A zero point magnetic power generator uses magnets to generate energy. Unlike other forms of alternative energy, magnets don't need any input to produce power. Take solar panels, for instance. They need a sufficient amount of sunlight to work, which means that they may not be able to function during cloudy days. But, this is not the case with zero point generators. This generator runs by itself without stopping and doesn't need any resources.

You don't have to be a scientist to build the device. The materials are very cheap and can be found at your local hardware store and the process is very easy, especially if you follow the step-by-step instructions of a reliable guide. This system would normally cost up to $10000, but if you decide to build it yourself it will cost you around $100. With this money you will be able to construct a unit that will power about 50% of your house. In case you want to completely eliminate your electric bill, you may need to construct an additional unit.

But, what are the benefits of using such a system?

• It can help you reduce your electricity bill by 30%-50%, or even completely eliminate it.
• It can work in all weather conditions.
• The devise doesn't take up a lot of space, so it can be installed in any home.
• It's friendly to the environment and doesn't cause any pollution.
• It has very low maintenance costs.
• It's not flammable or combustible and is completely safe to use.

No special tools are required to build such a system, apart from standard household tools, such as a screwdriver. If you decide to take advantage of the zero point energy, keep in mind that Magniwork is considered the best choice. In fact, Magniwork was named the Best Selling Green Product for May 2009, by the Green Living Association. According to the experts, by 2020 most companies will have implemented this technology, so as to create clean and cheap energy.

Avoiding malware and spyware online is getting harder, its becoming more and more common and a lot of the time people get infected without even knowing.

The problem is most people are not very clued up when it comes to internet security, some people will browse the web on an old web browser (Internet explorer 6 for example) and no anti virus, this alone is a very dangerous combination as IE6 is vulnerable to all kinds of exploits and without any anti virus protection you could be a victim to a 'drive-by' web exploit.

Drive-By exploits - A drive-by exploit is when a malicious website is setup that attempts to automatically install malware or spyware once a user visits it. Users are often lured to the site through malicious links in emails or various other advertising techniques whereby a user thinks the page contains something of real value. These exploits are normally '0-day' which means that have been recently discovered by hackers and most the time will not have any kind of fix for them, because of this the success rate for infection is normally quite high. With a drive-by exploit unless your Anti virus manages to stop it you will have no idea what has happened and malware will be silently installed onto your machine.

With this is mind then its important to always use an up to date browser (personally I recommend firefox) and an up to date anti virus. It also wont hurt to use a malware scanning tool such as MalwareBytes AntiMalware to do a weekly scan of your system to make sure your not infected.

Remember that no anti virus / anti malware software will ever offer 100% protection, new threats are constantly being created and it can take time for anti virus vendors to find these and add them to their detection lists. This is why it is important to excercise caution whilst online; never visit any suspicious links and always be careful with what your downloading!

Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. It is the using of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services.^[1] A system can be called economically efficient if:

• No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
• More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
• Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.

These definitions of efficiency are not equivalent, but they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.

An economic system is more efficient if it can provide more goods and services for society^[2] The first fundamental welfare theorem provides some basis for this belief, as it states that any perfectly competitive market equilibrium is efficient (but only if no market imperfections exist). without using more resources. Market economies are generally believed to be more efficient than other known alternatives.

Microeconomic reform are policies that aim to reduce economic distortions, and increase economic efficiency. However, there is no clear theoretical basis for the belief that removing a market distortion will always increase economic efficiency. The Theory of the Second Best states that if there is some unavoidable market distortion in one sector, a move toward greater market perfection in another sector may actually decrease efficiency

Pareto efficiency

Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is an important concept in economics with broad applications in game theory, engineering and the social sciences. The term is named after Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. Informally, Pareto efficient situations are those in which any (additional) change to make any person better off is impossible without making someone else worse off.

Given a set of alternative allocations of, say, goods or income for a set of individuals, a change from one allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as Pareto efficient or Pareto optimal when no further Pareto improvements can be made. Such an allocation is often called a strong Pareto optimum (SPO) by way of setting it apart from mere "weak Pareto optima" as defined below.

Formally, a (strong/weak) Pareto optimum is a maximal element for the partial order relation of Pareto improvement/strict Pareto improvement: it is an allocation such that no other allocation is "better" in the sense of the order relation.

Pareto efficiency does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources, as it makes no statement about equality or the overall well-being of a society.^[1][2]

A so-called weak Pareto optimum (WPO) nominally satisfies the same standard of not being Pareto-inferior to any other allocation, but for the purposes of weak Pareto optimization, an alternative allocation is considered to be a Pareto improvement only if the alternative allocation is strictly preferred by all individuals (i.e., only if all individuals would gain from a transition to the alternative allocation). In other words, when an allocation is WPO there are no possible alternative allocations whose realization would cause every individual to gain.

