This is a European Company which produces elevators all over the world. These two positions are based in their R&D center.

    Please send your resume and cover letter to edison.shi@adecco.com

    Volunteering abroad is a great way to help others, improve your skills and become a more confident, independent person. If you are interested in volunteering abroad, here are some places to go.

    Australia

    If you seek a life on the beach, in a great climate with friendly people, Australia might be your best bet. With thousands of volunteers already signing up to leave for Australia during the holidays, it will be a very popular option.

    Brazil

    This vast country has some great opportunities on offer and is especially popular this year. A lot of volunteer work is available in Brazil centers on conservation and ecological projects. With the world's largest rainforest in Brazil, of which huge part is in danger, there are lots of different jobs you can do.

    Kenya

    Kenya is the destination for those seeking an African experience. Generally volunteers in Kenya work in orphanages(孤儿院)or with local children living in slums(贫民窟). There is a great demand for volunteers in Africa because many people live in poverty, so if you truly feel like making a difference to a community, Kenya should be at the top of your list.

    Costa Rica

    Golden sandy beaches, clear coastlines and beautiful cities are what Costa Rica is all about. Because of its small size, you can see a lot of the country in just a short time. You can really make the most of your time as a volunteer. A lot of work is needed with wildlife and ecological work, so if you want to look after turtles on the beach, Costa Rica could be just the place for you

    Parents and kids today dress alike, listen to the same music, and are friends. Is this a good thing? Sometimes, when Mr. Ballmer and his 16-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, listen to rock music together and talk about interests both enjoy, such as pop culture, he remembers his more distant relationship with his parents when he was a teenager.

    “I would never have said to my mom, 'Hey, the new Weezer album is really great. How do you like it?'” says Ballmer. “There was just a complete gap in taste.”

    Music was not the only gulf. From clothing and hairstyles to activities and expectations, earlier generations of parents and children often appeared to move in separate orbits.

    Today, the generation gap has not disappeared, but it is getting narrow in many families. Conversations on subjects such as sex and drugs would not have taken place a generation ago. Now they are comfortable and common. And parent-child activities, from shopping to sports, involve a feeling of trust and friendship that can continue into adulthood.

    No wonder greeting cards today carry the message, “To my mother, my best friend.”

    But family experts warn that the new equality can also result in less respect for parents. “There's still a lot of strictness and authority on the part of parents out there, but there is a change happening,” says Kerrie, a psychology professor at Lebanon Valley College. “In the middle of that change, there is a lot of confusion among parents.”

    Family researchers offer a variety of reasons for these evolving roles and attitudes. They see the 1960s as a turning point. Great cultural changes led to more open communication and a more democratic process that encourages everyone to have a say.

    “My parents were on the 'before' side of that change, but today's parents, the 40-year-olds, were on the 'after' side,” explains Mr. Ballmer. “It's not something easily accomplished by parents these days, because life is more difficult to understand or deal with, but sharing interests does make it more fun to be a parent now.”

    Foxes and farmers have never got on well. These small dog-like animals have long been accused (控告)of killing farm animals. They are officially considered as harmful and farmers try to keep their numbers down by shooting or poisoning them.

    Farmers can do call on the services of their local hunt to control the fox population. Hunting consists of hunting a fox across the countryside, with a group of specially trained dogs, followed by men and women riding horses. When the dogs eventually catch the fox, they kill it or a hunter shoots it.

    People who take part in hunting think of it as a sport; they wear a special uniform of red coats and white trousers, and follow strict codes of behavior. But owning a horse and hunting regularly is expensive, so most hunters are wealthy.

    It is estimated (估计) that up to 100,000 people watch or take part in fox hunting . But over the last couple of decades the number of people opposed to fox hunting, because they think it is cruel, has risen sharply. Noisy confrontations between hunters and saboteurs have become so common that they are almost as much a part of hunting as the hunting of foxes itself. But this year supporters of fox hunting face a much bigger threat to their sport. A Labour Party Member of the Parliament, Mike Foster, is trying to get Parliament to approve a new law which will make the hunting of wild animals with dogs illegal. If the law is passed, wild animals like foxes will be protected under the ban in Britain.

    With the possible exception of equal rights, perhaps the most controversial issue across the United States today is the death penalty. Many argue that it is an effective deterrent (威慑) to murder, while others maintain there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty reduces the number of murders.

    The principal argument advanced by those opposed to the death penalty, basically, is that it is cruel and inhuman punishment, which is the mark of a brutal society, and finally that it is of questionable effectiveness as a deterrent to crime anyway.

    In our opinion, the death penalty is a necessary evil. Throughout recorded history there have always been those extreme individuals in every society who were capable of terribly violent crimes such as murder. But some are more extreme than others.

    For example, it is one thing to take the life of another in a fit of blind rage, but quite another to coldly plot and carry out the murder of one or more people in the style of a butcher. Thus, murder, like all other crimes, is a matter of relative degree. While it could be argued with some conviction that the criminal in the first instance should be merely separated from society, such should not be the fate of the latter type murderer.

    The value of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime may be open to debate. But the overwhelming majority of citizens believe that the death penalty protects them. Their belief is strengthened by evidence which shows that the death penalty deters murder. For example, from 1954 to 1963, when the death penalty was consistently imposed in California, the murder rate remained between three and four murders for each 100,000 population. Since 1964 the death penalty has been carried out only once, and the murder rate has risen to 10.4 murders for each 100,000 population. The sharp climb in the state's murder rate, which began when executions stopped, is no coincidence. It is convincing evidence that the death penalty does deter many murderers. If the bill reestablishing the death penalty is banned, innocent people will be murdered—some whose lives may have been saved if the death penalty were in effect. This is literally a life or death matter. The lives of thousands of innocent people must be protected.

Every year, some 2. 3 million women and men around the world died from work-related accidents or diseases—that's more than 8, 000 deaths every single day—and at least 402 million people suffer from non-fatal occupational injuries. The number is enormous in terms of personal tragedy and hardship. And it comes with a huge economic loss. It is estimated that occupational accidents and diseases lead to a 5. 4 percent loss of annual global GDP. 

A safe and healthy working environment is so important that in June 2022 the ILO (International Labor Organization) took a historic step when it added a safe and healthy working environment to its Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 

Why does this matter? It matters because occupational safety and health can now no longer be viewed as an optional extra. All of the ILO's 186 member states are now required to respect, promote and achieve a safe and healthy working environment as a fundamental principle and right at work. 

This is significant for several reasons. First, it recognizes that every worker has the right to be protected from dangers and risks that can cause injury, illness or death in the workplace. 

By making occupational safety and health (OSH) a fundamental right, the ILO is sending a clear message to governments and employers of all countries that they must take responsibility for providing a safe and healthy working environment for all workers. 

When workers feel safe and healthy in their workplace, they are likely to be more productive and efficient. This can benefit workers, employers as well as the economy. Conversely, when workers are injured or become ill due to workplace dangers, it can have a significantly negative impact on productivity and economic growth. 

A safe and healthy working environment is now a fundamental right for each and every worker. Governments employers, trade unions as well as companies must work together to make this right a reality.