Computational Transportation Science is an emerging discipline that combines computer science and engineering with the modeling and economic aspects of transport. The discipline studies how to improve the safety and sustainability of the transport system by taking advantage of information technologies and ubiquitous computing. A list of subjects encompassed by CTS can be found at include. Computational Transportation Science is an emerging discipline going beyond vehicular technology, addressing pedestrian systems on hand-held devices but issues such as transport data mining, as well as data management aspects. CTS allows for an increasing flexibility of the system as local and autonomous negotiations between transport peers and supporting infrastructure are allowed. Thus, CTS provides means to study localized computing, self-organization and simulation of transport systems. Several academic conferences on CTS have been held up to date: The Fourth ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computational Transportation Science The Third ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computational Transportation Science Dagstuhl Seminar 10121 on Computational Transportation Science The Second International Workshop on Computational Transportation Science The First International Workshop on Computational Transportation ScienceThere is an IGERT PHD program on Computational Transportation Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Computational Transportation Science
Vietnam is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia. For much of its history, Vietnam was a predominantly agricultural civilization based on wet rice cultivation. There is an industry for bauxite mining in Vietnam, an important material for the production of aluminum; the Vietnamese economy is shaped by the Vietnamese Communist Party in Five Year Plans made through the plenary sessions of the Central Committee and national congresses. Manufacturing, information technology and high-tech industries now form a large and fast-growing part of the national economy. Though Vietnam is a relative newcomer to the oil industry, it is the third-largest oil producer in Southeast Asia, with a total 2011 output of 318,000 barrels per day. In 2010, Vietnam was ranked as the 8th largest crude petroleum producers in the Asia and Pacific region. Like its Chinese neighbours, Vietnam continues to make use of centrally planned economic five-year plans. For further information on the types of business entities in this country and their abbreviations, see "Business entities in Vietnam".
This list shows firms in the 2017 Forbes Global 2000, which ranks firms based on four measures: sales, profit and market value. The list only includes publicly traded firms; this list includes notable companies with primary headquarters located in the country. The industry and sector follow the Industry Classification Benchmark taxonomy. Organizations which have ceased operations are noted as defunct. List of airlines of Vietnam List of banks in Vietnam
Zabihollah Rezaee is an Iranian-born/American accountant the Thompson-Hill Chair of Excellence' and Professor of accounting at the University of Memphis. Rezaee obtained his BS in accounting at the N. I. O. C. School of Accounting and Finance in Iran, his MBA from Tarleton State University and his Ph. D. in Accounting, University of Mississippi. He is the secretary of FIA, he has served on the SAG. Financial Institutions, Valuations and Acquisitions: The Fair Value Approach. S. Master Auditing Guide. Chapter 2: IRAN, A Global History of Accounting, Financial Reporting and Public Policy, edited by Gary John Previts, Peter J. Walton, P. W. Wolnizer, Emerald Group Publishing Limited Dr. Zabihollah Rezaee attends New York conference and book event, University of Memphis website; the Impact of Sarbanes Oxley on Accounting Firms and Financial Markets, University of Memphis website
In firearms, a safety or safety catch is a mechanism used to help prevent the accidental discharge of a firearm, helping to ensure safer handling. Safeties can be divided into subtypes such as internal safeties and external safeties. Sometimes these are called "passive" and "active" safeties, respectively. Firearms with the ability to allow the user to select various fire modes may have separate switches for safety and for mode selection or may have the safety integrated with the mode selector as a fire selector with positions from safe to semi-automatic to full-automatic fire; some firearms manufactured after the late 1990s include mandatory integral locking mechanisms that must be deactivated by a unique key before the gun can be fired. These integral locking mechanisms are intended as child-safety devices during unattended storage of the firearm—not as safety mechanisms while carrying. Other devices in this category are trigger locks, bore locks, gun safes; the most common form of safety mechanism is a switch, button or lever that, when set to the "safe" position, prevents the firing of a firearm.
Manual safeties are as varied as the designs of firearms themselves, but the two most common mechanisms are a block or latch that prevents the trigger and/or firing mechanism from moving, a device that disconnects the trigger from the firing mechanism of the firearm. Other designs may block the hammer or striker from forward movement or act as a block to prevent them from contacting the firing pin; these are the oldest forms of "active" safety mechanism and are used. A grip safety is a lever or other device situated on the grip of a firearm which must be actuated by the operator's hand, as a natural consequence of holding the firearm in a firing position, in order for the firearm to fire, it is similar to a manual safety in its function, but is momentary. The M1911 design is a popular example of a handgun with a grip safety, while the Uzi submachine gun and the HS 2000 and its descendants are other notable examples of this type of safety. A related grip-type safety is the decocking grip found on some H&K pistols like the P7 Series.
The firearm is ready to fire only when the front of the grip is squeezed by the operator. When the grip is released, the firearm is decocked, the single-action trigger will not cock the firearm, therefore it will not fire unless the grip is squeezed and the trigger pulled. Alternatively, the trigger can first be pulled and it will fire when the grip is subsequently squeezed. If both the grip is squeezed and the trigger pulled the pistol will fire. Another, unusual variant was found in the Ortgies semi-automatic pistols. To disengage the safety, a user would squeeze a lever until flush with the rear of the grip; the lever would latch in the disengaged position until the user released it again by pressing a button under the slide, whereupon tension from the striker spring would push it back to the engaged position. Thus, engaging the safety relieved some tension in the striker spring; as the Ortgies is a pocket pistol meant for personal defense, this feature eliminates the problem of failing to disengage the safety when one needs to shoot.
