Posted on

Weak Agreement

The reports and red lists of the European Housing Directive have only low correlations. If the areas of agreements are able to use the potential energy available in the individuals present and in their interactions, the strong agreements seem to use our intention and attention – what we do, why and what we focus on – in a very different way from the weakness of the agreements. I`m curious to know what you`ll find in these two different settings. You, D. The lower limits for a low Byzantine agreement. Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica 5, 355-360 (1989). lower limits for the Byzantine chords obtained by Dolev and Strong are demonstrated by a simpler method, even for weak Byzantine chords. Strong areas of agreement. If the areas of agreement are strong, we have a great ability to identify by definition the potential energy available in our interactions. We see potentials, ways to show that potential, and we use the results of these tracks as feedback on the potential and pathways we have seen.

In strong chords, we seem to increase resilience by increasing the ability of our interactions to use our inputs, by working with reserve feedback and balancing loops in our interactions and in the viral nature of our social networks. We study our interactions to find the influence of the nature of social systems. This allows us to increase efficiency and achieve much higher performance with the same inputs, the same number of people with the same level of financial capital. By keeping the same people, we want to invest in their capabilities and benefits. As a result, we focus on being more strategic, systemic and collaborative, in order to engage and learn from the potential energy we have in the area of strong agreements. Public acceptance of conservation measures and measuring the effectiveness of conservation efforts depend primarily on expert agreement on the state of conservation of species. Here we propose the first EU-wide comparison of species conservation assessments using two independent frameworks, reports under the European Habitat Directive (HD) and red lists. We compared the national and Community status of species conservation, which was assessed for the last two reports on the HSC (2001-2006, 2007-2007) with national lists (27 EU Member States) and the European Union Red Lists. The differences in the assessment of the conservation status of red list species and Huntington`s disease were significant: the average Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.49 for the first and 0.47 for the second HK ratio for countries and 0.39 for the first and 0.45 for the second HD ratio for the EU as a whole.

In addition, the correlations between EU Member States were very different, as national assessments of several European countries showed no relationship. Surprisingly, many probably known species have been evaluated very differently. In addition, there have been no signs of convergence between red lists and HD ratios over time. On average, red lists were more pessimistic about the conservation status of species than HK reports. These weak agreements between the two methods raise doubts about the reliability and validity of these assessments and certainly require careful review of the many divergent assessments. Weak areas of agreement. If the areas of agreements are weak, we have little experience to do anything with the potential energy available.