http://yunol.stes.tc.edu.tw/0704/Owen&Mzee/

上面是原文链接，有人说打不开，我转贴过来 :)

http://yunol.stes.tc.edu.tw/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=314，還記得我之前寄出的這則新聞嗎？

海嘯無情動物有情百歲老龜收留孤兒小河馬

整個故事曲折離奇像個童話，但確實是真的發生在非洲肯亞的一個生態復育區。

故事開始是這樣的，在海嘯來襲前一天，當地開始下起了不正常的大豪雨，把一整個河馬家族沖到了河裏，最後又到了近海裏去。當地人在岸邊叫喚著那家河馬，可是河馬不想上岸來。

然後海嘯來了，河馬們好像被沖不見了，大家又忙著要救那些擱淺的漁民就忘了牠們了。隔天，就只剩下一隻小河馬在暗灘上。很多人就要來拯救這隻小河馬，繩索、網子、車子、船都來了，還有好幾百人也來看熱鬧。

這隻河馬雖然還小、又餓、又渴，但是跑得挺快的，而且又很滑很不好抓。費了一番功夫，終於有人把他撂 倒在地，用網子繩子把他綑綁好，載了回來。這隻又累又氣又餓的河馬可是一點都不領情，也不感激救命之恩。後來他就被取名為(Owen)歐文，就是那個撂倒 並救了他的恩人的名字。

Lafarge Eco Systems（一個生態復育組織）同意要收養牠，把牠載到了Mombasa（保育區所在）。累壞了的Owen，又迷惑、又害怕、又搞不清楚狀況，被放下 來後馬上就跑到了旁邊一隻 130 歲名字叫做Mzee的海龜身後，像是跟在河馬媽媽後面。可能是龐大的海龜身軀給了牠媽媽的感覺。剛開始Mzee有點驚訝，但是很快牠們就變成了同進同出的 好朋友，通常Owen會跟著Mzee四界蛇，偶而Mzee會跟著Owen後頭閒晃

生態保育區的學者專家們從來沒看過這種事，但是它真的發生了， 1 歲和 130 歲 的友誼，河馬Owen和海龜Mzee的故事，就在這個行星上傳開了。世界各地很多電視新聞媒體都報導了牠們動人的故事。你可以到 Lafarge Eco Systems 網站找到牠們的蹤跡。以下是牠們的一些照片：

Owen 跟著 Mzee 四界蛇

Mzee 跟在 Owen 後頭閒晃

一起去泡湯

Owen 頭靠在 Mzee 手臂上休息

Eskimo kiss （鼻子擦鼻子）

不是咬喔，是玩親親啦！

以上照片downloaded from lafargeecosystems.com.

完整故事可從以下這網址下載（英文 pdf 格式）：
http://www.lafargeecosystems.com/downloads/Owen&Mzee_eBook.pdf

後續故事是從小妹寄來的信件中得知。

http://www.2spare.com/item_39909.aspx

1. 你可以催眠一只鸡 -.-

把鸡的脑袋按在地面上，然后用手指或者一根棍子在地上画直线，从鸡的嘴巴开始一直延伸到远方。如果你成功了，这只鸡会保持某种姿势不动，同时注视着这条线，持续15sec to 30min。

2. 在你死了以后，你的小弟弟还是可以竖起来...

这个现象又被称为“天使性欲”... 原因是由于某些死亡姿势会导致某些部位充血。

3. 你的手是有生命的，它自己的生命

这个有点假，实际上是手有时候会“看上去”是有生命的，因为有一种症状叫做外星人的手综合症(Alien hand syndrome)

4. 笑的太多的话，你会死掉

实际上是猝死的一种，就像新闻里面说有老太太打麻将赢了钱就笑挂了

5. 有一种武器能让你变成Gay

Gay bomb是美国空军实验室所研究的一种化学武器的非正式名称，把这种炸弹扔在敌人头上的话会让敌军士兵表现出同性恋的行为。据说萨达姆大叔就是这样被暗算的...

