Seringkali kita mendengar dari banyak teman, sahabat, saudara bahkan kita sendiri mengenai pengalaman dikecewakan oleh jasa sewa
Seringkali kita mendengar dari banyak teman, sahabat, saudara bahkan kita sendiri mengenai pengalaman dikecewakan oleh jasa sewa mobil di Semarang. Dan mungkin, sebagian besar informasi mengenai jasa rental mobil di Semarang tersebut diperoleh dari media online, atau iklan surat kabar. Melalui kedua media tersebut kemungkinan besar Anda tidak dapat mengetahui dengan pasti bagaimana track record pemberi jasa sewa mobil di Semarang yang Anda pesan. Ada sebagian yang mengeluh kondisi mobilnya jelek, AC tidak dingin, mobil sudah tua, jok nya banyak kecoa atau semutnya, dan sebagainya. Supaya itu tidak terjadi pada Anda, baca tips bagaimana memilih sewa mobil di Semarang.
Pada dasarnya, masing-masing konsumen telah memiliki standar yang berbeda dalam menilai kualitas jasa rental mobil di Semarang. Tingkat toleransi masing-masing penyewa mobil terhadap suatu ketidaknyamanan memang berbeda-beda. Hal ini telah menyebabkan penilaian akan harga sewa mobil di semarang menjadi relatif.
Tetapi apabila Anda termasuk salah satu konsumen yang mengharapkan layanan prima dari suatu jasa sewa mobil di Semarang, ada baiknya Anda tidak hanya mengutamakan harga yang murah. Mengapa? Karena meskipun tidak selalu, tetapi harga berkorelasi erat dengan pelayanan. Dengan kata lain, jangan mengharapkan Anda memperoleh pelayanan memuaskan bila Anda mengutamakan harga rental mobil di semarang yang paling murah. Silahkan cek teori berikut dalam dunia penjualan produk, “ono rego ono rupo”.
Owner jasa sewa mobil di semarang yang bertahan dengan harga menengah ke atas, bukannya tidak khawatir mereka kehilangan konsumen karena banyaknya persaingan harga dari perusahaan jasa sewa mobil lain. Tetapi biasanya mereka memilih bersikap demikian karena biaya yang dibutuhkan oleh owner jasa rental mobil di Semarang untuk melayani Anda dengan standar tinggi memang lebih mahal. Perawatan mobil yang lebih baik, uang jasa driver yang lebih baik, type mobil yang lebih tinggi, dan periode renew mobil yang lebih pendek.
Sehingga yang akan Anda peroleh dari jasa sewa mobil di semarang tersebut adalah: mobil-mobil dengan type menengah ke atas (Jika Toyota Avanza mulai dari type G, jika Old Xenia mulai dari type LI 1300 cc, jika New Xenia mulai dari type R deluxe 1300 cc, Ertiga mulai dari type GL, dan sebagainya), Full AC dingin, Full music dengan tape yang baik, tahun mobil maksimal 3 tahun ke belakang, dan driver-driver yang akan melayani Anda dengan baik karena mereka menyayangi pekerjaannya yang memberikan pendapatan yang baik bagi mereka. Untuk hal-hal tersebut lah Anda sudah selayaknya membayar lebih untuk jasa sewa mobil di semarang. Semestinya, rental mobil yang profesional akan bertanggung jawab apabila ada komplain dari customer/ penyewa. Apapun bentuk pertanggung jawaban tersebut dapat dikompromikan dengan penyewa.
Apabila anda membutuhkan jasa rental mobil untuk melayani dengan standar DIJAMIN memuaskan, Anda dapat menghubungi kontak JAWA Rental Mobil Semarang.
*Maaf, judul artikel ini telah dibuat sedemikian rupa supaya Anda tertarik membacanya. Terimakasih.
Yang Perlu Diwaspadai Pemakai Lensa Kontak
Banyak orang yang
merasa lebih cocok memakai lensa kontak ketimbang kacamata untuk memperbaiki fokus penglihatan.
Sayangnya, penggunaan lensa kontak yang semakin mudah tak dibarengi dengan perawatan kebersihan
Sako-Indonesia.com - Banyak
orang yang merasa lebih cocok memakai lensa kontak ketimbang kacamata untuk memperbaiki fokus
penglihatan. Sayangnya, penggunaan lensa kontak yang semakin mudah tak dibarengi dengan
perawatan kebersihan yang baik.
