• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1395
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации28
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы215
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
22 марта, 21:01

Без заголовка

**Live from the Orange-Haired Baboon Cage: Jonathan Chait**: _[Mitch McConnell’s Trumpcare Plan Is to Lose Fast][]_: "Mitch McConnell has laid out a wildly aggressive time frame... [Mitch McConnell’s Trumpcare Plan Is to Lose Fast]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/mitch-mcconnells-trumpcare-plan-is-to-lose-fast.html >...His chamber would essentially xerox the House bill and pass it into law within a...

20 марта, 15:36

Trump’s Budget Will Harm The Planet And The Economy

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); As expected, the war on science and the environment is underway. The president’s proposed budget is the starting point of a long process of negotiation, but between the Tea Party in the House and the ideologues in the Executive Branch, the news is bound to remain grim. We now know that finding $50 billion in extra defense money is not easy without entitlement reform, and no one in Washington has the nerve to raise taxes or go near Social Security or Medicare. The result is an effort to shrink funding for university-based science research and the national labs run by the Department of Energy. Research on fundamental earth systems science is also cut as is funding for state environmental agencies and national environmental emergency response. These cuts are part of a world view that is seriously out of step with reality. Additional funding for the military can always be justified since the world is a dangerous place. The technology of destruction is constantly advancing and keeping up is bound to be expensive. But national security is not the only challenge we face. We are an aging society, and one that might be shrinking were it not for immigration. We are also living on a planet where the human population continues to grow and stress the finite and renewable resources that feed, clothe and house us. Automation and technology are creating a brain-based global economic network and the nature of work itself is changing before our eyes. That reality is not reflected in the president’s budget. The average American confronts a world of economic stress and young people face an uncertain future in an uncertain world. This sense of precariousness was the political backdrop for the presidential election last fall as voters expressed their unease with the world and the leaders trying to govern it. But President Trump’s prescription for addressing these problems is worse than the disease. Discouraging immigration; reducing free trade; trying to bring back labor-intensive manufacturing and fossil fuels; cutting scientific research, support for the arts, foreign aid and environmental protection is a half-baked effort to return to a past that will never come back. Most of the economic growth we’ve enjoyed over the past century has come about through the invention of new technology based on scientific research. While in the old days private players such as Thomas Edison, Bell Labs, Kodak, Xerox and IBM could fund their own basic scientific research, the demand for greater and faster returns on capital have made the private sector dependent on the federal government’s labs and federally funded research universities to develop the scientific knowledge needed for technological breakthroughs. This marriage of public science and private enterprise has matured and results in a competitive edge for American business that should not be underestimated. One of the areas that the great scientific minds of today are focused on is the science of protecting the planet. From understanding invasive species and the global transmission of disease, to developing battery technology and microgrids for electricity, the problems of sustainability are occupying the thoughts and work days of top engineers and basic scientists all over the world. The next arena of economic growth will come from the breakthrough science now being researched. Instead of fostering this science, President Trump and his colleagues are trying to cut the science budget to provide tax cuts and additional funding for the military. The tax cuts and reduction of regulation are designed to create an atmosphere of freedom that will unshackle free enterprise to invest in businesses and jobs for Americans. Unfortunately for the president and his inner circle, the logic of the market leads away from “America First” toward globalization. Increased specialization, cheap information, low cost communication, inexpensive labor and containerized shipping lead to global outsourcing and network management. Unless carefully targeted, these tax cuts will not even trickle down to American workers. The result of this budget is not likely to be what the president is expecting. Cutting science and EPA is counterproductive. EPA’s budget helps protect us from the negative impacts of technological development and the science budget helps ensure that technological development continues and is led by American science. The world economy is governed by the logic of capitalism, but many Americans believe we are getting a bad deal from the global economy. Trump is president because he responded to that belief. People outside the U.S. look at us and think we’re doing quite well, but without question the middle class in America is stagnating. New technology creates economic pressure to keep up, but insufficient income to pay for the new stuff. Free broadcast TV and clean well water of the 1960s have been replaced by rising cable and water bills, while middle class incomes have not risen in decades. It is not clear how to solve this problem. The left calls for income redistribution and the right calls for greater freedom for entrepreneurship. I suspect the answer is more complex than the prescriptions of 19th and 20th century ideology. We will need to get past the ideological bombast of the present and somehow find our inner American pragmatist if we are to get from here to there. But the need for more rather than less scientific research ought to be obvious. The more we learn the more we invent. While some inventions may threaten the planet, others are needed to save it. The inventions that threaten us need to be regulated; the inventions that save us need to be encouraged. But without new knowledge a brain-based economy can only go into decline. At one time most federal funding for science came from the military. Perhaps we will return to that period if the military is the only place with the resources required to fund science. That would be unfortunate, because the research communities surrounding NIH and NSF have ensured that federally funded science had a multiplier effect in academia and the broader culture. It takes longer for secret military technology to be commercialized. The rhetoric of Trump’s critique of the world’s governing elite has an important grain of truth in it. The global high tech economy has left large parts of the American middle class behind. Our elected officials have failed to respond to their needs. The idea that the cause of these problems is large, unresponsive federal bureaucracy is not entirely true. Many of the policies that have muted the worst impacts of downward mobility have come from that government. My view is that we are stuck in an inappropriate industrial age conflict between two ideologies that are increasingly irrelevant. We require capitalism because we know that people respond to individual incentives. Creativity and economic growth require individual incentives. Nevertheless, we require government because too many individuals blindly pursuing self-interest can cause harm to society and the public interest. Regulation and policing is also needed, but it needs to be strategic, flexible and based on real rather than symbolic or imaginary conditions. President Trump’s budget is a product of an outmoded view of how the world works and the genuine threats to our way of life. There is no question that there are evil people in the world who hope to harm America. However, there is no evidence that a bigger military budget will better equip us to counter those threats. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that America’s relatively clean environment and world-leading scientific research community are central to our economic and personal well-being. This proposed budget makes America weaker and poorer. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
16 марта, 15:00

