当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文

涟水县妇幼保健所看前列腺炎好吗58健康淮安治疗早泄那个医院好

2019年12月06日 23:12:41    日报  参与评论()人

淮安哪家医院有查精子淮安中山医院做人流费用淮安市淮阴医院治疗前列腺炎多少钱 淮安哪家医院可以割包皮

金湖县人民医院治疗便秘多少钱Samsung Electronics is following Google and Apple into the smart home with the acquisition of SmartThings, which allows a variety of internet-connected devices to be controlled by a single mobile app.继谷歌(Google)和苹果(Apple)之后,三星电子(Samsung Electronics)也通过收购美国公司SmartThings打入智能家居领域。SmartThings能让用户通过一个移动应用来控制各种联网设备。Samsung, which showed off a range of its own “Smart Home” appliances at January’s Consumer Electronics Show, said SmartThings would continue to operate independently but move to Silicon Valley as part of the South Korean company’s Open Innovation Centre.在今年1月的消费电子展(Consumer Electronics Show)上,三星曾展示过一系列自己的“智能家居(Smart Home)”电器。它表示,SmartThings将继续独立运营,不过会搬到硅谷,成为三星开放创新中心(Open Innovation Centre)的一部分。Washington DC-based SmartThings raised .5m in venture funding after receiving .2m from a Kickstarter campaign in September 2012.SmartThings目前总部位于华盛顿特区。2012年9月,该公司先是在一次Kickstarter众筹活动中获得了120万美元,接着又筹集了1550万美元风险投资。Samsung’s acquisition of the three-year-old start-up, for a reported 0m, represents another bid by a leading technology company to persuade more consumers that the benefits in convenience or energy-saving of wiring up their homes to the internet outweigh the security risks and additional complexities.据报道,三星以2亿美元的价格,收购了这家只有3年历史的初创企业。和其他已涉足智能家居领域的高科技企业一样,三星希望说消费者,将家居设备联网在便利性和节能方面的好处,超过了这么做的安全风险及额外的复杂性。It follows Google’s purchases of Nest, a maker of online thermostats and smoke detectors, and Dropcam, an internet-connected security camera developer, earlier this year. In June, Apple laid the foundation for its own move into the “internet of things” with HomeKit, a way to control heating, door locks or lights with an iPhone.今年早些时候,谷歌收购了Nest和Dropcam,前者生产能联网的温控装置及烟雾警报器,后者则是一家联网安保摄像头的开发商。今年6月,苹果也为自己向“物联网”的进军打响了第一。当时,该公司推出了HomeKit应用,用户可以在iPhone上使用这款应用,控制暖气、门锁或电灯。While Apple has allowed only a select few device makers to work with HomeKit so far and Nest has slowly opened up its developer platform in recent months, Samsung and SmartThings touted their “open platform for the smart home”, which now supports more than 1,000 products and thousands of mobile apps.到目前为止,苹果只选取了少量设备制造商围绕HomeKit开展合作。而Nest则在最近几个月才缓慢开放了其开发者平台。相比之下,三星和SmartThings则在大力推销它们的“智能家居开放平台”,这一平台目前已持逾千种产品和数千个应用。David Eun, head of Samsung’s Open Innovation Centre, said that more investments, acquisitions and partnerships around the internet of things were planned.三星开放创新中心主管戴维#8226;尤恩(David Eun)表示,三星还计划围绕物联网开展更多投资、并购及合作。Samsung’s own Smart Home family of products only worked with its own appliances, such as fridges and washing machines. SmartThings will continue to work with other companies’ products, including those from rivals Google and Apple, after the acquisition, while benefiting from Samsung’s reach and distribution.三星自己的智能家居产品只持三星的电器,比如电冰箱和洗衣机。而SmartThings则会在并购之后,在享受三星市场影响范围及分销网络的同时,继续兼容其他公司的产品,包括那些来自三星对手谷歌和苹果的产品。 /201408/321612淮安妇科有哪些 淮安清河区妇科挂号