Jika kita kurang teliti dalam membersihkan,
lensa kontak bisa menjadi sumber infeksi. Itu sebabnya para pengguna lensa kontak harus
mewaspadai 8 kondisi berikut ini.
1. Saat menyentuh lensa
Cuci tangan dengan sabun sebelum menyentuh lensa kontak atau mata Anda.
Sebaiknya kuku tidak terlalu panjang agar tidak menggores lensa. Jangan pernah menggunakan air
keran atau air ludah untuk membersihkan lensa. Hanya gunakan cairan pembersih khusus lensa
2. Dipakai terlalu lama
Ada alasan penting
mengapa para dokter tak menyarankan penggunaan lensa kontak terlalu lama. Lensa kontak
menghambat oksigen ke mata. Jika Anda menggunakannya terlalu lama, misalnya malas membukanya
saat tidur, bisa berpotensi menyebabkan luka pada kornea.
Anda harus membuka dulu lensa kontak sebelum memakai
berbagai jenis obat tetes mata. Namun, beberapa jenis obat, seperti pil kontrasepsi yang
meningkatkan hormon estrogen bisa membuat mata lebih sensitif dan lebih kering. Demikian juga
dengan obat jerawat yang bisa menyebabkan sensasi gatal pada mata.
Mata terlalu kering
Karena lensa kontak melapisi permukaan mata dan menahan
oksigen, banyak pengguna lensa kontak yang mengalami mata kering. Kekeringan tersebut bisa
bertambah parah dalam kondisi tertentu, seperti di pesawat, di cuaca kering, atau minum alkohol.
5. Cairan pembersih
Cairan pembersih (solution)
lensa kontak memiliki banyak variasi, ada yang hanya membilas, membunuh kuman, atau membasahi
mata untuk meningkatkan produksi air mata. Setiap produk tersebut mengandung pengawet yang bisa
kadaluarsa atau mengiritasi mata. Karena itu hindari memakai produk yang sudah lewat masa
pakainya. Selain itu, hindari kebiasaan memindahkan solution ke wadah kecil saat traveling
karena bisa meningkatkan risiko kontaminasi.
Alat make-up bisa menjadi sarana infeksi. Untuk itu hindari meminjamkan maskara,
eyeliner, atau eye shadow, dengan orang yang sedang sakit mata atau matanya
iritasi. Selain itu, pakailah lensa kontak sebelum berdandan dan lepaslah lensa kontak sebelum
7. Di luar ruangan
kecil di udara seperti debu, asap, atau bulu binatang, bisa masuk ke mata dan membuat iritasi.
Lebih disarankan untuk tidak memakai kacamata saat naik motor.
Tentu tak mungkin berenang dengan kacamata. Tetapi memakai softlens
saat berenang di kolam yang mengandung klorin bisa membuat lensa kontak terkontaminasi.
Sebaiknya lepaskan lensa kontak saat berenang dan tunggu satu jam sebelum memakai lensa kontak
With Iran Talks, a Tangled Path to Ending Syrias War
UNITED NATIONS — Wearing pinstripes and a pince-nez, Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations envoy for Syria, arrived at the Security Council one Tuesday afternoon in February and announced that President Bashar al-Assad had agreed to halt airstrikes over Aleppo. Would the rebels, Mr. de Mistura suggested, agree to halt their shelling?
What he did not announce, but everyone knew by then, was that the Assad government had begun a military offensive to encircle opposition-held enclaves in Aleppo and that fierce fighting was underway. It would take only a few days for rebel leaders, having pushed back Syrian government forces, to outright reject Mr. de Mistura’s proposed freeze in the fighting, dooming the latest diplomatic overture on Syria.
Diplomacy is often about appearing to be doing something until the time is ripe for a deal to be done.
Now, with Mr. Assad’s forces having suffered a string of losses on the battlefield and the United States reaching at least a partial rapprochement with Mr. Assad’s main backer, Iran, Mr. de Mistura is changing course. Starting Monday, he is set to hold a series of closed talks in Geneva with the warring sides and their main supporters. Iran will be among them.
In an interview at United Nations headquarters last week, Mr. de Mistura hinted that the changing circumstances, both military and diplomatic, may have prompted various backers of the war to question how much longer the bloodshed could go on.
“Will that have an impact in accelerating the willingness for a political solution? We need to test it,” he said. “The Geneva consultations may be a good umbrella for testing that. It’s an occasion for asking everyone, including the government, if there is any new way that they are looking at a political solution, as they too claim they want.”