Snatch review – Rupert Grint gives Guy Ritchie's comedy an obnoxious TV remake

The overpacked crime film heads to the small screen in a desperate-to-impress new series that proves oddly fascinatingThe first thing you’ll notice about Crackle’s new Snatch adaptation are the accents. Oh good God, the accents. Everyone’s at it. There are Scottish people playing English people, English people playing American people, northern people playing southern people. And, almost without exception, they miss the mark by a country mile. Watching Snatch is like travelling to a dimension where Don Cheadle’s character from Ocean’s Eleven has repopulated the world by having babies with Benedict Cumberbatch’s character from Black Mass, before bringing them up in a haunted sensory deprivation chamber.The second thing you’ll notice is how extraordinarily hard it tries. Snatch is a show packed to the gills with freeze-frames and filters, to the extent that Instagram probably should have been credited as a producer. It’s the kind of show where every single doorway must be walked through in slow motion, accompanied by an inexplicable whooshy noise. All the men are swaggering blokes. All the women are clench-jawed and sexualised. It’s less a television series and more a botched attempt to break the world record for longest bodyspray commercial. It is endlessly, desperately in thrall to Guy Ritchie. And, since Guy Ritchie was desperately in thrall to Tarantino when he made Snatch, the whole thing comes off as spectacularly inauthentic; a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
10 марта, 00:00

Новая статья: Обзор МФУ Xerox WorkCentre 6515DNI: маленький профи

Новое МФУ от компании Xerox  отвечает всем требованиям малого и среднего бизнеса к офисным устройствам такого типа. Плюс к этому тут есть передовые облачные технологии, а также возможность печати с мобильных устройств. Чем ещё может похвастаться новинка и как обстоят у неё дела с показателями качества и производительности, вы узнаете из нашего обзора

09 марта, 06:40

Помощь учёным, майнинг криптовалют, поиск далёких галактик: как использовать ресурсы «спящего» компьютера

Обозреватель vc.ru выяснил, как использовать ресурсы «спящего» компьютера — аппаратные и сетевые, — чтобы они не простаивали без дела. Значительная часть ресурсов компьютера часто простаивает — владелец отходит заварить чай или участвует в планёрках; купил «игровой ноутбук», а времени вот уже третий месяц хватает только на работу; развернул небольшую ферму видеокарт, но бросили майнить или заниматься рендерингом — да мало ли что ещё.

