武松怒斩金莲潘，下手老艰难了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:57:17 2011, 美东) 提到:
那个艰难么? 还以为是快意恩仇呢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:57:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
其实舍不得
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
就你知道!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
品德啊！！
杀人还要鞭尸！重口味阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:37 2011, 美东) 提到:
女人不懂
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:40 2011, 美东) 提到:
再踢两脚!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:59:17 2011, 美东) 提到:
那你懂了么?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:59:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
你快去补交保释金200伪币。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:59:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
我懂了一半
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:00:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
嗯，交了1000，给版三
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:00:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
早看出来你不男不女了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:00:58 2011, 美东) 提到:
其实我是纯娘们儿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:01:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
你又不是不知道他有多小气
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:02:48 2011, 美东) 提到:
女的哪有你这么说话的, 男的更没有
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:05:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
那咱们女的怎么说？
老娘我是个纯娘们儿？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:06:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
谁跟你是咱么了?
正确的说法是........讨厌,你管人家是男是女
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:07:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
我就知道，我还有上升的空间。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:08:04 2011, 美东) 提到:
.....
这是小姨的口头语啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:08:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
才知道啊? 我早就看出来了
跟我好好学, 你有前途的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:08:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
这说明了一些问题
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:09:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
讨厌！你管我有没有前途！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:09:37 2011, 美东) 提到:
鸭蛋的口头语是“死鬼”
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:09:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
要不我怎么知道小姨是女的呢, 她老骗我说她是男的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:10:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
不要用!, 显得凶恶了, 我现在在教你发嗲
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:11:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
他只这么叫你吧?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:13:21 2011, 美东) 提到:
哦
酥了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:13:36 2011, 美东) 提到:
这是鸭蛋对小姨的专有称呼
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:14:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
你酥什么呀? 你要让别人酥
唉,还挺难教的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:15:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
你们nba版的这些人真是混乱阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:15:29 2011, 美东) 提到:
烦妹小心点
wsn一般对老师都有幻想！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:16:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
制服诱惑？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:16:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
你又分裂了? 别担心,我打的他连幻想的火星都没有
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:17:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
角色扮演吧？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:17:29 2011, 美东) 提到:
这是八卦,不是nba, 你纯洁点
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:17:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
你也纯洁点!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
小心鸭的是受虐狂！更美不死他的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
瞧把你季度的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
读着好像逻辑不通
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
这是学术讨论阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:19:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
怎么不通了? 你也想进小黑屋了?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:19:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
嗯，拿高跟鞋使劲的抽俺吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:20:02 2011, 美东) 提到:
哦，这下就通了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:20:41 2011, 美东) 提到:
你别以为你看了几部a片,就可以讨论学术了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:21:27 2011, 美东) 提到:
NBA版是最春节专业的版面，只谈赌博
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:21:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
我力气小,让安子来吧
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:22:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
你别以为我没看到你们转过去的那些照片
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
非常怀念初中的英语老师。长得真好看
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:28 2011, 美东) 提到:
那都是交友上的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:34 2011, 美东) 提到:
收到！
nba见
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
不错, 有点小聪明
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:24:36 2011, 美东) 提到:
我大学的英语老师特别好看
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:25:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
以前塞班的奔, 某人也转过不少
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:25:23 2011, 美东) 提到:
俺没上过大学，太悲惨了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:25:53 2011, 美东) 提到:
你矜持点
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:26:26 2011, 美东) 提到:
天才儿童? 直接作教授了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:27:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
瞎说
俺在一餐馆工作
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:28:31 2011, 美东) 提到:
那还不去端盘子? 灌水能灌出小费么?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:29:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
端盘子的都是女士
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:30:27 2011, 美东) 提到:
那你是啥? 炒锅?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:30:51 2011, 美东) 提到:
