徵才機關:國立屏東科技大學
人員區分:其他人員>
官職等:無>
職系:無>
名額:1>
性別:不拘>
工作地點:90-屏東縣>
有效期間:109/06/24~109/07/02>
資格條件:
■一般資格條件:具教育部認可之國內、外生物或農牧相關系所碩士學位以上。
■專長領域或特殊資格條件(含研究著作要求):
1.具備工作犬訓練相關證書及實際工作經驗或參與過相關研究工作。
2.具備工作犬應用研究之訓練方法的設計與執行能力。
3.具備撰寫期刊論文與研究計畫之能力。
4.具備英語溝通能力與團隊合作協調能力。
■Department:General Research Service Center
■Position:Research Assistant
■Vacancy:1
■General Requirement:
A master’s degree recognized by the Ministry of Education of the R.O.C. in biology, agriculture or animal science fields is required.
■Specialization or Special Qualification(research and publication requirement included):
1. Certificates of working canine training and practical work experience or participated in relevant research program.
2. Ability to design and conduct
training methods for applied research of working canine.
3. Ability to write scientific articles and research proposals.
4. English communication skill and teamwork coordination skills.
工作項目:
工作地址:
屏東縣內埔鄉老埤村學府路1號,國立屏東科技大學研究總中心
電子地圖
聯絡E-Mail:z6362@mail.npust.edu.tw>
聯絡方式(含檢具文件):
■備註︰
※依本校「校務基金進用研究人員聘任辦法」第六條規定,校務基金進用研究人員聘期,以一年一聘為原則,但計畫期限在一年以內者,應依實際所需時間聘用,任期最長以三年為限。惟如因計畫持續需要,得聘期得至計畫執行期限結束時止。校務基金進用研究人員辦理續聘時,應提出聘任期間執行研究成果績效報告,並載明要求事項及檢據證明文件資料。
一、以上應徵之「一般資格條件」,須於公告截止日前(109年7月2日)已具有博士學位。
二、以上應徵之「專長領域獲特殊資格條件」中有關「實務工作經驗」之審核,本校將依教育部訂定公布「技專校院專業科目或技術科目之教師業界實務工作經驗認定標準」規定辦理。
三、報名期間︰自公告日起至109年7月2日止截止收件。
四、報名方式︰報名方式︰一律採書面方式報名,收件至報名截止日止。
(一) 郵寄方式報名:以郵戳為憑,請寄送至91201屏東縣內埔鄉老埤村學府路1號,國立屏東科技大學人事室收。
(二) 親送方式報名:以本校人事室「職缺收件章」收件日期為憑,請於報名截止日前之本校工作日期間親送至本校行政中心二樓人事室,交由人事人員收執,並加蓋「職缺收件章」。
※ 應檢附之證件不齊或逾期者,均不予受理。
五、聯絡電話︰08-7703202轉分機6112 本校人事室朱專員。
六、應徵信封右上角請務必註明「應徵者姓名」及「應徵單位(領域)」;資格符合者由徵聘單位辦理後續審查事宜,不合者恕不退件及函復。如未獲錄取時需返還書面應徵資料,請附足額回郵信封以利郵寄。
七、報名需繳交表件︰(徵聘單位另有資料需求者,請依其需求辦理)
(一)現職工作佐證文件(國外任職證明文件須附中文譯本並經我國駐外單位驗證)。
(二)個人基本資料表(請詳細註明通訊地址、聯絡電話、行動電話及電子郵件信箱)。
(三)最近五年內著作一覽表。
(四)最高學歷畢業證書影本,畢業學校如係國外學歷須為教育部所認可且經我國駐外單位驗證有案者,須於公告截止日前取得之學歷始予採認。
(五)檢附相關實務工作經驗之證明文件影本。(須於公告截止日前之實務工作經驗始予採認)
(六)最高學歷歷年成績單影本,畢業學校如係國外學歷須為教育部所認可且經我國駐外單位驗證有案者。
(七)其他有利於聘審之資格證明文件。
(八)國立屏東科技大學個人資料蒐集聲明暨同意書。
※※(一 ~ 八)項資料請勿膠封,使用長尾夾固定成冊即可※※
八、請應徵者詳閱「本校個人資料蒐集聲明暨同意書」,確認同意相關事項後簽名,並隨同履歷資料繳件。
九、前述第七項(1款)所需之「個人基本資料表(word檔案)」、「個人資料簡表(校務基金進用研究人員)(Excel檔案)」表格,刊登於本校首頁(網址:http://www.npust.edu.tw/)點選「徵才資訊」及人事室網站首頁(網址http://personnel.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php)最新消息、徵才求職,請自行下載相關表格使用;其中有關「個人資料簡表.xlsx(Excel檔案)」,請另行以E-mail方式逕傳送研究總中心承辦人:[email protected]
十、應徵者之個人資料將用於本校此次徵聘研究人員之各項相關業務;且錄取後,將其個人資料供校務行政之用。
十一、本校聘任前依性侵害犯罪加害人登記報到查訪及查閱辦法第14條之規定,應申請查閱有無性侵害犯罪紀錄。
十二、本公告同時刊登於下列網站:
(一)行政院人事行政總處網址http://www.dgpa.gov.tw/點選「事求人」。
(二)本校首頁網址http://mportal.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php 點選「求才資訊」。
(三)本校人事室網址http://personnel.npust.edu.tw/bin/home.php點選「最新消息」及「徵才求職區」。
(四)「全國就業通」網址https://www.taiwanjobs.gov.tw/Internet/index/index.aspx 點選「找工作」。
