sharingknowledge

You can improve your memory by learning memory techniques that are thousands of years old. That's what Nelson Dellis did to train for the USA Memory Championship, and you might know that Nelson has won the top prize for two years running. We have teamed up with Nelson to create this "Upgrade Your Memory" video that teaches memorization techniques that can enhance your business and personal life. Since we all have the same "hardware," it's really an upgrade of our "software," or brain, that makes all the difference.

years running. We have teamed up with Nelson to create this "Upgrade Your Memory" video that teaches memorization techniques that can enhance your business and personal life. Since we all have the same "hardware," it's really an upgrade of our "software," or brain, that makes all the difference. Fusion-io talked to Nelson to discuss the value of memory in our lives. Check out our interview with Nelson on the Fusion Blog: www.fusionio.com/blog/Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/fusionioOr Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/fusionio Category: Science & Technology Tags: Nelson Dellis upgrade your memory mental athlete USA Memory Competition USA Memory Championship USA Memory champion list memorization memorizing lists memory techniques Alzheimer's Climb for Memory Fusion-io fusionio fusion i/o Fusion IO @fusionio Licence: Standard YouTube Licence 261 likes, 3 dislikes Show more Show fewer Link to this comment: Share to:

walk you through some of the most useful ways that you can repair your Windows PC using an Ubuntu Live CD, but keep in mind that most of these tasks can be performed with any version of Linux.

Information portal + = TS Player - improved version of a popular media player, complete with a new innovative feature: - Online playback of video and audio via torrents for all browsers YouTube with a bittorrent accelerator and with the most functional web player in the world

Torrent Stream System This is an innovative media platform of a new generation, which will take you to a new high-quality level of multimedia space on the Internet.

Even the Buddhist ideal of having no desires, and hence no unsatisfied desires, is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain for a whole society – not least of all for younger people (who, Daleiden says, have less self control). Science of morality could never yield a utopia. Nevertheless, science of morality could greatly increase well-being for very many people.[54]

Daleiden's last factor in prosocial training, mental associations, is quite familiar: he says it has been traditionally understood as the conscience – where the student learns to feel empathy, and to feel regret for harming others. Unless an individual can, and begins to feel empathy, it may be unlikely that any amount of reasoning, or any coherent moral system will motivate them to behave very altruistically.

it should be the intention of adults to shape children, or presumably "indoctrinate" them, to think critically. He adds that the focus is on especially socially relevant values (e.g. kindness, sharing, reasoning) and not the more personal

Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality. Cosmopolitanism may entail some sort of world government or it may simply refer to more inclusive moral, economic, and/or political relationships between nations or individuals of different nations. A person who adheres to the idea of cosmopolitanism in any of its forms is called a cosmopolitan or cosmopolite.[1] A cosmopolitan community might be based on an inclusive morality, a shared economic relationship, or a political structure that encompasses different nations. In its more positive versions, the cosmopolitan community is one in which individuals from different places (e.g. nation-states) form relationships of mutual respect. As an example, Kwame Anthony Appiah suggests the possibility of a cosmopolitan community in which individuals from varying locations (physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships of mutual respect despite their differing beliefs (religious, political, etc.).[2]

Cosmopolitanism can be traced back to Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412 B.C.), the founding father of the Cynic movement in Ancient Greece. Of Diogenes it is said: "Asked where he came from, he answered: 'I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)'".[3] This was a ground-breaking concept, because the broadest basis of social identity in Greece at that time was either the individual city-state or the Greeks (Hellenes) as a group.

In his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant stages a ius cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan law/right) as a guiding principle to protect people from war, and morally grounds this cosmopolitan right by the principle of universal hospitality. Kant there claimed that the expansion of hospitality with regard to "use of the right to the earth's surface which belongs to the human race in common" (see common heritage of humanity) would "finally bring the human race ever closer to a cosmopolitan constitution".[6]

The concept of NJFP draws heavily on the outcomes defined and measured through triple bottom line reporting - demanding that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders. In this case, 'stakeholders' refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the company. According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests in a sustainable manner, instead of maximising shareholder(owner) profit. "People, Planet and Profit" are used to succinctly describe the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability.

Profit Profit is an aspect shared by all commerce, conscientious or not. Arguably, from the perspective of sustainability, profit is the most critical part of the triple bottom line. If a strong focus is not maintained on the value proposition for the product or service for sale, profits will be affected and consequently a business’s ability to have any impact through its purpose (people and planet) will be eroded.

People "People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labor and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has developed guidelines to enable corporations and NGO's alike to comparably report on the social impact of a business. [edit]

Greed has hijacked profit-making. Greed is so prevalent that most people never consider that they may get more by taking less. In your personal life, eating pie is a good thing. Eat too much pie for too long, however, and serious problems will occur.

