April Fools' Day

April Fools' Day



April Fools' Day or All Fools' Day, although not a holiday in its own right, is a notable day celebrated in many countries on April 1. The day is marked by the commission of hoaxes and other practical jokes of varying sophistication on friends, family members, enemies, and neighbors, or sending them on fool's errand, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. Traditionally, in some countries, the jokes only last until noon: like UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, someone who plays a trick after noon is called an "April Fool" Elsewhere, such as in Ireland, France, and the USA, the jokes last all day. Another origin is that April 1 was counted the first day of the year in France. When King Charles IX changed that to January 1, some people stayed with April 1. Those who did were called "April Fools" and were taunted by their neighbors.

Origins

The origin of April Fools' Day is obscure. One likely theory is that the modern holiday was first celebrated soon after the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar; the term referred to someone still adhering to the Julian Calendar which it replaced.[2] In many pre-Christian cultures May Day (May 1) was celebrated as the first day of summer, and signalled the start of the spring planting season. An April Fool was someone who did this prematurely. In the eighteenth century the festival was often posited as going back to the times of Noah. An English newspaper article published on April 13th, 1789 said that the day had its origins when he sent the raven off too early, before the waters had receded. He did this on the first day of the Hebrew month that corresponds with April. A possible reference to April Fools' Day can be seen in the Canterbury Tales (ca 1400) in the Nun's Priest's tale, a tale of two fools: Chanticleer and the fox, which took place on March 32nd.

Time is money - and so is e-mail

Time is money - and so is e-mail

How do we begin to understand the cost of e-mail use at work? The first step is to establish some realistic assumptions on volume and time. For instance, my research has shown that 65 per cent of e-mails require a response. Therefore, if you receive 40 e-mails a day, then 26 require a return message and you are therefore dealing with 66 pieces of e-mail.

The remaining 35 per cent of daily e-mails are a combination of workplace spam, spurious messages largely originating from within the organization that should not have been sent in the first place and those all department-all employee messages, many of which could be rerouted to the corporate Intranet. Already through creating assumptions, we witness a first area to focus our cost-savings efforts -- stopping unwanted e-mail before it starts.

Now that we have established a method to capture volumes, let's look at time spent. The actual time we spend on e-mail can be divided into three phases:
Prioritization

In the prioritization phase, we spend time deciding which e-mails we should open. We now get too many e-mails in our inboxes to afford the luxury of dealing with them on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Since we aren't generally sitting in front of our computers waiting for the next message to arrive, we tend to visit our inboxes sporadically, both in between meetings and at the start and end of the workday. What makes this phase such an illusive time-drain is our wariness of being caught by the non-relevant e-mail. Our attempts to sift through the messages in order to bypass or save certain ones for later review takes more time now than we are willing to credit.

Some people open e-mails then decide to close them (some even take the extra time to mark them as unread), just to save them for later. It's actually much more efficient once the message is open, to just handle it rather than making the extra effort to defer the inevitable.

Comprehension
During the comprehension phase, we commit ourselves to focus attention on the message. This is where a well-crafted and relevant e-mail makes so much difference to both our time and our mood. E-mails that aren't explicit as to the nature of the request take more time to discern -- likewise, for those e-mails where the subject line is either too vague or doesn't match the underlying message.
These innocent sender antics cause receivers to lose their rhythm and now their attention needs to be refocused. Again, we underestimate the time it takes to plow through a message that we thought originally was about something else. This too is where our mood shifts -- depending on the circumstances, we get in touch with feeling betrayed by these sender habits. Multiply this situation by 10 such messages a day, and it's no surprise that for many of us e-mail becomes not only a chore, but also a bore.

Disposition
The disposition phase for an e-mail can also be quite an elusive time thief. The key decisions that we make here are whether to respond and what to do with the message afterwards.

Instinctively, we know which messages require response, but there are e-mails where we ponder our next move -- should I acknowledge receipt, say thanks or conclude the message loop?

We also spend more time than we should deciding whether to delete the e-mail after a response or to save it to a folder. Those of us who actively use electronic folders are ahead in the e-mail time management race because we reserve our inboxes for current items.

