September 2009 - cypherpunks-legacy

Новые нормативные акты по учету производственных предприятий
by Учет производственных предприятий 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Производственные предприятия: особенности бухгалтерского и налогового учета Ceмнadцatoго cеntябrя (495) 742 9I 98,(495) ЧЧ5-ЧО/95 Цель обучения: Изучение отраслевых особенностей формирования себестоимости, формирование общепроизводственных и общехозяйственных расходов, порядок распределения затрат вспомогательных производствах. Программа: 1.Затраты и расходы. Прямые и косвенные расходы. Признание расходов в бухгалтерском и налоговом учете в соответствии с требованиями ПБУ 10/99 "Расходы организации" и главы 25 "Налог на прибыль" НК РФ. Порядок оформления первичной документации в свете требований нормативных документов по бухгалтерскому учету с учетом практики налоговых проверок. Виды расходов: материальные расходы амортизация расходы на оплату туда и социальные отчисления прочие расходы 2. Услуги сторонних организаций. Затрат на услуги аутсорсинга и аутстафинга персонала: налоговые риски и арбитражная практика. 3. Общепроизводственные и общехозяйственные расходы: формирование и документальное оформление. Порядок распределения расходов в соответствии с учетной политикой. 4. Вспомогательные производства. Порядок распределения затрат вспомогательных производств. Обслуживающие производства и хозяйства. Признание расходов для целей исчисления налога на прибыль 5. Отраслевые особенности формирования себестоимости 6. Калькулирование себестоимости единицы готовой продукции и отражение в учетной политике порядка формирования и распределения расходов. Методы формирования себестоимости продукции: попроцессный попередельный позаказный Методы исключения, распределения и эквивалентных коэффициентов 7. Потери от брака: документальное оформление, порядок отнесения на виновных лиц или включения в расходы. Признание для целей исчисления налога на прибыль. 8. Отходы производства, технологические потери и естественная убыль. Порядок оформления и отражения в бухгалтерском и налоговом учете. 9. Незавершенное производство. Порядок формирования незавершенного производства в бухгалтерском и налоговом учете. Распределение расходов на прямые и косвенные. Оценка незавершенного производства на конец периода, методы оценки и их отражение в учетной политике 10. Оказание услуг. Особенности оформления первичной документации. Понятие "незавершенное производство" при выполнении работ и оказании услуг. 11. Выпуск готовой продукции и применением и без применения счета 40. Формирование полной и сокращенной себестоимости готовой продукции. Нормативная и фактическая себестоимость. Влияние метода учета готовой продукции на финансовый результат. Оценка и документальное оформление выпуска продукции. Учет готовой продукции на складах. 12. Инвентаризация. Порядок проведения и отражение операций в учете. 13. Реализация готовой продукции по договорам купли-продажи, поставки, мены. Условия поставки и момент перехода права собственности. Отгрузка продукции. Затраты, связанные с отгрузкой, и являющиеся в соответствии с условием договора обязанностью поставщика (страховка, транспортировка и т. д.). Резервы по сомнительным долгам в бухгалтерском и налоговом учете. Выручка от реализации в бухгалтерском и налоговом учете в соответствии с требованиями ПБУ 9/99 "Доходы организации" и главы 25 НК РФ. Равномерность признания доходов и расходов и налоговом учете и ее применение в производственных организациях. 14. Санкции, предусмотренные в договоре: порядок признания, оформления, и формирования налоговой базы по налогу на прибыль. Стoимoсть: 5900 руб. По вопpоcам подробной информации и pегucтаpацuu обpащайтеcь по тел: (495) 792-двадцать один-двадцать два, 4Ч5-З9-шестьдесят восемь XAQO06V1

1 0

A bigger rod will show you a shorter road to success.
by Norbert Merrill 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Want to please your woman with your penis not your tongue? Then head for your dream and try our enlargement program today to amaze your girlfriend in a few months.   Click immediately http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minjjkgggh

