- UID
- 607430
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-2-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
 我们最近都在赶进度啊 哈哈 越障速度LSAT LSAT应该是最后一篇了~~ 大家都快点赶上噢，保持步履一致~~
大本营帖子：http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_RC/thread-562296-1-1.html
【速度】
计时1
Pakistan, India Signal 'New Era' of Cooperation
The foreign ministers of India and Pakistan have hailed a "new era of cooperation," after meeting for the first time since peace talks between the rival nations resumed earlier this year. The officials promised to initiate new trade and travel contacts across their disputed border.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna accentuated the positive Wednesday, following talks with newly appointed Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in the Indian capital.
"We have some distance to travel, but with an open mind, and a constructive approach ... I am sure we can reach our desired destination," Krishna said.
The peace dialogue between India and Pakistan resumed in February, following a two-year freeze after the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai. India blamed Pakistan-based Islamist militants for the three-day siege on the country's financial hub.
India has long pressed Pakistan to provide further information into the probe, including voice samples of suspects accused in the attacks. Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, who was also in New Delhi for the talks, told reporters Wednesday there had been some progress on the issue in ways that have not been publicized.
And Indian Foreign Minister Krishna noted the two sides share an understanding on key security issues.
"We have agreed that terrorism poses a continuing threat," Krishna added. "We have also agreed on the need to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism, to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice."
（字数 233）
计时2
The foreign ministers announced India and Pakistan will double the opportunity for traders to cross the so-called "Line of Control" in disputed Kashmir, from two to four days a week. Khar and Krishna also promised to expand travel opportunities for tourism and religious pilgrimages across the tense border separating the Himalayan region.
India and Pakistan have fought two wars for control of the Kashmir Valley, and the dispute remains the key irritant in diplomacy between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
Khar, 34, is Pakistan's youngest-ever foreign minister. As she stood next to Krishna, more than 40 years her senior, she spoke of a good personal connection during talks.
"I am more confident today, having met you ... than I was yesterday when I arrived in New Delhi, which to me is a good sign," Khar said.
Khar said younger generations in both India and Pakistan are hopeful for better relations than in past decades.
"This is indeed a new era of bilateral cooperation between the two countries, and... I wish to convey to the people of India Pakistan's desire to open a new chapter of amity and understanding between our two countries," said Khar.
The two senior diplomats say they are committed to sustaining dialogue, and that their next minister-level meeting will take place next year.
From VOA: http://www.51voa.com/VOA_Standard_English/India-Pakistan-Call-for-New-Cooperation-42554.html
How Much Screen Time Is Too Much for Children?
Children can spend hours a day looking at computer screens and other digital devices. Some eye care professionals say all that screen time has led to an increase in what they call computer vision syndrome.
Nathan Bonilla-Warford is an optometrist in Tampa, Florida, with VSP, Vision Service Plan, a big insurance provider. He says he has seen an increase in problems in children.
（字数 278）
计时3
NATHAN BONILLA-WARFORD: "I see a lot more children who are coming into the office either because their parents have noticed that they have headaches or red or watery eyes or discomfort, or because their prescription, their near-sightedness, appears to be increasing at a fast rate and they're worried."
Dr. Bonilla-Warford says part of the problem is that children may be more likely than adults to ignore early warning signs.
NATHAN BONILLA-WARFORD: "Even if their eyes start to feel uncomfortable or they start to get a headache, they're less likely to tell their parents, because they don't want to have the game or the computer or whatever taken away."
He says another part of the problem is that people blink less often when they use digital devices.
NATHAN BONILLA-WARFORD: "The average person who uses a computer or an electronic device blinks about a third as much as we normally do in everyday life. And so that can result in the front part of the eye drying and not staying moist and protected like normal."
Eye doctors offer suggestions like following what is known as the 20/20/20 rule.
NATHAN BONILLA-WARFORD: "Every twenty minutes, look away twenty feet or more for at least twenty seconds from whatever device you're using."
Twenty feet -- that's six meters.
Other suggestions include putting more distance between you and the device and using good lighting. Of course, another way to avoid eye strain is to spend less time looking at screens. Many experts say children should spend no more than two hours a day using digital devices -- with no screen time for children under two.
