Meta Tag

domingo, 18 de outubro de 2009

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

Rio 2016

quinta-feira, 15 de outubro de 2009

Rio's Sporting Carnival - Source The Economist

Latin America
The Olympic games
Rio's sporting carnival
Oct 2nd 2009

Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympic
 games, the event’s first visit to South America


THE founder of the modern Olympic games,
Baron Pierre de Coubertin, insisted that taking part
in the event was equally as important
 as winning. The gloomy delegations
 from Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid wil
l find little consolation in the baron’s
 philosophy as they trudge from
 Copenhagen on Friday October 2nd.
The members of the International
Olympic Committee decided that the
 host city for the 2016 summer games
 will be Rio de Janeiro.
The delight on the faces of the
 representatives of the winner,
 Rio de Janeiro, equalled any beaming
 gold medal winner. A huge crowd of
 whooping cariocasgreeted the news,
relayed to a huge TV screen on
Copacabana beach, with
 unabashed delight. The celebrations
 are well earned. Years of dedication
 and hard work go to moulding na
 Olympic champion and this is
 mirrored by the preparation needed
 to win the votes of committee
members from every corner
 of the world. All four cities
 produced fat “bid books” explaining
 why they would be the Best
 showcase and listing the projected
 costs of stadiums, roads and accommodation.

The pre-tournament favourite
 was knocked out early on. Chicago,
thought by many to be in the box seat,
 was surprisingly the first city to be
 eliminated, despite a visit to
 Copenhagen by Barack Obama.
 Tokyo followed soon after. Many developing
 countries are reckoned to have
shown solidarity with Rio—and th
e event had never before been
 staged in South America. Madrid
 was thought to have only a slender
chance mainly because the 2012
 games will be in London.
Tokyo may have suffered because
 the games would be held only eight
 years after Beijing triumphed,
troubling those who advocate
 sharing it around more widely.
Politics, supposedly, does not
 count either. Chicago, a town known
for political machinations secured
the personal backing of its
 adopted son, Mr Obama.
 He asked the IOC to “choose America”
 and to witness the “incredible
 diversity of the American people.”
 Chiacago's resounding loss
 is something of a blow to his star power.
The Brazilian city’s high crime
 rate may have counted against
 it with some delegates, but most
 will have concluded that Rio’s vibrancy
will add to the allure of the games.
 And Brazilian enthusiasm for sports
other than football will not have
 gone unnoticed—beach volleyball,
 a relatively new Olympic sport,
is a Brazilian favourite. In fact the country
 will have a useful run at hosting a big
 sporting event when it stages the 2014 soccer world cup.
But is staging the Olympics
such a great coup? The pluses may
 seem obvious. Big building projects
 will employ lots of people who Will
 spend their wages in the rest of
 the economy. Railways and roads
 will be built that might otherwise
 have stayed on the drawing board
 for years. Visitors will come from
 far and wide, either for the games
 or as tourists afterwards. That AL
l sounds especially alluring in a recession.
The pro-Olympics lobby tends to
 downplay the disadvantages.
 Building in the host city may push up
 wages and prices and crowd out
 investment elsewhere. Hurrying up
 building projects raises costs.
 What suits the games may not be
 best for the city afterwards.
 Not every visitor during the games
 is an extra one; tourists may time
 long-wished-for trips to watch
 the sport. Crowds or inflated
 hotel prices may deter others from coming.
By and large, economists have
 found it hard to detect the benefits
 of big sporting events. Robert Baade,
of Lake Forest College, near Chicago,
 describes the Olympics as a “high risk,
 low reward proposition”, but concedes
 that the games may prompt spending,
 say in transport, which boosts a region’s
 economy in the long term.
The right event at the right time can
 give a city a lift: Barcelona, host in
 1992, is a case in point. However,
 Stefan Szymanski, an economist at
 Cass Business School in London,
suggests that hosting the Olympics
 may be a mark of recognition: the
 effect rather than the cause of
 change. If so that should also count
 as another reason for wild
 partying deep into the Rio night.

terça-feira, 13 de outubro de 2009

Why multitasking destroys your productivity

De: Ari Kormi
Para: Prof. Jorge Luis J?sz?s De Purgly
Data: 13-10-2009, 15:58
Assunto: Newsletter de grupo: Tuesday BusinessNews : Why Multitasking Destroys Your Productivity
Why Multitasking Destroys Your Productivity

Most entrepreneurs I know are proud of their ?multitasking? ability.

According to Wikipedia, ?Human multitasking is the performance by an individual of appearing to handle more than one task at the same time.? The keyword that multitasking a myth is: ?appearing.?

The term originated with computer multitasking ? a CPU solves problems by scheduling tasks and switching from task to task until each task gets its turn.

The activity of switching back-and-forth may be a computer-friendly activity, but it?s anything but human-friendly when it comes to an entrepreneur?s personal productivity in the office or home!

Dave Crenshaw wrote my favorite book on the topic and I recommend it to any entrepreneur who still thinks and feels that multitasking is cool.