Unfortunately, there are many people who use their inbox only, keeping old messages stacked below the new incoming ones. While this may seem more efficient than taking the time to file, ask yourself what it costs us in time spent feeling guilty that we have 1,468 messages (and counting) in our inbox?

It seems that e-mail use has become a legitimate independent cost centre. The problem is that it doesn't appear on anyone's income statement, so it is not recognized as a corporate expense. Most companies do not gather together their e-mailing statistics even though the raw data are tabulated by the system every day. Organizations that have requested this type of information realize that they can learn which e-mail accounts are most active, which routinely send large volumes of e-mail, and the proportion of e-mail that is sent internally versus externally. This is not to be confused with electronic surveillance software that is specially designed to monitor Internet use and specific e-mail content. E-mail usage statistics have always been a part of the basic system; these were just never considered important enough to become management information.
The irony of e-mail is that it is a productivity tool that, through misuse, has become unproductive in our workplaces. Again, our instincts tell us this is true but it seems that if we don't come up with the hard numbers, there is no sense of urgency to try to resolve the problem. This may explain why the British company made headlines -- they did the math and did not like what they found.

So how do you do the math for yourself? Taking the earlier example, calculate the total time using 66 e-mails (40 incoming plus 26 outgoing) and average time spent on each (including prioritization, comprehension, disposition) as four minutes apiece. (This assumes that you may spend 30 seconds reading and deleting some messages, and 10 minutes composing others.)

Multiplying the two, you get 4.4 hours a day. If you are really quick and decide that three minutes is your average, then it takes you only 3.3 hours to whip through your daily allotment of e-mails -- hooray! The reality for many of us is that most e-mails take much longer than we would like to think and that may be an underlying reason not to calculate the bad news.

We can see how high volumes and poor message content interfere significantly with our daily routines. The real time spent on e-mail, because it is hours not minutes, truly comes at the expense of our other tasks and encroaches on our personal lives. This in turn serves to inhibit productivity, happiness with work/lifestyle balance, that both affect bottom-line contributions. Perhaps our British cousins have the right idea after all.

Common Effluent Treatment Plants

Common Effluent Treatment Plants


INTRODUCTION
Urbanisation and need for better living has incessantly generated requirement of consumer goods and infrastructural inputs. With market potential and easy finance available, the mushrooming rise in the number of small scale industries can be seen in any Indian city. Besides being a resource for market economy and production of large number of consumer items, it is generally observed that, either due to their economies of scale coupled with their unplanned growth and dearth of affordable and cost- effective treatment technology, efforts by small scale units in achieving the environmental compliance have not been effective. Their large number and diverse trade has further aggravated the problem. Under these constraints, setting-up of individual full-fledged treatment device is no longer feasible. Hence the desirable option is of the shared or combined treatment, wherein, managerial and operational aspects are collectively addressed and the cost of treatment , becomes affordable as enunciated in the scheme of the common effluent treatment plants, which are proving to be a boon especially for small entrepreneurs, given the methodical planning, regular operation and equitable contribution of member units. Such common facilities also facilitate proper management of effluent and compliance of the effluent quality standards.

CONCEPT OF COMMON TREATMENT
• The concept of effluent treatment, by means, of a collective effort, has assumed reasonable gravity by being especially purposeful for cluster of small scale industrial units. Common effluent treatment plant (CETP) not only help the industries in easier control of pollution, but also act as a step towards cleaner environment and service to the society at large. Small scale industries, by their very nature of job cannot benefit much from economies of scale and therefore the burden of installing pollution- control equipment, falls heavy on them. Realising this practical problem, under the policy statement for abatement of pollution the Govt. felt to extend the scheme for promoting combined facilities for treatment of effluent and management of solid waste for clusters of small scale industria l units and also to provide technical support to them. Accordingly, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, had instructed various State Pollution Control Boards, to examine the possibilities of establishing CETPs in various Industrial estates in the respective states.
The concerted approach of joint or common effluent treatment provisions has many advantages. Wastewater of individual industries often contain significant concentration of pollutants; and to reduce them by individual treatment upto the desired concentration, become techno-economically difficult The combined treatment provides a better and economical option because of the equalization and neutralization taking place in the CETP.
Other important issues for the merit of common treatment include, scarcity of land at the industry's level and a comparatively easier availability of professional and trained staff for the operation of CETP, which can otherwise be difficult, at the individual industry level. For the regulatory authorities also, common treatment facility offers a comparatively easier means of ensuring compliance of stipulated norms. The handling and disposal of solid- waste also becomes increasingly easier as the infrastructure is created in the project itself. The concept of common treatment, based on feasibility, should be part of the new industrial estates as essential component of infrastructure, In fact, the location of industries should always be such that units with compatible nature of activity are located in a cluster which in-turn can facilitate in providing common treatment .