But not all eye doctors have noticed an increase in problems in children. Dr. David Hunter says he has not seen an increase in his practice as a pediatric ophthalmologist at Children's Hospital Boston. He also serves as a spokesman for the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
（字数 315）
计时4
Dr. Hunter thinks calling it a syndrome, as in computer vision syndrome, is a little much. He says the real problem is simple.
DAVID HUNTER: "Spending too much time in one place, focusing on one thing, not looking away from their work, etc."
And while this might be tiring to the eyes, he says, it will not cause permanent damage.
DAVID HUNTER: "While it is possible to develop fatigue looking at various screens for a long period of time, there's certainly no evidence that it actually causes any damage to the eyes."
From VOA: http://www.51voa.com/VOA_Special_English/How-Much-Screen-Time-Is-Too-Much-for-Children-42589.html
Debt Ceiling, Spending Cuts to Rise But No World on Higher Taxes
If you stayed up to watch the marathon Braves/Pirates game, the one that lasted 19 innings, you kind of know how most people feel about waiting for the debt ceiling deal to be made. It’s been long. And no one was quite sure how it was going to end.
And if you saw the end of that Braves/Pirate games – a controversial tag at home plate where the ump called a runner safe who wasn’t – you know exactly how folks feel now that the debt ceiling deal is nearly resolved. It feels tainted. It’s unsatisfying. You almost want a do over even though it isn’t possible. And you feel like someone just made a decision in order to call it a day (with apologies to Umpire Jerry Meals for being compared to members of Congress).
Whoever made the call, it’s done. Of sorts.
The Senate and House are expected to vote today on a throw togetherstrategy to avoid a default on the debt ceiling (more on what the debt ceiling is here). The Senate will vote first, followed by a vote in the House.
And – I’m not making this up – there is expected to be a filibuster in the Senate because, well, why wouldn’t there be?
（字数 308）
计时5
The Republicans in the Senate still aren’t satisfied with the proposal. But there’s clearly also no chance of pushing anything else through, hence, the filibuster. In plain speak: there are a lot of Senators that don’t want to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling but they have nothing else to offer.
Assuming that the vote makes it to the House, it’s expected to pass. The Republicans in the House have reached an agreement that has reportedly been blessed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). The House deal would cut spending by $917 billion in order to start hammering away at the deficit. The total debt reduction is expected to reach $2.4 trillion over the next decade. There is no word yet on the specific cuts as part of the deal.
The agreement also allows for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling immediately up to $400 billion, heading off the “certain” Armageddon that pundits have been warning about (insert a lot of coughing here). An additional $500 billion in debt ceiling headroom has also been authorized although, as part of the deal, Congress specifically reserves the right to vote against that at a later date so that they can dutifully wag their fingers at the President. And the President has reserved the right to veto that vote so that he can wag a finger at Congress (you can pick the finger). Future increases have also been authorized, with limitations.
As part of the deal, spending cuts must exceed any boost in debt ceiling. Reportedly, those cuts would be largely across the board with certain exceptions, namely Democrat-protected programs including Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and veterans benefits.
What’s not in the agreement? Not. a. single. word. about. taxes. That, my friends, will change. Mark my words.
（字数 297）
From Forbes: http://blogs.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-spending-cuts-to-rise-but-no-word-on-higher-taxes/
【越障】
Schumpeter
The trouble with outsourcing
Outsourcing is sometimes more hassle than it is worth
WHEN Ford’s River Rouge Plant was completed in 1928 it boasted everything it needed to turn raw materials into finished cars: 100,000 workers, 16m square feet of factory floor, 100 miles of railway track and its own docks and furnaces. Today it is still Ford’s largest plant, but only a shadow of its former glory. Most of the parts are made by sub-contractors and merely fitted together by the plant’s 6,000 workers. The local steel mill is run by a Russian company, Severstal.
Outsourcing has transformed global business. Over the past few decades companies have contracted out everything from mopping the floors to spotting the flaws in their internet security. TPI, a company that specialises in the sector, estimates that $100 billion-worth of new contracts are signed every year. Oxford Economics reckons that in Britain, one of the world’s most mature economies, 10% of workers toil away in “outsourced” jobs and companies spend $200 billion a year on outsourcing. Even war is being outsourced: America employs more contract workers in Afghanistan than regular troops.
