Диссертация (1168413), страница 33
Текст из файла (страница 33)
The TIR system allows to replace expensive physicalinspection in the countries of transit for checking seals and the external conditions ofthe vehicle. It contains four main requirements:(1) With regard to security it requires that goods must be carried in such roadvehicles or compartments of containers that no goods can be removed from orintroduced into the sealed part of the vehicle without breaking customs seal.(2) The second principle is the guarantee system. The system ensures thatcustoms duties and taxes during transit operations are paid at any moment by a NationalGuaranteeing Association, if the transport operator cannot be held responsible.(3) The third principle is the TIR Carnet.
The goods must be accompanied by aninternationally accepted document – Carnet, issued at the check point within the countryof departure and serving as a control document at the borders in the countries ofdeparture, transit and destination.(4) The last principle is the international recognition of customs control measures:when goods are transported under this transit regime, the Customs office of departurechecks the goods, seals the vehicle, reports it in the TIR Carnet and the cargo istransported without further unloading and inspection in the countries of departure,transit and destination.When the cargo arrives at the Customs office of destination, they becomeresponsible for the goods to be transferred to another Customs procedure.Nowadays the Convention has been signed by more than 50 Contracting Parties.It covers the European Union, North Africa, Near and Middle East, the USA, Canada,Chile and Uruguay.
A number of countries in Western and Central Africa and LatinAmerica are also considering the establishment of the TIR system.Since 1978 the Convention has proved that it is one of the most successful transitsystems because it contains provisions for a multi-modal transit regime in line withmodern techniques and requirements and offers transport operators and Customs174authorities a simple, cost-effective and safe regime for the international transportationof goods across frontiers.175Приложение 3Тексты на английском языке, использованные в ходе опытноэкспериментальных работ по направлению подготовки: «Экономика»Профиль подготовки: «Экономика предприятий и организаций»Text 1In recent years, three forces – downsizing, globalization, and the need for speed –have combined to change the work environment. What used to be a comfortably busyroutine has become a non-stop workshop in which most people feel they can never stopto take a breather.The result of downsizing is a mad dash to cram more work into fewer people.
Ifsix people are doing the work that ten used to do, and at the same time are expected tomeet or exceed previous budget and productivity targets, something has to give. To thispressure-cooker environment In which everyone is supposed to 'do more with less', wecan add the globalization trend that has swept through corporate boardrooms. To theextent that global competitors have a lower cost structure – which many do becausetheir labour costs are so much lower- US and European firms have yet another reason tokeep budgets and headcounts lower. The final ingredient in this mix is fiercecompetition, which has resulted in the pressure to do everything faster.One way that corporate leaders justify the quest for efficiency and speed is lopoint to the multibillion-dollar investments that have been made in IT equipment andservices.
The new PCs and corporate networks are supposed to boost productivity andprofits, and will, in fact, allow their companies to 'do more with less.'This is true. But another truth has become buried under the technology salespitches. Achieving those gains will happen only after a significant initial investment intraining and 'system integration' to make sure that all the pieces connect well with eachother. Pouring thousands of PCs and miles of cables into a corporation is a great way towaste money unless the systems and processes that technology is meant to automate areoverhauled.
Unfortunately, this has all become somewhat irrelevant. The expectation isthat more technology means more speed and more output per employee – and when176those results don't always magically occur, the only way to produce them is to requirepeople to work longer hours.Oddly, the same thing happens even when the technology delivers as promised.Consider the case of presentation software such as Microsoft's PowerPoint, which hasbecome a standard office tool. Before PowerPoint, a graphics presentation would haveto be created by a graphic artist.
With PowerPoint and its software cousins, just aboutanyone can sit down at a PC and. without much training or practice, produce an onscreen presentation or a slick set of slides, handouts or transparencies that look fullyprofessional.On one hand, this software actually is a productivity tool – it takes only hours todo what might have taken days previously, and the result is just as good, if not better.But it doesn't stop there. Now everyone sees how easy it is to use these programs, theyare used more and more. Thus, a senior manager who wouldn't have considered askingan analyst to spend a couple of days working up a slide presentation using Stone Agetechnology, doesn't hesitate to direct the same analyst to prepare that presentation usingthe desktop PC and PowerPoint.
The goal is for this analyst to save time by using thesoftware; the likely outcome is that he or she spends more time on presentations and hasless time available for other aspects of the job.If you're starting to think that instead of working on a plan to cope with pressure,tight deadlines, and non-stop work, it's time to polish up your resume and lookelsewhere, I'm afraid I have some bad news. The grass really isn't much greeneranywhere else – or at least, not a whole lot greener.Text 2Six years ago, ad executive Ed Robinson carried out an experiment. He spent$10,000 to produce a humorous video about a man who meets an explosive end whileinflating a child's raft.
He attached his firm's Web address to the clip and emailed it tofive friends. Then he waited.177By the end of the week, more than 60,000 people had seen the twelve-secondvideo, Robinson says. The video had 'gone viral', passing from Robinson's friends totheir own friends and from there, to blogs and sites across the Web. Within threemonths, Robinson's Web site received 500,000 hits.For Robinson, the traffic was confirmation that the video and others like it couldcreate a buzz and, in turn, make big bucks. 'I was trying to prove a point: If youentertain your audience, they will get it and the viral mechanism will make the audiencecome to watch you.'Cashing inCompanies have gotten the message.
Lured by the prospect of reaching millionsof consumers without also spending millions of dollars for television air time or spacein print media, companies have shifted more ad dollars to the Net. 'Video viralmarketing – so named because it relies on computer users to spread commercials fromperson to person – has expanded from a negligible piece of the advertising pie to a $150million industry, researchers estimate.Victim of its own successHowever, viral marketing has become a victim of its own success. As more adsand user-created videos go online, getting ads to go viral has become increasinglydifficult.
Whereas these ads were once relatively rare, they now have to compete withmillions of other video clips. Companies need to spend more to give their message anedge. Today, Robinson's London company, The Viral Factory, charges 3250,000 to$500,000 to create ads he guarantees will reach a wide audience. Video sitesNot only do advertisers need to spend more to make the ads, but increasingly,they're having to pay to get them seen in the first place.
Rather than waiting for newvideos to drop into their mail boxes, users are now going to sites like YouTube forentertainment. Many of the hundred or so video sharing sites still don't charge forposting videos: they fear that too many ads will drive away audiences and stifle usercreated content. After all, users go to these sites to see the videos most people findinteresting, not ones some company paid to place. However, the largest and mostpopular sites, like YouTube, which shows about 100 million videos daily, already sell178some spots, though they won't disclose advertising fees. Going mainstream It makessense that video-sharing sites are wary of turning off users with too many ads.
Neitherthe sites nor advertising companies want virus to become the new online spam. Still,with people spending more time on the Net, and many using video-friendly high-speedconnections, it seems highly likely that viral video advertisements will becomemainstream before long. And, as competition for online user attention increases,companies will be forced to do more to ensure their ads are watched. That in turn couldencourage Web sites to charge more for spots. The bar has been raised.Text 3What advice would I give to new entrepreneurs who need funding? Forget aboutyour business plan and buy a lottery ticket – your chances are better.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
