September 2009 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Liberty Dollar
by Gary Jeffers 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

My fellow Cypherpunks, The Liberty Dollar My fellow Cypherpunks, I think I may have some really great news here, but you all can check it out to be sure. I found an alternative money on the Internet. It is called the Liberty Dollar. The Internet site is: http://www.norfed.org NORFED is The National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code. The money is backed by silver and gold and can be redeemed widely in America. As many of you know, the $US is a corrupt, proprietary, debt issued, fait, fractional reserved,illegal, unconstituional, U. S. State enforced monopoly currency. As corrupt as it is I don't know why it hasn't already collasped and dragged us down with it! If the Liberty Dollar is honest and robust, then it may be the vehical to beat the elite bankers tyranny and give us an honest wealth produced money. Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers BEAT STATE !!!!

3 5

RE: Cypherpunks IQ Test
by Aimee Farr 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Mike: Are you often the victim of mercenary females? > -----Original Message----- > From: mmotyka(a)lsil.com [mailto:mmotyka@lsil.com] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:28 PM > To: aimee.farr(a)pobox.com > Subject: Cypherpunks IQ Test > > > It's an obvious setup. The woods are part of a defense installation, > apple is filled with coke, the girl is underage, the woods are full of > trigger happy fibbies. > > You hit the ground and roll into the brush, drawing on the way. You > attempt to locate opponents and identify the safest route away from the > situation. > > Mike > > > >CYPHERPUNKS IQ TEST > > > >QUESTION #1. > > > >You are walking through the woods alone. A beautiful unclothed woman > >magically appears in front of you. She holds out an apple. > > > >1. Please darken in the correct choice using a Number Two pencil: > > > >(a) you bite the apple. > >(b) you take the woman. > >(c) you run away. > >(d) a and b, but not c. > >(e) b and c only. > >(f) all of the above. > >(g) none of the above. > > > >2. Please justify your answer: > > > > > >___________________________________________________________________. > > > > > >Just curious.... > > > > -Aimee

2 1

More on "new physics"
by Tim May 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Someone sent me a private note. I have deleted his name for this public reply. > Tim May wrote: > > >> The "new physics" stuff is quite different. It is scorned in a way >> that plate tectonics was not, and for good reason. Folks should visit >> Bearden's site. http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html > > I did. Oh, dear. > > Not sure what is supposed to be denoted by "Tesla physics", but Tesla's > work with power transmission via HF is fascinating, even if there was > apparently no practical or safe use for it. No one disputes the outstanding work Tesla did on a.c. transmission. And anyone who has seen or used a Tesla coil knows how real it is. "Tesla physics" is all the cruft that has developed around some of his more obscure (and late) writings, usually mixed together with stuff Tesla could not have known about at the time of his death. To wit, the stuff about zero point energy and perpetual motion machines. And, sometimes, mixed together with the usual nutcase stuff about the Hollow Earth theory (zeta reticulans colonizing the hollow earth, Greys, underground UFO bases, secret Nazi weapons, etc.). Tesla is a hero to these "new physics" nuts, even though nothing Tesla ever worked on or built contradicts in the slightest way the predictions of Maxwell's theories. They take Tesla's very real contributions and some of his weirder theories (though none of them so weird as the Hollow Earth/antigravity/time reversal theories of modern nutters) and say that this means "They laughed at Tesla, they laugh at me!" BTW, I was/am an early ("angel") investor in a company doing work on ultrawideband transmissions. Some of the works Bearden cites, like those of Barrett, are familiar to me and others with this company. Saying that there is a role for ultrawideband pulse technology, a la spread spectrum and beyond SS, is NOT the same as saying there are confirmed "problems" with electromagnetic theory. There may be, and there are a handful of folks doing "foundational" work in E&M, but, so far, there are no indications that their foundational work is changing any engineering calculations. Quite the contrary, in my view. Electromagnetic theory basically "works"--to many decimal places of accuracy. Circuits work as expected, antennas work as expected, and there are no "unexplained observations" (as usually exist before a new theory arrives). There may be some _semantic_ issues, e.g., does a square wave or impulse "really" have components that were sent out _before_ the square wave or impulse? (A Fourier decomposition of a square wave starting at time t = 0 has "sine wave components" spread out over time and adding up in such a way as to give the square wave, or the impulse, or any other signal. Some think this means deep and mysterious things are happening, something having to do with time travel and reversing the aging process, blah blah blah. Henning Harmuth may write fairly eloquently about the "dogma of the circle" and how the Fourier decomposition of a signal into (allegedly) a near-infinite series of sine waves is "not real," but for all intents and purposes it all works. And the "new physics" people like Bearden go way beyond what Harmuth and Barrett are talking about: they bring in "curved space-time" and gravitation and antigravity and the ultra-weird notion that aging can be reversed by "pumping the conjugate time-axis of the Minkowski manifold" (OK, I made this up...don't have time to lift one of Bearden's direct quotes...and this will help train me in the jargon if I ever become a "new physicist."). Nut cases like Bearden have the patter of physics down. Very few actual physicists waste their time dissecting and refuting Bearden for obvious reasons. I urge readers of this list not to waste time on this stuff. --Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787

