My World

Kamis, 17 Juni 2010

Hybrid Car Classification – Mild hybrids cars & Full hybrids cars

Hybrid Car Classification – Let us classify hybrid cars into two categories to better understand the battery functions, the engine and the electric motor, and how they work when put together. There are two kinds of hybrids: the mild hybrids cars and the full hybrids cars . Each of these kinds have different approaches when combining the three components.

How Mild Hybrid Cars Work

In this type of hybrid car, the electric motor is only an assistant when it comes to operating the main propulsion. It is the gas engine that gives the major energy needed.

The motor depends on the gas engine to be able to operate. The electric motor is capable of eating up electricity from the batteries, or it can come up with energy for it, but the electric motor cannot do these functions at the same time. This is used for two of Honda’s hybrid models, the Insight and the Civic hybrid.

How Full Hybrid Cars Work

The distinction of the full hybrid Cars from the Mild Hybrid Cars variety is that the electric motor and the gas engine can operate on its own. In most instances, the electric motor can function by itself in low speed, and once it picks up, the gasoline engine automatically takes over. Both the motor and the engine can function together if the car is in hard acceleration.

This combined effort provides the car the power that it needs for that situation. Full hybrid cars can consume and build up electricity simultaneously. The Full hybrid cars setup can be found in models such as the popular Toyota Prius, the Mercury Mariner Hybrid, and the Escape hybrid from Ford.

For instance, one can look at the way the Toyota Prius works. The Prius runs on a technology called the Hyrbid Synergy Drive, which involves a power split device to combine the energy of the electric motor and the gas engine. The Hyrbid Synergy Drive enables a effortless switching of power sources that the car driver would not notice in the slightest while driving.

Unlike the other mild hybrid types, the Prius can be operated by the electric motor alone powered by the battery pack. As a result, a motorist can drive silently for short amounts of time. The Honda hybrids on this level cannot function just by the electric motor.

While speeding up a highway, the Prius utilizes the gas engine as its main operator, and can get assistance from the generator if needed. Then this hybrid car shuts off the gas engine automatically during stops. This contributes greatly in mileage improvement and produces less emission.

To sum up, the main goal of hybrid cars is providing sustainability amid the growing need for better forms of transport. Environmentally-conscious individuals would find heaven with hybrid cars. However, since they are just being introduced in the market, they can come at quite an expense. With increased patronage, it is hoped that more hybrid cars will become accessible to everyone in the future.

Source:

http://www.ziplak.com/hybrid-car-classification-mild-hybrids-cars-full-hybrids-cars/#more-1582

BP says it's sorry - and guarantees $20B for Gulf

BP announced it would not pay dividends this year and agreed to create a $20 billion compensation fund for victims of the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill following four hours of intense negotiations at the White House.

President Barack Obama also wrested an apology to Americans from the British oil giant on Wednesday, eight weeks after the Deep Horizon drilling platform leased by BP explode, killing 11 workers and setting in motion an environmental and economic catastrophe.

The apologetic talk was expected to continue Thursday when company CEO Tony Hayward will face sharp questions from lawmakers at Congress.

In prepared testimony obtained by The Associated Press, Hayward expressed contrition for the spill and its effects and said he was "personally devastated" by "these tragic events." He pledged, "We will not rest until the well is under control, and we will meet all our obligations to clean up the spill and address its environmental and economic impacts."

The spill has been a major distraction for Obama, who is battling a determined Republican political opposition. Wednesday's announcement was a rare piece of good news.

A new AP-GFK poll showed that a majority of Americans think the president has not handled the crisis well, a significant outcome in the countdown to November congressional elections that could cost Obama his Democratic majority in one or both houses of Congress.

Obama had said he would "make BP pay," and the company's chairman said after four hours of intense White House negotiations that BP was ready.

Creation of the fund - to be run by an administrator with a proven track record - is the first big success Obama has been able to give to Gulf residents and Americans in the eight weeks since the explosion, a period during which the spill has taken ever more of the public's attention, threatening anything else the president hoped to focus on or accomplish.

Huge as the $20 billion seems, both Obama and London-based BP PLC said it was by no means a cap.

The deal also adhered to what Obama had said was his non-negotiable demand: that the fund and the claims process be administered independently from BP. It won't be a government fund, either, but will be led by the administration's "pay czar," Kenneth Feinberg, better known as the man who oversaw the $7 billion government fund for families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The April 20 explosion of an offshore oil rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of crude spewing into the water from the broken well a mile (1.6 kilometers) below the ocean's surface - as much as 118 million gallons (446 million liters) so far and still flowing. More wildlife, beaches and marshlands are fouled every day, jeopardizing not just the region's fragile ecology but a prized Gulf way of life that is built on fishing and tourism.