洪泽县妇幼保健院腋臭科The first paragraph of the commentaryposted Wednesday on the website of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank founded by, among others, Clinton-era labor secretary Robert Reich, lays out the thrust of the argument pretty succinctly:由美国前劳工部长罗伯特?里奇等人创建的开明智库经济政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)本周三在自己的网站上刊登了一篇,开篇第一段就扼要地论述了这样做的目的所在:;For more than a year, there has been a high-profile debate over what Apple should do with its enormous cash reserve, now amounting to 7 billion. The proposals have been curiously one-dimensional, with a nearly exclusive focus on how the reserves should be used to reward its shareholders. Almost entirely absent from the discussion has been whether those reserves should also be used to provide fairer compensation to the workers making its products abroad or selling its products here. This imbalance is part and parcel of a larger trend: the share of economic rewards going to workers is diminishing.;“一年多来,围绕苹果(Apple)应该如何处置其庞大的现金储备(如今已高达1,370亿美元)展开的热烈讨论引人瞩目。奇怪的是,种种提议几乎都是一边倒地探讨如何用这些现金回馈股东。讨论几乎从未涉及这些现金是否也应该用于为海外制造苹果产品的工人和在美国销售苹果产品的员工提供更加公平合理的薪酬。它只是大范围失衡趋势的一个缩影:给予员工的经济回报比例正在下降。”It#39;s not an idea many Apple (AAPL) investors are going to want to hear, especially with the stock down more than 36% from last September#39;s highs. But as author Isaac Shapiro points out, long-term shareholders have nothing to complain about. Those who stuck with the company over the past five years have seen the value of their investments grow more than three-fold.这个提议可不是很多苹果投资者希望听到的,特别是眼下,苹果股价已经从去年9月的高点下跌超过了36%。但正如作者伊萨克?夏皮罗所指出的一样,长期股东没有什么好抱怨的。如果过去5年一直持有这只股票,它的投资市值已经增长超过了3倍。Less amply rewarded are the 30,000 Apple Store employees who make as little as ,000 a year. Or the roughly 1 million Asian contract workers who take home, before overtime, between 5 and 8 per month.没有获得充分回报的是苹果零售店的3万名雇员,他们的薪水低到只有25,000美元/年。而且,约100万名亚洲合同工每个月如果不算加班收入,工资仅225-288美元。Shapiro doesn#39;t diminish the work Apple has done to raise pay scales and improve working conditions in its Asian supply chain. Nor does he suggest that Apple#39;s competitors are doing better.夏皮罗没有抹杀苹果为提高亚洲供应链系统员工的薪酬水平和工作环境所做出的努力,也没有说苹果的竞争对手做得更好。But he does point out that some of the pledges Apple made have not been fulfilled.但他指出,苹果承诺过的一些事情并没有兑现。For example, in March 2012 Apple promised that workers assembling Apple#39;s devices in Foxconn#39;s factories would be compensated for hours they had worked in the past that had not been paid for, including pre- and post-shift meetings, time spent in mandatory trainings, and as many as 30 minutes of ;unscheduled overtime; on any given day.例如,2012年3月,苹果曾经承诺,在富士康工厂组装苹果设备的工人过去未获得报酬的工作时间将获得补偿,包括参加班前会和班后会的时间、用于参加强制性培训的时间,和一天多达30分钟的“临时加班”时间。According to Shapiro, none of that back pay was ever issued, and it appears that none is forthcoming.据夏皮罗称,这些补偿都没有发放,而且,近期似乎也不准备发放。He#39;s got more examples, laid out fairly dispassionately, in + billion for Apple shareholders, nothing yet for Apple workers.他平心静气地给出了更多的例子,比如,苹果给股东发放了450亿美元现金,同样没有苹果工人的份儿。正如我所说的,在苹果股票继续下跌的过程中,这种声音可能是苹果投资者最不愿听到的,但它会在某种程度上抑制增加派息和进行数十亿美元股票回购的要求。As I say, it#39;s probably the last thing Apple investors want to hear on yet another down day for the stock, but it does put those demands for bigger dividends and multibillion dollar stock buybacks in some perspective. /201303/231608 In recent years, a debate has raged on among publishing and advertising industry insiders over “sponsored content”—more recently called “native advertising” and once known as “advertorial”—the sort of advertising that looks very much like editorial content but is, in fact, directly paid for by an advertiser.近年来在出版和广告行业中,关于“赞助内容”或曰“原生广告”、“软广告”的争论甚嚣尘上。顾名思义,“赞助内容”指的就是那些看起来很像网友的热心,实质上却是由广告主直接付钱打造的广告。