Can the outsourcing boom go on indefinitely? And is the practice as useful as its advocates claim, or is the popular suspicion that it leads to cut corners and dismal service correct? There are signs that outsourcing often goes wrong, and that companies are rethinking their approach to it.
The latest TPI quarterly index of outsourcing (which measures commercial contracts of $25m or more) suggests that the total value of such contracts for the second quarter of 2011 fell by 18% compared with the second quarter of 2010. Dismal figures in the Americas (ie, mostly the United States) dragged down the average: the value of contracts there was 50% lower in the second quarter of 2011 than in the first half of 2010. This is partly explained by America’s gloomy economy, but even more by the maturity of the market: TPI suspects that much of what can sensibly be outsourced already has been.
Miles Robinson of Mayer Brown, a law firm, notes that there has also been an uptick in legal disputes over outsourcing. In one case EDS, an IT company, had to pay BSkyB, a media company, £318m ($469m) in damages. The two firms spent an estimated £70m on legal fees and were tied up in court for five months. Such nightmares are worse in India, where the courts move with Dickensian speed, or in China, where the legal system is patchy. And since many disputes stay out of court, the well of discontent with outsourcing is surely deeper than the legal record shows.
Some of the worst business disasters of recent years have been caused or aggravated by outsourcing. Eight years ago Boeing, America’s biggest aeroplane-maker, decided to follow the example of car firms and hire contractors to do most of the grunt work on its new 787 Dreamliner. The result was a nightmare. Some of the parts did not fit together. Some of the dozens of sub-contractors failed to deliver their components on time, despite having sub-contracted their work to sub-sub-contractors. Boeing had to take over some of the sub-contractors to prevent them from collapsing. If the Dreamliner starts rolling off the production line towards the end of this year, as Boeing promises, it will be billions over budget and three years behind schedule.
Outsourcing can go wrong in a colourful variety of ways. Sometimes companies squeeze their contractors so hard that they are forced to cut corners. (This is a big problem in the car industry, where a handful of global firms can bully the 80,000 parts-makers.) Sometimes vendors overpromise in order to win a contract and then fail to deliver. Sometimes both parties write sloppy contracts. And some companies undermine their overall strategies with injudicious outsourcing. Service companies, for example, contract out customer complaints to foreign call centres and then wonder why their customers hate them.
When outsourcing goes wrong, it is the devil to put right. When companies outsource a job, they typically eliminate the department that used to do it. They become entwined with their contractors, handing over sensitive material and inviting contractors to work alongside their own staff. Extricating themselves from this tangle can be tough. It is much easier to close a department than to rebuild it. Sacking a contractor can mean that factories grind to a halt, bills languish unpaid and chaos mounts.
So far and no further
None of this means that companies are going to re-embrace the River Rouge model any time soon. Some companies, such as Boeing, are bringing more work back in-house, in the jargon. But the business logic behind outsourcing remains compelling, so long as it is done right. Many tasks are peripheral to a firm’s core business and can be done better and more cheaply by specialists. Cleaning is an obvious example; many back-office jobs also fit the bill. Outsourcing firms offer labour arbitrage, using cheap Indians to enter data rather than expensive Swedes. They can offer economies of scale, too. TPI points out that, for all the problems in America, outsourcing is continuing to grow in emerging markets and, more surprisingly, in Europe, where Germany and France are late converts to the idea.
Companies are rethinking outsourcing, rather than jettisoning it. They are dumping huge long-term deals in favour of smaller, less rigid ones. The annualised value of “mega-relationships” worth $100m or more a year fell by 62% this year compared with last. Companies are forming relationships with several outsourcers, rather than putting all their eggs in few baskets. They are signing shorter contracts, too. But still, they need to think harder about what is their core business, and what is peripheral. And above all, newspaper editors need to say no to the temptation to outsource business columns to cheaper, hungrier writers.
From The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21524822
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-8-1 23:33:02
收藏
收藏
楼主
