Compras Nikon Bluetooth |
Honestly, I was never really fascinated with insurance. My life-licensing class was 24 hours of classroom time spread out over one weekend, so maybe that has created some insurance-related intellectual scars. The sections on Life Insurance and the basic components of any insurance contract and the whole insurance process were already familiar to me, so I found those sections incredibly uninteresting. The other forms of insurance were much more interesting and gave me a great foundation for other insurance studies I've done since.
The prose of the book, too, flows extremely well. In fact, I usually just lightly read passages explaining computations and formulas because I come back later to review them in-depth; however, while reading this book, I actually felt I fully understood most of the computations even while I read (which almost never happens because most formula-explaining reads much like Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals").
Just one closing point... I guess you'd have to be either Insurance Commissioner or a professor of insurance to be really interested in this material, but the authors write in a way that allows even the average CFP or insurance student to come away from the book with a good sense of how insurance works and where it fits into an individual's financial plan.
Back in the early 60's, touch tone phones only had 10 buttons. Some
military versions had 16, while the 12 button jobs were used only by people
who had "diva" (digital inquiry, voice answerback) systems -- mainly banks.
Since in those days, only Western Electric made "data sets" (modems) the
problems of terminology were all Bell System. We used to struggle with
written descriptions of dial pads that were unfamiliar to most people
(most phones were rotary then.) Partly in jest, some AT&T engineering
types (there was no marketing in the good old days, which is why they were
the good old days) made up the term "octalthorpe" (note spelling) to denote
the "pound sign." Presumably because it has 8 points sticking out. It
never really caught on.
Modern psychology takes completely for granted that behavior and neural
function are perfectly correlated, that one is completely caused by the
other. There is no separate soul or lifeforce to stick a finger into the
brain now and then and make neural cells do what they would not otherwise.
Actually, of course, this is a working assumption only. ... It is quite
conceivable that someday the assumption will have to be rejected. But it
is important also to see that we have not reached that day yet: the working
assumption is a necessary one and there is no real evidence opposed to it.
Our failure to solve a problem so far does not make it insoluble. One cannot
logically be a determinist in physics and biology, and a mystic in psychology.
-- D.O. Hebb, "Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological
Theory", 1949