5 22

Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Email?
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 09:57 AM 5/14/2003 -0400, Sunder wrote: >Yes, but how will you stop the spammer from double spending the same $0.25 >micropayment on all of his 170,000 email addresses? Depending on whether >you check that there is a payment attached or not, and also check it with >the bank before delivering it, you'd have already wasted your bandwith and >possibly have accepted a spam into your mail spool. It is true that the notions of micropayments as applied to spam (that I'm familiar with, at least) would require that the email recipient check with the bank to detect doublespending. This would introduce an additional delay before delivery from unknown senders, yes, but I fail to see how it would impose an unacceptable cost in bandwidth or CPU usage. Spammers could still try the same-micropayment-a-million-times route, just as they could try to spam without micropayments, but if their email is rejected in sufficient quantities, the cost to the spammer would outweigh the benefits. The key is achieving sufficient quantities. -Declan

6 19

Re: AP Al Qaeda
by mattd 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>>No, no. AP is funny because it's impracticeable. One does not find an assassin exclusively by tracing who paid him to kill. One can (and often does) find him because he makes a mistake in the act of commiting the crime. Which, if I'm >>reading my history right, is what's hampered the noisy proponents of AP up to this point already. Crime? Wot crime,guvnor? Jim and CJ were not 'noisy'.imo. Im a bit noisy cos Im pushing the 'let it all hang out' version. >The point is that Bell's theory does a really good job of sorting out the business end of assassination,...< Oh THATS funny.I get it. HAHAHA! >>Killing one person, especially a public official, pisses a whole bunch of people off. Those people have a tendency to come find their buddy's killer. Mmm,where do we start,lets get some firebrands and go up to the proffrs? Look at sites with no logs for quad anon 'predictors' who may be overseas briefly visiting cybercafes,Good luck china.(you just contradicted yrself btw.) Oh,unless you mean the torture/french village reprisal thang.Win friends and influence people. The one person killed will have had to have done a lot of evil shit to get enough pooled (presumably) to tempt a seasoned pro.Unless some professional killer turns all altruistic,stranger things have happened.The killer could be suicidal.another possibility.Lots of scenarios possible here,movie scripts,even.Pop songs,video games.DoCoMo assasinphones. Someone like a torturer,murderer,terrorist,pedophile is a logical candidate.(stephen roach?)Sometimes these happen to be public officials.Theres one here where I live named dennis Tanner.(vic.au) Those killers by remote control like arbusto might be be made more accountable. What better way than...Bell's theory, "a really good job of sorting out the business end of assassination"according to you. KILL THE PRESIDENT! "Id buy that for a dollar!" >>No kind of real or threatened assassination can weaken a government in which a majority of the governed people >believe. It can only make it seem more righteous and be more strong. Thats true,roll over and go back to sleep,if you live under that govt you have nothing to worry about. More righteous and more smug.

