Super Kikay and Her Flying Pagong Essay Example for Free

Super Kikay and Her Flying Pagong Essay The turtle is a mystical and enabled Kikay to spare mankind and the ocean animals. It is her obligation to shield the sea profound from the mammoth little Octopus and its lord supporter from getting the enchanted pearl that offers life to the sea profound. As a preparation, Super Kikay fly around their town and attempt to take care of the issues and challenges of others. A portion of the issues she explain was to help a stuck jeepney get off the mud. She likewise protected a young lady that nearly tumble from the ships haggle the illicit fishers from obliterating the sea by utilizing dynamites to get fish. After her preparation, Dong pagong educated her to get the mysterious pearl and carry it to their territory to keep the mammoth octopus from discovering it in the sea. Kikay changes into Super K and plunge into the sea to get the mystical pearl. She handily found the enchanted pearl yet she was additionally observed by the goliath octopus and followed her into the land. At the point when Super K saw that the monster octopus followed her, she promptly burrowed a gap to conceal the enchanted pearl however she neglected to cover it. Super K and the mammoth octopus battle one another. Super K nearly crushed the monster octopus however she was handily beaten in light of the fact that the mammoth octopus terminated a dark ink all over and briefly blinded her giving the octopus time to get away from w/the supernatural pearl. Super Ks sibling was additionally grabbed by the mammoth octopus while she was briefly blinded. The following morning, Dong pagong revealed to Kikay that she should get the supernatural pearl from the monster octopus to keep the fishes from kicking the bucket. Kikay changed into Super K again to locate the mammoth octopus and get the enchanted pearl and furthermore to safeguard her more youthful sibling. Horje (the researcher who made the goliath octopus) disposed of the monster octopus since he feels that the mammoth octopus might be a blockade on his arrangements (he intends to offer the mystical pearl to outsiders for 100,000 million pesos) Super K heard the firearm fired that was shot from Horjes weapon. She imagined that shot her more youthful sibling however later on discovered that Horje murdered the goliath octopus and not her more youthful sibling. In the wake of letting her more youthful sibling got away, she pursued Horje until she cornered him. They battled wildly until she have beaten Horje and get the mystical pearl. Super K backpedal on their town and restored the enchanted pearl into the sea. After the restoring the otherworldly pearl, the sea turned out to be spotless again and all the fishes were cheerful and expressing gratitude toward Super K for sparing them. Dong pagong didn't reclaim the force that she has given to Kikay in light of the fact that he realizes that Kikay will utilize her forces to support people.

Federal government of the United States Essay

 © 2010 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights saved. The Carnegie Endowment doesn't take institutional situations on open arrangement issues; the perspectives spoke to here are the author’s claim and don't really mirror the perspectives on the Endowment, its staff, or its trustees. No piece of this distribution might be recreated or transmitted in any structure or using any and all means without authorization recorded as a hard copy from the Carnegie Endowment. If it's not too much trouble direct requests to: About the Author Nathaniel Ahrens is a meeting researcher in the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, where his examination centers around atmosphere, vitality, and economical advancement issues in China. He is the leader of Golden Road Ventures Ltd., a business advancement and vital warning firm that gives ability and backing to basic activities in China, including supportable turn of events, government acquisition, horticulture, and media. Already, Ahrens was senior item administrator and chief of universal deals for Intrinsic Technology, a Shanghai-based media communications programming supplier. He additionally established Shanghai Pack Ltd., an extravagance brand bundling organization situated in Shanghai and Paris. Ahrens is an individual from the National Committee on U.S.â€China Relations, the Asia Society, and fills in as a privileged envoy for the State of Maine. Indigenous innovation1 has become the best prompt wellspring of monetary erosion between the United States and China. This pattern isn't special to these two nations; arrangement producers all around are effectively attempting to animate household advancement. The prospering markets for biotech and environmentrelated items and administrations and, possibly much increasingly significant, countries’ endeavors to rise up out of the worldwide monetary stoppage all fortify this pattern. Aware of this worldwide scene, China has made indigenous development one of the center components of its endeavor to make an auxiliary move up the modern worth chain. As of late, be that as it may, indigenous advancement has been tarred with a protectionist brush. In both China and the United States, there have been expanding calls for purchase nearby specifications and the erection of levies and non-tax obstructions to exchange. In China, these measures fundamentally take the state of government â€Å"local content† orders and through the special treatment given to items authoritatively named â€Å"national indigenous advancement products† (NIIP) in the administration acquirement process. In the United States, they have appeared as purchase nearby arrangements and endeavors to close out outside organizations. The contention has been heightening hazardously. In the approach the ongoing Strategic and Economic Dialog, the U.S. business network positioned indigenous advancement in China as its main approach worry, above even the cash issue. As of this composition, the key purposes of conflict stay uncertain. However regardless of the uproarious cries of dissent against it, the worldwide pattern toward â€Å"homegrown† advancement is a sound, positive turn of events. Without development, nations can't ceaselessly raise wages and living standards.2 Government obtainment should assume a significant job in animating advancement, yet keeping up open markets and universal linkages is basic. Be that as it may, rather than following its present methodology of transient item replacement and picking champs by shielding them from rivalry, China should concentrate on demonstrated, showcase well disposed methods of animating development. Government procurement’s essential jobs ought to be advertise flagging, de-gambling R&D, crossing over the money hole, and invigorating interest. The United States would likewise profit by pulling together its administration acquirement strategies along the lines demonstrated in the key discoveries of this paper, particularly focusing on encouraging increasingly open markets and lifting the significance of economical acquisition. The accompanying arrangement of explicit suggestions for China will invigorate development through open markets and the successful utilization of government acquisition