6. 男人可以哺乳

这种现象是由于给患有前列腺癌的男人使用激素引起的。

7. Bart Simpson的Tomacco(烟草和番茄的后代)是可能的 美国人真的有点无聊

8. 人可能有三个乳头

这是哺乳动物都会有的一种症状，有2%的女性有？！！

9. 很多厕所会导致人的死亡

10. 挖别人的鼻屎然后吃掉可能对你的健康有好处

因为鼻屎的成分中有很多对人体有益的元素，济公身上搓出来的药丸也遵循此理。

你的毛衣跟着我回家了
我把它摆在我的房间
它曾经陪你走过几条街
它曾经陪你喝了好几杯冰的咖啡
陪你远走高飞拍照留念
也曾经静静的躺在你的衣柜

你的毛衣跟着我回家了
我把它摆在我的房间
它这样覆盖了我的冬天
它就要刺痛了我最敏锐爱的幻觉
陪你远走高飞拍照留念
天热了静静的躺在你的衣柜

我的冬天就要来了
我的冬天就要来了

你的身体跟着我回家了
我把它摆在我的房间
它曾经被你暂时借给谁

它现在静静的躺在我的衣柜
天热了静静的躺在我的衣柜

一没留神居然这么多评论啊，一群鸟人jjww的哈哈。居然还说我是怨妇，靠... 有那么夸张吗。

这次回家不知道干了什么。回去的火车上有几个大妈在聊天，我才知道庐山五老峰上打雷批死一片游客... 真是什么事情都有啊。另外老太太还神乎其神的说有一个当官的带了全家躲在亭子里面，也被批死了，最后几位老太太一致得出结论打雷的时候不能和人群一起走，不能躲在亭子里。就这么三言二拍着回了家。

在家里除了吃的爽好像也没干啥么事情，顺便参加了一个同学的出国前bg，管饱，于是乎我就饱了。比较郁闷的事情是老家的无敌早餐凉拌粉从1块钱一碗涨到了1块5毛钱一碗，我的娘，蹭蹭蹭上窜了50%啊，果真是物价上涨的年代，记得俺初中的时候就是1块钱一碗，大学毕业的时候还是1块钱一碗，现在却1块5毛钱一碗了。老板娘还一个劲要我买碗汤喝，也是一块五，我说没钱然后就被鄙视了。真想要求强烈要求涨工资50%。

然后就那么着回来了。带回来一罐鄱阳湖的小干鱼，拿来下酒最好了。想吃的都过来，哈哈。

我喜欢生活在童话里面。没有虚假的笑容，没有刻意的讨好，没有模糊的语言，没有暧昧的圈套。可以一个人在地上飞翔，没有人会打扰。可是童话里面只有女巫，没有神，谁让我是神呢。

可以叫做勇敢，可以叫做无聊，可以叫做不要脸，可以叫做胡搅蛮缠，可以叫做放不下，可以叫做纠结，可以叫做无赖，可以叫做卑贱。只在我心里。

开始写这篇的时候是0:12，发表的时候会是什么时刻呢？

九颗星星捧着太阳，可是太阳喜欢的是月亮。

月亮只围着地球转。

太阳只能看着月亮绕着地球转。

你怎么知道太阳喜欢的是月亮呢？因为月亮跟别人跑了，太阳还是把光给了她。

太阳给自己定下一个期限，如果超过那个期限还不能把月亮拉回来，他就变成白矮星

那样的话，就能渺小的活着了。

现在答案揭晓了，0:21

这两天继续在武林混，没混出什么名堂。不过虽然没混出什么名堂，还是有一些乱七八糟的进步。先说前后nelson衔接，以前我只会前nelson接后nelson，随便练练被我弄会了后nelson接前nelson，还挺流畅。于是乎窝就前后前后前后的跑的不亦乐乎。然后是crazyleg，前几天看饼干在0.5m桩上做crazyleg过桩，非常漂亮，仰慕啊。今天特意请教了一下知道怎么做了，但是动作非常非常卡... 就像在放幻灯片一样（做成这样也是境界啊）。感觉自己腿部力量还是不够，不过没研究出是大腿力量不够还是小腿力量不够，初步诊断为大腿力量不够，嗯，还得多练。再然后就是QQ了，流畅了许多，甚至能做一点小天鹅... 

另外练了一些组合动作，比如前nelson-后nelson-盘腾-QQ-双点规-volte，还有double crazy－totalcross-snake-back nelson-mabrouk-QQ-volte-double spin-volte back-随意发挥，后面这个今天练了很久，挺有意思，主要是开始的时候totalcross转snake的时候用单脚做转三会很漂亮，但不容易掌握，练了很久勉强算可以。坐着休息的时候观察了叮当猫和vikko做组合动作，叮当猫有一个左侧蟹步+右侧蟹步+左侧蟹步+...的动作挺漂亮，最后一般都是后单轮转过两个桩作为结束；而vikko的组合动作是double crazy-totalcross-snake-volte-double slide(是的你没看错)-heel toe 绕圈过桩（我不知道这个动作叫什么，没在录像见过）-绕单桩双脚转单脚旋转-然后不记得了，最后是前后nelson切换-后单轮倒过2个桩。

什么时候我能练会小天鹅呢... 