Weak Pareto-optimality is "weak[er]" than strong Pareto-optimality in the sense that the conditions for WPO status are "weaker" than those for SPO status: Any allocation that can be considered an SPO will also qualify as a WPO, while the reverse does not hold: a WPO allocation won't necessarily qualify as SPO.

Under any form of Pareto-optimality, for an alternative allocation to be Pareto-superior to an allocation being tested -- and, therefore, for the feasibility of an alternative allocation to serve as proof that the tested allocation is not an optimal one -- the feasibility of the alternative allocation must show that the tested allocation fails to satisfy at least one of the criteria whose conjunction (i.e., whose being true all at once) is necessary and sufficient to render the tested allocation Pareto-optimal. The difference between the weak and strong versions of Pareto-optimality lies in that when considered as a set, the conditions necessary and sufficient to make an allocation weakly Pareto-optimal constitute a mere subset of the set of conditions necessary and sufficient to make an allocation strongly Pareto-optimal. In other words, when one compares the two lists of conditions side by side, one finds that a) the WPO list contains some but not all of the conditions found on the SPO list and b) the WPO list contains nonot found on the SPO list). The logical consequence may be paraphrased in both of two ways, the only difference being one of emphasis and resulting from how one distributes the negation: a) Every allocation that satisfies the conjunction of the conditions for SPO status also (and by virtue of its satisfying that conjunction) satisfies the conjunction of the conditions for WPO status, and b) the conjunction of conditions for WPO status disqualifies only a subset of the allocations disqualified by the conjunction of conditions for SPO status. To use the language of combat as a metaphor, the conjunction of conditions for WPO status can "defeat" only a subset of the allocations that the conjunction of conditions for SPO status can "defeat." One may apply the same metaphor to describe the set of requirements for WPO status as being "weaker" than the set of requirements for SPO status. (Indeed, because the SPO set entirely encompasses the WPO set, with respect to any property the requirements for SPO status are of strength equal to or greater than the strength of the requirements for WPO status. Therefore, the requirements for WPO status are not merely weaker on balance or weaker according to the odds; rather, one may describe them more specifically and quite fittingly as "Pareto-weaker.") conditions

• Note that when one considers the requirements for an alternative allocation's superiority according to one definition against the requirements for its superiority according to the other, the comparison between the requirements of the respective definitions is the opposite of the comparison between the requirements for optimality: To demonstrate the WPO-inferiority of an allocation being tested, an alternative allocation must falsify at least one of the particular conditions in the WPO subset, rather than merely falsify at least one of either these conditions or the other SPO conditions. Therefore, the requirements for weak Pareto-superiority of an alternative allocation are harder to satisfy -- i.e., "stronger" -- than are the requirements for strong Pareto-superiority of an alternative allocation.)

• It further follows that every SPO is a WPO (but not every WPO is an SPO): Whereas the WPO description applies to any allocation from which every feasible departure results in the NON-IMPROVEMENT of at least one individual, the SPO description applies to onlyboth the WPO requirement and the more specific ("stronger") requirement that at least one non-improving individual exhibit a specific type of non-improvement, namely DOING WORSE. those allocations that meet

• The "strong" and "weak" descriptions of optimality continue to hold true when one construes the terms in the context set by the field of semantics: If one describes an allocation as being a WPO, one makes a "weaker" statement than one would make by describing it as an SPO: If the statements "Allocation X is a WPO" and "Allocation X is a SPO" are both true, then the former statement is less controversial than the latter in that to defend the latter, one must prove everything one must prove to defend the former "and then some." By the same token, however, the former statement is less informative or contentful in that it "says less" about the allocation; that is, the former statement contains, implies, and (when stated) asserts fewer constituent propositions about the allocation.

  An economic system that is Pareto inefficient implies that a certain change in allocation of goods (for example) may result in some individuals being made "better off" with no individual being made worse off, and therefore can be made more Pareto efficient through a Pareto improvement. Here 'better off' is often interpreted as "put in a preferred position." It is commonly accepted that outcomes that are not Pareto efficient are to be avoided, and therefore Pareto efficiency is an important criterion for evaluating economic systems and public policies.

  If economic allocation in any system (in the real world or in a model) is not Pareto efficient, there is potential for a Pareto improvement — an increase in Pareto efficiency: through reallocation, improvements to at least one participant's well-being can be made without reducing any other participant's well-being.

  In the real world ensuring that nobody is disadvantaged by a change aimed at improving economic efficiency may require compensation of one or more parties. For instance, if a change in economic policy dictates that a legally protected monopoly ceases to exist and that market subsequently becomes competitive and more efficient, the monopolist will be made worse off. However, the loss to the monopolist will be more than offset by the gain in efficiency. This means the monopolist can be compensated for its loss while still leaving an efficiency gain to be realized by others in the economy. Thus, the requirement of nobody being made worse off for a gain to others is met.

