Developing a protocol to perform a simple task is easy; anybody can write a simple protocol in just a few minutes by giving it some thought. However, making a protocol that is usable on a wide variety on computing platforms (as is the case with TCP/IP) is significantly harder, and takes a lot more work. You have to develop the protocol within very simple host constraints (taking into consideration old platforms, odd-ball platforms, etc.), and the protocol also has to be generic enough so as not to present implementation challenges for a large number of users. If a protocol is hard to implement or use, then it will not be widely adopted. And after all that, the protocol still has to be functional enough to satisfy the design goals. This can be extremely difficult to do when you’re having to deal with systems that will only exchange seven-bit ASCII characters, for example.
This is the task of the developers of the protocols and services used on the Internet. They must develop protocols that are both functional and usable on a wide variety of systems. Also, they have to do this so well that vendors and users alike will actually want to use these protocols for their networking services. Remember that the Internet standards are not mandated by anybody, and that acceptance is only realized when people want to use them.
The term stakeholder is a powerful one due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. Because the term means many different things to many different people, it evokes praise or scorn from scholars and practitioners of myriad academic disciplines and backgrounds. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory’s greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities as a topic of reasoned discourse. Much of the power of stakeholder theory is a direct result of the fact that, when used unreflectively, its managerial prescriptions and implications are nearly limitless. When discussed in its “instrumental” variation (i.e., that managers should attend to stakeholders as a means to achieving other organizational goals such as profit or shareholder wealth maximization), stakeholder theory stands virtually unopposed.3
This interpretive breadth has also provided a rich source of fodder for those critics of the theory who remain. The same wide-pattern sieve that has allowed business ethicists and social issues in management scholars to find whatever they were originally seeking from the theory has also admitted of criticisms that either do not or need not apply to stakeholder theory. This has created a situation in which it has been occasionally difficult to figure out who among those writing about the stakeholders are critics and who are advocates. Prominent theorists have criticized stakeholder theory only to later—in the same work—return to advocate some instrumental version of it.414
Iam a health visitor and work in the UK where health visitors are registered nurses with post-registration training. We are based in the community and traditionally work with all newly born infants and their families in whatever context we encounter them: at home, occasionally in a hospital, and through an open service at community clinics.
We operate on four core principles:
1. The search for health needs.
2. Stimulation of awareness of health needs.
3. Influence on policies affecting health.
4. Facilitation of health enhancing activities (CETHV 1977).
We prioritize our work in order to maximize preventative care and promote health and general well being for the whole family. However the models of prevention and the framework for health visiting continue to follow a medical or treatment model. This is not always appropriate when considering the emotional health of the family, particularly of infants.
The health visiting service in England is continually undergoing organizational change. Resources for the health visiting service have been reduced in many areas, necessitating the formation of multi-skilled teams including general nurses, nursery nurses, and health care assistants. Working within a climate of change has been a challenge for the profession. This is magnified when working with vulnerable children. We need to ensure that we create robust teams that do not replicate the vulnerability of our clients. Consequently, the support for the teams within the organization becomes equally important.
Zalety oraz moliwoci kaskadowych arkuszy stylw (CSS)
W jaki sposb znaczniki (X)HTML tworz struktur dokumentu
Pisanie regu stylw CSS
Doczanie stylw do dokumentw (X)HTML
Najwaniejsze koncepcje z CSS: dziedziczenie, kaskada, specyficzno, kolejno regu oraz model pojemnika
O arkuszach stylw wspomnielimy ju kilka razy, a teraz w kocu si nimi zajmiemy, by nada tworzonym stronom tak potrzebny styl. Kaskadowe arkusze stylw (Cascading Style Sheets, CSS) to standard W3C dotyczcy definiowania prezentacji dokumentw napisanych w jzykach HTML, XHTML, a nawet XML. Prezentacja odnosi si do sposobu wywietlania dokumentu lub dostarczania go do uytkownika obojtnie czy na ekranie monitora komputera, wywietlaczu telefonu komrkowego, czy te za pomoc odczytania na gos przez odpowiedni program. Kiedy CSS zajmuje si prezentacj, (X)HTML moe powrci do swojej pierwotnej roli definiowania struktury dokumentu oraz znaczenia.
CSS jest osobnym jzykiem z wasn skadni. Niniejszy rozdzia omawia terminologi CSS wraz z najwaniejszymi koncepcjami, ktre pomog nam zrozumie kolejne rozdziay, gdzie nauczymy si, w jaki sposb zmienia si style tekstu oraz czcionek, dodaje kolory i ta, a nawet tworzy podstawowy ukad graficzny strony w oparciu o CSS. Czy kady po lekturze CzIII ksiki bdzie ekspertem od arkuszy stylw? Najprawdopodobniej nie. Na pewno jednak kady bdzie mia solidne podstawy oraz sporo praktyki.
f we at long last are going to talk about homeopathy, then we are going to have to stop talking about substance and start talking about energy. Stop thinking about leaves and start thinking about sparks.
And to understand the concept of homeopathy as energy medicinefar closer to acupuncture in its action than to herbal medicinewe have to first understand that Samuel Hahnemann was a vitalist.
The Vitalist Viewpoint
By vitalist I mean that Hahnemann believed the fact that the earth and all that is natural to it is alive. And not in a benign spring is coming again, here come the first flowers pushing their heads through the melting snow kind of way. No, natureor, more correctly, Nature, because the vitalist cannot help but find some sort of persona or intellect presentis a wilder, more untamable thing. For the vitalist, the ecosystem within which we exist is a throbbing thing. Ever changing and ever growing. For the vitalist, Nature responds to human perception and human will by evolving, by mutating. Therefore, we live within a realm of catalyst and response, creation and destruction, of will butting up against will. It is a wild thing, an unknowable thingor, at best, only partly knowablethe nature of Nature.