最近Blog挺火，各大门户网站纷纷推出自己的Blog服务，QQ也学起弄了个什么QQ Zone，没用过。不过最牛b的还是Sina，先给名人们建好博整好空间，再一个一个发出邀请。嗯，不来没关系，反正已经开了，你的博客没内容又不丢我的脸，你爱匝地就匝地。于是乎一群帅哥美女们就这么着被Sina这个不知道是男是女的东西轮奸了，纷纷投奔Sina写起了博客。这件事情让俺明白了一个道理，有时候，就得霸王硬上弓。

话又得说回来，最后还是便宜我了。俺喜欢的美女们似乎都挺喜欢写字，不时还发发照片上来，看得俺是不亦乐乎。俺订阅了三个人的Blog: 徐静蕾 and 张靓影 and 张静初。徐博客挺有文采的，8愧是才女一名；张靓影的blog看得俺越来越对其失去信心，不说了；张静初的blog整一个美女图库啊...

ps. 另据小道消息，新浪Blog的浏览量远远大于其订阅数量，徐博客的订阅量也才100多而已... OMG，把Web2.0整成Web1.0来用也算是新浪首创吧。

类似机器学习，Google会研究你的搜索记录，让自己越来越能揣摩你的心思。随着你搜索次数/记录的增多，搜索结果_理论上_将会越来越准确(对你而言)。

http://www.google.com/psearch/trends

一份刚刚整理的五千万独立用户的网站数据分析，去掉低于 1% 的数据，涵盖浏览器、操作系统、屏幕分辨率、屏幕颜色等比例信息，很值得站长或网站从业人员参考！   Browser Totals   MSIE Core    76.57%    Mozilla/Gecko Core    18.21%    Opera    2.97%    Other Browsers    2.01%  Browser Details   MSIE 6    71.95%    Firefox 1    14.00%    MSIE 5    2.81%    Safari    1.80%    AOL 9    1.60%    Opera 7    1.56%    Netscape 7    1.50%    Mozilla 1    1.37%    Opera 8    1.34%  System Totals   Windows    96.13%    Apple    2.97%  System Details   Windows XP    81.92%    Windows 98    7.43%    Windows 2000    6.19%    Mac OS X    2.23%  Javascript / Java   Javascript Enabled    98.81%    Javascript Disabled    1.19%    Java Enabled    93.47%    Java Disabled    6.53%  Screen Resolutions   1024x768    55.89%    1280x1024    17.21%    800x600    16.87%    1152x864    4.59%    Other    3.33%    1600x1200    1.06%  Screen Colors   32 Bit (16.7M)    81.39%    16 Bit (65K)    13.92%    24 Bit (16.7M)    3.33%    Other    1.20%

他人原创于此：http://home.donews.com/donews/article/8/88779.html

很好看很好看，hoho

Reflections on Trusting Trust
Ken Thompson

---

Reprinted from Communication of the ACM, Vol. 27, No. 8, August 1984, pp. 761-763. Copyright © 1984, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Also appears in ACM Turing Award Lectures: The First Twenty Years 1965-1985 Copyright © 1987 by the ACM press and Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses Copyright © 1990 by the ACM press.

This is a digitized copy derived from an ACM copyrighted work. It is not guaranteed to be an accurate copy of the author's original work.

---

Introduction

I thank the ACM for this award. I can't help but feel that I am receiving this honor for timing and serendipity as much as technical merit. UNIX swept into popularity with an industry-wide change from central main frames to autonomous minis. I suspect that Daniel Bobrow (1) would be here instead of me if he could not afford a PDP-10 and ad had to "settle" for a PDP-11. Moreover, the current state of UNIX is the result of the labors of a large number of people.

There is an old adage, "Dance with the one that brought you," which means that I should talk about UNIX. I have not worked on mainstream UNIX in many years, yet I continue to get undeserved credit for the work of others. Therefore, I am not going to talk about UNIX, but I want to thank everyone who has contributed.

That brings me to Dennis Ritchie. Our collaboration has been a thing of beauty. In the ten years that we have worked together, I can recall only one case of miscoordination of work. On that occasion, I discovered that we both had written the same 20-line assembly language program. I compared the sources and was astounded to find that they matched character-for-character. The result of our work together has been far greater than the work that we each contributed.

I am a programmer. On my 1040 form, that is what I put down as my occupation. As a programmer, I write programs. I would like to present to you the cutest program I ever wrote. I will do this in three stages and try to bring it together at the end.

Stage I

In college, before video games, we would amuse ourselves by posing programming exercises. One of the favorites was to write the shortest self-reproducing program. Since this is an exercise divorced from reality, the usual vehicle was FORTRAN. Actually, FORTRAN was the language of choice for the same reason that three-legged races are popular.

More precisely stated, the problem is to write a source program that, when compiled and executed, will produce as output an exact copy of its source. If you have never done this, I urge you to try it on your own. The discovery of how to do it is a revelation that far surpasses any benefit obtained by being told how to do it. The part about "shortest" was just an incentive to demonstrate skill and determine a winner.

