I found this video on Learning English bbc.com about some idioms with the color RED. It's sort of silly, but I liked it!!! Also, you can find other short videos with other idioms and other colors.
Here's the link:
segunda-feira, 18 de julho de 2011
terça-feira, 7 de junho de 2011
KOLT
Listen up lovers of good music!!!!!!
Here's a video from a band called KOLT playing "Time" from Pink Floyd.
The drummer happens to be my student. He doesn't do his English homework because he's always busy with his music, hehe!
Congrats Guilherme and band, you guys are amazing musicians!!!!
links from KOLT videos:
segunda-feira, 6 de junho de 2011
The best blogs of 2011
Hey everyone!
I love blogs!!!! And here's a list of the best blogs of 2011 according to time.com
Best Blogs of 2011
- The Everywhereist
- The Big Picture
- The Truth About Cars
- OkTrends
- Videogum
- This Is My Next
- The Hairpin
- By Ken Levine
- Economix
- MLB Trade Rumors
- Get Rich Slowly
- Red Carpet Fashion Awards
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Catalog Living
- A Hamburger Today
- Kill Screen
- Smitten Kitchen
- Cool Hunting
- Weigel
- DeSmogBlog
- The Basketball Jones
- Beware of the Blog
- Everyday Carry
- Pushing Ahead of the Dame
- Listverse
quarta-feira, 4 de maio de 2011
Richard Branson on self-motivation
I think Richard Branson is amazing for many reasons, but principally for investing in Space Travel and making it possible in the near future. Here's a short article I read today on self-motivation.
Editor's Note: Entrepreneur Richard Branson regularly shares his experience and advice with readers. What follows is the latest edited insightful response.Ask him a question and your query might be the inspiration for a future column.
Q: How do you maintain your motivation to generate new ideas and execute them? -- Gunita Migliniece, Latvia
A: My motivations have changed a lot over the past 40 years. In retrospect, it's clear this has been a long-term process, and I acquired new motivations over time.
I am not sure anyone could have predicted my career arc, except perhaps my parents. I was not a promising student, probably because of undiagnosed dyslexia. But my parents did not see my trouble learning as a limitation. Rather, they helped me find my strengths by teaching me to constantly look for new challenges. Achievements in sports and early business ventures such as a Christmas tree farm taught me to be inquisitive, and rely on persistence and creativity when problems came up.
was partly driven by a desire to prove myself when I started Student magazine at 16. My friends and I wanted to give our generation a voice in the issues of the day, especially the Vietnam War.
We started the magazine because of our convictions, and we loved it. It didn't matter that we were working out of a basement in West London, with no financial backing. We just threw everything we had into the venture and secured advertisers and interviews. It was hard work, but also fun and exciting and, above all, a project we felt strongly about.
That sense of fun, enjoyment and purpose underpinned our expansion to selling records and then establishing record stores. Our next move, into the recording business, was no different. My love of music and concern for people behind that music ensured I was never short of motivation -- just sometimes short of cash!
The U.K.'s recession of the late 1970s coincided with a slowdown in our record sales and a lack of hits. We had created a close community at Virgin, and I wanted the people I worked with to enjoy their jobs. I was also deeply concerned about job security. We were running at a loss, and I had to decide whether to consolidate our stores and rein back the recording business, or follow my instincts and invest in new artists.
Hoping to expand our way out of financial problems, I bought two nightclubs and invested more money in our record business. Its managing director, Simon Draper, was a great talent, so I backed him to create the U.K.'s largest independent label.
Our resulting success in the music business saved the day. The strength of the brand meant that we looked beyond music for business opportunities, and my motivations broadened again. With our old and new businesses, we were developing a community of customers, so my goals now included Virgin's becoming one of the world's most respected brands.
The different motivations meant setting up businesses Virgin employees were passionate about, trying to shake up markets and win the trust of potential customers. We often succeeded as we targeted leading companies in sectors where we felt the customer was no longer well served. In quick succession we moved into airlines, trains, drinks, financial services, health clubs and hotels.
Over the past decade, my motivation has broadened to large-scale philanthropic endeavors. This led to the creation of Virgin Unite, which was instrumental in establishing The Elders, the Branson Centre of Entrepreneurship and the Carbon War Room -- all exciting tools in the fight against poverty, illness and catastrophic climate change.
I am constantly challenging my team with new ideas, innovations or ventures I would like set up -- in double-quick time. My original inquisitiveness and desire to seek out new challenges also can be seen in our Virgin Galactic space adventure. Following the inauguration of the Spaceport runway in New Mexico in October, my dream of space tourism is getting closer. A big project for 2011 will be getting our underwater exploration business up and running. Drawing on the late Steve Fossett's work, we are keen to chart the deep-sea trenches.