1 0

PGP, Snow Leopard, and Technological Illiteracy
by R.A. Hettinga 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Делопроизводство - организация документооборота предприятия
by Формирование и оформление дел 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Делопроизводство - организация документооборота предприятия Информацию можно получить по телефонам: Код Москвы 792\2I22/, Ч45-39/68 8 Сeнтяbrя 2ОО9 г. Программа мероприятия 1-й день: Нормативно-правовые акты по делопроизводству. Основные категории документов. Создание Табеля унифицированных форм документов предприятияПравила оформления документов. Виды бланков. Наиболее распространенные погрешности при разработке фирменных бланков организации.Распорядительные документы. Признаки юридической силы документа. Особенности оформления и хранения документов по личному составу. Справочно-информационные документы. Деловое письмо. Рекомендации, которыми не следует пренебрегать. Правила заверения копий документов в организации. Совершенствование делопроизводственных процессов. Контроль исполнения. Составление номенклатуры дел. Формирование и оформление дел. Что должен знать и уметь секретарь при подготовке и передаче дел на архивное хранение. Практическая работа с документами. Современный секретарь, офис-менеджер: функциональные обязанности и этикет служебных отношений 09_Сенtяbrя Программа мероприятия 2-й день: Корпоративная культура: фирменный стиль организации. Имидж секретаря. Международный стандарт. Функциональные обязанности секретаря. Личные и профессиональные качества. Деловое общение: правила этикета при приветствии и представлении. Виды визитных карточек и правила использования. Характерные ошибки в оформлении и использовании. Функции секретаря по организации приема посетителей. "Традиционные" ошибки при приеме деловых партнеров и посетителей. Международные правила дарения и принятия подарков и сувениров. Взаимоотношения с сотрудниками и руководством. Использование психологических дистанций и жестов в деловой обстановке. Культура деловой речи. Правильно ли мы ставим ударения? Телефонные переговоры: забытые истины. Виды приемов. Гастрономический этикет. Стоимость участия 1 дня:5 200 рублей Стоимость участия за 2 дня: 8 780 рублей Вся информация по тел: (cod Москвы) 7/9/2-21 22; ЧЧ5-три девять 68 E6QZKIIK

1 0

[p2p-research] Never Mind the Policy: Can Filtering Technology Stop p2p?
by Eugen Leitl 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