(五)「104人力銀行」網址https://www.104.com.tw/index.cfm。
(六)「教育部全國大專教育人才網」網址https://tjn.moe.edu.tw/index.php/點選「職缺訊息」。
(七)「科技部網站」網址https://www.most.gov.tw/?l=ch/點選「動態資訊/求才訊息」。
* 請注意:本職缺啟用現職應徵人員調閱履歷功能,現職應徵者需同意開放履歷給徵才機關調閱 現職公務人員應徵作業說明
「conduct by中文」的推薦目錄:
- 關於conduct by中文 在 李世淦-屏東縣議員 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於conduct by中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於conduct by中文 在 Charles Mok 莫乃光 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於conduct by中文 在 conduct中文的評價和優惠,YOUTUBE和商品老實說的推薦 的評價
- 關於conduct by中文 在 YouTube's Community Guidelines - YouTube Help - Google ... 的評價
- 關於conduct by中文 在 [英文歌詞中文翻譯] Charlie Puth - Attention - YouTube 的評價
conduct by中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的精選貼文
中大公布第二批校園環境檢測結果
香港中文大學(中大) 早前委託獨立認可實驗室於不同時間在校園不同地點,抽取空氣、水質及泥土樣本,並送往化驗。大學已收到了第二批校園環境檢測結果。
因應有大學成員對校園可能殘留CS(鄰-氯代苯亞甲基丙二腈)的疑慮,校方已經進一步安排樣本檢測,預計將於二至三星期後收到結果,並盡快公布。
今日(12月12日)公布的第二批校園環境檢測結果包括13個泥土樣本(#1至#12 、S8)以及兩個水樣本(W9、W10)的化驗結果,摘要及參考水平如下﹕
(1) 泥土樣本
表一﹕泥土樣本(#1 至#12)
污染物
測試結果
參考水平
參考文件
二噁英
0.0037至0.0059 毫微克/克
1毫微克/克
香港環保署發出的「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準(公園)」
總多氯聯苯
< 0.2毫克/公斤
0.756毫克/公斤
多環芳香烴
< 0.500至2.05毫克/公斤
3.83至10,000毫克/公斤
表二﹕泥土樣本(S8)
污染物
測試結果
參考水平
參考文件
二噁英
0.12 毫微克/克
1毫微克/克
香港環保署發出的「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準(公園)」
總氰化物
< 1 毫克/公斤
4,900毫克/公斤
總多氯聯苯
< 0.200毫克/公斤
0.756毫克/公斤
多環芳香烴
< 0.500毫克/公斤
3.83至10,000毫克/公斤
(2) 水樣本
表三﹕水樣本(W9 及 W10)
污染物
測試結果
參考水平
參考文件
二噁英
4.6至4.7 皮克/公升
30皮克/公升
美國國家環境保護局(USEPA)建議的飲用水標準
總氰化物
< 0.05毫克/公升
0.2毫克/公升
總多氯聯苯
< 0.50 微克/公升
0.5 微克/公升
多環芳香烴
< 0.1 微克/公升
0.1 至 0.4 微克/公升
結論
(1) 泥土樣本
化驗結果顯示12個泥土樣本(#1至#12)的二噁英含量遠低於香港環保署在2007年發出的《按風險釐定的土地污染整治標準的使用指引》中「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準(公園)」之數值。這表示二噁英在這些泥土(#1至#12)的含量水平並不顯著,化驗結果與距離2號橋較遠位置的泥土樣本 (S1至S7、S9) 相若 (見表一)。
至於總多氯聯苯的化驗結果,所有泥土樣本 (#1 - #12)都遠低於前述由香港環保署發出的使用指引中(公園)標準之總多氯聯苯含量 (0.756毫克/公斤)。(見表一)
關於泥土樣本 (#1 - #12) 中多環芳香烴的含量,全部均低於參考文件中所規定的水平 (見表一)。 至於多環芳香烴中個別的化合物含量,可於此處瀏覽。
一個含有黑色煙熏物質的泥土樣本 (S8),在夏鼎基運動場裡被火燒焦的墊褥附近採集。測試結果顯示二噁英的含量相比其他泥土樣本為高,但仍相等於使用指引中的參考水平大約十分之一。這個略高的數值可能是由燃燒塑膠或墊褥的塑料部分引起。S8的其他測試參數例如總氰化物、總多氯聯苯和多環芳香烴,它們的含量遠低於在相關參考文件所規定的最低數值(見表二)。
(2) 水樣本
兩個水樣本從賽馬會研究生宿舍(一座)採集。化驗結果顯示兩個水樣本(W9 及 W10)中二噁英含量介乎4.6至4.7皮克/升。根據美國國家環境保護局建議的飲用水標準,其水樣本 (W9 & W10)中二噁英含量並不顯著。其他測試參數例如總氰化物、總多氯聯苯和多環芳香烴,它們的含量遠低於在相關參考文件所規定的最低數值 (見表三)。
從上述結論可見,這些污染物在泥土(#1 至 #12、S8)和水(W9 及W10)樣本的含量對健康的危害不顯著。
至於其他測試結果,大學收到後盡快公布。
相關數據可於此處瀏覽。
CUHK Releases the Second Batch of Test Results on Campus Environment
The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) earlier appointed an independent accredited laboratory to collect air, water and soil samples at various locations and at different times on campus and sent them for testing. The University has just received the second batch of test results.
