The contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: the Canadian government maintains that the Northwestern Passages are part of Canadian Internal Waters,[10] but the United States and various European countries claim that they are an international strait and transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[11][12] If, as has been claimed, parts of the eastern end of the Passage are barely 15 metres (49 ft) deep,[13] the route's viability as a Euro-Asian shipping route is reduced. In 2016, a Chinese shipping line expressed a desire to make regular voyages of cargo ships using the passage to the Eastern United States and Europe, after a successful passage by Nordic Orion of 73,500 tonnes deadweight tonnage in September 2013.[14][15][needs update] Fully loaded, Nordic Orion sat too deep in the water to sail through the Panama Canal.
In 1845, a lavishly equipped two-ship expedition led by Sir John Franklin sailed to the Canadian Arctic to chart the last unknown swaths of the Northwest Passage. Confidence was high, as they estimated there was less than 500 km (310 mi) remaining of unexplored Arctic mainland coast. When the ships failed to return, relief expeditions and search parties explored the Canadian Arctic, which resulted in a thorough charting of the region, along with a possible passage. Many artifacts from the expedition were found over the next century and a half, including notes that the ships were ice-locked in 1846 near King William Island, about halfway through the passage, and unable to break free. Records showed Franklin died in 1847 and Captain Francis Rawdon Moira Crozier took over command. In 1848 the expedition abandoned the two ships and its members tried to escape south across the tundra by sledge. Although some of the crew may have survived into the early 1850s, no evidence has ever been found of any survivors. In 1853, explorer John Rae was told by local Inuit about the disastrous fate of Franklin's expedition, but his reports were not welcomed in Britain.
Passage: Part 1 download movie free
The dispute between Canada and the United States arose in 1969 with the trip of the U.S. oil tanker SS Manhattan through the Arctic Archipelago. The prospect of more American traffic headed to the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field made the Canadian government realize that political action was required.[26] If the passage's deep waters become completely ice-free in summer months, they will be particularly enticing for supertankers that are too big to pass through the Panama Canal and must otherwise navigate around the tip of South America.[104]
On September 14, 2007, the European Space Agency (ESA) stated that ice loss that year had opened up the historically impassable passage, setting a new low of ice cover as seen in satellite measurements which went back to 1978. According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the latter part of the 20th century and the start of the 21st had seen marked shrinkage of ice cover. The extreme loss in 2007 rendered the passage "fully navigable."[6][7] However, the ESA study was based only on analysis of satellite images and could in practice not confirm anything about the actual navigation of the waters of the passage. ESA suggested the passage would be navigable "during reduced ice cover by multi-year ice pack" (namely sea ice surviving one or more summers) where previously any traverse of the route had to be undertaken during favourable seasonable climatic conditions or by specialist vessels or expeditions. The agency's report speculated that the conditions prevalent in 2007 had shown the passage may "open" sooner than expected.[8] An expedition in May 2008 reported that the passage was not yet continuously navigable even by an icebreaker and not yet ice-free.[115]
Includes unlimited streaming via the free Bandcamp app, plus high-quality downloads of Bless Up, A Beautiful Christmas, Goodnight Moonchild, Part 3: The Passage, Part 2: The Temple, Part 1: The Entrance, Wheels of Light, Sound Healing: Cymatic Meditation, and 5 more. , and , . Purchasable with gift card Buy Digital Discography $87.55 USD or more (15% OFF) Send as Gift lyrics Darling, darlingYou're beautifulGotta keep your head upNever let anything bring you downThe sunshine will always come aroundStay strong, move onYou have such a beautiful soulLet your energy radiateDarling, darlingRemember days will get much betterDarling, darlingYou can make it through the stormy weatherDarling, darlingPlease don't ever give upDarling, darlingYou gotta keep your head $(".lyricsText").last().bcTruncate(TruncateProfile.get("tralbum_long"), "more", "less"); credits from Hymns of Spirit, released October 2, 2014 license all rights reserved tags Tags meditation music r&b/soul a cappella affirmations mantra yoga Orlando Shopping cart total USD Check out about Beautiful Chorus Orlando, Florida
The present research assessed the potential effects of expecting to teach on learning. In two experiments, participants studied passages either in preparation for a later test or in preparation for teaching the passage to another student who would then be tested. In reality, all participants were tested, and no one actually engaged in teaching. Participants expecting to teach produced more complete and better organized free recall of the passage (Experiment 1) and, in general, correctly answered more questions about the passage than did participants expecting a test (Experiment 1), particularly questions covering main points (Experiment 2), consistent with their having engaged in more effective learning strategies. Instilling an expectation to teach thus seems to be a simple, inexpensive intervention with the potential to increase learning efficiency at home and in the classroom.