Выбор редакции
06 марта, 17:49

Xerox shares rise 3% at $7.58 to lead S&P 500 gainers in early trade

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
04 марта, 13:37

Билл Гейтс признался в копировании при создании Windows и Mac

Соучредитель Microsoft Билл Гейтс рассказал, что при создании операционной системы Windows и компьютера Mac он и основатель Apple Стив Джобс не копировали друг друга — они оба были впечатлены достижениями научно-исследовательского центра Xerox PARC

Выбор редакции
01 марта, 00:22

Managing Your Brand Message Through Times Of Change

The customer landscape is no doubt changing, especially due to technology and increased information. However, by sticking to core principles and looking for ways to reach customers where they already are, brands can join Xerox in having great brand messaging success.

Выбор редакции
28 февраля, 16:50

Гейтс рассказал об источнике вдохновения при создании Windows

Миллиардер Билл Гейтс рассказал интернет-пользователям, откуда он черпал вдохновение при создании ОС Windows. Источником новых идей послужили достижения Xerox PARC. Ранее пользователи считали, что Билл Гейтс и Стив Джобс заимствовали идеи друг у друга.

28 февраля, 13:08

Билл Гейтс признался в копировании при создании Windows и Mac

Основатель Microsoft Билл Гейтс рассказал пользователям Reddit, что при создании операционной системы Windows и компьютера Mac он и создатель Apple Стив Джобс не копировали друг друга. По его словам, они оба были впечатлены графическим пользовательским интерфейсом, изобретенным Xerox PARC.

Выбор редакции
25 февраля, 08:17

Американка Даниела Лога: Это странно, но в России люди свободнее, чем в США

«Когда я решила обосноваться в России, мои американские знакомые говорили, что тут все постоянного пьянствуют». Американка Даниела Лога переехала из Лос-Анджелеса в Россию и ничуть об этом не пожалела.

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
14 февраля, 14:23

Новая технология позволит начать практическое применение имплантатов для головного мозга

Ученые приступили к испытаниям новой конструкции имплантата для головного мозга, предназначенного для восстановления зрения у слепых

14 февраля, 02:29

The Ultimate Nemesis: "It Costs Too Much"