2 15

attack of the drones
by Eugen Leitl 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215825/output/print Attack of the Drones Now that congress has killed the F-22, the Air Force is facing another shock to the system: planes without pilots. By Fred Kaplan | NEWSWEEK Published Sep 19, 2009 >From the magazine issue dated Sep 28, 2009 For more than 60 years, the Air Force has trumpeted itself as the service of glamour, its pilots ruling the skies, soaring, diving, bombing, and strafing from far abovebyet still commanding the clash of armies on the ground. In movies, they wore white scarves and set the girls' hearts aflutter. But all that is changing in ways that few outsiders understand. A fierce fight is on for the mission, culture, and identity of the Air Force, and the Top Guns are losing. This is the real story behind a passionate political struggle this past summer over a major weapons system, the F-22 Raptor, the world's most sophisticated fighter plane. On its face, the F-22 debate was a straightforward budget battle. The Air Force had 183 of the stealth fighters in its fleet, and another four on the way. It wanted $4 billion for 20 more planes in the next yearba down payment on 200 more it hoped to build in the next decade, for a total of 387. For years, senior Air Force officers had pushed for the F-22 with an intense, almost messianic passion. Congress complied, largely because huge sums of money were at stake. (The Air Force had shrewdly spread the plane's contracts and subcontracts across 46 states.) But the request came at a time of economic calamity, mounting national debt, and a shift in thinking about military requirements. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said no, and President Obama announced he would veto the entire defense budget if it contained money for even one more F-22. The project was killed, story over. But the struggle goes much deeper than that, and its consequences are more profound. To understand why, you need to go back to the beginning: 1981, the height of the Cold War, when the F-22 was born. Its mission was air-to-air combatbkeeping control of the sky during a major war, so that bombers could reach their targets, and soldiers down below could fight without worrying about enemy aerial attacks. With its stealth technology (making it much less visible to radar) and high-tech electronics (making it more powerful at longer ranges), the plane was designed to shoot down the latest Soviet combat planes with greater ease than anything else in the sky. But the first operational F-22 didn't roll onto a runway until the end of 2005, after nearly a quarter century of delays, technical setbacks, and massive cost overruns. By that time, the Cold War was long over. No country on earth had an air force remotely capable of going up against the latest versions of the U.S. F-15 and F-18 fighter planes, much less something newer. Many in Congress, and some civilian analysts in the Pentagon, wanted to cut our losses and kill the F-22 outright. But defenders of the plane were more powerful. To them, the Air Force meant fast, agile planes dogfighting high in the sky. To kill the most advanced fighter plane was tantamount to killing the Air Force. So they did what they do best: they put up a fight. They were fighting against history. From 1947 to 1982, all 10 generals who served as Air Force chief of staff were bomber pilots. From 1982 until last year, all nine generals who occupied that position were fighter pilots. In 2008, a new era in warfare was beginning, and Secretary Gates asked President Bush to appoint a different kind of chief of staff: Gen. Norton Schwartz. He came up through the ranks flying neither bombers nor fighters but C-130s, the bulky cargo planes that haul troops, weapons, and supplies from bases and supply depots to the battlefront. "Airlift," as this duty is called, is a vital mission; the Army, Marines, and Special Forces couldn't mobilize swiftly without it. But it's unglamorous. The Air Force brass had never valued it as highly as missions that involve fast combat planes or bombing targets deep behind enemy linesbuntil now. Just as the Vietnam War paved the way for the rise of the fighter pilotbbefore then, much higher status was given to pilots of nuclear bombersbthe Iraq and Afghanistan wars are demanding a new Air Force culture. "War is the great teacher of innovation, the great stimulus to thought in military affairs," says Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and logistics. The present wars, he adds, "have challenged the cultures in all the servicesb&There's a heated competition to be relevant." Iraq and Afghanistan are very different wars from the war the F-22 Raptor was designed to fight. (Not one of the advanced aircraft has flown a single mission over either theater.) The enemy isn't a foreign government, but an insurgency; there are few "strategic" targets to bomb and no opposing air force to go after. So the main Air Force role is to support American and allied troops on the ground. This means two things: first, airlifting supplies (General Schwartz's specialty); second, helping the troops find and kill bad guys. For this second mission, the Air Force has been relying more and more on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with names like Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk, and Warrior Alpha. Joystick pilots located halfway around the world operate these ghost planes. They pinpoint their targets by watching streams of real-time video, taken by cameras strapped to the bellies of the UAVs. Many of the aircraft also carry super-accurate smart bombs, which the joystick pilots can fire with the push of a button once they've spotted the targets on their video screens. The first UAVs were used in Yugoslavia in the '90s and during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. They proved so effective that, when the war in Iraq became an insurgency, every American soldier, Marine, and Special Ops officer wanted one overhead to help find and destroy snipers' nests, roadside bombs, and other threats. Gates noticed this growing demand for the unmanned planes soon after taking over the Pentagon at the end of 2006, in the last half of George W. Bush's second term as president. Gates's top priority was cleaning up the mess in Iraq, and UAVs seemed to be a potent tool. He ordered a crash program to build more of the planes, as well as the infrastructure to support them. But senior Air Force officers, including the chief of staff at the time, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, didn't seem motivated to put the UAVs into action over Iraq. Gates would grumble that the troops were at war but the Pentagon wasn't. "Trying to get Moseley to move on this was like pulling teeth," a senior Pentagon official recalls. "Gates was terribly frustrated." An Air Force pilot who worked inside the Pentagon at the time agrees: "There was a big resistance to unmanned systems within the Air Force because they're not very sexy. The attitude was 'Airplanes without