On page 29 in The Myth of Multitasking, Dave writes:
?Around the end of the twentieth century, some wordsmith saw the connection between our increasingly hectic world and the world of the computer. A catchword was born.

Newspapers began peppering their articles with the word. Talk shows hosts began using it with frequency. Magazines began publishing articles about how to multitask more effectively.

Multitasking quickly became as popular and accepted as the automobile and the hamburger.?

Multitasking is not really conducting two or more (?multi?) activities (?tasking?) simultaneously; rather, it?s more accurately switching between those task, or switchtasking as Dave Crenshaw puts it.

Heck, even top jugglers are switchtaskers at heart because they can only touch one ball at a time.

Multitasking or switchtasking reduces your efficiency (doing things right) and effectiveness (doing the right things) because it constantly switches your mental focus.

As your concentration diminishes during the switch-over time (less than a second in most cases) the number of errors and mistakes you make dramatically increases.

In fact, many states such as California have outlawed multitasking on the highway by making it an illegal to speak on handheld mobile phone while driving a car.

?A mere half second of time lost to task switching can mean the difference between life and death for a driver using a cell phone, because during the time that the car is not totally under control, it can travel far enough to crash into obstacles the driver might have otherwise avoided,? reports Dr. David Meyer from the University of Michigan.

His findings aren?t very surprising in the over-communicated world we live in these days. But what is astounding to me is that Dr. Meyer published his findings way back in the August, 2001!

Okay, so let me ask you a candid question. How many of these 7 common multitasking activities do you engage in?

Writing emails while speaking on the telephone

Instant messaging while conducting teleseminars

Checking voice mail while speaking to your spouse

Reading the newspaper while listening to the news

Watching TV while having a family conversation

Driving your car while talking on your cell phone

Tweeting while emailing while IMing while ?

If you?re like most entrepreneurs I know, you?ve done ?all of the above? at some point in your adult life. But my point isn?t to nag you about multitasking as it is to make you conscious of how destructive it can be for your future.

The fundamental problem of multitasking is not about doing the tasks. It is about the splintered attention you tend to experience as you think about doing the tasks. Your results become mediocre at best.

Stacking vs. Multitasking: Now what if you could do two things at once, but only kept the majority of your attention on ONE thing, that?s a good thing. I call that stacking and Dave Crenshaw calls it background tasking.

You can call it whatever you wish, but it is a productive use of time doing multiple things because only ONE of the tasks you?re doing requires mental effort. Stacking helps you to get more done, faster, better and with less mental effort.

Here are a few stacking activities that boost your efficiency:

Eating dinner while watching TV
Jogging while listening to your iPod
Driving while listening to the radio
Writing email while printing a letter
Eating a snack while riding a bicycle
Listening to the news while showing
Reading a book while getting a haircut
Stacking doesn?t necessarily guarantee that you?ll become more effective (doing the right things), but it can practically guarantee more efficiency (doing things right) for greater productivity, which is maximum results in minimum time.

Stacking & America?s Middle-Class: Henry Ford didn?t invent the car, but he did produce automobiles within the economic reach of the average American.

Many historians and economics credit Ford helping suburbs grow and even creating the Middle Class in America. I believe he did this by preventing his workers from multitasking.

Ford?s ability to produce affordable automobiles was through the development of assembly lines that increased the efficiency of car manufacturing while decreasing costs. Ford did not invent the assembly line, he simply improved it.

Prior to the introduction of the assembly line, cars were individually crafted by teams of skilled workmen which was a very slow and expensive process. This is classic multitasking during the Industrial Age.

Ford?s assembly line reversed the process of car manufacturing. Instead of forcing his workers to multitask and go to each car individually, he created a stacking environment in which the cars came to the workers who performed the same task of assembly again and again.

The stacking power of the assembly line made it possible to reduce the manufacturing time of a Model T from thirteen hours to less than six hours!

Here?s what resulted: When Model T made its debut in 1908, it was offered at a purchase price of $825. Four years later the price dropped to $575. By 1914, Ford claimed a 48% share of the world?s automobile market!

It?s All About WHEN: The next time when you catch yourself multitasking, stop what you?re doing, take a quick pause and focus on completing ONE activity before you decide to switch tasks. A lack of completion is really what makes multitasking such a destructive force.

You not only become more mentally stressed by splintering your attention on two or more activities at the same time (and make more mistakes along the way), you also have to deal with the guilt of incompletion!

When you favor stacking over multitasking your daily activities, you almost instantly become more efficient, more effective and you start feeling better about yourself for getting the job done with a great sense of focus.

What To Do Now: You can stop the insanity of multitasking right now by listing 2 to 3 multitasking activities you commonly engage in at work or at home.

If none come to mind, just grab your mouse and scroll-up and re-read the 7 common multitasking activities I listed earlier.

The next time you find yourself multitasking, take a moment to think about what you?re doing and then quickly decide which task you want to complete first and complete that one.

Remember: Sloppy success with a single task is far superior than perfect mediocrity with multiple tasks.

The Flying Finn
More about business education and EDGE Expert Direrted Guided Education Business Training Program can be found on

Esta Newsletter foi redigida por moderador Ari Kormi para o grupo "iLearningGlobal Development- Innovation-Leadership Business Club".

