Prep for moving to Cambodia

Cambodian “ordinary” visa. For anyone who is considering staying in Cambodia for an extended period of time, the ordinary visa (E class) is the best option. This visa used to be called the business visa but is now called the normal or ordinary visa. It is also valid for 30 days and costs $35.  The difference between the ordinary visa and the tourist visa is that the ordinary one can be extended indefinitely. Be aware that although the “ordinary” visa is often called a “business visa,” it does not confer the right to work in Cambodia. In order to be legally employed, you will need a Cambodia work permit.

Malaria: Prophylaxis is recommended for all areas except Phnom Penh and around Lake Tonle Sap. Lariam (mefloquine), Malarone (atovaquone/proguanil), or doxycycline are the recommended drugs, except for the western provinces of Preah Vihear, Siemreap, Oddar, Meanchey, Banteay Meanchey, Battambang, Pailin, Koh Kong, and Pursat, where mefloquine should not be used because of the presence of mefloquine-resistant malaria in the areas near the Thai border.
Vaccinations:

Hepatitis A	Recommended for all travelers
Typhoid	Recommended for all travelers
Yellow fever	Required for all travelers greater than one year of age arriving from a yellow-fever-infected area in Africa or the Americas and for travelers who have been in transit more than 12 hours in an airport located in a country with risk of yellow fever transmission. Not recommended otherwise.
Japanese encephalitis	For travelers who may spend a month or more in rural areas and for short-term travelers who may spend substantial time outdoors in rural areas, especially after dusk
Hepatitis B	Recommended for all travelers
Rabies	For travelers spending a lot of time outdoors, or at high risk for animal bites, or involved in any activities that might bring them into direct contact with bats
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)	Two doses recommended for all travelers born after 1956, if not previously given
Tetanus-diphtheria	Revaccination recommended every 10 years

Full > http://www.mdtravelhealth.com/destinations/asia/cambodia.php

7 best places to visit in Cambodia

Tired of Thailand? Give Cambodia a go. Here are seven amazing places you've got to visit.

Tired of Thailand? Want to experience a slice of ancient Southeast Asia? Give Cambodia a go.

It may not have the same Full Moon party reputation of its neighbour, nor the historical notoriety of next-door Vietnam. But don't let that put you off exploring this beautiful country, full of ancient temples and stunning landscapes - and there's plenty of cheap beer!

Having brought us the best of Vietnam, our roving reporter Cat McGloin shares her seven must-see places in Cambodia:

1. Phnom Penh

Cambodia's capital teems with tuk-tuk drivers and street food vendors. Weave through the city, spotting roadside pagodas nestled amongst grand French colonial houses. Why not try a local delicacy, deep fried tarantula? When cocktail hour calls, there's no better place to catch a sundowner and appreciate some colonial grandeur than at the Foreign Correspondence Club on the bank on the Mekong River that runs through the city.

2. The Killing Fields

Just outside Phnom Penh lies one of the largest mass graves sites in Cambodia, where it is estimated over one million Cambodians were executed during the Khmer Rouge regime. The scale of the site, coupled with the tales told over your audio guide, is deeply moving and provides real insight in to the country's violent past, as well as the regime's enduring legacy. You can couple your visit here with a trip to Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum by bargaining with a tuk-tuk driver.

More @ http://www.skyscanner.net/news/7-best-places-visit-cambodia

Nightlife Phnom Penh

Tons @ http://tinyurl.com/jul2djt

Compare cost of living.

Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Cambodia are 36.04% lower than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Cambodia are 46.23% lower than in United States
Rent Prices in Cambodia are 67.43% lower than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Cambodia are 67.69% lower than in United States
Groceries Prices in Cambodia are 30.82% lower than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Cambodia is 88.26% lower than in United States

   

