關於 explosive d ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

印度測試研發的雷射導引砲彈，以阿瓊式戰車作試驗，射程可達五公里

Video just in of the DRDO Laser Guided ATGM being test-fired today from an Arjun tank’s main gun.

The ATGM employs a tandem HEAT warhead to defeat Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) protected armoured vehicles in ranges from 1.5 to 5 km. It has been developed with multiple-platform launch capability and is currently undergoing technical evaluation trials from 120 mm rifled gun of MBT Arjun.

This Laser Guided Missile has been developed by Armament R&D Establishment (ARDE), Pune in association with High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune and Instruments Research & Development Establishment (IRDE), Dehradun

發現要退休，才知道有很多東西沒好好教
冒險治療工作者常在「課程設計」、「安全管理」做得很好，但在「個案評估」中卻有待改進。
個案評估的例子
一、簡介(Introduction)：
1.荒野經驗的介紹
2.分類個案及轉診的狀態
3.課程地點及安排
4.課程日期
5.團體中的顯著事件

二、課程參與(Course Participation)
總結各個成員完成不同階段的個別能力，指出其生理及心理的挑戰。

三、社會化(Socialization)：
A 對於權威
1.個案是否尋求認可?
2.個案是否有敵意(hostile)、抗拒(contumacious)、任性(obstreperous)、抵抗(resistant)
3.個案對諮商(counseling)的反應
4.個案對批評(criticism)的反應
B 對於同儕
1.個案分享材料嗎(合作/分享)?
2.個案對於團體問題解決的貢獻(協助/抗拒)?
3.個案在團體中扮演的角色?(領導者、跟隨者、主動者、被動者)
4.個案是否接受或拒絕社交?(團體內或團體外)
5.個案尋求親密感或疏離感?(個體距離)
6.個案對於人際衝突的反應?(適切或不適切)
7.個案對他人表現同情或同理嗎?
8.個案接受團體中的少數族群嗎?(歧視prejudice)
9.個案能承擔情緒或生理的風險嗎?(信任感trust)

四、觀察(Observations)
A. 過度的因應技巧(Exaggerated coping devices)：
1. 過度依賴工作人員或他人
2. 情感過度(hypermotionalism)－流淚不止(tearfulness),反覆無常( instability)
3. 情感過少(hypoemotionalism)－缺乏適切反應(lack of appropriate effect)
4. 坐立不安(restlessness),失眠( insomnia)
5. 擔心過度(excessive worrying), 妄想(paranoia),噩夢( bad dreams)
6. 偏見(preoccupation)
7. 被動攻擊(passive aggression)
8. 身體抱怨(somatic complaint), 疑病症(hypochondriacal)
9. 暴躁(explosive temper)

B. 個人性格(Personal Traits)
1. 調控或運作體力的能力
2. 正向或負向的態度
3. 開放/有彈性或封閉/僵化
4. 衝動(impulsive)或謹慎(deliberate)的特質
5. 資訊過度連結(over-incorporates)或資訊連結不足(under-incorporates information)
6. 不成熟(immature)或成熟(mature)
7. 價值感(sense of values), 靈性(spirituality)
8. 內控或外控(internal or external locus of control)
9. 自我評量表淺(superficial)或坦白(honest)

C. 任務表現(Task Performance)
1. 遵從指示的能力(ability to follow direction)
2. 注意力範圍(attention span)
3. 主動性(initiative)
4. 處理結構性(structured)任務的能力
5. 處理非結構性(unstructured)任務的能力

D. 生理表現(Physical Manifestations) (related to diagnosis)
1. 生理表徵(physical appearance)
2. 眼神接觸(eye contact)
3. 說話的品質－情感強度(intensity) and程度(level), 適切(relevant),條理(coherent)
4. 思考模式(thought pattern)－邏輯(logical) or 鬆散(loose)
5. 現實定向感(reality orientation)－時間、地點、人物的覺察
6. 協調(coordination)及平衡(balance)

醫者有社會責任去保障公眾健康，我們認為梁卓偉教授和陳家亮教授作為香港兩所醫學院院長責無旁貸。因此，我們呼籲所有醫護人員參與連署，懇請兩位院長履行社會使命發表聲明保障社會大眾的健康和人身安全。