pilots in them? That's not what we're about!' " (A half century ago, Gen. Curtis LeMay, the first head of the Strategic Air Command, opposed development of the intercontinental ballistic missile, which he feared would supplant the long-range bomber. He didn't want the Air Force to become, he said, "the silent silo-sitters of the '60s.") Gates wanted to nudge the naysayers aside. He got his chance in June 2008, when two Air Force scandals erupted. In one case, electrical fuses for ballistic-missile warheads were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan. In another, a bomber flew over U.S. territory carrying live nukes. Gates used the opportunity to fire Moseley and the civilian secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne. Gates, who had been a Minuteman ICBM crewman in his youth, was genuinely shocked by the two incidents, says one senior military officer, who did not want to be named because he did not want to be publicly drawn into interservice politics. "But," the officer adds, "they weren't the only reasons these guys were fired. Gates was looking for some excuse, and this was a pretty good one." (Moseley and Wynne did not respond to requests for comment.) The Air Force lobbied Gates to appoint another fighter pilot, but Gates wanted Schwartz for the job. Schwartz, who had intended to retire at the end of the year, was just wrapping up a tour as head of the Air Force's Transportation Command. (Just before that, he had been deputy commander of the Special Operations Command.) Gates liked his pragmatic bent and his eagerness to cooperate with the other services. Gates had just forced the Army to buy a fleet of expensive new armored personnel carriers, called MRAPs, and he needed the Air Force to get them to Iraq quickly. Schwartz leapt to the task. Gates figured that, as chief of staff, Schwartz would embrace unmanned aerial vehicles. He did. In an e-mail, Gen. David Petraeus, who commands the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, praised Schwartz for doing "a particularly impressive job of accelerating" the deployment of UAVs, and helping the troops on the ground. This sort of joint effort may sound unremarkable, but in the annals of ArmybAir Force relations, it's practically revolutionary. In 2007, the year before Schwartz became chief, UAVs were performing 21 combat air patrols at any one time, for a total of just over 100,000 hours. By 2011, they'll reach 54 patrols and almost 350,000 hours. For now, the joystick pilots have to be certified fighter pilots as well. But Schwartz says this requirement will be dropped, mainly because there aren't enough fighter pilots to fill the growing demand for UAV crews. "There's no need for them to be pilots," one senior Pentagon official says. "It's sort of like a union regulation." This year, the Air Force will train more joystick pilots than new fighter and bomber pilots. "If you want to be in the center of the action, this is the place to be," Schwartz says. "It's not a temporary phenomenonb&It's a sustainable career path. I've made that very clear." Lt. Col. Travis Burdine, a Predator pilot-from-afar, has gotten the message: "We all joined the Air Force to go flying, but word on the street is that job satisfaction is very high [manning a joystick]. Every day we're doing this, we're in the thick of the fight. We fly 36 [combat air patrols] a day. Where they're happening, the hottest 36 things are going on." It's not hard now to imagine a time when the dominant combat leaders of the Air Force have no physical contact with airplanes. "We're opening an aperture," Schwartz says. "How do we define a warrior-airman? The definition is expanding." Whatever happens, he says, "the trend lines are inescapable: we increasingly will become less of a manned aviation force." C. R. Anderegg, the Air Force historian, says that just as the generals of the 1950s and '60s were predominantly bomber pilots, and the generals of the 1970s and '80s were mainly fighter pilots, so a lot of the generals in the coming decades may be UAV joystick pilots. "It's going to be pretty hard for a promotion board, picking the next one-star generals, to pick a colonel who hasn't commanded a UAV wing over a colonel who has. The UAV commander has the experience, and he has a larger, less insular view of the battlefield than, say, an F-22 pilot at Langley." Many fighter-pilot generalsbthe most fervent advocates of building more F-22sbcontinue to resist these changes. Their motives aren't entirely parochial. Many worry that 187 F-22s simply aren't enough for the long-term needs of national defense. "The concern among many leaders in the Air Force," says one general, "is that this obsessive focus on today's wars is jeopardizing our security in the future." These generals imagine a future war against, say, a resurgent China or a revitalized Russia. Gates gets that. But the official Air Force studies that justify a fleet of 387 F-22s assume the United States fights two major wars simultaneously against foes that each possess an air force nearly equal to ours. Such a scenario is dubious and, in any case, very distant. It was, in fact, these studies that convinced Gates that he was right to halt the program at 187 planes. "It's very difficult to come up with two very sophisticated threats that might materialize at the same time," says a senior officer who has supervised analytical studies about weapons needs. Even if the nearly impossible came truebif the U.S. did fight two wars at once against major powersbat least one Pentagon analysis concludes that F-35s could handle the second threat nearly as well as F-22s, according to a senior officer who participated in the study. The F-35ba smaller, cheaper plane, which Gates wants to buy in large quantitybis not quite as good as the F-22 in shooting down planes but much better at destroying surface-to-air missile batteries. On July 17, the Senate voted to stop the F-22 program by a margin of 58b40ba more lopsided margin than administration officials had predicted. It was not a party-line vote: 15 Democrats voted to continue production; 15 Republicans voted with Obama and Gates to kill it. (The F-22's floor managers were Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., representing Lockheed Martin, the chief contractor, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., representing Pratt & Whitney, which makes the engine.) The vote went the way it did because Gates, a widely respected Republican hawk, provided cover for opponents of the program. In a speech the day before the Senate acted, Gates declared that it was no longer possible to design and buy the most sophisticated weapons systems "to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary, especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago." He might have added that the Air Force has to change its culture to keep up with the times. The glamour days are over, and a new era has begun. Kaplan is the National-Security Columnist for Slate and the author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed.