United States	Cambodia	Difference
Restaurants	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Meal, Inexpensive Restaurant	12.00 $	2.50 $	-79.17 %
Meal for 2 People, Mid-range Restaurant, Three-course	50.00 $	16.00 $	-68.00 %
McMeal at McDonalds (or Equivalent Combo Meal)	7.00 $	4.00 $	-42.86 %
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter draught)	4.00 $	1.00 $	-75.00 %
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle)	5.00 $	2.00 $	-60.00 %
Cappuccino (regular)	3.77 $	1.97 $	-47.70 %
Coke/Pepsi (0.33 liter bottle)	1.68 $	0.67 $	-60.51 %
Water (0.33 liter bottle)	1.35 $	0.38 $	-71.62 %
Markets	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Milk (regular), (1 liter)	0.95 $	2.14 $	+125.98 %
Loaf of Fresh White Bread (500g)	2.54 $	1.29 $	-49.30 %
Rice (white), (1kg)	3.47 $	0.82 $	-76.24 %
Eggs (12)	2.69 $	1.48 $	-44.86 %
Local Cheese (1kg)	10.39 $	15.50 $	+49.13 %
Chicken Breasts (Boneless, Skinless), (1kg)	8.58 $	5.27 $	-38.60 %
Beef Round (1kg) (or Equivalent Back Leg Red Meat)	11.96 $	9.35 $	-21.83 %
Apples (1kg)	4.17 $	3.54 $	-15.21 %
Banana (1kg)	1.68 $	0.89 $	-47.18 %
Oranges (1kg)	4.05 $	3.05 $	-24.65 %
Tomato (1kg)	3.97 $	1.21 $	-69.55 %
Potato (1kg)	2.61 $	1.59 $	-38.88 %
Onion (1kg)	2.68 $	1.04 $	-61.14 %
Lettuce (1 head)	1.59 $	0.84 $	-47.19 %
Water (1.5 liter bottle)	1.76 $	0.65 $	-63.07 %
Bottle of Wine (Mid-Range)	12.00 $	8.00 $	-33.33 %
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter bottle)	1.79 $	0.85 $	-52.59 %
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle)	2.36 $	1.69 $	-28.61 %
Pack of Cigarettes (Marlboro)	6.41 $	1.25 $	-80.50 %
Transportation	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
One-way Ticket (Local Transport)	2.25 $	1.00 $	-55.56 %
Monthly Pass (Regular Price)	70.00 $	27.35 $	-60.93 %
Taxi Start (Normal Tariff)	3.00 $	1.12 $	-62.50 %
Taxi 1km (Normal Tariff)	1.55 $	0.72 $	-53.65 %
Taxi 1hour Waiting (Normal Tariff)	30.00 $	2.00 $	-93.33 %
Gasoline (1 liter)	0.66 $	1.04 $	+58.47 %
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW Trendline (Or Equivalent New Car)	21,092.50 $	29,846.89 $	+41.50 %
Utilities (Monthly)	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Basic (Electricity, Heating, Water, Garbage) for 85m2 Apartment	148.60 $	71.48 $	-51.90 %
1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff Local (No Discounts or Plans)	0.11 $	0.07 $	-39.26 %
Internet (10 Mbps, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL)	49.38 $	42.88 $	-13.16 %
Sports And Leisure	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Fitness Club, Monthly Fee for 1 Adult	37.93 $	48.48 $	+27.82 %
Tennis Court Rent (1 Hour on Weekend)	17.54 $	11.43 $	-34.83 %
Cinema, International Release, 1 Seat	11.00 $	4.00 $	-63.64 %
Clothing And Shoes	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
1 Pair of Jeans (Levis 501 Or Similar)	41.76 $	17.89 $	-57.16 %
1 Summer Dress in a Chain Store (Zara, H&M, ...)	35.40 $	19.50 $	-44.92 %
1 Pair of Nike Running Shoes (Mid-Range)	75.00 $	42.22 $	-43.70 %
1 Pair of Men Leather Business Shoes	90.14 $	31.55 $	-65.00 %
Rent Per Month	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre	1,150.07 $	318.85 $	-72.28 %
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre	873.64 $	182.87 $	-79.07 %
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre	1,910.91 $	823.12 $	-56.93 %
Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre	1,454.53 $	430.58 $	-70.40 %
Buy Apartment Price	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment in City Centre	2,199.42 $	1,292.75 $	-41.22 %
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre	1,479.64 $	750.36 $	-49.29 %
Salaries And Financing	[ Edit ]	[ Edit ]
Average Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax)	2,716.70 $	171.47 $	-93.69 %
Mortgage Interest Rate in Percentages (%), Yearly	4.10	9.62	+134.93 %
Last update:	January, 2016	January, 2016
Contributors:	15080	122
Data from past:	18 months	18 months
Currency: USD NUMBEO > http://tinyurl.com/hp3vzv8