In addition, in response to the concerns of some University members over the level of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) on CUHK campus, the University has arranged to conduct another round of tests. The results will be announced as soon as they are received in 2-3 weeks’ time.
Here is the summary of the second batch of test results including 13 soil samples (#1-#12 & S8) and 2 water samples (W9 & W10) compared with the guidance notes/international standards.
(1) Soil samples
Table 1: For soil samples (#1 - #12)
Contaminant
Test results
Reference Level
Reference Document
Dioxins
0.0037-0.0059 ng/g
1 ng/g
Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil – Public Parks, published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department
Total PCBs
< 0.2 mg/kg
0.756 mg/kg
PAHs
< 0.500-2.05 mg/kg
3.83-10,000 mg/kg
Table 2﹕For soil sample (S8)
Contaminant
Test results
Reference Level
Reference Document
Dioxins
0.12 ng/g
1 ng/g
Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil – Public Parks, published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department
Total Cyanide
< 1 mg/kg
4,900 mg/kg
Total PCBs
< 0.200 mg/kg
0.756 mg/kg
PAHs
< 0.500 mg/kg
3.83-10,000mg/kg
(2) Water samples
Table 3: For water samples (W9 & W10)
Contaminant
Test results
Reference Level
Reference Document
Dioxins
4.6-4.7 pg/L
30 pg/L
Drinking Water Standards from USEPA
Total Cyanide
< 0.05 mg/L
0.2 mg/L
Total PCBs
< 0.50 µg/L
0.5 µg/L
PAHs
< 0.1 µg/L
0.1-0.4 µg/L
Conclusion
(1) Soil samples
Among the 12 soil samples (#1-#12), the dioxins (I-TEQ) are well below the Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) of dioxins in soil (I-TEQ) for public parks as quoted in the Guidance Manual for Use of Risk-Based Remediation Goals for Contaminated Land Management published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (HKEPD) in 2007. This indicates that the dioxins (I-TEQ) levels in these soil samples (#1 - #12) are not significant, and the results are comparable to soil samples (S1-S7 & S9) collected in the more distant locations away from No. 2 Bridge (see table 1).
Based on the test results of Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), all soil samples (#1 - #12) are lower than the respective limits of PCBs level (0.756 mg/kg) for public parks cited in the aforementioned Guidance Manual from HKEPD (see table 1).
Regarding the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) levels for these soil samples (#1 - #12), all of them are below the level as required by the reference document (see table 1). For the figures of individual PAH compounds, please click here.