連署連結: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
———————————————————————-
《致香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長的公開信》

梁教授、陳教授道鑒：

　　有鑑於在六月十二日、七月二日及二十一日，香港警察濫用武力以控制群眾。如此行徑實對公眾健康遺害無窮，我們一眾醫療人員對此極為關切。作為香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長，吾等懇請兩位院長細察香港警察控制群眾之手段，以保障公眾健康。

　　據多家本地及國際媒體報導，香港警察於六月十二日，發射多輪催淚彈、橡膠子彈及布袋彈，以驅散聚集在金鐘的示威者。報導提及，警方向示威者發射至少一百五十枚催淚彈，二十輪布袋彈以及數枚橡膠子彈，造成至少七十二人受傷。從多家媒體直播可見，橡膠子彈更直射一名教師眼球，創傷嚴重，對其視力之損害非同等閒。另外，警方亦曾以數枚催淚彈包抄示威者，堵塞其退路；而當示威者被逼退守至中信大廈，警方竟朝人群中央投以催淚彈，造成數以百計的市民受傷及呼吸困難，生死攸關，不容小覷。此外，警方向一名手無寸鐵的市民，近距離發射橡膠子彈，以致其下腹嚴重受傷，情況慘不忍睹。

　　據多份醫學期刊綜述──如《刺針》（Lancet）[1] 及英國醫學期刊（BMJ (Open)）[2]，橡膠子彈乃可致命武器。同時，橡膠子彈不易操控，準確性低，有引致重傷，乃至死亡之風險。多份期刊不約而同指出，橡膠子彈不適宜用於密集人群之管制。

　　然而，香港警察漠視上述已知風險，仍於七月二日及七月二十一日繼續使用此類武器。在七月二十一日，警察更於鄰近民居之地，向群眾發射多輪催淚彈及橡膠子彈，當中更殃及記者。此等武器之禍害影響深重，不單有損呼吸系統，更會導致燒傷、嚴重鈍物創傷及爆炸性創傷。據媒體報導，武器造成至少十四人受傷；更有市民懼於警方之搜捕行動，而未敢求醫，致使受傷數字難以估算。

　　人權醫療組織（Physicians for Human Rights）醫生哈爾（Dr Rohini Haar）在接受紐約時報訪問時指出，警方對市民使用不成比例的武力，實有濫用武力之嫌。早在二零一四年，潘冬平教授[3]亦對香港警察使用催淚氣體情況深表關注，擔心催淚氣體損害市民呼吸系統。可見，催淚彈、橡膠子彈及豆袋彈等武器危害不輕，對香港市民公眾健康的損害不容置疑。

　　兩大醫學學院一直致力培育杏林菁英，不遺餘力。一眾醫療人員亦謹承《希波克拉底誓詞》之教誨，不論病患身份職要，一直為全人類之福祉著想，嚴守不懈。學院循循善誘，吾等縷心刻骨。誓詞薪火相傳，代代不息；缺少對生命健康之尊重，醫療人員何以自立？故此，我們一眾醫療人員懇請院長，發表聲明，呼籲香港警察：

一、避免濫用催淚彈及任何類型子彈，以免導致人命傷亡及其他不可見之損傷。
二、在使用武力時，必須顧及市民安全，並保持專業克制。

　　醫療人員一直存仁心，行仁術；保護市民之健康，乃至生命，吾等責無旁貸。院長為學為醫，高風峻節，茍以吾等同心同德，捍衛市民之生命健康，必見杏林春暖。

　　謹祝
道安

一眾醫療人員謹上
———————————————————————


Dear Professor Leung and Professor Chan,

We are a group of healthcare professionals, some of us being also graduates from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We are writing to express our gravest concerns over the persistent and serious threats to the health of members of the public posed by weapons deployed in crowd control by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) on 12 June, 2 July and 21 July. We hereby urge the Deans of the sole Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong to take actions in censuring the HKPF and the Hong Kong Government against the serious health risks in their crowd-control tactics.