3 4

SOLDOUT-I sel]ling ro*lexes. do you w#ant one? che@ap 7l
by Carrie D. Pagan 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

1 0

Нововведения для прав Интел. Собственности.
by Наталия 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

Актуальные вопросы правового регулирования интеллектуальной собственности. Проблемы принятия Четвертой Части ГК РФ За более подробной информацuей обpащайтеcь по тел: Код Москвы 792\2I22/, Ч45-39/68 Дата проведения занятий: l6 - Оkтябrя 2OO9 г. Продолжительность: 1 день Кол-во часов: всего 8 ч. Семинар ориентирован на: Юристов, специалистов, не являющихся юристами, руководителей компаний, сотрудников компаний, непосредственно работающих с предпринимательским правом и его аспектами, сотрудников которые принимают решения о создании, реорганизации или ликвидации юридического лица, создании холдинговых компаний, открытии представительств. Целu семинара: Рассмотрение изменений в законодательство об интеллектуальной собственности в связи с принятием IV части ГК РФ Знакомство с основами пр. интеллектуальной собственности РФОбсуждение проблем, которые возникают в сфере применения права интеллектуальной собственностиАнализ практики применения конкретных норм авторского и смежных прав Краткая информация о предстоящем мероприятии: Интел. собственность и понятие о данной форме собственности.Права Авторов.Общие права.Право через Патент.Интеллектуальная собственность и ее оценка.Методы защиты правообладателей и их результатов деятельности. Информацию можно получить по телефонам: [495] 792*--21 22, 4Ч5Ч05З U6JY1G2UPI681X

