Technology for Humanitarian Action
By:Kevin M. Cahill
Published on 2005 by Fordham Univ Press
Humanitarian workers around the world struggle under dangerous conditions. Yet many do not have the technological tools readily available elsewhere to help them realize their mission to provide essential services and save lives.This book, the fruit of a historic conference, is a practical guide to current technologies that can help relief and humanitarian aid workers succeed. Designed to facilitate needed technology transfer to the humanitarian sector, the essays focus on areas where technology is underused and predict where new technological advances may be applied to relief efforts.The essays cover essential areas: communications technology and infrastructure support and security. They describe how such technologies as personal identification and tagging systems, software radios, wireless networks, and computer-aided language translation can promote safety and manage large groups of people. Other essays outline new technological solutions to such challenges as mine removal, water purification, and energy generation.The contributors are: Kevin M. Cahill, Frank Fernandez, C. Kumar Patel, Paul J. Kolodzy, Joseph Mitola III, Victor Zue, Jaime G. Carbonell, Stephen Squires, Joseph V. Braddock, Arthur L. Lerner-Lam, Ralph James, William L. Warren, and Regina E. Dugan.
This Book was ranked at 26 by Google Books for keyword technology.
Book ID of Technology for Humanitarian Action's Books is eQLGCX1dzCcC, Book which was written byKevin M. Cahillhave ETAG "iU7Bl0nJvm0"
Book which was published by Fordham Univ Press since 2005 have ISBNs, ISBN 13 Code is 9780823223947 and ISBN 10 Code is 0823223949
Reading Mode in Text Status is false and Reading Mode in Image Status is true
Book which have "319 Pages" is Printed at BOOK under CategoryPolitical Science
This Book was rated by Raters and have average rate at ""
This eBook Maturity (Adult Book) status is NOT_MATURE
Book was written in en
eBook Version Availability Status at PDF is true and in ePub is false
Book Preview
Do not you kind of loathe how we've joined the decadent period of Goodreads when possibly fifty per cent (or more) of the reviews published by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now actually bare and unabashed in their variously efficient efforts at being arch, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Do not you type of maple (secretly, in the marrow of one's gut's happy druthers) for the good ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all evaluations were consistently plainspoke Don't you kind of loathe how we've entered the decadent stage of Goodreads whereby perhaps fifty per cent (or more) of the opinions published by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now naked and unabashed inside their variously successful efforts at being arch, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Don't you kind of pine (secretly, in the marrow of one's gut's happy druthers) for the good ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all opinions were evenly plainspoken, merely utilitarian, unpretentious, and -- most importantly else -- boring, boring, dull? Do not you sort of hate when people claim'do not you believe in this way or feel like that'in an endeavor to goad you both psychologically and grammatically into accepting using them? In what of ABBA: I do, I actually do, I do(, I do, I do). Effectively, because the interwebs is a world where days gone by stands shoulder-to-shoulder with today's (and with fetish porn), we could review the past in their inviolable presentness any moment we wish. Or at the very least until this amazing site ultimately tanks. Consider (won't you?) Matt Nieberle's review of Macbeth in their entirety. I've destined it with much rope and pulled it here for the perusal. (Please realize that several a sic are recommended in the next reviews.) their actually complex and foolish! why cant we be reading like Romeo and Juliet?!?! at least that guide is great! There you've it. Refreshingly, not really a evaluation prepared in one of many witch's sounds or alluding to Hillary and Bill Clinton or discussing the reviewer's first period. Merely a primal scream unleashed in to the dark wilderness of the cosmos.Yes, Mr. Nieberle is (probably) a teen, but I admire his ability to strongarm the temptation to be clever or ironic. (Don't you?) He speaks the native language of the idk generation with an economy and a quality that renders his convictions much more emphatic. Here's MICHAEL's review of the exact same play. You could'know'MICHAEL; he is the'Problems Architect'here at Goodreads. (A problematic title itself in so it implies he designs problems... that will be the case, for several I know.) This book shouldn't be required reading... reading plays that that you don't want to see is awful. Reading a play kinda sucks to begin with, if it absolutely was meant to be read, then it would be a novel, not a play. Along with that the teach had us students browse the play aloud (on person for every character for a couple pages). None folks had browse the play before. None of us wanted to learn it (I made the mistake of taking the'easy'english class for 6 years). The teacher picked students that appeared as if they weren't paying attention. This compounded to make me virtually hate reading classics for something such as 10 years (granted macbeth alone wasn't the problem). I also hate iambic pentameter. Pure activism there. STOP the mandatory reading of plays. It's wrong, morally and academically. Plus it really can fuck up your GPA. There's no wasteful extravagance in this editorial... no fanfare, no fireworks, no linked photos of half-naked, oiled-up, big-bosomed starlets, no invented dialogues between mcdougal and the review-writer. It's simple and memorable. Being required to see plays is wrong, and in the event that you require anyone, under duress, to read a play then you have sinned and will hell, in the event that you rely on hell. Or even, you're going to the DMV. I am also tired of whatever you smug spelling snobs. You damnable fascists along with your new-fangled dictionaries and your fancy-schmancy spell check. Sometimes the passionate immediacy of an email overcomes its spelling limitations. Also, in this age once we are taught to respect each other's differences, it appears offensively egocentric and mean-spirited to expect others tokowtow to your small linguistic rules. Inventive appearance will free of charge on its own no matter how you are trying for you to shackle it. That is definitely your own signal, Aubrey. With this viewpoint, the particular have fun with Macbeth had been the worste peice actually compiled by Shakespeare, and also this is saying a reasonable amount considering i additionally understand the Romeo and Juliet. Ontop involving it is really witout a doubt amazing plot of land, impracticable character types as well as absolutly discusting group of ethics, Shakespeare overtly shows Girl Macbeth for the reason that true vilian within the play. Looking at she actually is mearly the actual tone of voice around the trunk round as well as Macbeth himself is actually truely spending the hideous violations, such as homicide in addition to fraud, I don't realize why it's extremely easy to visualize this Macbeth would likely be ready to complete very good rather than unpleasant only if the wife were extra possitive. I believe that it engage in is uterally unrealistic. Yet the examples below is the actual ne plus extremely connected with traditional e book reviewing. Even though succinct in addition to without distracting inclination for you to coyness and also cuteness, Jo's evaluate alludes to the anger hence profound it is inexpressible. A person imagines a number of Signet Vintage Models broken in to for you to sections by using pruning shears within Jo's vicinity. I detest this particular play. Because of this that I can't sometimes supply you with every analogies as well as similes regarding how much I despise it. A strong incrementally snarkier form might have stated one thing like...'I don't really like this kind of participate in similar to a simile I can not show up with.' Not really Jo. The woman addresses a new live, undecorated simple fact unsuitable intended for figurative language. Along with there's certainly no problem by using that. Once inside an awesome though, once you get neck-deep with dandified pomo hijinks, it is really a good wallow inside hog pencil you happen to be itchin'for. Thank you, Jo. I enjoy anyone with a useless learning on similes that can not approach a bilious hatred inside your heart. You will be mine, and also I will be yours. Figuratively talking, involving course. And from now on here's the critique: Macbeth through William Shakespeare is the greatest fictional deliver the results inside the English language, as well as anyone that disagrees can be an asshole along with a dumbhead.
Comments
Post a Comment