----- Forwarded message from Tomas Rawlings <tom(a)fluffylogic.net> -----

1 0

Four Billion Little Brothers?: Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection
by Eugen Leitl 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1597790 Four Billion Little Brothers?: Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection by Katie Shilton | August 27, 2009 Topic: Privacy and Rights Four Billion Little Brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection Participatory sensing technologies could improve our lives and our communities, but at what cost to our privacy? Katie Shilton, University of California, Los Angeles They place calls, surf the Internet, and there are close to 4 billion of them in the world. Their built-in microphones, cameras, and location awareness can collect images, sound, and GPS data. Beyond chatting and texting, these features could make phones ubiquitous, familiar tools for quantifying personal patterns and habits. They could also be platforms for thousands to document a neighborhood, gather evidence to make a case, or study mobility and health. This data could help you understand your daily carbon footprint, exposure to air pollution, exercise habits, and frequency of interactions with family and friends. At the same time, however, this data reveals a lot about your regular locations, habits, and routines. Once such data is captured, acquaintances, friends, or authorities might coerce you to disclose it. Perhaps worse, it could be collected or reused without your knowledge or permission. At the extreme, mobile phones could become the most widespread embedded surveillance tools in history. Imagine carrying a location-aware bug, complete with a camera, accelerometer, and Bluetooth stumbling, everywhere you go. Your phone could document your comings and goings, infer your activities throughout the day, and record whom you pass on the street or who engaged you in conversation. Deployed by governments or compelled by employers, 4 billion "little brothers" could be watching you. Whether phones engaged in sensing data are tools for self and community research, coercion, or surveillance depends on who collects the data, how it is handled, and what privacy protections users are given. As these new forms of data begin to flow over phone networks, application developers will be the first line of defense for protecting the sensitive data collected by always-present, always-on mobile phones. I should mention that I'm not one of the developers on the front lines. I work in science and technology studies (STS), a social science interested in the ways people, technologies, and data interact and affect each other. The developers I work with might say STS is about telling them what they should be doingbwhich I must admit is the goal of this article. I worry about the consequences of mobile phones as sensors, and have a number of opinions about what programmers, as well as social scientists, might do to make this sort of data collection work without slipping into coercion, surveillance, and control. Participatory sensing Research that uses mobile phones to collect data for personal or social projects is called mobile, urban, or participatory sensing.2-4 Participatory sensing is meant to enable (and encourage) anyone to gather and investigate previously invisible data. It tries to avoid surveillance or coercive sensing by emphasizing individuals' participation in the sensing process. Applications designed to enable participatory sensing range from the very personal and self-reflective to shareable data meant to improve an individual's health or a community's experience. This article examines three applications from UCLA's CENS (Center for Embedded Networked Sensing) to illustrate the diversity of possibilities, as well as suggest data collection and sharing concerns. PEIR (Personal Environmental Impact Report). Participants in PEIR carry mobile phones throughout their day to calculate their carbon footprints and exposure to air pollutionbboth big concerns in smoggy Los Angeles, where the project is based. By referencing GPS and cell towers, the phones upload participants' locations every few seconds. Based on these time-location traces, the PEIR system can infer participant activities (walking, biking, driving, riding the bus) throughout the day. The system maps the combination of location, time, and activity to Southern California regional air quality and weather data to estimate individual carbon footprint and exposure to particulate matter. Sensing a participant's location throughout the day enables more accurate and previously unavailable information about environmental harms people face, as well as the harms they create. To participate, individuals need to record and submit a continuous location trace. Biketastic. This project improves bike commuting in Los Angeles, a city notoriously unfriendly to cyclists. Bikers carry a GPS-enabled mobile phone during their commutes. The phone automatically uploads bikers' routes to a public Web site. The phone also uses its accelerometer to document the roughness of the road, and takes audio samples to analyze volume of noise along the route. Participants can log in to see their routes combined with existing data, including air quality, time-sensitive traffic conditions, and traffic accidents. They can also use the system to share information about their routes with other riders. By combining existing local conditions with biker-contributed data, Biketastic will enable area bikers to plan routes with the least probability of traffic accidents; with the best air quality; or according to personal preferences, such as road-surface quality or connections with public transportation. Biketastic shares location data through a public map, though individuals use pseudonymous user names. AndWellness. Currently under development, AndWellness is a personal monitoring tool designed to encourage behavioral change. It helps clients work independently or with a coach to document places and times when they stray from