In the last decades the WTO created a new open and global economy. But an often untold story is that the European Union, U.S. and Japan deliberately left agriculture out of it, purely for internal political reasons (farmers=votes). Agriculture markets in rich countries are still very fiercely fenced by protectionism (hight taxes, fat subsidies, restrictive legislation, etc). For us (I live in Brazil) this is really a big deal because agriculture is precisely where our main competitive advantages are. We end up being only customers, not sellers.
(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible–never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision–raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
(b) Managers and Supervisors
(1) Demand written orders.
(7) Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw. . . .
(10) To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.
(11) Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
(12) Multiply paper work in plausible ways. Start duplicate files.
(13) Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.
(14) Apply all regulations to the last letter.
Nah, they're just cramming in processors like there's no tomorrow.
Take a look at this: Rpeak represents theoretical max calculated from # of cores * speed, Rmax is measured speed. Rmax / Rpeak should give an "efficiency" of scaling measurement.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./qwip.py", line 25, in __call__
self.publisher = LuzPublisher("luz")
File "./luz_wsgi.py", line 66, in __init__
Publisher.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/quixote/publish.py", line 104, in __init__
raise RuntimeError, "only one instance of Publisher allowed"
RuntimeError: only one instance of Publisher allowed
@MNapetvari -it is not Russian democracy -it is Western propaganda - read comments before judjing...the procedure of voting "in absentia" by several members of a fraction on behalph of the whole fraction is 100% legal and is practiced in many European parlaments, including British parlament - don't be a sheep of your state propaganda - read more on the topic...
@oxion812 you mean lobby? - I don'tknow about that. What I am saying is that this video try to pretend that there is voting fraud going on in Russian parlament which is not true - procedure is 100% legal and the same exists in British Parlament (voting in absentia by fraction members)- they simply don't push buttons there this way in London - it is technically arranged different way there. So this report is anti-Russian propaganda fraud, as it try to portray normal procedure as smth. evil.
in Russian parlament you can not vote for another MP if that MP have not left you his key-card (electronic code card to enable voting button) - it means simply that a fraction left 5-6 people to vote on behaiph of the whole fraction on allready approved in betveen them law...It is called voting "in absentia" and the same practice exist in British Parlament (albeit they do not press buttons this way) - so what we see is perfectly legal and no fraud here - it is fraud to misinform us here...
I don't think he was actually playing the music. I think he was just.... conducting.
Oh, you just couldn't resist that, could you?
I'm currently laughing my ass off
I see watt you did there.
Ohm my god that's lame...
btw 有高人解释下plasma speaker和solid state tesla coil有神马区别和相同呢？
Be cautious to prevent fire, theft and ChinaNET police.
Here's how to noindex a single post in wordpress without install any plugin or edit robots.txt file
open http://your-site.com/wp-admin/theme-editor.php, and choose to edit the header.php
add this line after a bunch of <meta> tags: <?php if (in_array($post->ID, array('2323', '2424', '2525'))) {echo '<meta name="robots" content="noindex">';} ; ?>
In the above example we block wordpress posts with id 2323, 2424 and 2525.
Open Google Webmaster tool 1 or 2, and remove your search record &' cache from Google
Neuroscientists have proposed a simple explanation for the pleasure of grasping a new concept: The brain is getting its fix. The "click" of comprehension triggers a biochemical cascade that rewards the brain with a shot of natural opium-like substances, said Irving Biederman of the University of Southern California. He presents his theory in an invited article in the latest issue of American Scientist.
reddit上有一个异常强大的自爆贴How real-world corruption works，看看米帝gov和军火商的patronage, insider dealing, nepotism, misuse of taxpayer money, and outright corruption是怎么回事
The US Department of Defense (hereafter DOD) has put in place a ton of procedural protections to stave off corruption. And God knows they need protection: only in the DOD can you find a 20-something purchasing officer who knows nothing about the stuff he's buying, who makes around $30k per year, and who is in charge of a half-billion-dollar budget.