On 12 June, as reported by multiple local and international news agencies, the HKPF fired multiple rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds to disperse protesters in Admiralty. Over 150 canisters of tear gas, 20 bean-bag rounds and several rubber bullets have admittedly been directed at protestors which resulted in at least 72 injuries. As evident in the live reports from various media sources, a teacher suffered traumatic ocular injury causing significant vision loss when his eye was hit by a rubber bullet; hundreds of citizens suffered various degrees of injuries and respiratory distress consequential upon the numerous tear gas canisters shot at Citic Tower in Admiralty where protesters were trapped in a life-threatening space filled with tear gas; an unarmed man sustained injury in his lower abdomen when a rubber bullet was directed at him in a short distance.

According to multiple studies and reviews from high impact factor medical journals, in particular the Lancet[1] and BMJ (Open)[2], rubber bullets can be lethal. Their notorious inaccuracy and risk of severe injury and death render them inappropriate and unsafe means of force in crowd control.

However, despite the known risks of these weapons, the HKPF tenaciously deployed them on citizens on 2 July and 21 July. On 21 July, 55 canisters of tear gas, 5 rubber bullet rounds and 24 sponge bullets were admittedly shot, some without immediate warning, at protestors and even at journalists notwithstanding the numerous residential buildings and citizens in the vicinity. The use of these weapons has left members of the public with at the very least, various types of injuries and further, burns, blunt force trauma and explosive injuries. 14 injuries have by far been reported where others did not present themselves to the hospital in fear of the risk of prosecution.

Dr Rohini Haar of Physicians for Human Rights had in a recent interview told the New York Times that the force used by the HKPF was disproportionate and excessive. In Hong Kong, Professor Ronnie Poon had as early as in 2014 expressed openly his earnest concern over both the short term and long term health risks in the use of tear gas in particular to one’s respiratory system when the HKPF first fired tear gas at Hong Kong citizens [3]. It is indisputable that these named weapons put the health of Hong Kong citizens at serious risks.

Doctors have striven to stand by the Hippocratic oath that they remain members of society, the identity of which comes before their profession, with special obligations to all fellow human beings. The two medical schools in Hong Kong have been established accordingly for the nurture of healthcare professionals to serve the public with benevolent hearts and minds. This is the time to honour our oath that human life should deserve the utmost respect and to maintain by all means such noble traditions of the medical profession.

We, as healthcare professionals, therefore implore the Deans of the only Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong, in the service of humanity with conscience and dignity, to take the lead in safeguarding the public’s health and to issue a statement to urge the Hong Kong Police Force to:

(1) refrain from using tear gas and bullets in any form on protestors to prevent further bloodshed and severe non-reversible injuries; and

(2) exercise due restraint over the use of force when handling protests and at all times, put the safety of Hong Kong citizens at the highest priority.

Regards,
A group of healthcare professionals
———————————————————
Healthcare professionals have a social responsibility to safeguard the health of members of the public. We believe that, as Deans of the faculties of medicine in Hong Kong, Professor Leung and Professor Chan bear a paramount obligation in this regard. We appeal to all healthcare professionals to join us in this petition to urge the deans to issue a statement to honour their obligation to defend the public from health risks.
—————————————————————
Petition Link: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
——————————
參考資料/References
[1] Mahajna, A., Aboud, N., Harbaji, I., Agbaria, A., Lankovsky, Z., Michaelson, M., . . . Krausz, M. M. (2002). Blunt and penetrating injuries caused by rubber bullets during the Israeli-Arab conflict in October, 2000: A retrospective study. The Lancet, 359(9320), 1795-1800. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08708-1

[2] Haar, R. J., Iacopino, V., Ranadive, N., Dandu, M., & Weiser, S. D. (2017, December 01). Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: A systematic review

[3] Professor Ronnie Poon Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/138599119760/posts/10152753050039761?s=1014598371&sfns=mo

—————————————————————

POB檔：https://pastebin.com/4wPJnCLt
*焦灼台版翻譯最高-20%元素抗性，其實最高是-30%元素抗性哦
*可以看影片內的狀態就知道了，只是我錄音的時候看著他講錯qq