a healthy eating or exercise plan. During an initial week of documentation, AndWellness prompts users to input personal assessments throughout the day. These assessments ask users when they last ate and whether they were on plan. After a week of tracking and data analysis, users can see places and times where they tend to stray from their plan, and plan interventions to combat unwanted variations. AndWellness collects not only location, but also sensitive data about diet and habits. Individuals might choose to share this data with a support group, coach, therapist, doctor, family, or friends. Taking participatory sensing from a possibility enabled by the mobile-phone network to a coordinated reality is rife with challenges. Among these challenges are the ethics of repurposing phones, now used as communication tools, for data collection and sharing. How can individuals determine when, where, and how they wish to participate? How much say do they get over what they wish to document and share? Privacy in Participatory Sensing Privacybthe ability to understand, choose, and control what personal information you share, with whom and for how longbis a huge challenge for participatory sensing. Privacy decisions have many components, including identity (who is asking for the data?), granularity (how much does the data reveal about me?), and time (how long will the data be retained?)7,10,11 Location traces can document and quantify habits, routines, and personal associations. Your location might reveal your child's school, your regular trips to a therapist or doctor, and times when you arrived late or left early from work. These traces are easy to mine and difficult or impossible to retract once shared. Sharing such granular and revealing digital data could have a number of risks or negative consequences. Safety and security threats are obvious: thieves, stalkers, etc. are possible dangers. Perhaps less obviousband probably more likelybare other social consequences. Think about how frequently you beg off a social engagement with a little white lie, or keep your location and activities secret to surprise a friend. Much like Facebook's ill-fated Beacon service, participatory sensing could disrupt the social boundaries we have come to expect. What if someone with authority over you (your employer, the government) collects or accesses your location data? It's easy to imagine a chilling effect on legal, but stigmatized, activities. Would you be as likely to attend a political protest, or visit a plastic surgeon, if you knew your location was visible to others? Large databases of location data accessible by subpoena also could become evidence for everything from minor civil disputes to messy divorce cases. Maybe most importantly, privacy is an important part of your identity and self-presentation. Deciding what to reveal to whom is part of deciding who you are. I might want to track when and where I tend to overeat, but I see no reason to share that information with anyone but my doctor. Similarly, I might take part in a political data collection project on the weekend, but that doesn't mean my parents need to know. Respecting the many gradations between public and private, and giving people the ability to negotiate those gradations, are integral to respecting individual privacy. In the United States and Europe, fair information practices are one standard for protecting the privacy of personal data. Originally codified in the 1970s, the Code of Fair Information Practices outlines data-management principles to help organizations protect personal data.12,13 These codes are still considered a gold g participatory sensing projects implement appropriate data-protection standards? To create workable standards with data so granular and personal, systems must actively engage individuals in their own privacy decision making. At CENS, we call this participatory privacy regulationbthe idea that systems can help users to negotiate disclosure decisions depending on context (who is asking, what is being asked for, etc.). We need to build systems that improve users' ability to make sense of, and thereby regulate, their privacy. Building such systems is a major, unmet challenge.6 As the first steps toward meeting this challenge, we propose three new principles for developers to consider and apply when building mobile data-gathering applications. These principles are purposefully broad, because "acceptable" data practices might vary across applications (a medical project might be justified in collecting much more personal data, with stringent protections, than a community documentation project). These principles are thinking tools to help developers adapt privacy protections to participatory sensing applications. Participant primacy The goal of participatory privacy regulation is to give participants as much control over their location data as possible. GPS traces or the secondary traces created by geotagged media should belong to individuals. Participants should be able to make and revoke decisions to share subsets of the data with third-party applications. Framed this way, participants are not just subjects of data collection, but take the role of investigators (when they collect data to participate in self-analytic applications) or co-investigators (when they contribute their data to larger research initiatives). As such, they should have input into how data is collected, processed, stored, and discarded. Developers can enable participants to own and manage their data by tailoring access-control and data-management tools for use by individual participants. Users collecting revealing sensing data are going to need secure storage and intuitive interfaces to manage access and sharing. As an example, CENS researchers are developing a PDV (personal data vault) to give individuals private and robust storage for their sensing data. The PDV provides services such as authentication and access control, allowing participants not only to collect all of their sensing data in one place, but also to specify