jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur Kami Tenaga ahli yang berpengalaman lebih dari 10 Tahun yang bergerak dalam bidang pelatihan mengoperasikan dan memprogram mesin CNC Milling. Spesial diskon untuk Paket Perusahaan / Instansi, Paket Perguruan Tinggi dan Paket Sekolah/Guru/Siswa yang ingin bekerjasama Hubungi Tim Marketing kami : 085711904807 (Seminar, Workshop, Projek, dll. *Office : LKP SINDO (Lembaga Kursus dan Pelatihan Sinergi Indonesia) Jl. Ters. Cisokan Dalam No. 21 Bandung *Workshop : PT. Tekmindo (Teknologi Manufaktur Indonesia) Bandung jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur

jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur Mesin CNC sekarang banyak digunakan dalam industri permesinan jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur untuk memproduksi komponen dengan tingkat kerumitan dan presisi yang tinggi. Selain itu, mesin CNC mempunyai konsistensi yang lebih efektif untuk pengerjaan dalam jumlah banyak. Penggunaan mesin konvensional dalam proses pemotongan, pengeboran dan proses permesinan lainnya, tentu saja memberikan hasil yang tidak presisi dan memerlukan waktu cukup lama dikarenakan hasil produksi akan tergantung dari kemampuan operator dalam melakukan proses tersebut. Banyak produk-produk yang dihasilkan dengan mesin CNC ini, mulai dari peralatan rumah tangga, jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur kendaraan bermotor sampai pesawat terbang sekalipun menggunakan teknologi ini. jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur

jasa pelatihan cnc di Jakarta Timur

Indonesia mempunyai beragam minuman tradisional yang menawarkan banyak manfaat, terutama bagi kesehatan tubuh

1. STMJ
Minuman yang terbuat dari susu, telur, madu, dan jahe ini tentunya sudah tidak asing lagi bagi anda. Minumlah minuman ini dikala anda merasa lesu, lelah, dan kurang enak badan. Minum STMJ diyakini bisa memulihkan tenaga, menambah kekebalan dan menghangatkan tubuh anda.

2. Wedang jahe
Wedang jahe atau air jahe hangat sangat tepat dikonsumsi ketika sistem kekebalan tubuh menurun, terutama saat musim hujan di mana tubuh kita cukup rentan terserang berbagai penyakit seperti flu. Selain itu, minuman jahe dapat membantu menurunkan kadar kolesterol, mencegah potensi stroke, hingga risiko serangan jantung.

3. Wedang ronde
Wedang ronde hampir sama dengan wedang jahe, namun menawarkan sensasi yang berbeda. Wedang ronde merupakan perpaduan antara wedang jahe dengan bola-bola ketan yang terdiri dari kacang dan gula. Bola-bola ketan ini cukup kenyal dan rasanya enak. Kacang yang terdapat dalam bola-bola ketan tersebut juga menawarkan segudang nutrisi yang baik bagi tubuh, sehingga mengonsumsi wedang ronde terutama di saat tubuh kurang fit adalah langkah yang tepat.

4. Bandrek
Minuman hangat tradisional asli Jawa Barat ini juga menawarkan banyak manfaat bagi kesehatan. Sama seperti minuman tradisional lainnya, bandrek cukup efektif dalam menghangatkan tubuh. Dari bahan-bahannya saja, bisa diketahui bahwa bandrek adalah minuman kaya manfaat. Bandrek menawarkan keharuman rempah-rempah, terdiri dari kayu manis, serai, cengkih, pandan, tambahan gula dan sedikit garam.

5. Bajigur
Satu lagi minuman tradisional khas Jawa Barat adalah bajigur. Bajigur adalah minuman hangat yang terbuat dari santan, gula aren, garam, dan sedikit jahe. Kadangkala, penyajian bandrek biasanya juga ditambah dengan sedikit cengkaleng (kolang-kaling). Bajigur sangat cocok dinikmati ketika cuaca dingin. Kacang rebus, pisang rebus, dan ubi manis adalah ‘camilan’ yang tepat untuk menemani anda disaat menikmati bajigur.