The approach has been embraced by newer digital ventures such as BuzzFeed and new digital efforts for very old publications like Forbes and The Atlantic. Industry peers watched and discussed: Is it deceptive? Is it ethical? Does it even work?现在,这种广告模式不仅被BuzzFeed等新兴的网络公司所采用,就连《福布斯》(Forbes )和《大西洋月刊》( The Atlantic)等老牌媒体也打上了软广告的主意。业内人士在观察之余不免议论纷纷:软广告是不是骗人的?是不是不道德?还有,它究竟有没有效果?Whatever the answers, there’s no denying that the approach is suddenly in vogue. Storied news organizations such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times NYT have since taken the native plunge. (Fortune has also decided to engage in the practice.) Last year, advertisers spent .4 billion on native ads, a 77% jump over 2012. That same year, the Post’s CRO called native ads “a spiritual journey.” (Really.)不管这些问题的是什么,不可否认的是,这种做广告的方法眼下已经悄然时兴起来。《华盛顿邮报》(the Washington Post)、《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)、《纽约时报》(New York Times )等大牌报刊也会隔三岔五发几篇软文。【《财富》(Fortune )也决定不再置身事外。】去年广告主们花在软广告上的金额达到了24亿美元,比2012年跃升了77%。同年,《华盛顿邮报》的研究总监将软广告誉为“一场心灵的旅程”。(这是真的。)Native ads may be popular with publishers, but consumers are not in love, according to a new survey conducted by Contently, a startup that connects brands with writers who then create sponsored content. (Yes, the survey runs counter to Contently’s mission; more on that in a moment.)根据Contently公司近日发表的一篇调查显示,软广告虽然受到了出版商的欢迎,但消费者却对它很不感冒。作为一家创业公司,Contently的主要业务就是给品牌和软文写手牵线搭桥,因此这篇调查的结果可以说简直与Contently的目标背道而驰。Two-thirds of the survey’s respondents said they felt deceived when they realized an article or was sponsored by a brand. Just over half said they didn’t trust branded content, regardless of what it was about. Fifty-nine percent said they believe that a news site that runs sponsored content loses credibility—although they also said they view branded content as slightly more trustworthy than Fox News.有三分之二的受访者表示,一旦他们意识到一篇文章或一段视频是由某个品牌赞助的,他们会觉得受到了欺骗。超过半数的受访者表示他们不会相信软广告,不管它是关于什么的。59%的受访者认为,一个新闻网站如果登载了软广告便会失去公信力——不过尽管如此,他们还是觉得软广告的可信度好歹要比《福克斯新闻》(than Fox News)强上那么一丁点。Publishers and advertisers tend to respond to concerns of confusion or credibility with the same response: “It’s clearly labeled!” Simple disclosure solves all conflicts, they suggest. Readers are smart enough to figure it out, and critics don’t give them enough credit.软广告是否会造成误解以及损害公信力?出版商和广告主们对这个问题经常用同一句话回答:“它已经标明是‘赞助内容’了!”以读者们聪明的智商是应该能看出来的,批评人士似乎也有点矫枉过正了。To wit: “They get the drill,” said Lewis Dvorkin, the True/Slant founder who led the massive expansion of the Forbes contributor network and its sponsored BrandVoice program, at an event last year. Likewise, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has said the native ads on the newspaper’s website are clearly labeled to ensure there are no doubts about “what is Times journalism and what is advertising.”也就是像新闻平台True/Slant的创始人刘易斯o德沃金所说的一样,它们都“打了标签”。在德沃金的领导下,《福布斯》的供稿人网络获得了极大的拓展,而且德沃金还负责了《福布斯》赞助的“品牌之声”(BrandVoice)项目。《纽约时报》出版人小亚瑟o苏兹伯格也表示,报刊网站上的软广告都清楚地打了标签,以便确保读者明白“什么是《纽约时报》的新闻报道,什么是广告”。But Contently’s findings, based on a survey of 542 people, throw cold water on the notion that ers “get the drill.” According to the study, ers are confused about what “sponsored” even means: When they see the label “Sponsored Content,” half of them think it means that a sponsor paid for and influenced the article. One-fifth of them think the content is produced by an editorial team but “a sponsor’s money allowed it to happen.” Eighteen percent think the sponsor merely paid for its name to be next to the article. Thirteen percent think it means the sponsor actually wrote the article. Even the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is perplexed; a panel on native advertising last year “raised more questions than it answered.”但Contently公司这份基于542人的调查却给两人的观点泼了一瓢冷水。