刀工
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:31:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
六级，国内相当于副教授职称
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:32:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
给我们奔个你切的土豆丝
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:32:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
级别这么高了?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:33:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
1mm见方，全是
等回家我切一个让你们见识一下
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:34:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
好, 别忘了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:42:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
怎么记得你是外卖呢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:44:40 2011, 美东) 提到:
就不行人家进步了?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:45:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
那是很多年前了。
人总是要进步的。机会只给有准备的人
---------------高尔基
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:47:58 2011, 美东) 提到:
你个送外卖的比我还有文化
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:49:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
我初中语文老师叫高尔基
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:50:56 2011, 美东) 提到:
这个解释就符合常情了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:57:54 2011, 美东) 提到:
good for you
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Mright (I am right) 于 (Mon Aug 22 14:10:52 2011, 美东) 提到:
大家好，才是真的好
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
miny (bee happy) 于 (Mon Aug 22 14:44:33 2011, 美东) 提到:
啊？舍不得啊！！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:16:18 2011, 美东) 提到:
别担心,丫的马甲贼多
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Shuaia (衰哥) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:33:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
感动啊！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:35:00 2011, 美东) 提到:
ft, 你暴露了！用错马甲了！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:35:51 2011, 美东) 提到:
人家也就随便说说,就你实在
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:36:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
那也是橙子的马甲？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Mright (I am right) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:37:32 2011, 美东) 提到:
我也是
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:37:55 2011, 美东) 提到:
给鸭的都爆了！！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:38:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
哦，幸好我不是。
下了，88
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:38:36 2011, 美东) 提到:
不是, 是个死变态的马甲
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:39:09 2011, 美东) 提到:
竟然是你的啊。我孤露了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:41:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
你还寡闻了呢, 那个马甲变态的很,你别惹
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
miny (bee happy) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:46:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
马甲还真的多
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:47:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
回头我把我知道的丫的马甲全封了
看他下次还敢不敢惹我
donthurtme (烦着呢) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:50:56 2011, 美东) 提到:
发信人: deliver (自动发信系统), 信区:
标 题: donthurtme 封某版版主 churchance 在 bagua 版
发信站: BBS 未名空间站自动发信系统 (Mon Aug 22 12:50:37 2011)
【此篇文章是由自动发信系统所张贴】
由于 churchance 在 bagua 版的 配合aimer刷屏 行为，
被暂时取消在本版的发文权力 14 天。
版主:donthurtme
Mon Aug 22 12:50:36 2011
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:51:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
吃
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
donthurtme (烦着呢) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:52:22 2011, 美东) 提到:
你怎么这么没同情心阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
donthurtme (烦着呢) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:53:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
我虽然封了你, 但我也很痛心疾首阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:55:19 2011, 美东) 提到:
我刷就算了, 橙子身为板斧,竟然也刷, 震惊了...
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:55:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
就像武松怒斩金莲潘，下手老艰难了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:57:17 2011, 美东) 提到:
那个艰难么? 还以为是快意恩仇呢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:57:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
其实舍不得
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
就你知道!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
品德啊！！
杀人还要鞭尸！重口味阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:37 2011, 美东) 提到:
女人不懂
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:58:40 2011, 美东) 提到:
再踢两脚!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:59:17 2011, 美东) 提到:
那你懂了么?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:59:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
你快去补交保释金200伪币。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 12:59:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
我懂了一半
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:00:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
嗯，交了1000，给版三
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:00:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
早看出来你不男不女了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:00:58 2011, 美东) 提到:
其实我是纯娘们儿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:01:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
你又不是不知道他有多小气
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:02:48 2011, 美东) 提到:
女的哪有你这么说话的, 男的更没有
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:05:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
那咱们女的怎么说？
老娘我是个纯娘们儿？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:06:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
谁跟你是咱么了?
正确的说法是........讨厌,你管人家是男是女
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:07:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
我就知道，我还有上升的空间。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:08:04 2011, 美东) 提到:
.....