Visite aqui o grupo:

domingo, 11 de outubro de 2009

Rio, 2016! LinkedIn - Recommended by Robson Lelles in Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games – Support the Organizing Committee

Exclusive: How Rio won its bid
 to host the 2016 Olympics
Friday, 02 October 2009
Attention: open in a new window. 

By David Owen in Copenhagen

October 2 - If anyone harboured
lingering doubts over whether
the International Olympic Committee
 (IOC) made the right choice
 in the Danish capital today,
 they evaporated within seconds
 of the start of the victorious
 Rio de Janeiro press conference.

The atmosphere of exuberance before the massed
 ranks of the world’s television cameras was so
 overpowering that even Jacques Rogge, the legendarily sober
 IOC boss, cracked a smile.

As the host-city contract was signed, the aisles

 rang out with song as supporters gave vent to
 months – in some cases years – of bottled-up tension. 

Let’s just say it was no surprise when some

 Brazilian geezer took it upon himself to scatter
 golden confetti over proceedings.

Yet the main lesson from Rio’s win had little to do

 with its global reputation as a good-time town. 

The Brazilians had done their homework and

 prepared mightily for this special moment. 

Plus they had endured disappointments

 along the way.

In the race for the 2012 Games, Rio

 didn’t make it onto the shortlist. 

What they did do was react to the

 defeat in exactly the right way.

As Rogge observed tonight, Carlos Nuzman

 and his team "remained humble".

He went on: "Rio wanted to listen, to correct

 the shortcomings. 

"They learnt a lot."

Two elements in particular transformed them
 from also-rans into winners in what was the
 toughest-ever Olympic hosting race with the
 exception of that contest for 2012.

First, they gathered critical experience in the

 complex disciplines of staging multi-sports events
 by hosting the Pan-American Games two years ago.

This was touched on by Sergio Cabral,

 Governor of Rio de Janeiro state, when he alluded
to a "new model of policing" introduced for the Games
 – an innovation that helped to address one
 of the bid’s possible weaknesses: Rio’s
 reputation as a relatively crime-ridden metropolis.

They also signed up the Government,

in the shape of the irrepressibly ebullient
 President Lula, for the long haul.

His appearance in Copenhagen contrasted

strongly with the Air Force One-powered
 flit undertaken by President Barack Obama. 

The time and energy Lula devoted to getting

 under the skin of the Olympic Movement
 gave him a markedly better feeling than
 his US counterpart for which strings to pull
 and buttons to press to get the result he wanted from
 this endlessly fascinating electorate.

Having addressed these two basics

– and being imbued in the form of Nuzman
 and Joao Havelange, the longest-serving IOC
 member, with two senior figures the Movement
 knew it could do business with - Rio was in
 a much stronger position to tweak the IOC’s
 sense of guilt about never having taken its
 sporting pageant to the South American sub-continent.

Lula pressed this as far as he dared in the

 presentation, urging the IOC to "light the
 Olympic cauldron in a tropical country".

This message eventually hit home, as shown
 by the emphatic margin of victory in Rio’s run-off against Madrid. 

As Richard Carrión, the IOC member

 from Puerto Rico who is one of the body’s
 leading business strategists, observed
straight after Rio’s victory was declared:

"I don't think it is anything to do with heads of state.

"I think Rio captured the moment with

 the idea of bringing the Games to
 South America for the first time…So kudos to Rio."

A second fundamental thrust to its

 campaign right up to the finishing-line
 was to underline time and time again not,
 as you might have expected, Rio’s legendary
 status as a party town, but that Brazil, unlike in
 days gone by, was now a sound financial bet.

Cabral took pains to emphasise that the

 government would subsidise the organizing
 committee to the tune of $700 million (£439 million).
 (The figure is underlined and typed in
bold in my copy of Cabral’s text.)

In this context, the inclusion of Central Bank

 Governor Henrique Meirelles in the
 presentation team was a master-stroke. 

He had the gravitas to talk about Brazil’s

 booming economy with far more authority
 than the incorrigibly bullish Lula could have mustered.

Perhaps the message to the United States

 Olympic Committee should be that next time
 the country bids, the President should be
 accompanied on Air Force One by
 Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve President.

In retrospect, though they appeared to be

 closing in the final weeks of the campaign
 – and though their first-round elimination was
 met with gasps of astonishment – Chicago
 left it until far too late to start singing
from the IOC’s song-sheet.

Though the bid was technically as sound

 as any ever mounted by a US city, too many sources
 of friction had emerged in the course
 of a long campaign for it to do itself justice.

Ultimately, not even a bravura performance

 by the First Lady could undo the damage.

In this sense, the biggest message from tonight’s

 result is that it is becoming nearly impossible
 for even the world's only superpower to win a race
 of this calibre coming from a long way
 behind in the finishing straight.

There may be no stopping them now.

Brazil is already staging the 2014 World Cup.

And there was talk from some bright spark

 in that exultant final conference of a
 Winter Olympic bid some time after 2016.

In their current mood, the ice-bound cities


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Marque uma consulta comigo