It's human nature to look at any solution, particularly a premium-priced solution, and balk at its cost. At first glance, who wants to buy a premium-priced product when there's another one - that costs far less - sitting right next to it? You don't have to go any further than your mailbox to get the answer to that question. Go online or to your local hardware store, and price out mailboxes. If you do, you'll see a number of mailboxes, many of which will run you between $15 to $30. They look terrific, and as many of them are plastic, you won't even have to worry about them rusting. And then there are a few others. For the sake of this BLArticle®, let's look at just one that is called, "The World's Toughest Mailbox." At first glance, it looks a whole lot like the other mailboxes, but along with its mounting bracket, it costs almost ten times as much as the other mailboxes. But when they call something "The World's Toughest Mailbox," they aren't kidding around. Here are just a few of the comments posted on their site by those who purchased this mailbox: "I've had this mailbox for at least 10 years. I bought it after having countless others destroyed by kids with baseball bats. It is super tough and will last forever." "I've had this mailbox for over a year now and I absolutely love it. You won't believe how heavy it is! A vandal tried to knock this one down shortly after it was installed and it left only a tiny dimple. The flag alone probably weighs as much as the traditional sheet metal mailboxes that are so flimsy. I'm sure with a coat of paint every 10 years this will last a lifetime." I'm sure this mailbox will last a lifetime, and therein lies magic. "In the absence of value, price is always the most important criteria." Unfortunately, we don't understand the value until our solution, or in this case, our mailbox, is destroyed. This is an issue that has plagued salespeople forever. Sadly, if you aren't working with a well-trained salesperson, it plagues you as well. The answer is found in a three-letter acronym called "T.C.O.," which stands for Total Cost of Ownership. When moving someone to a T.C.O. conversation, the question is a simple one: "When you say it costs too much, are you referring to the cost of buying it, or the cost of owning it?" Be prepared to see a slightly confused expression, and to hear the words, "I don't understand the difference." That's when you can spring to action and help someone understand the total cost of ownership. In this case, it might sound something like this: "Well, the cost of buying this mailbox is significantly higher than the other mailbox you are comparing it to. I don't question that for a moment. But the cost of owning this mailbox involves all the numbers associated with this purchase. Those would include the cost of replacing the other plastic mailbox itself, the cost of replacing the bracket and post, installation costs, potential costs involved with missing mail and bills that might be part of that lost mailbox, and worst of all, doing this over and over again. You see, when you add all the numbers associated with the purchase of this mailbox, "The World's Toughest Mailbox" will be far less to own than the other mailbox you are looking at. Isn't that what you want to accomplish with this purchase decision?" For those who are objecting to price, the key is to get them to look at the total picture of the solution they are considering. It doesn't matter if it's a tangible, or an intangible, solution. Over the past 25 years, I've taught many clients to use the T.C.O concept, including doctors, lawyers, and even hostage negotiators. Over and over again, I've seen how the T.C.O. can help others to look past the present, and into the future with all kinds of scenarios. Cost is an objection that should not surprise anyone, and being distracted from considering total costs is the norm, not the exception. The concept of T.C.O. is one major reason why premium companies like Xerox and Apple survive. If you sell premium priced solutions, it comes with the territory, and should be expected. So should a friendly reminder to your clients that you get what you pay for. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
09 февраля, 09:00

Выбираем цветной лазерный принтер Xerox в офис

Ещё недавно цветной принтер можно было увидеть лишь в офисах дизайн-студий, рекламных агентств, архитектурных бюро или в отделах маркетинга крупных компаний. Технологии цветной печати Xerox совершенствуются, стоимость отпечатков уменьшается, а качество растёт, так что цветные аппараты теперь все чаще заказывают самые разные организации. Цветовыделение считается важным приемом привлечения внимания к информации, поэтому многие стали пользоваться цветной печатью для оформления внутренней документации: отчетов, презентаций, графиков и диаграмм.

Выбор редакции
04 февраля, 01:21

Xerox's Ursula Burns: Business is made for men

Read full story for latest details.

02 февраля, 17:30

Do Happy Employees Boost Stock Returns?

Every business aims to have happy employees. Should investors do the same? How does employee happiness affect stock returns?