这是小姨的口头语啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:08:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
才知道啊? 我早就看出来了
跟我好好学, 你有前途的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:08:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
这说明了一些问题
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:09:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
讨厌！你管我有没有前途！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:09:37 2011, 美东) 提到:
鸭蛋的口头语是“死鬼”
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:09:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
要不我怎么知道小姨是女的呢, 她老骗我说她是男的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:10:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
不要用!, 显得凶恶了, 我现在在教你发嗲
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:11:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
他只这么叫你吧?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance (橙子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:13:21 2011, 美东) 提到:
哦
酥了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:13:36 2011, 美东) 提到:
这是鸭蛋对小姨的专有称呼
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:14:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
你酥什么呀? 你要让别人酥
唉,还挺难教的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:15:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
你们nba版的这些人真是混乱阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:15:29 2011, 美东) 提到:
烦妹小心点
wsn一般对老师都有幻想！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:16:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
制服诱惑？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:16:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
你又分裂了? 别担心,我打的他连幻想的火星都没有
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:17:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
角色扮演吧？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:17:29 2011, 美东) 提到:
这是八卦,不是nba, 你纯洁点
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:17:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
你也纯洁点!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
小心鸭的是受虐狂！更美不死他的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
瞧把你季度的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
读着好像逻辑不通
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:18:59 2011, 美东) 提到:
这是学术讨论阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:19:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
怎么不通了? 你也想进小黑屋了?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:19:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
嗯，拿高跟鞋使劲的抽俺吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:20:02 2011, 美东) 提到:
哦，这下就通了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:20:41 2011, 美东) 提到:
你别以为你看了几部a片,就可以讨论学术了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:21:27 2011, 美东) 提到:
NBA版是最春节专业的版面，只谈赌博
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:21:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
我力气小,让安子来吧
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:22:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
你别以为我没看到你们转过去的那些照片
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
非常怀念初中的英语老师。长得真好看
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:28 2011, 美东) 提到:
那都是交友上的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:34 2011, 美东) 提到:
收到！
nba见
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:23:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
不错, 有点小聪明
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:24:36 2011, 美东) 提到:
我大学的英语老师特别好看
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:25:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
以前塞班的奔, 某人也转过不少
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:25:23 2011, 美东) 提到:
俺没上过大学，太悲惨了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:25:53 2011, 美东) 提到:
你矜持点
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:26:26 2011, 美东) 提到:
天才儿童? 直接作教授了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:27:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
瞎说
俺在一餐馆工作
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:28:31 2011, 美东) 提到:
那还不去端盘子? 灌水能灌出小费么?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:29:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
端盘子的都是女士
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:30:27 2011, 美东) 提到:
那你是啥? 炒锅?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:30:51 2011, 美东) 提到:
刀工
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:31:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
六级，国内相当于副教授职称
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:32:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
给我们奔个你切的土豆丝
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:32:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
级别这么高了?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:33:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