For starters, low-paid people with large purchasing budgets are the easiest to corrupt outright. Find someone makes $30,000 per year but who has a $10m budget, and you have struck gold: it doesn't even require outright bribery.
Just show up at their office and mention that you might have some product for them to take a look at... "Can you spare some time this weekend? I have tickets to the playoffs if you're free... Whoa!? You're a fisherman? Let's forget about business: why not have the family come by the beach house? I just got a new boat and the stripers are running... we'll talk business later..."
Take a guy living in a military-base trailer out fishing on a yacht or to courtside seats, take him on a golf weekend, or to front-row seats at an A-list concert, hell, even just take him and his lady to a swank restaurant, and you've made a new best friend. And if he happens to be in charge of a $10m budget, that lavish night might be about to pay for itself 100,000 times over.
And all that assumes that you did not actually have a stripper with a cell-phone camera waiting in the car after the concert... we haven't even talked about blackmail, so why bring it up? Especially considering that these days, you don't even have to blackmail someone to blackmail them-- just linking your pics to their facebook, or setting up a "my party with Joe Blow" web page can ruin their life without malice or legal consequence... We're just posting our own party pics!
The DOD grades proposals with a color-grading system that is basically equivalent to letter grades.
The way it works is: the purchasing officer or whomever writes the spec ("request for quote"-- in normal business this called a "request for proposal" or "RFP". The DOD calls it an "RFQ". Whatever.). The spec is written as numbered sentences/paragraphs. Companies write bids that answer each number, with a bottom-line price.
A technical review committee sees the proposals with the price and supplier blacked out, and "grades" each proposal based on how well it meets the spec. The purchasing officer then sees the "grades" from the technical review, with the prices alongside (but not the complete proposals). Depending on his instructions, he may be required to either sign for the best overall value, highest overall grade, lowest acceptable cost, etc.
All of this seems very official and corruption-proof, until you realize that the original request for proposal came from, say, a 65-year-old Naval Admiral who knows everything about Oceanic warfare but nothing at all about computers, who assigned his 20-something first mate to write the spec and request for funding, who knows nothing about purchasing and who in turn wrote a spec (two years ago) that required Core2duo computers with 2GB ram and Windows XP and who required computers that meet the spec...
By the time Congress approves the funding, the spec is obsolete, and it costs far more to buy a bunch of obsolete Core2Duo machines with 2GB RAM than it would have cost to buy more-powerful computers at Costco.
The over-technicality and protectiveness of the DOD actually makes it one of the most vulnerable purchasing systems anywhere. As a technical officer who was interested in my product told me: "Don't worry about the review process, we'll just let you guys write the spec". If the military wants a Mercedes, they just issue a spec that requires a hood ornament with three lines trisecting a circle, and see whichever car company meets the spec at the best price-- surprise! They get the contract. Which means that the DOD is probably the only buyer in the world paying sticker price.
The more you study, the more you learn.
The more you learn, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you forget.
The more you forget, the less you know.
So why STUDY?
Some time later, a king, hunting in nearby woods, follows his falcon into the house. He finds Talia, tries unsuccessfully to wake her up, and rapes her. Afterwards, he leaves the girl on the bed and returns to his own city.
国王有一天打猎，追一只兔子，追啊追，追到了睡美人家。睡美人的屋子窗户开着，国王看见了。“啊呀，谁家的姑娘，这么美丽。”国王见周围没有人，美丽的姑娘在睡觉。翻窗户进入房间，把睡美人给干了，然后，继续打猎去了。后来，他就把这件事给忘记了。
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
话说看《Drop Dead Diva》 S01E01的时候，里面一句话把我震住了：there are five stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance。当时我就纳闷啊这编剧真的有才啊，哪里搜肠刮肚发明了如此犀利的一套理论啊。
Denial – "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me."
Anger – "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; "Who is to blame?"
Bargaining – "Just let me live to see my children graduate."; "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..." "I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time..."
Depression – "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die... What's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
Acceptance – "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
这个 five stage很容易理解。极端的两头分别是，Denia和Acceptance，一个中间状态Bargaining，然后中间状态和端点之间再生成两个过渡状态Anger和Depression