Though the company hopes to install equipment soon to capture as much as 90 percent of the escaping oil, the leak is expected to continue at least until relief wells are finished in August.

The use of the BP escrow fund is intended to avoid a repeat of the painful aftermath of 1989 Exxon Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, when the fight over money dragged out in courts over roughly two decades.

"What this is about is accountability," said Obama in brief remarks in the State Dining Room after a four-hour, on-again, off-again White House negotiation session with BP executives. "For the small-business owners, for the fishermen, for the shrimpers, this is not just a matter of dollars and cents. ... A lot of these folks don't have a cushion."

On the driveway outside, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg apologized for "this tragic accident that should never have happened."

"We care about the small people," he said.

That comment wasn't as well-received as the promise of compensation.

"We're not small people," said Justin Taffinder of New Orleans. "We're human beings. They're no greater than us. We don't bow down to them."

Added Terry Hanners, who has a small construction company in Gulf Shores, Ala.: "These BP people I've met are good folks. I've got a good rapport with them. But BP does not care about us. They are so far above us. We are the nickel-and-dime folks of this world."

Asked about the remark by Svanberg, who is Swedish, BP spokesman Toby Odone told The Associated Press in an e-mail that "it is clear that what he means is that he cares about local businesses and local people. This was a slip in translation."

In creating a victims' compensation fund, BP will set aside $20 billion worth of assets from its U.S. operations and retrieve them as it makes cash payments to the fund.

Svanberg announced the company would not pay dividends to shareholders for the rest of the year, including one scheduled for June 21 totaling about $2.6 billion. The company will make initial payments into the escrow fund of $3 billion this summer and $2 billion in the fall, followed by $1.25 billion per quarter until the $20 billion figure is reached.

Aware that a healthy BP is in everyone's interest, Obama gave a plug for what he called "a strong and viable company" - a day after he had accused it of recklessness.

BP shares gyrated as the events unfolded. They rose more than 5 percent to $33 after Obama's words of support. But they slipped back as investors digested the full extent of BP's commitments, ending the day with a gain of 45 cents to close at $31.85 per share.

The company's potential liabilities, including cleanup costs, victims' compensation and civil fines, are breathtaking to consider - stretching far beyond the $20 billion fund.

For example, civil penalties can be levied under a variety of environmental protection laws, including fines of up to $1,100 for each barrel of oil spilled. That alone could translate to as much as $3 billion. If BP were found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, the civil fine could be up to $4,300 per barrel, approaching $12 billion.

So far, 66,000 claims have been filed, $81 million awarded and 26,000 checks cut, said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.

The $20 billion escrow fund can be used to pay all claims, including environmental damages and state and local response costs, with the exception of fines and penalties.

Resolving one particularly thorny dispute between BP and the government, the company also agreed to establish a separate $100 million fund to support oil rig workers idled by Obama's post-spill six-month moratorium on new deep-sea oil drilling. The administration also was to ask Congress for special unemployment insurance for the workers.

There has been little love lost between Obama and BP recently, with the president's rhetoric becoming increasingly sharp. In yet another jab at BP, the deal was made public by Obama aides even while the much-anticipated White House confrontation was under way.

The showdown opened with an apology from Svanberg and a recitation from Obama of the ills he has seen on his visits to the Gulf. The two sides broke up several times to talk privately or for Obama's aides to go consult with him, as the president stayed for the first 20 minutes but only ducked in and out after that. At one point, Obama and Svanberg spent 25 minutes alone in the Oval Office.

Afterward, the two men had respectful words for each other, with the chairman seeming to praise what he called the president's evident frustration on behalf of Gulf residents.

Source:
http://gresnews.com/ch/News-En/cl/CAS/id/104491/BP+says+its+sorry+-+and+guarantees+20B+for+Gulf

Ten Tips for More Effective Meetings

Author: Michael Smith, Ph.D.

It's been 28 years since Michael Doyle and David Straus wrote their groundbreaking book, How To Make Meetings Work (1976). Are you like many of my clients who gripe about numbing, deadening meetings? As one publication put it, "days, weeks, months, years of our lives are slipping away in stuffy, overcrowded conference rooms". Little appears to be accomplished and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.

Doyle and Straus claimed that there were 11 million meetings in the US every day in 1976. Doyle says that there are 25 million today and most of them don't work. If you calculate how much productive time plus lost wages accrue to those sitting in the room, a truly staggering figure emerges.

Fortunately there are answers for this dilemma. Let me offer you ten tips for turning around your unproductive meetings.

1. Is the meeting necessary?

Let's start with a fundamental-and radical- question: Is your meeting necessary? A meeting largely serves two important business purposes: sharing information or making a decision. Can some other method of information sharing/decision making be used? Meetings are often held because "it's time for our meeting" with very little thought spent in what will actually happen. So rethink if you even need to hold it.

