... is not up in the sky. Buddha came to the same realization when he said, “Be a lamp unto your own feet and do not seek outside ... to free yourself from self-imposed limitations. Yes, I said self-imposed! Our parents, our family, our boss or society didn’t do ...
Story - antoq - 10/23/2010 - 05:56 - 0 comments - 0 attachments
Information about the diet of Alaska Native people is limited. Their diet traditionally consisted of foods that were hunted, gathered and harvested. These included fish, land and marine mammals, plants and berries and were referred to as “Native,” “traditional” or subsistence foods. The present day diet of Alaska Native people includes available store bought foods. Some studies have been published about the diet and the relationship to disease. However, these studies have been limited to specific regions, the sample sizes included only a few people, they used different methods, and they are not recent studies. Many of the over 200 villages in Alaska have never had a survey done to document dietary intake.
A report by Kuhnlein et al. finds that the traditional food systems in Canada’s Arctic are most likely the best global examples of Indigenous peoples’ food being superior to the market food used as alternatives. In Alaska, Native foods are especially nutritious as they are dense in protein, iron, Vitamin B12, polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats and omega 3 fatty acids. In addition, they are low in saturated fat, added sugar and salt. Native meats such as moose and caribou are generally lean. Berries and greens are high in water content and micronutrients and low in empty calories. Hunting, gathering, harvesting and preserving Native foods are energy intensive, providing physical activity. Furthermore, Native foods are highly valued and contribute to the spiritual, cultural and social well being of the AN, as well as the health of individuals, families and communities. Kuhnlein and Recevuer cited traditional foods as being key to dietary quality among Canadian Arctic people. They found that on the days when at least one traditional food was eaten, the diet contained more energy, less carbohydrate and fat and more protein than days when only store bought food was eaten. A study of Alaska Native adults conducted in 1987–1988, found that they consumed six times more fish but less fruits and vegetables than did the general U.S. adult population. In 2002, a survey in 13 villages found that traditional foods were still commonly consumed in large amounts.
The economic landscape of most nations remains dominated by family firms (Heck & Stafford, 2001; Klein, 2000; Morck & Yeung, 2003; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996). Therefore, it is fitting that academia has begun to recognize the importance of family business studies. The field has gathered considerable momentum, particularly in the last several years. Studies of founders (e.g., Kelly, Athanassiou, & Crittenden, 2000; Kenyon-Rouvinez, 2001; Sorenson, 2000), members of the next-generation (e.g., Eckrich & Loughead, 1996; Goldberg, 1996; Sharma & Irving, 2002; Stavrou, 1998), women (e.g., Cole, 1997; Dumas, 1998; Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002; Poza & Messer, 2001), and non-family managers (e.g., Mitchell, Morse, & Sharma, 2003) have increased our understanding of key individual stakeholders. Studies at the group level have added to our knowledge on two of the most pervasive problems in family businesses: conflict (e.g., Boles, 1996; Drozdow, 1998; Habbershon & Astrachan, 1996; Kaye, 1996; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2002; Sorenson, 1999) and succession (e.g., Cadieux, Lorrain, & Hugron, 2002; Davis & Harveston, 1998; Harveston, Davis, & Lynden, 1997; Miller, Steier, & LeBreton-Miller, 2003; Morris, Williams, Allen, & Avila, 1997). Still other studies have broadened our horizons beyond the United States by providing perspective of the family business situation in Asia (Pistrui, Huang, Oksoy, Jing, & Welsch, 2001; Sharma & Rao, 2000) Europe (Corbetta, 1995; Gallo, 1995; Klein, 2002; Welsch, Gerald, & Hoy, 1995), and South America (Curimbaba, 2002).
Recently, the idea that the family is the critical variable in family firm studies and that the heart of the field is about understanding the reciprocal impact of family on business and business on family has begun to crystallize in the minds of many scholars (e.g., Astrachan, 2003; Dyer, 2003; Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003; Rogoff & Heck, 2003; Zahra, 2003). Broad based models of sustainable family businesses that take into account the reciprocal relationships between family and business systems in an effort to foster the simultaneous development of functional families and profitable firms have emerged (Stafford, Duncan, Danes, & Winter, 1999). Other scholars have encouraged the adoption of a “family embeddedness perspective” by including the characteristics of family systems in research studies (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003). Recognizing that the family and business are intertwined in family firms, some researchers define the performance of family firms along both family and business dimensions (Mitchell et al., 2003). Some studies even suggest that the success of family firms depends more on effective management of the overlap between family and business than on resources or processes in either the family or the business systems (Olson, Zuiker, Danes, Stafford, Heck, & Duncan, 2003).
Dynamic Programming (DP) is a powerful problem-solving paradigm in which a problem is solved by breaking it down into smaller subproblems. These subproblems are then tackled one by one, so that the answers to small problems are used to solve the larger ones. The simplicity of the DP paradigm, as well as its broad applicability have made it a fundamental technique for solving various search and optimization problems.
The word “programming” in “dynamic programming” has actually very little to do with computer programming and writing code. The term was first coined by Richard Bellman in the 1950s, back when programming meant planning, and dynamic programming meant to optimally plan a solution process. Indeed, the challenge of devising a good solution process is in deciding what are the subproblems, and in what order they should be computed. Apart from the obvious requirement that an optimal solution to a problem can be obtained by optimal solutions to its subproblems, an efficient DP is one that induces only a “small” number of distinct subproblems. Each subproblem is then reused again and again for solving multiple larger problems.