跟上一部比起來傷害提升相當多
傷害整體下降，但生存算是提升的
暴擊機率100%、暴擊加成895%、雙躲避65/75

整體造價約莫15~20ex
猛攻小雨算是不錯的提升，但比較靠RNG
單價最貴的撇除六連，竟然是暴擊催化劑==
------------------------------------------------
●加入會員：https://bit.ly/2OeS6lW (加入會員，幫主播加菜)
●Discord討論群(請遵守相關規定)：https://discord.gg/aXTG6eD
------------------------------------------------
●伸展台有我許多角色的裝備以及天賦可以直接看
伸展台Build：https://web.poe.garena.tw/forum/view-thread/225960
------------------------------------------------
●PAYPAL贊助連結(國外信用卡)
https://streamlabs.com/qwer48621530
●歐付寶贊助連結(國內信用卡)
http://bit.ly/2MqXUbn
------------------------------------------------
其餘資訊請看簡介，感謝:D

POB檔：https://pastebin.com/tBEkXEQH
影片很多打頭目的片段都是實況時拍的
主要是測試雙躲信仰值，所以可以看到我幾乎都站樁
建議各位還是稍微躲一下啦ｗ

這隻目前造價約１５崇高上下，給各位參考一下
------------------------------------------------
●加入會員：https://bit.ly/2OeS6lW (每月75NT以上會員可觀看VOD)
●Discord討論群(請遵守相關規定)：https://discord.gg/aXTG6eD
------------------------------------------------
●伸展台有我許多角色的裝備以及天賦可以直接看
伸展台Build：https://web.poe.garena.tw/forum/view-thread/225960
------------------------------------------------
●PAYPAL贊助連結(國外信用卡)
https://streamlabs.com/qwer48621530
●歐付寶贊助連結(國內信用卡)
http://bit.ly/2MqXUbn
------------------------------------------------
其餘資訊請看簡介，感謝:D

#adidas #Dame6
合作邀約：bruceshihstudio@gmail.com

鎖定頻道 快來訂閱！➔ https://www.youtube.com/bruceshihstudio
布魯斯鞋評 Facebook 紛絲團！➔ https://www.facebook.com/bruceshihstudio
布魯斯鞋評 Instagram ➔ https://www.instagram.com/bruceshihstudio/

adidas Dame 6 有著與 adidas D Lillard 2 相似的優質表現，尤其是這次 LIGHTSTRIKE 的厚度調配讓我真的非常滿意，後跟厚實提供優質緩震，而前腳掌較薄則是提供稍微的回彈感受，雖然沒有很突出的貼地感，但整體中底的搭配可說是很均衡也舒適。

不過最重要的是尺寸上的選擇，現在 adidas 的球鞋幾乎都有 GCA 的字樣，目前穿起來的共通點是版型都偏大，所以讓原本就稍大的版型又更大了。建議大家在這段期間還是盡量到鞋店裡試穿看看，稍微了解一下自己需要的尺寸範圍在哪裡。而這次 adidas Dame 6 我已經選擇了小半號，穿起來沒有太多問題，但總覺得似乎小一號或許更好。總而言之這次 adidas Dame 6 穿起來舒適，後跟鎖定也到位，加上定價也很有競爭力，大家有機會真的可嘗試看看！

adidas Harden Vol.4 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iq6JaHsNLA&t=2s

adidas D.Rose 10 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhQlcZXOsE&t=79s

adidas DAME 5 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeNpk9T1LzU

adidas Marquee BOOST 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXBSsnO9Es8

adidas Dame 5 開箱：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLlPR5e7jBQ

adias Harden Vol.3 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxEGVhPXe6g

adias Harden Vol.3 開箱：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5B0-OVHNG8&t=3s

adias Harden Vol.2 開箱：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9HLTEordM&t=255s

adidas Harden Vol.2 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joyQHTzEMYw&t=16s

adidas Crazy Light BOOST 2018 開箱：https://youtu.be/3xRzu87SBIw

adidas Crazy BYW 開箱：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qextkk9wSgw&t=2s

adidas Dame 4 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6seUWSqOU&t=5s

adidas Crazy Explosive 2017 Primeknit 鞋評：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL9Fd4YVaoQ&t=177s

BGM：Summer Beats