2. Send an Agenda in Advance

If you do decide to hold the meeting, send an agenda at least three days in advance. The agenda should be clear about what the meeting results should be, how people should prepare and what roles they will play. Show how the meeting connects with other meetings that may have contributed to the issues that will beaddressed. Ask for feedback. The three days allow for modifications if needed.

And don't forget to connect the meeting with the larger mission and vision of the organization. This creates and reinforces the much-needed larger context for the meeting.

3. Start and End on Time

Not doing this just (starting on time) reinforces the latecomers and punishes those who arrive on time. There are few things more maddening then waiting for stragglers and then listening to the half-hearted apologies-or no apologies at all.

Ending on time indicates that you value people's work that must be done after the meeting. Unfinished items can be carried over as part of the planning for the next meeting.

4. Create Ground Rules and Follow Them

These should include:

  • Whether "checking in" time should be before or part of the meeting

  • Reinforcing starting and ending on time

  • Creating a climate of trust where people can speak freely and no one gets hurt

  • Setting boundaries around the decision making process. When do you just want information from the group and when do you want a group decision.


5. Appoint a Recorder, Timekeeper and Facilitator

This was Doyle and Straus' unique contribution to meeting effectiveness. These three roles keep the meeting moving and on track.
  • Appoint people to play these roles at each meeting. The roles can be rotated during the meeting if there is an important issue that the role players want to participate in.

  • Have the recorder chart (on a flip chart) the "meeting notes" as the meeting progresses. This "public" recording of the meeting eliminates the need for minutes and allows everyone to stay involved by having his or her contributions noted. This method also allows for making corrections on the spot. The notes should be transcribed and made available to all after the meeting.

  • The timekeeper notes time allotted for agenda items and makes sure the time is adhered to.

  • The facilitator keeps the meeting on track and makes sure the ground rules are followed, participation is wide spread, people are listened to and issues are aired and brought to a conclusion.


6. Plan the Meeting


Review the agenda and the meeting's purpose. Get agreement on the outcomes to be accomplished by the end of the meeting. Make sure you have genuine buy-in.

7. Appoint a Devil's Advocate

For each issue discussed, appoint and rotate the role of "devil's advocate". Many people will not speak out at meetings for fear of retribution, low group trust or just the fear of looking stupid. As a result "group think" becomes the norm and poor decisions result. By appointing a devil's advocate, you give official permission for raising differing views.


8. Designate Follow-Up

After an issue is agreed upon, designate:


  • Who is responsible

  • What they will do

  • By when


9. Do a Meeting Review

On a flip chart sheet, draw a line down the middle. On the top of the left column place a simple plus (+). On the other column, place a delta (∆) (for needs improvement). List group responses to the following:


  • Were the outcomes achieved?

  • What worked and what didn't?

  • How can the meeting be improved?

Use this information to plan the next meeting.

10. Monitor What Happens After the Meeting

Note the water cooler/coffee machine conversations after the meeting. That's where the real meeting analysis often comes out. Comments made away from a meeting — negative or positive — do not contribute to the meeting's productivity. If you hear such comments, figure out a way to bring that information to the next meeting. It may require a revision of the ground rules so people feel safe to discuss the real issues.

Meetings don't have to be the horrible experience that they often are. By following these tips, your meetings and your organizational results will improve.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/management-articles/ten-tips-for-more-effective-meetings-2663679.html

About the Author

Michael H. Smith, Ph.D., is an Oakland, California-based organization consultant who conducts "Rapid Strategic Planning" retreats for law firms. He can be reached at (510) 832-8500 or mhsmith@michaelhsmithphd.com.. For more information about Dr. Smith's works and articles, please visit www.michaelhsmithphd.com and his blog site www.michaelhsmithphd.typepad.com

Starting a Home Business Using the Internet

Author: jase

Starting a home business I not an easy task and to make things harder there are so many myths attached to starting a home business that it can become quite confusing. Some people get an idea in their head and just take off. Starting a business for them is easy. The majority of people, however, end up having the desire to start a home business before the actual business idea comes to them. Once they begin thinking about actually starting a home based business they are overcome with many myths that make it seem next to impossible to succeed.

One of the biggest myths about starting a home business is associated with the internet. The internet has opened many doors to home business owners, but at the same time the complexity of the internet has caused many to give up and abandon hope that they can ever get a business to be successful. Many people believe that the internet is a vast marketplace that is too he to compete in. That is simply not true. There are many small home businesses that are doing great on the internet. It is all a matter of knowing how to run a business website. A person has to understand about marketing and setting up a website. Once they've established their online presence they can make great money.

Another internet related myth about starting a home business is that there is no help available for the business owner. Anyone who has went to a search engine and typed in business will now this is not true. There are online networks of websites that are all aimed at helping people succeed in internet business. These people offer free information and plenty of support. A person can find answers to almost any question they have and even talk to others who have started their own business. The internet business environment is one of helping others.