Jika dikatakan kepada Anda hanya sebuah kata, apa saja boleh, ambillah misalnya kata “air”. apa yang langsung hadir

Jika dikatakan kepada Anda hanya sebuah kata, apa saja boleh, ambillah misalnya kata “air”. apa yang langsung hadir dipikiran Anda?akan ada beribu-ribu jawaban yang muncul, cair, minum, haus, segar, larutan, Aqua, dll. Dari 100 orang yang berbeda akan memberikan lebih dari 1000 jawaban berbeda. Kata yang hadir dipikran anda disebut logical sequence, atau kata populernya  asosiasi. Kenapa disebut logical sequence..? karena kata tersebut dapat dengan mudah dihubungkan dengan kata kunci utama. Contoh air dan minu memiliki hubungan logika “digunakan”, yaitu Air digunakan untuk Minum. Air dengan Cair memiliki hubungan “logika jenis”, dan seterusnya.

Berbagai macam asosiasi yang digunakan untuk suatu kata kunci muncul karena adanya koneksi antara sel saraf (neuron) tertentu dimana tempat informasi kata kunci berada dengan neuron lainnya yang berisi info mengenai kata asosiasi. Namun jika dalam berpikir selalu menggunakan logical sequence yang simple, akan terperangkap pada zona pola pikir yang biasa, dan sudah banyak dipikirkan orang lain. Disinilah yang harus dilakukan untuk berani berfikir keluar, thinking ut of the box, berpikir kreatif, seharusnya menggunakan pola pikir yang berbeda, keluar dari zona yang biasa, yaitu pola pikir lateral.
tentang pola pikir lateral sudah dijelaskan dalam artikel sebelumnya di http://saco- indonesia.com/?backlink=222&idd=208

Pola pikir lateral digunakan untuk mencari ide baru bisa dilakukan dengan  4 tahap dibawah ini :
1. Pilih Fokus Anda,
2. Ambil salah satu Logical Sequence,
3. Buat Lateral Displacement,
4. Ciptakan Koneksi.

Yang harus dilakukan pertama kali dan paling penting adalah memilih fokus pikiran apa yang akan dilakukan. Apakah ingin mencari ide pengembangan untuk air, maka fokusnya pada air. Setelah Mendapat fokus, seperti paragraf pertama, ambil kata yang paling cepat muncul di benak Anda. Ingin melakukan percobaan Terhadap Api?, maka fokusnya adalah suatu proses spesifik dalam api. Kita lanjut ke tahap ke 3. Carilah kata apa saja yang tidak berhubungan. Seperti Api Diatas Air Atau Api Dibawah Air. Disinilah yang disebut thinking out of the box. Tahap berikutnya adalah mencari hubungan dengan otak kiri rasional kita. Kalau begitu, apakah mungkin Api berada diatas air??..?

Contoh yang nyata di dunia ini adalah magma yang berada dibawah laut. Namun bisa dikembangkan menjadi sesuatu yang dapat digunakan manusia dalam kehidupan. Bisa di buat sebuah box yang berisi air bercahaya karena didalamnya ada api.

Sekali kita menemukan kata yang lateral dengan fokus kita, akan muncul banyak pertanyaan yang memaksa otak logis untuk menjawab. Elaborasi jawaban dari berbagai pertanyaan logis terkait hubungan ini akan membawa kita pada sebuah ide kreatif.

WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A. asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for administration officials in national security events that quickly become partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.

The official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But he also concludes that the White House itself embellished some of the talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and had blocked him from sending an internal study of agency conclusions to Congress.

Photo
 
Michael J. Morell Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images

“I finally did so without asking,” just before leaving government, he writes, and after the White House released internal emails to a committee investigating the State Department’s handling of the issue.

A lengthy congressional investigation remains underway, one that many Republicans hope to use against Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.

In parts of the book, “The Great War of Our Time” (Twelve), Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings — and those of the National Security Agency.

Soon after Mr. Morell retired in 2013 after 33 years in the agency, President Obama appointed him to a commission reviewing the actions of the National Security Agency after the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who released classified documents about the government’s eavesdropping abilities. Mr. Morell writes that he was surprised by what he found.