Measures for optimum efficiency
Operation of CETP being a participatory mechanism, the primary requirement is hence to define the ultimate responsibility for the proper functioning of the plant after it is commissioned. The important issues which merit consideration are :
Aspect of Ownership
Various ownership alternatives include- the plant owned by government, consortium of industries or by an independent body. Whatever be the case, the primary emphasis should be on responsiveness in terms of effective and optimal operation of the plant and accountability. The member industries should also be made to realise that they are equally responsible for the sustenance of the plant.
Conveyance System

Different from the discharge characteristics of an integrated ( big) industrial unit, small scale units usually generate higher proportion of floating or suspended particles in their effluent streams. At times their job operation result in high corrosive effluent. In either of these cases , to effectively convey their effluent to the CETP , it becomes necessary for individual units to set-up a ‘pre - treatment’ device. It is also necessary that the conveyance network be so designed as to ensure their periodic de-sludging. Care should also be taken to minimise on cost of operation by facilitating conveyance through gravity flow, instead of multistage pumping. In fact the location of CETP should be selected after a careful topographical survey of the drainage area to keep the conveyance route as short as possible. The chances of flooding in monsoon and accidental surface run-off into the conveyance route should also be looked into. Conveyance by tankers is another option, provided the chances of leakage are effectively checked and their transit is strictly monitored in accordance to a properly laid down system.
Cost of Treatment

The cost effective treatment supported with a system of regular collection / payment of treatment charges by each member unit, while maintaining its effluent quality within acceptable norms are some of the prerequisites. The system of payment should be legally supported to provide a check for non-payment of dues and to take steps against defaulters.

Criteria for Cost
The cost sharing should be decided in such a way that volume of effluent becomes an important norm, but its share in the total cost should not be such as to encourage by-passing of dilute streams and conveying highly toxic / non-biodegradable waste to CETP. The treatability factor should also be given due consideration in cost estimation. An effort by the industry to segregate toxic, highly acidic / highly basic, or toxic metal bearing waste be made to explore the possibility to de-toxify / neutralize or to attempt the recovery of metals by installing recovery plants, which are feasible and economically viable on account of their pay-back potentials.

Plant Design
The approach to provide treatment at low cost, an important factor in common treatment, depends on appropriate design of CETP. In keeping with the diverse nature and scale of operations, typical of small scale units, low capital investment and lower operation and maintenance cost incurred on treatment is a prime factor. In such a situation mechanical and chemical processes are advantageous over bio-logical systems. And the least preferred are conventional anaerobic processes on account of huge space requirements and least flexibility. Though,, the advanced UASB technique with less hydraulic retention and space requirement being significantly low, anaerobic system is also a possible option. In order to obviate the need of excessive civil work at CETP in making huge equalization and settling units, the member units should also provide settling and neutralization of their individual waste.

In order to minimize on the electrical cost, the possibility of substituting bio-energy should be explored to the extent possible. Proper management of sludge with its nutritive value would mobilize resources to substitute the operational cost.
While designing the plant it would be of additional advantage to keep manpower requirement as low as possible but high in technical skills to reduce down-time for maintenance.




Advantages of Common Treatment

o Saving in Capital and operating cost of treatment plant. Combined treatment is always cheaper than small scattered treatment units.
o Availability of land which is difficult to be ensured by all individual units in the event they go for individual treatment plants. This is particularly important in case of existing old industries which simply do not have any space.
o Contribution of nutrient and diluting potential, making the complex industrial waste more amenable to degradation.
o The neutralization and equalisation of heterogeneous waste makes its treatment techno-economically viable.
o Professional and trained staff can be made available for operation of CETP which is not possible in case of individual plants.
o Disposal of treated wastewater & sludge becomes more organised.
o Reduced burden of various regulatory authorities in ensuring pollution control requirement.