                                                                        

  

Tiny robots pull objects up to 2,000 times their own weight

 Share on Facebook  Tweet  Share  Pin 

Engineers from Stanford University have created miniature robots named "MicroTugs" capable of pulling and lifting objects more than 100 times their own weight. The strongest of the bots weighs just 12 grams but can pull objects 2,000 times heavier than itself, reports the New Scientist. This is the equivalent of a human dragging a blue whale, says David Christensen, an engineer from the lab that created the robots.

Another of the robots weighs just 9 grams but can climb up vertical walls carrying objects heavier than a kilogram — the equivalent of a human hoisting an elephant up the side of a building. Even the smallest of the bots — a miniature beast of burden that weighs 20 milligrams and was assembled under a microscope with a pair of tweezers — can pull objects 25 times its own weight.

The secret to the bots' strength comes from techniques borrowed from the animal kingdom. Inspired by the gecko, the engineers covered the robots' feet with tiny rubber spikes that bend when pressure is applied. This increases their surface area and thus their stickiness. When the foot is lifted, the spikes straighten out, making them easy to detach from surfaces. And from the inchworm, the engineers borrowed the wall-climbing bot's method of locomotion: while one half of its body moves forward, the other stays locked in place. This allows the bot to climb walls without losing its grip.

 Share on Facebook (3,003) Tweet  Share  Pin 

Engineers from Stanford University have created miniature robots named "MicroTugs" capable of pulling and lifting objects more than 100 times their own weight. The strongest of the bots weighs just 12 grams but can pull objects 2,000 times heavier than itself, reports the New Scientist. This is the equivalent of a human dragging a blue whale, says David Christensen, an engineer from the lab that created the robots.

Another of the robots weighs just 9 grams but can climb up vertical walls carrying objects heavier than a kilogram — the equivalent of a human hoisting an elephant up the side of a building. Even the smallest of the bots — a miniature beast of burden that weighs 20 milligrams and was assembled under a microscope with a pair of tweezers — can pull objects 25 times its own weight.

BORROWING SECRETS FROM THE GECKO AND THE INCHWORM

The secret to the bots' strength comes from techniques borrowed from the animal kingdom. Inspired by the gecko, the engineers covered the robots' feet with tiny rubber spikes that bend when pressure is applied. This increases their surface area and thus their stickiness. When the foot is lifted, the spikes straighten out, making them easy to detach from surfaces. And from the inchworm, the engineers borrowed the wall-climbing bot's method of locomotion: while one half of its body moves forward, the other stays locked in place. This allows the bot to climb walls without losing its grip.

A close-up of the tiny rubber spikes on the robots' feet. (BDML Stanford/Youtube)

The robots will be presented next month at the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, with the Stanford team hoping they could be set to various tasks in the future. Larger and more powerful versions could be used to move heavy loads around factories or building sites, while specialized models could be useful in emergencies — climbing buildings, for example, to deliver rope ladders to trapped people.

Full > http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/27/8502421/robots-pull-100-times-their-own-weight

The public school educational system designed to fail from long ago.

Every cause has an effect!

Abstract: American education needs to be fixed, but national standards and testing are not the way to do it. The problems that need fixing are too deeply ingrained in the power and incentive structure of the public education system, and the renewed focus on national standards threatens to distract from the fundamental issues. Besides, federal control over education has been growing since the 1960s as both standards and achievement have deteriorated. Heritage Foundation education policy experts Lindsey Burke and Jennifer Marshall explain why centralized standard-setting will likely result in the standardization of mediocrity, not excellence.