Gripping the pistol is all it takes to disengage the safety. Most traditional semi-automatic double-action/single action pistols are designed to be carried with the hammer down on a chambered round, with or without a manual safety engaged; the pistol is considered safe in this state as the "double-action" pull that both cocks and fires the firearm is both longer and heavier than the "single-action" pull that releases the cocked hammer, thus an inadvertent trigger pull is less likely. However, the act of cycling the action on such a firearm will leave the hammer cocked in single-action mode. To return the pistol to its safe state, it is necessary to uncock the hammer by holding the hammer spur pulling the trigger, slowly lowering the hammer on the firing pin. However, hammer-fired semi-auto pistols have a beaver tail to protect the shooter's hand from the slide which makes it more difficult to securely and grasp the hammer with the thumb, thus making an accidental discharge more likely. Striker-fired pistols, on the other hand, do not have a hammer, so the only way to return the trigger to its longer pull state is by means of a decocking or detensioning lever which releases the tension in the striker's spring without allowing firing pin full travel and internal safeties disengagement.
Note that when a handgun is fitted with a "decocking" lever, there is no need to pull the trigger while holding the lever like in a revolver. The actual process of "decocking" the gun is done by flipping the decocking lever to its "decocked" position with the fingers away from the trigger. A decocker or manual decocking lever allows the hammer to be dropped on a live cartridge wi
The Pembroke and Tenby Railway was a locally-promoted railway in Pembrokeshire, Wales. It was built by local supporters and opened in 1863; the line, now known as the Pembroke Dock branch line, remains in use at the present day. In 1814 a Royal Navy Dockyard had been established at Pembroke Dock; the South Wales Railway had been authorised to build a branch line to Pembroke, but had failed to do so. Their terminus in Neyland was a short ferry crossing from Pembroke Dock. In 1866, the Pembroke and Tenby Railway was extended to Whitland; the intention of the Pembroke and Tenby Railway was to make an alliance with other narrow gauge railways at Carmarthen, the Great Western Railway did provide a narrow gauge link to Carmarthen. Experiencing financial difficulties, the company sold its line to the Great Western Railway in 1897; the South Wales Railway was incorporated in 1845 to build from the Great Western Railway at Gloucester through to Cardiff, Swansea and Fishguard. The authorised capital was £2.8 million.
Fishguard Bay was the destination as the strategic intention was to secure the Royal Mail contract for Dublin mails. The South Wales Railway itself was an affiliate of the Great Western Railway, was to be built on the broad gauge, its engineer was Isambard Kingdom Brunel; the South Wales Railway Act authorised a branch line from Whitland to Pembroke, taking a direct course and not running near Tenby. In 1845 there was widespread loss of the potato crop on which a majority of Irish people depended for a living, resulting in mass starvation and commercial depression, which deepened the following year; the catastrophe is known as the Great Famine, as the Irish Potato Famine. The Irish partners of the Great Western Railway indicated that they could not continue with the proposed Dublin line, Brunel was having misgivings about Fishguard due to its exposure to high winds from certain directions, the decision was taken to make a port on the waterway called Milford Haven instead, by extending a planned Haverfordwest branch to Neyland, on the north shore of Milford Haven.
The station there was named Milford Haven for some years, but the name was transferred to the station several miles west, that remains open at the present day. The South Wales Railway opened its line as far as Haverfordwest on 2 January 1854, to Neyland on 15 April 1856; when the South Wales Railway was authorised, the directors of the Saundersfoot Railway and Harbour Company decided to seek powers to build a line linking both Tenby and Saundersfoot to the SWR Pembroke branch at Reynalton. This was authorised in 1846 as the Tenby and South Wales Railway and Pier Company, with authorised capital of £140,000. However, the South Wales Railway did not attempt to build their Pembroke branch, so construction of the Tenby and Saundersfoot line was not started either. Local people were indignant that the SWR had obtained authority for the line but were failing to construct it, and, in 1852, a local landowner, Baron de Rutzen, applied in the High Court for a writ of mandamus, which if granted would compel the SWR to build the line.
At this, the SWR undertook to introduce a new Bill for the line, de Rutzen agreed to withdraw his writ. In 1853, the SWR sought an extension of time for construction of the branch and a change to the route, taking it closer to Tenby; when the South Wales Railway was first authorised, Pembroke was the most important centre in the area and the proposed branch was a natural asset. By now, Neyland had been adopted as the main line terminus, it was a five-minute ferry crossing from Pembroke dockyard. Plainly, building a 27-mile railway from Whitland to Pembroke dock was unattractive, in any case the company had stretched its finances too far; as part of the stalling process, the SWR let a contract for construction, but the contractor did not start work. There were stated to be legal difficulties over land acquisition, contractual problems with the contractor; the SWR dividend for the second half of 1857 was suspended. There was considerable hostility locally, in an extraordinary move, the SWR prepared two Bills in 1857: one was for a time extension for the original line and the second was for a new line from Narberth Road on the Neyland main line, following the eastern bank of the River Cleddau.
The Bill for reviving the powers failed in the 1858 session. This was the last straw for local people, they resolved to prepare their own bill for a line from Tenby to Pembroke Dockyard and there was to be a short branch as far as the pier at Hobbs Point for the ferry to Neyland. On 21 July 1859, their line was given the Royal Assent and the South Wales Pembroke and Tenby Junction Railway was authorised, it was to be 11 1⁄2 miles in length, with authorised capital of £80,000. It was to be built on the standard gauge, not the broad gauge of the South Wales Railway; however it was one thing to be authorised to raise £80,000 and quite a different matter to persuade investors to commit the money. Interest in the company was low, many sha