Second, does expecting to teach cause individuals to change the way they process information? We conjectured that expecting to teach might encourage beneficial encoding activities such as organizational processing (for similar arguments, see Bargh & Schul, 1980; Gartner, Kohler, & Riessman, 1971). Thus, in Experiment 1, we examined the previously untested prediction that expecting to teach would lead participants to produce relatively well-organized free recall responses. We also thought it possible that expecting to teach would cause participants to remember main points especially well, on the basis of observations that teachers often focus on key concepts in learning material (McKeachie et al., 1986). To assess this potential difference, Experiments 1 and 2 included test questions relating to main points, as well as detail points about the passage. In sum, we used measures of output organization and comparisons of memory for main and detail points with the assumption that such measures could provide insights into whether and, if so, how expecting to teach alters the study strategies and cognitive processes used by individuals during learning. The general design we employed in both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 followed the approach introduced by Bargh and Schul (1980). All participants were given a passage to read for a specified amount of time. Prior to reading, participants were told either that they would later take a test on the contents of the passage or that they would later teach the contents of the passage to another student. Participants given the expectancy to teach, however, never actually did so; instead, they were given the same test as the participants given the expectancy of taking a test.
A total of 56 undergraduate students (34 females and 22 males; average age = 20.8 years, SD = 3.27) from the University of California, Los Angeles, served as participants for course credit. Participants were asked two questions at the start of the experiment to assess their prior knowledge of the to-be-learned materials. None reported having seen the movie The Charge of the Light Brigade. Although 2 participants (both in the test-expectancy condition) reported having knowledge of the Crimean War, their performance did not differ from that of their peers; thus, their data were not excluded from our analyses.
All participants first received a free recall test for the studied passage. Specifically, they were asked to type as much information from the passage as they could recall onto a blank document in Microsoft Word. They were given unlimited time to recall the information in any format (e.g., paragraph form, bullet point, etc.) and were told to inform the experimenter when they were done. For each participant, the experimenter recorded the amount of time spent on this test.
Immediately following the free recall test, the experimenter opened a Microsoft Word document containing the short-answer test. All participants were instructed to type their responses directly into the document, to proceed through the test at their own pace, and to inform the experimenter when they were finished.
Two independent raters, blind to conditions, scored the free recall tests; reliability was high between the two raters (α = .81). Participants were given a full point for recall of an entire idea unit, half a point for partial recall of that idea unit, and zero for no recall. Discrepancies in scoring were resolved by a third rater who was also blind to the conditions.
Average correct recall performance on the short-answer test for the 8 questions about important details and the 10 questions about unimportant details is shown in Fig. 1d. The apparent superior performance for participants in the teaching-expectancy group was confirmed by the results of a 2 (expectancy instruction: teaching-expectancy vs. test-expectancy) 2 (information type: important details vs. unimportant details) mixed-design ANOVA, which revealed a significant main effect of expectancy instruction, F(1, 54) = 5.04, MSE = .104, p = .03, ω 2 partial = .07, indicating better overall performance for the teaching-expectancy group than for the test-expectancy group. No effect of information type emerged, however, F(1, 54) = 0.06, MSE = .023, p = .81, ω 2 partial = .00. Additionally, and consistent with the pattern observed in the free recall data, a significant interaction between expectancy instruction and information type was not obtained, F(1, 54) = 0.88, MSE = .023, p = .35, ω 2 partial = .00. 2ff7e9595c
コメント