据这份调查显示,读者一般并不明白“赞助”二字的含义,当他们看见“赞助内容”的标签时,一半人心中想的是,赞助商花钱买来写手吹捧自己,而且肯定影响了这篇文章。有五分之一的读者认为,这篇软文的内容是由一编辑团队打造的,但是“有了赞助商的钱才有了它。”18%的读者认为,赞助商只是花钱买下了文章旁边的冠名权。还有13%的读者认为文章干脆就是赞助商自己写的。就连美国联邦贸易委员会(the U.S. Federal Trade Commission)对软广告也是一知半解。去年,它的一个专门委员会开会讨论软广告,但是这次会议“提出的问题比解答的问题还多”。It gets worse. When ers do know what “sponsored” means, they still feel deceived. Fifty-seven percent of the study’s participants said they would prefer that their favorite news sites run banner ads over sponsored posts. (The irony: Native ads were supposed to be the highly engaging innovation to kill the lowly banner ad.) Only 18.7% of respondents said they prefer sponsored posts because they’re more interesting. Two-thirds of respondents said they are less likely to click on an article sponsored by a brand. From the perspective of a er, sponsored content doesn’t look like a spiritual journey at all.更糟糕的是,等到读者真正明白了“赞助”的含义,他们就会感到受到了欺骗。有75%的受访者表示,他们宁可自己喜欢的新闻网站打出横幅式广告,也不愿意看到广告软文。(讽刺的是,很多人都认为软广告是一种非常能得到消费者共鸣的创新,足以“杀死”低端的横幅广告。)只有18.7%的受访者表示喜欢软广告,因为他们觉得软广告更有意思。三分之二的受访者表示,他们不太可能点击一篇由某个品牌赞助的文章。从读者的角度看,软广告貌似根本就不是什么“心灵的旅程”。In fairness, people rarely cop to the fact that they enjoy advertising or that it works on them. This is why, every few years, a survey is released claiming that social media ads, particularly those on Facebook FB 3.52% , don’t work. That may be the case, but I doubt brands would continue to pour billions of dollars into social media advertising—.3 billion this year—if it were.平心而论,人们很少承认他们喜欢广告或是他们会受广告影响的事实。正因为如此,每隔几年都会冒出来一篇调查,声称社交媒体广告(尤其是Facebook上的)不管用。这或许也是实情,但若果真如此,我真不知道各大品牌为何还会每年狂洒几十亿美元在社交媒体上打广告(今年是83亿美元)。But there is no denying that ers’ response to sponsored content is negative and especially strong. The findings of Contently’s survey follow data released earlier this year by Chartbeat, a web analytics company, showing that only 24% of ers scroll through sponsored content, versus 71% for editorial content.不容否认,读者对软广告的反应是负面的,而且非常强烈。就在Contently的调查发布之前不久,网络分析公司Chartbeat也就这个问题进行了调查。调查显示,只有24%的读者有耐心看完一篇软文,而71%的读者会看完一篇正常编辑内容。You may wonder what all this means for a company like Contently, which is built on the premise that branded content will become a huge part of the marketing industry. Concluding its study, the company suggests with a dose of optimism that brands and publishers will eventually figure things out before they turn ers off completely.大家可能会问,以上所说的这些对于Contently这样的公司究竟意味着什么,因为只有软广告在营销市场上大有作为,Contently的业务才可能有钱赚。在调查报告的结尾处,Contently还是给传媒界打了一针强心剂,称各大品牌和传媒最终还是会在彻底惹怒读者之前,找到问题的解决办法。Contently points to the Times, Mashable, and BuzzFeed: Times ers spend as much time ing sponsored content as regular editorial, says the executive in charge of the Times’ sponsored content. The same goes for Mashable ers, says the site’sbranded content editor. And BuzzFeed, which popularized the native ad format, has numerous case studies showing how well its sponsored articles work.Contently举了《纽约时报》、Mashable和BuzzFeed等例。据《纽约时报》负责赞助内容的高管表示,《纽约时报》的读者阅读赞助内容和其它编辑内容的时间一样长。Mashable的内容编辑也表示,Mashable的读者对赞助内容也并不反感。至于软广告的“鼻祖”BuzzFeed,更是有数不清的案例能说明它的广告软文发挥了多么好的作用。There is hope for the native ad yet. But publishers should be careful: though ers may be increasingly looking at sponsored content, it doesn’t mean they like what they see.目前软广告仍然有继续发展的希望。但传媒界仍然需小心:虽然愿意看软广告的读者可能会越来越多,但这并不意味着他们肯定喜欢自己看到的东西。 /201407/312171淮安中山女子妇科医院官网淮安市第一人民医院治疗阳痿早泄

淮安shes无痛人流
楚州区人民医院医院男科医生
江苏淮安中山医院治疗痛经多少钱69网
淮安中山医院做男人全身体检要多少钱
爱时讯淮安妇幼保健医院上环多少钱
淮安宫颈息肉手术费用
盱眙县人民医院盆腔炎多少钱
江苏省淮安市中山医院专家新华优惠淮阴区治疗妇科多少钱
飞度云在线淮安包茎环切要多少钱城市大夫
(责任编辑:图王)
 
五大发展理念

文化·娱乐

龙江会客厅

淮安中山妇科医院宫颈糜烂多少钱
金湖县治疗阳痿早泄 淮安区肛肠医院排名千龙生活 [详细]
江苏省淮安白带异常哪家医院最好的
江苏淮安中山医院肛肠科 盱眙县人民医院看男科好吗 [详细]
淮安leep刀哪家技术好
涟水县治疗便血哪家医院最好的 快问互动淮安清浦区治疗痛经多少钱千龙频道 [详细]
淮安中山医院内分必科
快问养生淮安专业无痛流产医院 淮安宫颈息肉价格乐视口碑淮安女人流产 [详细]