INFO2009 Group 21 - A Poster and set of Resources on Computer Security

This contains a poster advertising the resources. The resource is a profile folder on five topics, as well as a website, a quiz, and an interactive game.

INFO2009 Group 17 - Team Scopophobia - Security

This is the INFO2009 project for group 17 Our topic is Security. Our resource is a website that contains links to different questionnaires we created to help educate people in various subtopics of Security

Team A (Group 23)

This website has been created to raise awareness of potential issues surrounding file sharing and the penalties than can be imposed if you are caught sharing copyrighted content.

INFO 2009 Coursework 2 - Go Green - Group 7 - Green ICT

A Website on GREEN ICT by the Go Green Group as a part of the resource set made for the Info2009 2011-12 coursework

INFO 2009 - Group 9 - KungFu Rabbits

This is the folder for 2011/2012 group 9 for INFO2009 (CWK2). The resource is an interactive website. Users: cre1g10, rjt2g10, gl10g10, jb23g10, jdr1g10

Group 21 Slartibartfast - Group Resource

Informative website about Anonymous/LulzSec and Denial of Service attacks

E-commerce: Past, Present, & Future Trends : INFO2009 2012-13 Group 4 (E-vengers)

An EdShare folder containing a collection of resources created on the subject area of past, present and future e-commerce trends. The primary resource is an interactive website and quiz, with a video commentary and supplementary flyer advertising the proposed resource is also included.

Consumer attitude towards purchasing intent for ready to drink orange juice and nectar

Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the impact of some labeling aspects on the consumer intent to purchase ready to drink orange juice and nectar. Design/methodology/approach: The influence of label information on the consumer intent to purchase was evaluated by conjoint analysis using a convenience sample (n=149). A factorial design with four characteristics, price, brand, information about the product and kind of beverage, was used. Three levels were established for brand and product information, and two for price and kind of beverage. Findings: Low price, product information and market leading brand had positive impact. No preservatives/natural was the information that most influenced consumer's purchase intent. The ideal label showed the leading brand, low price and information no preservatives/natural. These results could be useful for strategic planning of consumer instruction and have important implications for Brazilian orange juice manufactures. Originality/value: Although the most widely consumed beverages in Brazil are ready to drink orange juice and nectar, it was unexpected that consumers did not know the differences between them and that kind of beverage was not an important factor for the purchase decision. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Comparative poverty assessment using purchasing power parities for low income households

Includes bibliography

Gestione strategica parco fornitori: Caso Bonfiglioli Group

a. Introduzione: il capitolo introduttivo tratta il background del lavoro in generale. In esso vengono illustrati inoltre gli scopi e gli obiettivi e la struttura dell’elaborato. b. Framework teorici: Strategicità fornitori e SM Il primo passo nella progettazione di questo elaborato di tesi è stato quello di sviluppare una ricerca nella letteratura della SCM. Secondo Strauss e Corbin (2008) “la domanda iniziale di uno studio qualitativo è spesso ampia ed aperta”. Un modo per sviluppare domande di ricerca è quello si esaminare la letteratura. Viene trattata la strategicità della funzione approvvigionamenti nel Supply Chain Management ed il notevole impatto dei fornitori sulle prestazioni aziendali. c. Supplier Base Reduction: Modello Concettuale. Viene proposto un modello concettuale che si base sulla strategicità della SBR intesa come una strategia di gestione del parco fornitori grazie ai suoi metodi di standardization, elimination e tiering. Tale modello evidenzia l’importanza di eseguirla in contemporanea ad altri metodi, strumenti e strategie molto rilevanti, quali: purchasing strategy, spend analysis per classe merceologica di acquisto, purchasing performance meausurement tramite appositi KPI (i più rilevanti sono lead time e qualità), valutazione e segmentazione del parco fornitori. In tal modo sarà immediato individuare i fornitori critici da eliminare e quelli più performanti con cui stabilire dei rapporti di partnership e di fornitura integrata. d. Case Study: Bonfiglioli Riduttori Dopo un excursus sulla struttura aziendale di Bonfiglioli Riduttori, le sue Business Unit, le diverse filiali ed i suoi principali prodotti, viene riportata una breve analisi dell’intera supply chain. Successivamente viene trattata la necessità di aumentare le performance aziendali (date le stringenti richieste di mercato in termini di qualità e puntualità nelle consegne) e di non perdere la competitività acquisita precedentemente. Inoltre si enfatizza l’importanza della funzione approvvigionamenti nel raggiungimento degli obiettivi aziendali. e. Applicazione del modello concettuale al caso Dal modello concettuale si hanno gli input per definire il piano esecutivo del caso di studio in esame. Verranno trattati: analisi di Pareto per categoria merceologica, monitoraggio KPI per fornitore e categoria merceologica (con relativa griglia di misurazione delle performance globale), segmentazione fornitori per categoria tramite Commodity Pyramids, attuazione di azioni correttive generiche (quali le tecniche SBR e la partnership con i fornitori più performanti) e puntuali (quality improvement, ridefinizione dei piani di consegna, condivisione della programmazione, applicazione di bonus o penalità). f. Risultati ottenuti ed attesi Dopo aver riportato i risultati di alcuni esempi di macrocategorie merceologiche d’acquisto, si analizzano i risultati globali della razionalizzazione del parco fornitori e dell’implementazione di rapporti di partnership con annessi i relativi benefici per le performance dell’organizzazione. Si propone inoltre una revisione dei meccanismi di selezione dei fornitori tramite l’ideazione di un nuovo modello di vendor rating che rispetti i target prefissati.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Can a website-delivered computer-tailored physical activity intervention be acceptable, usable, and effective for older people?

Despite the numerous health benefits, population physical activity levels are low and declining with age. A continued increase of Internet access allows for website-delivered interventions to be implemented across age-groups, though older people have typically not been considered for this type of intervention. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate a website-delivered computer-tailored physical activity intervention, with a specific focus on differences in tailored advice acceptability, website usability, and physical activity change between three age-groups. To mimic "real-life" conditions, the intervention, which provided personalized physical activity feedback delivered via the Internet, was implemented and evaluated without any personal contact for the entire duration of the study. Data were collected online at baseline, 1-week, and 1-month follow-up and analyzed for three age-groups (≤44, 45-59, and ≥60 years) using linear mixed models. Overall, 803 adults received the intervention and 288 completed all measures. The oldest age-group increased physical activity more than the other two groups, spent the most time on the website, though had significantly lower perceived Internet self-confidence scores when compared with the youngest age-group. No differences were found in terms of website usability and tailored advice acceptability. These results suggest that website-delivered physical activity interventions can be suitable and effective for older aged adults.