1mm见方，全是
等回家我切一个让你们见识一下
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:34:06 2011, 美东) 提到:
好, 别忘了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:42:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
怎么记得你是外卖呢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:44:40 2011, 美东) 提到:
就不行人家进步了?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:45:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
那是很多年前了。
人总是要进步的。机会只给有准备的人
---------------高尔基
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:47:58 2011, 美东) 提到:
你个送外卖的比我还有文化
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bia (bia) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:49:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
我初中语文老师叫高尔基
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:50:56 2011, 美东) 提到:
这个解释就符合常情了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Kua (阿酷) 于 (Mon Aug 22 13:57:54 2011, 美东) 提到:
good for you
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Mright (I am right) 于 (Mon Aug 22 14:10:52 2011, 美东) 提到:
大家好，才是真的好
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
miny (bee happy) 于 (Mon Aug 22 14:44:33 2011, 美东) 提到:
啊？舍不得啊！！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:16:18 2011, 美东) 提到:
别担心,丫的马甲贼多
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Shuaia (衰哥) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:33:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
感动啊！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:35:00 2011, 美东) 提到:
ft, 你暴露了！用错马甲了！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:35:51 2011, 美东) 提到:
人家也就随便说说,就你实在
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:36:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
那也是橙子的马甲？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Mright (I am right) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:37:32 2011, 美东) 提到:
我也是
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:37:55 2011, 美东) 提到:
给鸭的都爆了！！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:38:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
哦，幸好我不是。
下了，88
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:38:36 2011, 美东) 提到:
不是, 是个死变态的马甲
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
churchance3 (吃橘子) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:39:09 2011, 美东) 提到:
竟然是你的啊。我孤露了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:41:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
你还寡闻了呢, 那个马甲变态的很,你别惹
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
miny (bee happy) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:46:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
马甲还真的多
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aimer (爱之魅) 于 (Mon Aug 22 15:47:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
回头我把我知道的丫的马甲全封了
看他下次还敢不敢惹我
y*n
5 楼
【 以下文字转载自 LeisureTime 讨论区 】
发信人: tamen23 (uu), 信区: LeisureTime
标 题: 推荐文化部春晚
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Feb 4 12:28:14 2011, 美东)
http://www.youtube.com/user/roadshow68XChina#grid/user/49256052
感觉很不错
发信人: tamen23 (uu), 信区: LeisureTime
标 题: 推荐文化部春晚
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Feb 4 12:28:14 2011, 美东)
http://www.youtube.com/user/roadshow68XChina#grid/user/49256052
感觉很不错
j*h
6 楼
有个行业软件只认suse10.2，怎么能绕过验证？
a*8
7 楼
在verilog 里，如何付零？？
比如：
wire [127:0] ila_data;
assign ila_data[0] = 1'b0;
assign ila_data[1] = 1'b0;
assign ila_data[127:2] = 0;
不知道最后一句话对不对，是不是应该写成：
assign ila_data[127:2] = {126{1'b0}};
请高手指点。谢谢。。
比如：
wire [127:0] ila_data;
assign ila_data[0] = 1'b0;
assign ila_data[1] = 1'b0;
assign ila_data[127:2] = 0;
不知道最后一句话对不对，是不是应该写成：
assign ila_data[127:2] = {126{1'b0}};
请高手指点。谢谢。。
j*b
8 楼
谢谢推荐
e*y
9 楼
Just do
assign ila_data = 0;
assign ila_data = 0;
o*s
10 楼
右边应该写成126'b0吧。
意思是126位binary number 0
意思是126位binary number 0
o*m
11 楼
比较认同这个写法。
assign ila_data[127:0] = {128{1'b0}};
因为很容易把参数抽出来。
assign ila_data[ILA_DATA_WIDTH - 1:0] = {ILA_DATA_WIDTH{1'b0}};
或者 再定义一个参数。
parameter INIT_ILA_VAL = {ILA_DATA_WIDTH{1'b0}};
assign ila_data[ILA_DATA_WIDTH - 1 :0] = INIT_ILA_VAL;
assign ila_data[127:0] = {128{1'b0}};
因为很容易把参数抽出来。
assign ila_data[ILA_DATA_WIDTH - 1:0] = {ILA_DATA_WIDTH{1'b0}};
或者 再定义一个参数。
parameter INIT_ILA_VAL = {ILA_DATA_WIDTH{1'b0}};
assign ila_data[ILA_DATA_WIDTH - 1 :0] = INIT_ILA_VAL;
s*o
12 楼
simple one ( for verilog2001 ):
wire [127:0] ila_data = 128'b0;
wire [127:0] ila_data = 128'b0;
相关阅读
为何没有EE系的华人教授做海龟？北京理工大学纪委书记杨蜀康剽窃了我的论文Vocoder, please help求帮忙下一篇文章 on sensor letters求助如何检测有向图里面所有的回路文科wsnv问一个微波炉问题去不去华为？征人同去infocom@ san diego 限男生请教面试常见的matlab和c++问题IPC-A-600 Vs IPC-6012关于光伏充电器的saber仿真编写 network coding 仿真的一个问题SmartGrid Opportunitiescadence的快捷键samrt phone带动半导体之后，才有可能带动通信非美国本土PHD，在美国找工作，几率多大？请教一变压器问题问个弱问题：会议大家都去吗？Re: Huawei USA (Santa Clara) hiringEE @ Polytech (NYC)