Many now work at a diminished capacity due to their previous business practices. Decisions made 30 years ago are hurting their companies, their communities, and their workers.

On the other side of greed is the fear of money. Too many non-profits shun all profit making in lieu of their ethics or their cause. These groups are then forced to spend their precious time begging for money in lieu of working on the mission at hand. Like the instructions given to parents traveling with their infants, "place the oxygen mask on yourself before your child," so too must the cause-driven venture strive to be as healthy as possible if it is to defend or nurture its benefactor.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a novel by George Orwell published in 1949. It is a dystopian and satirical novel set in Oceania, where society is tyrannized by The Party and its totalitarian ideology.[1] The Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.[2] Their tyranny is headed by Big Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. Big Brother and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good.[1]

George Orwell "encapsulate[d] the thesis at the heart of his unforgiving novel" in 1944, and three years later wrote most of it on the Scottish island of Jura, from 1947 to 1948, despite being seriously ill with tuberculosis.[4] On 4 December 1948, he sent the final manuscript to the publisher Secker and Warburg and Nineteen Eighty-Four was published on 8 June 1949.[5][6] By 1989, it had been translated into sixty-five languages, more than any other novel in English at the time.[7

Nineteen Eighty-Four is on Spacious Planet's list of "21 most surprising banned books" for having being banned in Russia and very nearly banned in the UK and the US.[29]

In economics and contract theory, information asymmetry deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. This creates an imbalance of power in transactions which can sometimes cause the transactions to go awry, a kind of market failure in the worst case. Examples of this problem are adverse selection,[1] moral hazard, and information monopoly.[2] Most commonly, information asymmetries are studied in the context of principal–agent problems. In 2001, the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information."[3]

Information asymmetry models assume that at least one party to a transaction has relevant information whereas the other(s) do not. Some asymmetric information models can also be used in situations where at least one party can enforce, or effectively retaliate for breaches of, certain parts of an agreement whereas the other(s) cannot.

In adverse selection models, the ignorant party lacks information while negotiating an agreed understanding of or contract to the transaction, whereas in moral hazard the ignorant party lacks information about performance of the agreed-upon transaction or lacks the ability to retaliate for a breach of the agreement. An example of adverse selection is when people who are high risk are more likely to buy insurance, because the insurance company cannot effectively discriminate against them, usually due to lack of information about the particular individual's risk but also sometimes by force of law or other constraints. An example of moral hazard is when people are more likely to behave recklessly after becoming insured, either because the insurer cannot observe this behavior or cannot effectively retaliate against it, for example by failing to renew the insurance.

o Mr Stiglitz, this inequality is the result of public policy being captured by a

To Mr Stiglitz, this inequality is the result of public policy being captured by an elite who have feathered their own nests at the expense of the rest. They have used their power to distort political debate, pushing through tax cuts to favour the rich and adjusting monetary policy to favour the banks. Many of the new rich are not entrepreneurs but “rent-seekers”, he says, who use monopoly power to boost profits. Mr Stiglitz's views are representative of clever, leftish America and Mr Stiglitz is (mostly) skilled at making his argument. Imagine, he says, what it would be like if the world had free movement of labour, but not of capital. “Countries would compete to attract workers. They would promise good schools and a good environment, as well as low taxes on workers. This could be financed by high taxes on capital.” The result would be a much more equal society. Mr Stiglitz's argument would benefit, however, from a better sense of history and geography. He points to the period between 1950 and 1980 as one where inequality was much reduced. But that was a highly unusual time. For much of recorded history there has been a huge gap between a wealthy landowning class and the rest; the Rockefellers and Carnegies were much richer (in real terms) than any modern plutocrat. Mr Stiglitz also views the housing boom and bust as another result of misguided American policy, but Spain and Ireland had property bubbles too—and they are much more equal societies.

When it comes to solutions to the inequality problem, Mr Stiglitz wants a top income tax rate of “well in excess of” 50%, targeted fiscal stimulus and greater bank regulation. Here, perhaps, he might have been more open about the trade-offs. Controls on bank leverage, caps on interest rates and greater protection for bankrupts are all likely to reduce bank lending at a time when there already is a credit squeeze. He admits that the 2009 fiscal stimulus was “not as well designed as it could have been”, but blithely hopes that the convoluted American budget-setting process will result in much better stimulus packages in future. Whether or not he has the right answers, Mr Stiglitz is surely right to focus on the issue. Across the developed world, the average worker is suffering a squeeze in living standards while bankers and chief executives are still doing very nicely. This dichotomy is bound to have social and political consequences.