Выбор редакции
02 февраля, 17:23

BRIEF-Xerox and EFI partner to give customers best in class digital front ends

* Xerox and EFI partner to give customers best in class digital front ends

02 февраля, 16:00

How to Overcome Executive Isolation

The loneliness that often comes with being a CEO may seem like a small price to pay for the rewards, recognition, and power that come with the job. As the old joke goes, “It might be lonely at the top, but the view is terrific.” But being isolated at the top can compromise your decision making and leadership effectiveness, both of which require having as much firsthand information about a situation as possible. Senior executives tend to be shielded from organizational problems and data; they are given limited and filtered information about their operations, employees, and customers. While time constraints make some of this filtering necessary, having a layer of handlers who make their own decisions about what the leader should or shouldn’t see exacerbates the isolation. For example, when James Wolfensohn first became president of the World Bank, in 1995, he went on fact-finding trips to developing countries to understand the kinds of projects that the bank was doing. After several visits he realized that he was only being shown successful projects, smiling villagers, and grateful government officials. He told me that he eventually learned to stray from his tour guides so that he could meet people who hadn’t been prepped for his visit, to see what was really happening. This dramatically changed his assessment of how much of the bank’s aid was getting through the local government, to the people who really needed it. As I’ve written previously, deference to authority is deeply engrained in most societies. So it’s natural for employees, even at the highest levels, to occasionally hold back opinions and feelings that they fear might contradict or irritate the boss. For example, one executive director of a nonprofit told me that when she was appointed to the position, after many years in the organization, long-time colleagues stopped inviting her to birthday celebrations and other social events. They felt uncomfortable socializing with her, and this isolated her from much of the day-to-day life of the organization. She was left with fewer relationships and more uncertainty about what was going on. Subordinates will be even more fearful or sycophantic if the boss is insecure or capricious — and power may make leaders less likely to listen to others’ advice, as one study found. These CEOs become supported by a team of “yes-sayers,” people who don’t push back on bad decisions or offer different opinions. They create an echo chamber that amplifies their views rather than enriching them. Several years ago, for example, I worked with a senior executive who was competing for the top job at his firm. To help make his case, he assembled a brain trust of people with different opinions to help him develop positions on the challenges facing the company. This impressed the board so much that they selected him as the next CEO — despite the fact that he had less experience than his rivals. However, as CEO he stopped meeting with his brain trust and removed the two executives who had been his competitors. He felt he no longer needed to listen to contrary opinions. He staffed his senior team with cheerleaders who supported his views, while those who disagreed or had bad news about what was happening in the company kept quiet. Two years later, the board dismissed the CEO because his plan for the company wasn’t working. So what can you do to reduce executive isolation? First, raise your antennae to the possibility that you’re experiencing it. Isolation is often hard to detect. Moving into a senior role is exhilarating and requires a huge expenditure of time and energy to get adjusted. While that’s happening, others may start effusively agreeing with your ideas or trying to anticipate your every need. You may notice people trying to “help you” by handling demands that they consider lower priority. After a while, these patterns start to become the new normal. So ask yourself if you are starting to feel isolated and disconnected. Are employees challenging your thinking, or just saying what you want to hear? Are you getting firsthand exposure to situations and seeing raw data, or is everything being filtered and prioritized to make it easier for you to get the big picture? Second, get out of the bubble. All senior leaders are surrounded by physical or virtual trappings of office — the formal decor, the board dinners, the financial reports, the assistants that manage travel and scheduling, the intensive calendar that leaves little time for reflection. To break through the isolation, you need to periodically escape. The TV reality series Undercover Boss, in which the head of a business masquerades as a new employee, is one (extreme) example of how to learn what is really happening on the ground. But there are other, less dramatic techniques, too. For example, when Xerox was undergoing its turnaround under Anne Mulcahy, in the early 2000s, each member of the senior team took responsibility for a small portfolio of key customers. This forced them to go meet these customers and hear how they felt about the company. Fidelity used to require all senior people to spend time fielding calls on their customer service line, which gave them direct contact with customers. Executives can institute skip-level meetings, where they talk with lower-level teams (without their bosses being present) about business conditions, customer reactions, and how to implement strategies. They also can conduct town halls, where employees ask questions and engage in conversations. Creating these listening posts gives executives unfiltered data to factor into their decision making. Finally, tell your senior team to push back when they disagree and to challenge your thinking. Make sure that you have team members who have the courage to speak up and can be critics. This is easier for some people than for others, so you should actively recruit or promote at least two or three people who will serve as important counterpoints. You need to have the strength of ego to let them challenge you, both privately and during team meetings, and to really listen to their ideas. It won’t always be easy, and sometimes you may need a coach to help you with this process. Executive isolation is an inevitable part of the senior leader’s job. Whether it compromises your ability to make decisions and to move the organization forward, however, is up to you.