which individuals and groups in their social network can see which datasets. Similar tools are in development in research labs at Stanford8 and AT&T,1 and are not unlike commercial applications such as Google Health5 and Microsoft's HealthVault.9 As developers build data-management tools to put personal data control back in the hands of individuals, they will need to think about which controls users will need to make privacy and sharing decisions. At a very basic level, sharing decisions should take into account identity (who's asking?), time (send data only between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.), location (send data only when vity data (time spent driving, walking, and indoors) and ZIP code, rather than granular location data. PEIR doesn't need to know what street a participant was onbonly what carbon-generating activity they were engaged in. By collecting the minimum amount of information needed for a service, application developers can help participants maintain control over their raw data. Data legibility Participatory sensing systems can help participants make sense of, and decisions about, their data by visualizing granular, copious data in ways individuals can understand. Methods to improve data legibility include visualization using tools such as maps, charts, icons, pictures, or scales. Data legibility also includes showing users who has accessed their data and how frequently, and showing participants where their data goes and how long it remains accessible. System features should increase participants' understanding of complex risks and help them make better decisions about data capture, sharing, and retention. Developers should get creative about what legibility might mean. An application's user interface, for example, could help users not only set data-sharing policies, but also see the results of their policies. Imagine a Facebook pop-up that asks, "Do you really want to share the album o?=Party Pics' with your father?" Developing features either for data vaults or for sensing applications that illuminate who can see what data will help users better understand the consequences of data sharing. Another approach is to show multiple interpretations of collected data. The AndWellness interface, for example, uses both maps and timelines to help users draw conclusions about when and where their eating habits strayed from their plans. Developers might also experiment with natural language, helping translate numerical data or complex algorithms into something easier to understand. Natural language might make inferences from data points (e.g., this bike route has a few hills in the middle, most of them easy, and one difficult hill at the end); or plain tFinally, developers will need to consider time as a factor that affects privacy in participatory sensing. You may end participation in a carbon footprint calculator when you start taking public transit to work, but enroll in a new health program after receiving a surprising diagnosis. Personal habits and routines change over time, altering the data collected into personal data vaults. Because time is such a critical factor, application interfaces should encourage participants to engage with the data from the point of collection through analysis, long-term retention, or deletion. Systems should enable continued engagement to allow participants to change their data practices as their context changes. The crux of engaging individuals with decisions about their data is refusing to put that data in a black box. Instead, analyzing, learning from the data, and making ongoing choices about the data become the goals of sensing. We offer several suggestions for how developers can encourage long-term engagement. Policies that require users to check back in with a vault or application on a regular basis can remind them to update their sharing preferences as their needs change. A data vault could remind users to update their sharing preferences every time they add new contacts or applications. Building adaptive filters can also enable participants to change their data sharing as their preferences change. Such filters could learn from user behavior to respond to privacy preferences. For example, the vault could learn never to share a certain route or could learn to check with users before sharing any routes recorded after 9 p.m. A TraceAudit is another idea that helps users engage with their data over time. The TraceAudit builds on the idea of an Internet traceroute and relies on careful logging procedures. An interface that allows users access to logs can let them trace how their data is used by an application, where the data has been shared, and who has had access to it. For example, a TraceAudit of data use in PEIR can show participants exactlsification based on this raw data (minutes spent walking, driving, etc.) and sends a summary of the activities and the ZIP codes in which they occurred to the California Air Resources Board. PEIR receives back PM2.5 (fine particle) pollution exposure and CO2 emission values to correspond with these activities and ZIP codes. PEIR then saves and displays these total calculations for users. The TraceAudit provides transparency and accountability, helping individuals to see how PEIR has used and shared their data. Challenges beyond technology System design that pays attention to participant primacy, longitudinal engagement, and data legibility will help users make data-sharing decisions and protect their privacy in participatory sensing. Technical decisions, however, won't be enough to ensure privacy for sensing participants. Participant engagement in privacy decision making needs to be fortified by supporting social structures, as well. Participatory sensing opens the door to entirely new forms of granular and pervasive data collection. The risks of this sort of data collection are not always self-evident. Even if we give people options for managing their data, they may not understand the benefits of doing so. Data literacy must be acquired over time through many