One myth that may hold some truth is that marketing online is impossible. While it is, obviously, not impossible it can be difficult for the beginner. Starting a home business online requires plenty of research into internet marketing. The marketing tools used online are very different from those used in the traditional environment. A person has to understand how to drive traffic to their website and how to catch the attention of their target market. As mentioned above, there are plenty of resources available to help a person get their marketing plan in order.

These myths about starting a business all make it look impossible to tap into the internet marketplace. These myths are quite untrue and should be ignored. It does take hard work and dedication to start any business, but using the internet just opens up a business to a huge marketplace and offers additional opportunities that a traditional, offline business does not have. It is worth it for every business owner to look into the internet when starting a home business.

Source:
http://www.articlecircle.com/business/entrepreneurship/starting-a-home-business-using-the-internet.html

The Meaning and Definition of Integrity


The Meaning and Definition of IntegrAuthor: Pierre Du Plessis

In an effort to define the word "integrity", I came up with some explanations, after consulting some dictionaries and encyclopaedias.

Integrity is made up of several words, meanings and synonyms. It consists of a lot of what can be described as ethical and moral values or civilised values.

1. Soundness:

This refers to how healthy an opinion, argument, reasoning or a research finding is, implying how free it is from flaw, defect or decay.

Also, how free is it from error, fallacy, or misapprehension; exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience; legally valid; logically valid and having true premises; agreeing with accepted views.

It also means solid, firm, stable and thorough; showing good sense or judgment based on valid information.

2. Completeness:

It means having all necessary parts, elements, or steps; highly proficient; totally, absolutely, thoroughly and fully carried out; including all possible parts.

3. Sincerity:

It means fairness and straightforwardness of conduct; adherence to the facts.

4. Honesty:

It implies a refusal to lie, steal, or deceive in any way.

5. Honor:

It suggests an active or anxious regard for the standards of one's profession, calling, or position.

6. Probity:

It implies tried and proven honesty or truthfulness.

7. Incorruptibility:

It implies trustworthiness and truthfulness to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility or pledge.

It also finally means being incapable of corruption; not subject to decay or dissolution; incapable of being bribed or morally corrupted.

8. Conclusion:

The question to be asked is where does a nation stand with regard to these principles of integrity; where does an organisation or political party stand and finally what is my individual position? This synonymous question can also be asked: How civilised are we?

9. Resources:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

10. The Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

"Integrity is one of the most important and oft-cited of virtue terms. It is also perhaps the most puzzling. For example, while it is sometimes used virtually synonymously with 'moral,' we also at times distinguish acting morally from acting with integrity. Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally-though they would usually not know they are acting immorally. Thus one may acknowledge a person to have integrity even though that person may hold importantly mistaken moral views.

When used as a virtue term, 'integrity' refers to a quality of a person's character; however, there are other uses of the term. One may speak of the integrity of a wilderness region or an ecosystem, a computerized database, a defense system, a work of art, and so on. When it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing-meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity.

Integrity is also attributed to various parts or aspects of a person's life. We speak of attributes such as professional, intellectual and artistic integrity. However, the most philosophically important sense of the term 'integrity' relates to general character. Philosophers have been particularly concerned to understand what it is for a person to exhibit integrity throughout life. Acting with integrity on some particularly important occasion will, philosophically speaking, always be explained in terms of broader features of a person's character and life.

What is it to be a person of integrity? Ordinary discourse about integrity involves two fundamental intuitions: first, that integrity is primarily a formal relation one has to oneself, or between parts or aspects of one's self; and second, that integrity is connected in an important way to acting morally, in other words, there are some substantive or normative constraints on what it is to act with integrity. How these two intuitions can be incorporated into a consistent theory of integrity is not obvious, and most accounts of integrity tend to focus on one of these intuitions to the detriment of the other.

A number of accounts have been advanced, the most important of them being: (i) integrity as the integration of self; (ii) integrity as maintenance of identity; (iii) integrity as standing for something; (iv) integrity as moral purpose; and (v) integrity as a virtue. These accounts are reviewed below. We then examine several issues that have been of central concern to philosophers exploring the concept of integrity: the relations between types of integrity, integrity and moral theory, and integrity and social and political conditions."

For further detailed discussion of "Integrity" visit:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/

and

http://www.webweevers.com/integrity.htm

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/leadership-articles/the-meaning-and-definition-of-integrity-89135.html

About the Author

Pierre du Plessis (MBL, 1982, UNISA) is owner of Leaders Circle, with web site http://www.career-builders-club.com, catering for various niche related products and packages and author of several e-books. This article can be used for re-publishing as long as it remains unchanged.