Advertisement

“You would have thought that of all the government entities on the planet, the one least vulnerable to such grand theft would have been the N.S.A.,” he writes. “But it turned out that the N.S.A. had left itself vulnerable.”

He concludes that most Wall Street firms had better cybersecurity than the N.S.A. had when Mr. Snowden swept information from its systems in 2013. While he said he found himself “chagrined by how well the N.S.A. was doing” compared with the C.I.A. in stepping up its collection of data on intelligence targets, he also sensed that the N.S.A., which specializes in electronic spying, was operating without considering the implications of its methods.

“The N.S.A. had largely been collecting information because it could, not necessarily in all cases because it should,” he says.

The book is to be released next week.

Mr. Morell was a career analyst who rose through the ranks of the agency, and he ended up in the No. 2 post. He served as President George W. Bush’s personal intelligence briefer in the first months of his presidency — in those days, he could often be spotted at the Starbucks in Waco, Tex., catching up on his reading — and was with him in the schoolhouse in Florida on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush presidency changed in an instant.

Mr. Morell twice took over as acting C.I.A. director, first when Leon E. Panetta was appointed secretary of defense and then when retired Gen. David H. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair with his biographer, a relationship that included his handing her classified notes of his time as America’s best-known military commander.

Mr. Morell says he first learned of the affair from Mr. Petraeus only the night before he resigned, and just as the Benghazi events were turning into a political firestorm. While praising Mr. Petraeus, who had told his deputy “I am very lucky” to run the C.I.A., Mr. Morell writes that “the organization did not feel the same way about him.” The former general “created the impression through the tone of his voice and his body language that he did not want people to disagree with him (which was not true in my own interaction with him),” he says.

But it is his account of the Benghazi attacks — and how the C.I.A. was drawn into the debate over whether the Obama White House deliberately distorted its account of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens — that is bound to attract attention, at least partly because of its relevance to the coming presidential election. The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack. By the time analysts reversed their opinion, Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser, had made a series of statements on Sunday talk shows describing the initial assessment. The controversy and other comments Ms. Rice made derailed Mr. Obama’s plan to appoint her as secretary of state.

The experience prompted Mr. Morell to write that the C.I.A. should stay out of the business of preparing talking points — especially on issues that are being seized upon for “political purposes.” He is critical of the State Department for not beefing up security in Libya for its diplomats, as the C.I.A., he said, did for its employees.

But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting some vandalism,” setting fires that killed Mr. Stevens and a security official, Sean Smith.

Mr. Morell paints a picture of an agency that was struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to understand dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa when the Arab Spring broke out in late 2011 in Tunisia. The agency’s analysts failed to see the forces of revolution coming — and then failed again, he writes, when they told Mr. Obama that the uprisings would undercut Al Qaeda by showing there was a democratic pathway to change.

“There is no good explanation for our not being able to see the pressures growing to dangerous levels across the region,” he writes. The agency had again relied too heavily “on a handful of strong leaders in the countries of concern to help us understand what was going on in the Arab street,” he says, and those leaders themselves were clueless.

Moreover, an agency that has always overvalued secretly gathered intelligence and undervalued “open source” material “was not doing enough to mine the wealth of information available through social media,” he writes. “We thought and told policy makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage Al Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative,” he writes.

Instead, weak governments in Egypt, and the absence of governance from Libya to Yemen, were “a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa.”

Mr. Morell is gentle about most of the politicians he dealt with — he expresses admiration for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, though he accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney of deliberately implying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the C.I.A. had concluded probably did not exist. But when it comes to the events leading up to the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, he is critical of his own agency.

Mr. Morell concludes that the Bush White House did not have to twist intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged effort to rekindle the country’s work on weapons of mass destruction.

“The view that hard-liners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on W.M.D. is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Under Mr. Michelin’s leadership, which ended when he left the company in 2002, the Michelin Group became the world’s biggest tire maker, establishing a big presence in the United States and other major markets overseas.

Artikel lainnya »