avenues. Public discussion and debate about participatory sensing will be critical to educating participants about the risks and possibilities of sensing data. Discussion forums and blogs play an important role, as do traditional media and even community groups. Further, participants in participatory sensing are going to need to understand what happens with their data once it leaves their personal vault and is used by third-party applications. Diverse and plentiful applications for participatory sensing data can help to achieve the potential usefulness of participatory sensing, but will also make it difficult for participants to understand which applications are trustworthy and abide by acceptable data practices. Participants need to know what they are signing up forband cryptim, much like "Fair Trade" labels on food, could help consumers distinguish applications that abide by a minimum set of responsible data practices. These might include logging data use and keeping audit trails, and discarding location data after a specified period of time. Such measures could help to increase transparency of participatory sensing applications. Finally, enhanced legal protections for unshared vault data can encourage participation in participatory sensing. Ongoing work is investigating the possibility of a legal privilege for personal-sensing data. Such a privilege could be enabled by statute and modeled on attorney-client or doctor-patient privilege. Conclusion While lawyers and social scientists work on structural changes to help ensure privacy in participatory sensing, many of the initial and critically important steps toward privacy protection will be up to application developers. By innovating to put participants first, we can create systems that respect individuals' needs to control sensitive data. We can also augment people's ability to make sense of such granular data, and engage participants in making decisions about that data over the long term. Through attention to such principles, developers will help to ensure that 4 billion little brothers are not watching us. Instead, participatory sensing can have a future of secure, willing, and engaged participation. Q Acknowledgments Many thanks to collaborators Jeffrey Burke, Deborah Estrin, and Mark Hansen, whose ideas and contributions have shaped this material. This article is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0832873. References 1. CC!ceres, R., Cox, L., Lim, H., Shakimov, A., Varshavsky, A. 2009. Virtual individual servers as privacy-preserving proxies for mobile devices. Proceedings of First ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Networking, Systems, and Applications on Mobile Handhelds (MobiHeld), Barcelona, Spain. 2. Cuff, D., Hansen, M., Kang, J. 2008. Urban sensing: out of the woods. Communications of the ACM 51: 24-33. 3. , G. S., Campbell, A. T. 2006. MetroSense project: people-centric sensing at scale. Proceedings of the ACM Sensys World Sensor Web Workshop, Boulder, Colorado. 5. Google Health; https://www.google.com/health. 6. Iachello, G., Hong, J. 2007. End-user privacy in human-computer interaction. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 1: 1-137. 7. Kang, J. 1998. Privacy in cyberspace transactions. Stanford Law Review 50: 1193-1294. 8. Lam, M. 2009. Building a social networking future without Big Brother; http://suif.stanford.edu/%7Elam/lam-pomi-ws09.pdf. 9. Microsoft HealthVault; http://www.healthvault.com/. 10. Nissenbaum, H. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79: 119-158. 11. Palen, L., Dourish, P. 2003. Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, FL: 129-136. 12. Personal Privacy in an Information Society: The Report of The Privacy Protection Study Commission. 1977; http://epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/. 13. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1973. Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 14. Waldo, J., Lin, H. S., Millett, L. I. 2007. Engaging privacy and information technology in a digital age. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 15. Zittrain, J. 2008. The future of the Internetband how to stop it. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. LOVE IT, HATE IT? LET US KNOW feedback(a)queue.acm.org Katie Shilton is a doctoral student in information studies at UCLA. Her research explores privacy and ethical challenges raised by ubiquitous sensing technologies, and she coordinates a research project at the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing focused on these questions. She received a B.A. from Oberlin College in 2003 and a masters of library and information science from UCLA in 2007.

1 0

Diplomas for everybody.
by Tammie Fenton 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

GET YOUR DIPLOMA TODAY!If you are looking for a fast and effective way to get a diploma,(non accredited) this is the best way out for you. Provide us with degree you are interested in. Call us right now on: For US: 1.718.989.5746 Outside US: +1.718.989.5746 "Just leave your NAME & PHONE NO. (with CountryCode)" in the voicemail. Our staff will get back to you in next few days!

1 0

Rolex please
by Adan Salas 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

1 0

All those excess pounds are a thing of the past
by Simon Mcclain 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Can't see this email? VIEW IN BROWSER Threat Information and Product News for Customers In this Issue:   Product NewsIf you don't click to see, you will never know what you missed for free. One click away We appreciate your interest in our newsletter. If you would like to receive our product announcements and special offers, please opt-in to our mailing list. Copyright 2009 Oykactt, Incorporated. All rights reserved. All other product orcompany names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their owners.

1 0

che(ap pr)ices for watches .. cheap prices for watches . cheap prices for watches r9
by Karen Beard 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

1 0