National education standards and assessments are getting renewed attention from the Obama Administration as the missing ingredient in American education reform. Proponents of national standards argue that establishing “fewer, higher, and clearer” benchmarks and aligned assessments will empower parents with information about what their children should know and which skills they should possess and that they will hold schools accountable for producing those results. National standards and testing, they say, will ensure that all children are ready for college or the workforce and will advance the educational standing of the United States.

On the one hand, such a critique of the status quo is well founded. Parental empowerment is essential and currently lacking. The monopoly that is the public education system must be more accountable to parents and taxpayers. Too many students leave high school without basic knowledge or skills. American education should be more competitive, particularly given the amount of money that taxpayers invest.

On the other hand, national standards and testing are unlikely to overcome these deficiencies. These problems are too deeply ingrained in the power and incentive structure of the public education system. A national standards debate threatens to distract from these fundamental issues. Centralized standard-setting would force parents and other taxpayers to relinquish one of their most powerful tools for school improvement: control of the academic content, standards, and testing through their state and local policymakers. Moreover, it is unclear that national standards would establish a target of excellence rather than standardization, a uniform tendency toward mediocrity and information that is more useful to bureaucrats who distribute funding than it is to parents who are seeking to direct their children’s education.

Common national standards and testing will not deliver on proponents’ promises. Rather than addressing the misalignment of power and incentives from which many public education problems arise, national standards and testing would further complicate these same problems. An effort by the Clinton Administration to produce national standards and tests during the 1990s was roundly rejected because of strong opposition among Members of Congress, state leaders, and others.[1] This renewed push for common national standards and assessments should be similarly resisted.

Instead, federal policy can improve the alignment of power and incentives in public education by enhancing transparency of existing accountability tools and providing flexibility in program funding for states to do the same. State policy should advance systemic reforms that better align power and incentives with educational outcomes, including enhanced accountability and parental empowerment through educational choice. By pursuing this combination of reforms, Americans can better address the core issues that continue to inhibit meaningful education reform.

From a “Common Core” to National Standards

The Obama Administration’s current push for national education standards builds on an initiative led by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). In September 2009, the groups’ Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) released college and career readiness standards for math and English language arts.[2] In March 2010, CCSSI published grade-by-grade benchmarks for each of these two subject areas.

From the beginning, proponents of the Common Core State Standards Initiative have maintained that the standards are voluntary and outside of the realm of the federal government. But federal funding has been linked to their adoption from the early stages. The February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—the “stimulus bill”—included $4.35 billion in discretionary funding for the Secretary of Education, known as Race to the Top. One of the requirements for states to qualify for this competitive grant funding was to have signed on to the CCSSI. Failing to adopt common standards and assessments puts a state at a significant disadvantage in the Race to the Top competition.[3]

In the context of state budget shortfalls, the prospect of funding was enticing enough for most states to sign on to the common standards—sight unseen.[4] Initially, only Texas and Alaska resisted. Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott stated that the common standards movement amounted to a “desire for a federal takeover of public education.”[5] Now, additional states, including Massachusetts, Iowa, Kansas, and Virginia, are expressing concerns about the common standards initiative.[6]

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration announced in February 2010 that it intends to make receipt of Title I funding contingent on the adoption of common standards. Nearly every school district participates in the $14.5 billion Title I program, which provides federal funds for low-income students.[7] Furthermore, the Obama Administration has announced a grant competition for the creation of common assessments among states that would replace state assessments.[8]

Federal pressure to adopt national standards and assessments has elicited concerns across the political spectrum. During a House Education and Labor Committee hearing, Representative Glen Thompson (R–PA) observed that “the Common Core is being transformed from a voluntary, state-based initiative to a set of federal academic standards with corresponding federal tests.”[9]National School Boards Association Executive Director Anne L. Bryant voiced similar concerns in a recent statement:

While the goal of high academic standards is laudable and school boards strongly support it, this amounts to an unnecessary over-reach by the federal government to coerce states to adopt a particular approach or be shut out of future funding for key programs…. This new condition on funding for key federal programs also opens the door for the federal government to call for even more conditions, such as the use of national tests for accountability purposes.[10]

Misconceptions About the Promise of National Standards and Testing?

You care to read it > http://tinyurl.com/2e9sdm3