FIGURE 1

Figure I shows a self-reproducing program in the C programming language. (The purist will note that the program is not precisely a self-reproducing program, but will produce a self-reproducing program.) This entry is much too large to win a prize, but it demonstrates the technique and has two important properties that I need to complete my story: (I) This program can be easily written by another program. (2) This pro- gram can contain an arbitrary amount of excess baggage that will be reproduced along with the main algorithm. In the example, even the comment is reproduced.

Stage II

The C compiler is written in C. What I am about to describe is one of many "chicken and egg" problems that arise when compilers are written in their own language. In this ease, I will use a specific example from the C compiler.

C allows a string construct to specify an initialized character array. The individual characters in the string can be escaped to represent unprintable characters. For example,

"Hello world\n"

represents a string with the character "\n," representing the new line character.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2 is an idealization of the code in the C compiler that interprets the character escape sequence. This is an amazing piece of code. It "knows" in a completely portable way what character code is compiled for a new line in any character set. The act of knowing then allows it to recompile itself, thus perpetuating the knowledge.

FIGURE 3

Suppose we wish to alter the C compiler to include the sequence "\v" to represent the vertical tab character. The extension to Figure 2 is obvious and is presented in Figure 3. We then recompile the C compiler, but we get a diagnostic. Obviously, since the binary version of the compiler does not know about "\v," the source is not legal C. We must "train" the compiler. After it "knows" what "\v" means, then our new change will become legal C. We look up on an ASCII chart that a vertical tab is decimal 11. We alter our source to look like Figure 4. Now the old compiler accepts the new source. We install the resulting binary as the new official C compiler and now we can write the portable version the way we had it in Figure 3.

FIGURE 4

This is a deep concept. It is as close to a "learning" program as I have seen. You simply tell it once, then you can use this self-referencing definition.

Stage III

FIGURE 5

Again, in the C compiler, Figure 5 represents the high-level control of the C compiler where the routine "compile" is called to compile the next line of source. Figure 6 shows a simple modification to the compiler that will deliberately miscompile source whenever a particular pattern is matched. If this were not deliberate, it would be called a compiler "bug." Since it is deliberate, it should be called a "Trojan horse."

FIGURE 6

The actual bug I planted in the compiler would match code in the UNIX "login" command. The replacement code would miscompile the login command so that it would accept either the intended encrypted password or a particular known password. Thus if this code were installed in binary and the binary were used to compile the login command, I could log into that system as any user.

Such blatant code would not go undetected for long. Even the most casual perusal of the source of the C compiler would raise suspicions.

FIGURE 7

The final step is represented in Figure 7. This simply adds a second Trojan horse to the one that already exists. The second pattern is aimed at the C compiler. The replacement code is a Stage I self-reproducing program that inserts both Trojan horses into the compiler. This requires a learning phase as in the Stage II example. First we compile the modified source with the normal C compiler to produce a bugged binary. We install this binary as the official C. We can now remove the bugs from the source of the compiler and the new binary will reinsert the bugs whenever it is compiled. Of course, the login command will remain bugged with no trace in source anywhere.

Moral

The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect.

After trying to convince you that I cannot be trusted, I wish to moralize. I would like to criticize the press in its handling of the "hackers," the 414 gang, the Dalton gang, etc. The acts performed by these kids are vandalism at best and probably trespass and theft at worst. It is only the inadequacy of the criminal code that saves the hackers from very serious prosecution. The companies that are vulnerable to this activity (and most large companies are very vulnerable) are pressing hard to update the criminal code. Unauthorized access to computer systems is already a serious crime in a few states and is currently being addressed in many more state legislatures as well as Congress.

There is an explosive situation brewing. On the one hand, the press, television, and movies make heroes of vandals by calling them whiz kids. On the other hand, the acts performed by these kids will soon be punishable by years in prison.

I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile.

Acknowledgment

I first read of the possibility of such a Trojan horse in an Air Force critique (4) of the security of an early implementation of Multics. I can- not find a more specific reference to this document. I would appreciate it if anyone who can supply this reference would let me know.

References

1. Bobrow, D.G., Burchfiel, J.D., Murphy, D.L., and Tomlinson, R.S. TENEX, a paged time-sharing system for the PDP-IO. Commun. ACM 15, 3 (Mar. 1972), 135-143.
2. Kernighan, B.W., and Ritchie, D.M. The C Programming Language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1978.
3. Ritchie, D.M., and Thompson, K. The UNIX time-sharing system. Commun. ACM 17, 7(July 1974), 365-375.
4. 4. Unknown Air Force Document.