Nyepi

Nyepi


Nyepi is a Balinese "Day of Silence" that falls on Bali's Lunar New Year (March 26, 2009). It is a day of silence, fasting, and meditation. Day followed by Nyeipi is also celebrated as New year Gudi Padva in Maharashtra and Ugadi in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in India
Observed from 6 a.m. until 6 a.m. the next morning, Nyepi is a day reserved for self-reflection and as such, anything that might interfere with that purpose is restricted. The main restrictions are: no lighting fires (and lights must be kept low); no working; no entertainment or pleasure; no traveling; and for some, no talking or eating at all. The effect of these prohibitions is that Bali’s usually bustling streets and roads are empty, there is little or no noise from TVs and radios, and few signs of activity are seen even inside homes. The only people to be seen outdoors are the Pecalang, traditional security men who patrol the streets to ensure the prohibitions are being followed.
Although Nyepi is primarily a Hindu holiday, non-Hindu residents of Bali observe the day of silence as well, out of respect for their fellow citizens. Even tourists are not exempt; although free to do as they wish inside their hotels, no one is allowed onto the beaches or streets, and the only airport in Bali remains closed for the entire day. The only exceptions granted are for emergency vehicles carrying those with life-threatening conditions and women about to give birth.
On the day after Nyepi, known as Ngembak Geni, social activity picks up again quickly, as families and friends gather to ask forgiveness from one another, and to perform certain religious rituals together.
• First, The Melasti Ritual is performed at the 3-4 previous day. It is dedicated to Sanghyang Widhi/Vishnu-Devas-Bataras and is performed at the beach to respect them as the owner of The Land and Sea.
• Second, The Bhuta Yajna Ritual is performed in order to vanquish the negative elements and create balance with God, Mankind, and Nature.
• Third, The Nyepi Rituals is performed with the following conditions:
o Amati Geni: No fire/light
o Amati Karya: No working
o Amati Lelunganan: No traveling
o Amati Lelanguan: Fasting
• Fourth, The Yoga/Brata Ritual starts at 6:00 AM March 19 and continues to 6:00 AM March 20 (24 hours, dates provided are for 2007).
• Fifth, The Ngebak Agni/Labuh Brata Ritual is performed for all Hindu's to forgive each other and to welcome the new days to come.
• Sixth and finally, The Dharma Shanti Rituals is performed as the Nyepi Day or "Day of Silence."

Majority of Parpol indonesia Assessed Is not Informative.

Majority of Parpol Indonesia Assessed Is not Informative.

Awareness of party of polilitk participant of general election 2009 giving complete information in around party organization and caleg in the reality still is very low. Even refer equipment of formal situs 44 party participant of general election, nothing;there is no one even also party which stage very informative, including big partys.

That way result of research of Indonesian Sosiety For Civilized Election ISCEL which is Sunday dirilis ( 08 / 02) yesterday in Jakarta

In its finding of Chief Body of[is Official Member Of ISCEL Ari Julianto lay open, ketidaktrasparan of this political party of indication of its minim of datas which unfold in formal situs, goodness concerning background all and also caleg of no massage, logo and or party mission vision

Besides is incomplete, 6 parpol even do not have formal situs while 3 accessed difficult parpol, among others PDI-P and Functional group. This Condition according to Ari complicate elector society to select candidate of caleg with quality and recognize parpol more circumstantial. Three informative assessed parpol is Party Care People National, Democrat and Party Love Democratize Indonesia, whereas Functional group and of PDI-P enter category is not informative.

Research that goes on since 6 - 7 of Februari 2009 this conducted with analysing formal situs-situs contens of parpol participant of pemiu 2009. Formal Situs parpol selected by because this media is assessed cheap enough, is easy to accessed and have energy reach wide of. Consumer of internet in Indonesia till year 2008 estimated is big enough, that is around 25 million people.