  In real-world practice, the compensation principle often appealed to is hypothetical. That is, for the alleged Pareto improvement (say from public regulation of the monopolist or removal of tariffs) some losers are not (fully) compensated. The change thus results in distribution effects in addition to any Pareto improvement that might have taken place. The theory of hypothetical compensation is part of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, also called Potential Pareto Criterion. (Ng, 1983).

  Under certain idealized conditions, it can be shown that a system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome. This is called the first welfare theorem. It was first demonstrated mathematically by economists Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu. However, the result does not rigorously establish welfare results for real economies because of the restrictive assumptions necessary for the proof (markets exist for all possible goods, all markets are in full equilibrium, markets are perfectly competitive, transaction costs are negligible, there must be no externalities, and market participants must have perfect information). Moreover, it has since been demonstrated mathematically that, in the absence of perfect information or complete markets, outcomes will generically be Pareto inefficient (the Greenwald-Stiglitz Theorem).^[3]

  Explicit consideration of Pareto-efficiency of economic factors (labor, capital) and value added of sectors is given by Dalimov (2008, 2009). It shows that a pair of the value added and labor income behave within and between regions as a linked pair obeying to the heat equation (i.e. they move as just any gas or a liquid obeying to the heat and/or diffusion equations).

  Modification of the heat equation has been found as responsible for the dynamics of the factors for a case of international economic integration. Pareto-efficiency here is considered as most optimal (mathematically) re-allocation of the factors taking place due to economic integration. It fits one of clear definitons of Pareto-optimality applied to economics stating that Pareto-efficiency of economic parameters is achieved if there could be no better change of these parameters (Jovanovich, 2005). In other words, there has to be fulfilled a condition of the first spatial derivatives of the factors tending to zero after economic integration.

  Economically a starting point for analysis was an idea that labor migrates to place of better wages while capital - to areas with higher returns (as example, consider unification of Germany, with labor moving from east to west, and capital being invested from West Germany to eastern part of the unified state), with direction of respective migration flows being opposite to each other. But the outcome of the analysis has shown that only value added of sectors (not capital) and annual wages of labor act as linked pair of parameters. Economically this means that businesses make value added in less developed integrated areas, while labor still moves to places with higher wages. The other straight conclusion is with the dynamic equation obtained (non-homogeneous heat equation) which for decades has been considered in physics as quite developed tool of analysis. So now one may attempt to use results previously obtained in physics and apply them for variety of tasks concerning migrating parameters in economics.

  Generally, Pareto-efficiency in economics is observed when there come measures changing trade environment within considered region (either state or a group of neighbor states). This is a reason why Pareto-efficiency is one of the intrinsic features of economic integration, both theory and practice.

  Given a set of choices and a way of valuing them, the Pareto frontier or Pareto set is the set of choices that are Pareto efficient. The Pareto frontier is particularly useful in engineering: by restricting attention to the set of choices that are Pareto-efficient, a designer can make tradeoffs within this set, rather than considering the full range of every parameter.

  The Pareto frontier is defined formally as follows..

  Consider a design space with n real parameters, and for each design-space point there are m different criteria by which to judge that point. Let be the function which assigns, to each design-space point x, a criteria-space point f(x). This represents the way of valuing the designs. Now, it may be that some designs are infeasible; so let X, which must be a compact set. Then the set which represents the feasible criterion points is f(X), the image of the set X under the action of f. Call this image Y. be a set of feasible designs in

  Now construct the Pareto frontier as a subset of Y, the feasible criterion points. It can be assumed that the preferable values of each criterion parameter are the lesser ones, thus minimizing each dimension of the criterion vector. Then compare criterion vectors as follows: One criterion vector y strictly dominates (or "is preferred to") a vector y* if each parameter of y is no greater than the corresponding parameter of y* and at least one parameter is strictly less: that is, for each i and for some i. This is written as to mean that y strictly dominates y*. Then the Pareto frontier is the set of points from Y that are not strictly dominated by another point in Y.

  Formally, this defines a partial order on Y, namely the (opposite of the) product order (more precisely, the induced order on Y as a subset of ), and the Pareto frontier is the set of maximal elements with respect to this order. on

  Algorithms for computing the Pareto frontier of a finite set of alternatives have been studied in computer science. There, this task is known as the maximum vector problemskyline query. or as

  [edit] Relationship to marginal rate of substitution

  An important fact about the Pareto frontier in economics is that at a Pareto efficient allocation, the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as z_i = fⁱ(xⁱ) where is the vector of goods, both for all i. The supply constraint is written for . To optimize this problem, the Lagrangian is used:

  where λ and Γ are multipliers.

  Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to one good, i, and then taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to another good, j, gives the following system of equations:

  for j=1,...,n. for i = 2,...,m and j=1,...,m, where f_x is the marginal utility on f' of x (the partial derivative of f with respect to x).

  for i,k=1,...,m and j,s=1,...,n.

  Pareto-allocation of the factors may be stated more explicitly and clearly by formulating its definition mathematically as a condition when temporal derivatives of the parameters (economic factors, such as a labor or capital) strive to zero. That means that it is indeed an optimal allocation, identical to Pareto-efficiency condition.

  When Pareto efficiency is used as a tool in politics to determine whether a situation can be improved upon or not, there is no consideration of the equity of resource allocation. It may be that one economic agent owns all of the world's resources; it would be impossible to make anyone else better off without taking something away from this agent. Assuming all resources benefit the rich agent's well-being, this situation is described as "Pareto optimal", even though it may be seen as inequitable.

  More generally, it can be misleading, in that "not Pareto optimal" implies "can be improved" (making someone better off without hurting anyone), but "Pareto optimal" does not imply "cannot be improved" by some measure—it only implies that someoneimprove it, but does not mean that one should categorically reject it for any arbitrary Pareto optimal solution, as many of those Pareto optimal solutions will not be Pareto improvements. must receive less. Thus if an allocation is not Pareto optimal, it means that one can

.

BEIJING, Dec. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- A new epidemic goat flu (or called Q-fever) has struck the Netherlands since last week.

An estimated 2,300 people have succumbed to Q-fever this year in the country and six have died.

According to Dutch experts, Q-fever is caused by bacteria released when pregnant goats or sheep have spontaneous abortions.

A relative study shows that many animals can carry this kind of bacteria, but contact with infected goats is believed to be the main source of human infections.

The Dutch government said Thursday it planned to slaughter all pregnant infected goats, which carry the bacteria in high concentrations. It was not immediately clear how many goats will be killed.

"There's nowhere external to turn to for expert advice, because it's a unique situation," said the government spokesman Thijs van Son.

Q-fever infections usually occur in a cluster in one year and then peter out the next. But the Dutch outbreak has been growing and spreading out over agricultural areas for three years despite increasingly strong measures to contain it.

“That hasn't happened before,” Van Son said, "not in Europe or anywhere else."

He said that so far the outbreak is not known to have spread to neighboring Germany or Belgium.

Van Son said one theory as to why the outbreak has been so severe in the Netherlands is the large numbers of animals per farm, combined with the density of the Dutch human population, which is one of the highest in the world.

The Dutch government is researching whether an Australian human vaccine not yet approved in Europe could be used in the Netherlands.

(Agencies)

استمثال محركات البحث (بالإنجليزية: Search Engine Optimization) تختصر أيضا (SEO) هي مجموعة من المناهج (بالإنجليزية: methodology) تهدف لتحسين ترتيب النتائج للمواقع التي تتنتج عن بحث معين على الويب . يقصد بها تحسين ترتيب الموقع في البواحيث (محركات البحث ) و تحسين تقييمه في قوائم محركات البحث و تعتبر جزءا من التسويق عبر البواحيث . و لهذا المجال شركات متخصصة و مستشارون يقومون بعملية استمثال البواحيث (محركات البحث ) لمواقع عملائهم.

هناك تصنيفان للطرق المستعملة في استمثال البواحيث (محركات البحث )، الأولى هي (القبعة البيضاء) و هي مجموعة الطرق المصرح بها من قبل محركات البحث، مثل التي يقدمها جوجل لمديري المواقع، و هي تتضمن بنية المحتويات و تحسين جودة الموقع. و الثانية هي (القبعة السوداء) و هي الخدع غير القانونية و المرفوضة و التي يعتبرها أصحاب طريقة (القبعة البيضاء) طريقة غير عادلة لتحسين ظهور المواقع. و يرد عليهم ذوو طريقة (القبعة السودء) بأن الهدف العام لأستمثال البواحيث (محركات البحث )هو تحسين ظهور موقعك دونما غيرك في محركات البحث أيا كانت الطريقة.

تقوم البواحيث (محركات البحث ) بعرض ثلاثة أنواع من النتائج في صفحات نتائج الباحوث (بالإنجليزية: SERPs) و هي إعلانات الدفع للنقرةبالإنجليزية: CPC)، و التضمين المدفوع في دلائل محرك البحث، و النتائج الطبيعية للبحث. (

و يقوم هدف استمثال محركات البحث على تحسين رتبة و موضع موقعها في النتائج الطبيعية عند كتابة كلمات بحثية رئيسية معينة. أصبحت استمثال محركات البحث تقدم اليوم كخدمة منفصلة و جزء من خدمات التسويق الإلكتروني، و هي تصبح فعالة جدا إذا ما أخذت بعين الإعتبار قبل تصميم الموقع.