You may wonder if such adventures are appropriate for a man my age -- 60 -- which brings me to my last motivational rule: "Screw it, let's do it!"
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/219563
segunda-feira, 2 de maio de 2011
Be an optimist without being a fool
Hi everyone!
In this chaotic world we live in today, it's kind of hard to be optimist all the time, right?
I read this very interesting post from Harvard Business Review blog and thought you would be interested.
quarta-feira, 20 de abril de 2011
The importance of being wrong
I found a video on ted.com about being wrong. The name of the speaker is Kathryn Schulz and she's a journalist. She calls herself a "wrongologist".
I thought it was simple and interesting. I hate being wrong! And I guess most of us also hate to be wrong about something.
Well, take a look, this is the link from the ted.com http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
there's also this video on youtube:
quinta-feira, 31 de março de 2011
Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson on the Fukushima disaster
Hey everyone!For those of you who watched the debate I last posted (does the world need nuclear energy?), here's the link from an interview by Stewart Brand, the pro-nuclear environmentalist (that sounds a little contradictory, but, whatever!!!). It's interesting to notice that he maintains his opinion about going nuclear, in spite of all the threats we know nuclear power can bring about.
Here's the link from Foreing Policy Magazine:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/22/nuclear_winner
On the other hand, we have Mark Z. Jacobson, an environmental professor, who's against nuclear energy, as he says on the debate: "we don't need nuclear energy". I have to agree with him. Here's something he wrote about the disaster:
The nuclear option: Safety concerns are only one big reason wind and solar better
By Mark Z. Jacobson
Sunday, March 20th 2011, 4:00 AM
DigitalGlobe/APThe nuclear fears in Japan have heightened the debate over power sources around the world. Related NewsPump fails at Japanese nuclear plantJapanese engineers attach power cable at quake-damaged plantRadiation from Japanese nuclear plant reaches CaliforniaMeltdown at Fukushima Daiichi plant may now be inevitability Power lines hooked up to Japan's crippled nuclear reactorsVirginia teacher first US death in Japan following quake, tsunami
The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down - releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees - have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk.
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy.
First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth. Meltdowns can be caused not only by human error and natural disasters, but also by a terrorist with a large plane.
This scary possibility, though, is dwarfed by the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, as evidenced by the attempted or actual development of weapons capabilities in Pakistan, India, Iran and to some extent North Korea secretly under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.
If the world's energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes - and nuclear supplied such energy - 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
What about matching energy supply with demand? Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output. However others (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly. It has been shown with data that combining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup.
What about resources and space? Solar power in sunny locations can power the entire world for all purposes 30 times over; wind in windy locations on or near land can power the world 6 to 15 times over. Only 0.4% more of the entire planet’s physical land would be needed to power everyone, everywhere with WWS.
What about cost? Despite what you may have heard, on-land wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power are cost-competitive with conventional energy. Solar costs are higher but decreasing.
Policy makers who have begun leaning toward nuclear should consider the health and safety of the United States and the scientific method, instead of the trail of lobbyists, when deciding the future of this country.
Jacobson is director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.
By Mark Z. Jacobson
Sunday, March 20th 2011, 4:00 AM
DigitalGlobe/APThe nuclear fears in Japan have heightened the debate over power sources around the world. Related NewsPump fails at Japanese nuclear plantJapanese engineers attach power cable at quake-damaged plantRadiation from Japanese nuclear plant reaches CaliforniaMeltdown at Fukushima Daiichi plant may now be inevitability Power lines hooked up to Japan's crippled nuclear reactorsVirginia teacher first US death in Japan following quake, tsunami
The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down - releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees - have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk.
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy.
First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth. Meltdowns can be caused not only by human error and natural disasters, but also by a terrorist with a large plane.
This scary possibility, though, is dwarfed by the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, as evidenced by the attempted or actual development of weapons capabilities in Pakistan, India, Iran and to some extent North Korea secretly under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.
If the world's energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes - and nuclear supplied such energy - 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
What about matching energy supply with demand? Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output. However others (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly. It has been shown with data that combining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup.
What about resources and space? Solar power in sunny locations can power the entire world for all purposes 30 times over; wind in windy locations on or near land can power the world 6 to 15 times over. Only 0.4% more of the entire planet’s physical land would be needed to power everyone, everywhere with WWS.
What about cost? Despite what you may have heard, on-land wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power are cost-competitive with conventional energy. Solar costs are higher but decreasing.
Policy makers who have begun leaning toward nuclear should consider the health and safety of the United States and the scientific method, instead of the trail of lobbyists, when deciding the future of this country.
Jacobson is director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)