1 0

SOLDOUT-Rolex -200$ Omega 200- and others 1t
by Craig Locke 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

1 0

На Ваш запрос вот информация
by ООО "Фармет" 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

По вопpоcам pегucтаpацuu обpащайтеcь по тел: (495) 742.9I 98 (Ч95) 4Ч5-4О/95 Этот семинар уже посетили 4000 специалистов. все пробуем самиза пять днейчистой практики l9 - 23 Oкtяbrя Техника бюджетирования - основа в системе_планирования предприятия: бюджетный контроль и анализ исполнения бюджета. В состав обучения входит бесплатный квалификационный день занятий который согласовывается с каждым участником отдельно. По окончании уч. курса каждый участник получит купон на бесплатное обновление следующей версии комплекса. В состав данной группы в качестве подарка включен дополнительный программный продукт проф. Блок, который значительно расширяет работу комплекса.. Подготовка участников будет осуществляться в компьютерном классе, где в помощь будет предоставлен программный комплекс в основе которого заложена современная методика планирования. По телефонному запросу высылаются 2 информационных файла: полное описание семинара; форма заявки на участие в семинаре. Семинар проходит в компьютерном классе. Каждому участнику √ свое рабочее место. Учебный курс ориентирован на: руководителей организаций, руководителей планово-экономических служб, специалистов по управлению финансами, собственников, инвесторов, специалистов кредитных организаций и органов государственного управления. Специалистов, осуществляющих подготовку и принятие решений, связанных с долгосрочным и краткосрочным кредитованием предприятия, инвестированием, поиском партнеров, подготовкой внутренней и внешней финансовой документации, ежедневным планированием деятельности собственного предприятия. Каждому слушателю семинара: для дальнейшей успешной работы и внедрения методики планирования и текущего бюджетного учета на предприятии предоставляются бесплатно следующие методические материалы и ПО: 1. Специализированная программа - профессиональная разработка документации! Программный продукт способен не только разрабатывать финансовую документацию на профессиональном уровне, в новой версии реализованы значительные возможности для планирования текущего бюджета предприятий. 2. Программа для объединения, сравнения проектов, холдинг, консолидированная отчетность. 3. Программа для построения, развития и управления экономической моделью предприятия. Управления инвестиционными проектами, сравнение план/факт, мониторинг бюджета предприятия в реальном времени. Возможность написания собственных формул, сценария диагностики проекта, перепрограммирование и настройка программы. 4. Программный продукт для построения отчетов, позволяющая простыми средствами решить задачу составления отчетности по финансовым проектам. Блок позволяет экспортировать данные, введенные в программном комплексе, в собственный шаблон, подготовленный средствами MS Excel. 5. Программный продукт для разработки текстовой части деловой документации (бизнес планов, ТЭО, инвестиционных проектов и прочих финансовых проектов.) в профессиональном виде. 6. Cпециализированная программа по Экспресс построению бизнес планов. (Экспресс подготовка экономической документации. Основное назначение программы - быстрая, качественная, профессиональная подготовка экономической документации для представления в различные структуры, как в финансовые, так и в структуры органов власти.). 7. Набор методического печатного материала (разработанный нашей компанией) в помощь для самостоятельной разработки финансовых проектов. 8. Электронную версию (на CD) методического материала для самостоятельной разработки финансовых проектов. 9. Технологии воспроизводства документации и формирования отчетов и презентаций в виде исполнительных программных модулей. Стоимость программ входит в стоимость семинара. Для слушателей будет организован дополнительный бесплатный день обучения не входящий в состав расписания.Каждому участнику семинара Выдается квалификационный с е р т и ф и к а т Компании о прохождении курса обучения по методике "Бюджетирование" и классу семинаров "Бюджетное управление инвестиционными проектами".Список сертифицированных специалистов публикуются на сайте Компании и будут подтверждаться по любому запросу в течение квалификационного периода. Семинар проводится в г.Москва Вся информация по тел: (495) 742-9l-98; 4Ч5-ЧO-95 XVXC5FLOKF2

1 0