A soil sample with black-smoked materials (S8) was collected in the vicinity of the burned mattress in Sir Philip Haddon-Cave Sports Field. The test result of the dioxins (I-TEQ) level is relatively higher than that of other soil samples though it is only about one tenth of the reference level cited in the Guidance Manual. The possible reason for the elevated result may be due to the burning of rubber or plastic components of the mattress. For the other testing parameters such as Total Cyanide, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) for the sample (S8), they are all well lower than their respective limits as required by the related reference documents (see table 2).
(2) Water samples
Two water samples (W9 & W10) had been collected from Jockey Club Postgraduate Hall 1. The test results reveal that the dioxins (I-TEQ) levels for both samples (W9 & W10) are from 4.6 to 4.7 pg/L. In accordance with drinking water standards from United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the dioxins levels for these water samples (W9 & W10) are not significant. For the other testing parameters such as Total Cyanide, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), they are all much below their respective limits as required by the related reference documents (see table 3).
In view of the aforementioned interpretation, the health hazards of these contaminants from the soil (#1 - #12 & S8) and water (W9 & W10) samples are negligible.
Other test results will be announced as soon as they are available. Related information may be viewed here.
conduct by中文 在 Charles Mok 莫乃光 Facebook 的最佳解答
【法政匯思就社會進一步動盪的聲明】
【Statement on Further Escalation of Social Unrest】
// 當體制構建不能保障市民應有的追索權,暴力兼「私了」必如落山流水跟著來,這已清晰可見。僅說無諾,何能「止暴制亂」?
// Where the system fails to provide proper recourse, vigilantism and violence proclaiming self-defence arise as simple cause and effect. Without any real commitment by the Government to de-escalate and defuse the political crisis, verbal condemnation and physical crackdown will do nothing to ‘stop violence and curb disorder’.
https://www.facebook.com/…/a.455221741311…/1474268236073377/
【法政匯思就社會進一步動盪的聲明】
【Statement on Further Escalation of Social Unrest】(Scroll for English)
1. 近日,警隊的行為就如國際特赦組織所言越見低劣。[1] 這皆因政府漠視其專家提供的建議,並以歇斯底里、毫無章法可言的策略回應持續的動盪。
2. 五個月來,政府持續容許以下情況發生,對警政問題及根本的政治危機藥石亂投:
a. 阻礙救護人員前往現場拯救傷者;[2]
b. 偏頗地處理強姦或酷刑對待被拘留人士的指控;[3]
c. 肆無忌憚地濫用武力;[4]
d. 以諸多藉口為警察的失控或報復行為辯解。[5]
3. 法政匯思強烈譴責警隊濫用武力,及其本末倒置、往往為社區添煩添亂的驅散示威者行動。警方在十一月十一日於香港中文大學(「中大」)、香港理工大學及香港大學等驅散非法集結及/或堵路行為的行動,指稱的事實根據惹人非議。[6] 在撰寫此聲明之時,警方甚至以催淚彈及橡膠子彈回應中大校長的善意,與學生發生激烈衝突,造成最少60人受傷及多人被捕。[7]
4. 歸根究底,現有的制度未能公正地調查涉及警務人員的刑事指控,乃是警民衝突的源頭。樂觀地看,這可能只是個別調查人員的疏忽;悲觀地看,這反映一種互相包庇的文化,可能已由員佐級警員到警務處處長、保安局局長甚至特首,滲透警隊及政府上下。無論是哪一個情況,這種警察橫行無忌的觀感已經令公眾對負責調查大部分罪行的警察的信任蕩然無存。這個缺口一開,刑事司法制度剩下非常有限的能力,處理失職警員。
5. 法政匯思繼續呼籲香港政府成立獨立調查委員會,調查包括六月份以來政府的治安管理手段。除了將肇事者繩之於法外,更重要的是全面檢閱香港警隊以達至結構上的改革。至今,特區政府對於這個明顯又實際的選擇不屑一顧,堅持讓一個缺乏監察權力的獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會(「監警會」)[8] 去調查警察投訴及內部調查科。這正正就是問題根源所在。
6. 監警會委派的國際專家組就這個問題發表《進展報告》。國際專家組與政府持相反意見。他們批評監警會在結構上欠缺全面調查權力,對監警會這一個輕型、監管式的體制是否能夠做出決定性的貢獻表示懷疑,更指出下一步的可能性諸如「委派一個享有所需權力的獨立調查機構以作更深程度及更廣泛的調查」,意味著一個獨立調查委員會。[9]
7. 對於近數星期暴力頻頻,政府沒有採取任何行動,只是堅拒示威者的訴求(包括成立獨立調查委員會),更稱他們為「人民的敵人」。[10] 警員們多月來非人化地濫稱示威者為「曱甴」。[11]
8. 法政匯思絕對不認同法外制裁。此立場於七月二十五日之聲明已表明。然而,當體制構建不能保障市民應有的追索權,暴力兼「私了」必如落山流水跟著來,這已清晰可見。僅說無諾,何能「止暴制亂」?