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics I do understand that human beings are not intuitively good at statistics. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 for showing, among other things, that people in general are terrible at statistical thinking. From Kahnemans Nobel biography: The standard example of a framing problem, which was developed quite early, is the lives saved, lives lost question, which offers a choice between two public-health programs proposed to deal with an epidemic that is threatening 600 lives: one program will save 200 lives, the other has a 1/3 chance of saving all 600 lives and a 2/3 chance of saving none. In this version, people prefer the program that will save 200 lives for sure. In the second version, one program will result in 400 deaths, the other has a 2/3 chance of 600 deaths and a 1/3 chance of no deaths. In this formulation most people prefer the gamble. If the same respondents are given the two problems on separate occasions, many give incompatible responses. When confronted with their inconsistency, people are quite embarrassed. They are also quite helpless to resolve the inconsistency. Still, just because other people are bad at statistics doesnt mean Ill accept that as an excuse from you as a prospective MIT applicant. Most MIT majors require or suggest a course in probability and/or statistics, so you might as well get a head start in statistical thinking now. First, a few facts on which to chew: 1. The overall admission rate for the class of 2009 was 14.3%. (From here.) 2. Applicants who interviewed (or had their interview waived) had a 19% admission rate; those who didnt interview had a 7% admission rate. (I dont have a citation for this, which is sketchy, so feel free not to believe me. But although I cant remember where I found the numbers, this is close enough to the truth for the purposes of this entry.) 3. Applicants with SAT scores in the 88th percentile (roughly a 1290 old SAT) have about a 5% admission rate, while those with perfect scores have about a 50% admission rate. (From here a very fun read, if youre into this kind of thing. I highly suggest it!) So does this mean that you can pour all of your personal data into some magic admissions algorithm and have it spit out a number which reflects your chances of getting into MIT? First of all, no. Moreover, it wouldnt matter if it could. For example, if the computer said that you had a 33% chance, that would mean that if you applied to MIT many times, you would expect to get in in approximately 1 in 3 tries. (And were not talking if you applied 3 times here. I think applying 500 times would probably give a good result, but I dont feel like playing around with Matlab to see if thats true.) Of course, you cant apply 500 times to MIT in a single year, or even in your lifetime, so its pointless to try and stick a number on your chances at MIT. I guess the moral of the story here is that no one is a shoo-in for MIT, but the opposite is also true nobody should think they have no hope. But its pointless to over-think this issue, because you just cant control for all the variables. For what its worth, my Super Getting into MIT Guide goes something like this: 1. Do something that you really care about, and make sure you write about it glowingly on your application. 2. Interview, and dont be lame and fake at said interview. 3. Get good scores on the SAT I and SAT IIs. 4. Take difficult classes at your high school (or even local community college) and get good grades in them. And, of course, you can get into MIT if you only have three of these four characteristics you can get in if you only have two you can get in if you only have one. But even if you have four, youre not a sure thing. My final statistics lesson has to do with something you may have heard that MIT supposedly has a stratospherically high suicide rate. This is a contention supported by the Boston Globe, a group of stellar journalists, Im sure, but not so good at the statistics thing. (I cant find the original Globe article, but the article here makes all the points the original article made.) The Globe basically looked at the MIT suicide rate between 1990 and 1999, compared it to suicide rates at other schools, and decided it was too high. (Lets just say theres a reason the Globe article wasnt published in a scientific journal. Sweeping conclusions backed up by questionable data like that make scientists including me want to bang their heads on hard surfaces.) Now lets look at some problems with the Globes grandiose conclusions: 1. People who successfully commit suicide are significantly more likely to be young and male. In the 1990s, the average MIT student was both those things; since then, the population has famously evened out. (Source here; relevant quote: In fact, MITs suicide rate is below the national average if one adjusts figures for the schools overwhelmingly male student body [during the years of the study].) 2. Moreover, science, engineering, and business students have significantly higher suicide rates than do liberal arts students. MIT undergraduates are almost exclusively science, engineering, and/or business majors. Given that both those things are true, one would expect MIT to have a high suicide rate based on those demographics alone. (Source here; relevant quote: Based on 10 undergraduate suicides over 11 years, the article concludes that suicide is a greater danger at MIT than elsewhere. When one factors in that science and business students have considerably higher suicide rates than liberal arts students, and that male college students kill themselves five times more often than female college students, the figures quoted prove nothing. MIT is cited as currently being composed of 59 percent male students; that fact alone would make the suicide rate differences with most other colleges understandable; but in the early 1990s an even higher percentage of the students at MIT were ma le.) 3. The Globe compared MIT to other schools with engineering programs, which is a terrible control. Other schools have engineering programs, yes, but few other schools have 50% of the undergraduate student body majoring in engineering. If you dont have appropriate controls (and its difficult to think of a school which would be a good control Caltech is science/engineering focused too, but only having one school as the control population would be pretty sketchy.) 4. Statistics like this are terribly vulnerable to small swings in absolute numbers. The absolute number of suicides is very small, and therefore it takes many of them spread over many years to accurately determine whether or not the rate in one place is higher or lower than the rate in another. (Source here; quote: Because of small number statistics, the true suicide rate i.e., that that would be measured by an very large MIT in the limit of an infinite number of students is, to 95% confidence, approximately 100,000*(11 +/- 2*sqrt(11)/48,000). At this level, MITs suicide rate is consistent with the national average it would take approximately another thirty three years in order to obtain a measurement of the MIT suicide rate that could be distinguished from the national average at 95% confidence.) So now you know. Go out, and tell my story to the masses. ;)