法政匯思
2019年11月15日
(PDF: https://tinyurl.com/tt2nzmr)
1. Police conduct has seen, in the words of Amnesty International, ‘another shocking low’ [1] in recent days as the Government ignored constructive feedback by its own experts and hysterically responded to the ongoing unrest without any rational strategy.
2. In particular, these allegations point to a wanton failure on the part of the Government to properly approach policing and the underlying political crisis, now in its 5th month:
a. Obstructing rescuers and ambulances from accessing the injured; [2]
b. Unfair handling of allegations of rape and torture in custody; [3]
c. Unapologetic excesses in its use of force; [4] and
d. Evasive defence of police officers acting impulsively or in retaliation. [5]
3. The Progressive Lawyers Group (the ‘PLG’) vehemently condemns the Police regarding their excessive use of force and dispersal operations which often create the chaos sought to be quelled. On 11 November, the police conducted operations in, amongst others, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (‘CUHK’), the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong to disperse unlawful assemblies and/or obstruction of traffic, [6] the factual basis of which has been doubted by many. As at the drafting of this Statement, as riot police responded to an olive branch by the CUHK Vice-Chancellor with tear gas and rubber bullets, severe clashes between students and riot police at CUHK are ongoing with at least 60 injured and dozens arrested. [7]
4. Nonetheless, the crux of the problem remains in the institutional failure to investigate criminal allegations involving police officers impartially. At best, it could be an omission by individual police officers in their execution of duty. At worst, it could be a culture that acquiesces and conceals wrongdoings affecting grassroot constables, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Security and the Chief Executive alike. Whichever the case may be, this perception of impunity breaches the trust and confidence the public reposes in the police who are tasked with investigating most offences. With this link broken, there remains very limited recourse in the criminal justice system against rogue officers.
5. The PLG continues to call on the Hong Kong Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry regarding, amongst others, the current approach to policing social unrest since June. Bringing wrongdoers to justice aside, the more important task is a holistic review on the Police Force and a roadmap to structural reforms. So far, the Government brushed aside this obvious and pragmatic option, insisting upon an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Council (‘IPCC’) [8] whose (lack of) oversight over the Complaints Against Police Office (‘CAPO’) is the very issue at the heart of the current saga.
6. Curiously, the International Expert Panel of the IPCC appointed for advice on that very inquiry seems to hold a contrary view. In their Position Statement Report of Progress, the experts pointed out ‘structural limitations in the scope and powers of the IPCC Inquiry’ and noted that ‘it remains to be seen whether a light touch, oversight body like the IPCC, can make sufficient progress to produce any decisive contribution…’ It also identified a possible next step such as ‘a deeper more comprehensive inquiry in a number of respects by an independent body with requisite powers’, alluding to a Commission of Inquiry. [9]
7. In response to the extraordinary brutalities these few weeks, the Government did nothing but maintain that it will not yield to the protesters’ demands (including an independent Commission of Inquiry) and call them ‘enemies of the people’. [10] It has not helped that the police have for months been blatantly using such a dehumanising term as ‘cockroaches’ to refer to protesters [11].
8. The PLG stands by our Statement on 25 July 2019 and does not encourage citizens to take justice into their own hands. However, it is obvious by now that where the system fails to provide proper recourse, vigilantism and violence proclaiming self-defence arise as simple cause and effect. Without any real commitment by the Government to de-escalate and defuse the political crisis, verbal condemnation and physical crackdown will do nothing to ‘stop violence and curb disorder’.
The Progressive Lawyers Group
15 November 2019
(PDF version: https://tinyurl.com/tt2nzmr)
conduct by中文 在 YouTube's Community Guidelines - YouTube Help - Google ... 的推薦與評價
... русский, српски, українська, עברית, اردو, العربية, हिन्दी, বাংলা, ไทย, 中文(简体), 中文(繁體), 日本語, 한국어, English. ... <看更多>