He said he would have a better assessment at the end of June, when he expects to wrap up his consultations. That coincides with the deadline for a final agreement in the Iran nuclear talks.
Whether a nuclear deal with Iran will pave the way for a new opening on peace talks in Syria remains to be seen. Increasingly, though, world leaders are explicitly linking the two, with the European Union’s top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, suggesting last week that a nuclear agreement could spur Tehran to play “a major but positive role in Syria.”
It could hardly come soon enough. Now in its fifth year, the Syrian war has claimed 220,000 lives, prompted an exodus of more than three million refugees and unleashed jihadist groups across the region. “This conflict is producing a question mark in many — where is it leading and whether this can be sustained,” Mr. de Mistura said.
Part Italian, part Swedish, Mr. de Mistura has worked with the United Nations for more than 40 years, but he is more widely known for his dapper style than for any diplomatic coups. Syria is by far the toughest assignment of his career — indeed, two of the organization’s most seasoned diplomats, Lakhdar Brahimi and Kofi Annan, tried to do the job and gave up — and critics have wondered aloud whether Mr. de Mistura is up to the task.
He served as a United Nations envoy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and before that in Lebanon, where a former minister recalled, with some scorn, that he spent many hours sunbathing at a private club in the hills above Beirut. Those who know him say he has a taste for fine suits and can sometimes speak too soon and too much, just as they point to his diplomatic missteps and hyperbole.
They cite, for instance, a news conference in October, when he raised the specter of Srebrenica, where thousands of Muslims were massacred in 1995 during the Balkans war, in warning that the Syrian border town of Kobani could fall to the Islamic State. In February, he was photographed at a party in Damascus, the Syrian capital, celebrating the anniversary of the Iranian revolution just as Syrian forces, aided by Iran, were pummeling rebel-held suburbs of Damascus; critics seized on that as evidence of his coziness with the government.
Mouin Rabbani, who served briefly as the head of Mr. de Mistura’s political affairs unit and has since emerged as one of his most outspoken critics, said Mr. de Mistura did not have the background necessary for the job. “This isn’t someone well known for his political vision or political imagination, and his closest confidants lack the requisite knowledge and experience,” Mr. Rabbani said.
As a deputy foreign minister in the Italian government, Mr. de Mistura was tasked in 2012 with freeing two Italian marines detained in India for shooting at Indian fishermen. He made 19 trips to India, to little effect. One marine was allowed to return to Italy for medical reasons; the other remains in India.
He said he initially turned down the Syria job when the United Nations secretary general approached him last August, only to change his mind the next day, after a sleepless, guilt-ridden night.
Mr. de Mistura compared his role in Syria to that of a doctor faced with a terminally ill patient. His goal in brokering a freeze in the fighting, he said, was to alleviate suffering. He settled on Aleppo as the location for its “fame,” he said, a decision that some questioned, considering that Aleppo was far trickier than the many other lesser-known towns where activists had negotiated temporary local cease-fires.
“Everybody, at least in Europe, are very familiar with the value of Aleppo,” Mr. de Mistura said. “So I was using that as an icebreaker.”
The cease-fire negotiations, to which he had devoted six months, fell apart quickly because of the government’s military offensive in Aleppo the very day of his announcement at the Security Council. Privately, United Nations diplomats said Mr. de Mistura had been manipulated. To this, Mr. de Mistura said only that he was “disappointed and concerned.”
Tarek Fares, a former rebel fighter, said after a recent visit to Aleppo that no Syrian would admit publicly to supporting Mr. de Mistura’s cease-fire proposal. “If anyone said they went to a de Mistura meeting in Gaziantep, they would be arrested,” is how he put it, referring to the Turkish city where negotiations between the two sides were held.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remains staunchly behind Mr. de Mistura’s efforts. His defenders point out that he is at the center of one of the world’s toughest diplomatic problems, charged with mediating a conflict in which two of the world’s most powerful nations — Russia, which supports Mr. Assad, and the United States, which has called for his ouster — remain deadlocked.
R. Nicholas Burns, a former State Department official who now teaches at Harvard, credited Mr. de Mistura for trying to negotiate a cease-fire even when the chances of success were exceedingly small — and the chances of a political deal even smaller. For his efforts to work, Professor Burns argued, the world powers will first have to come to an agreement of their own.
“He needs the help of outside powers,” he said. “It starts with backers of Assad. That’s Russia and Iran. De Mistura is there, waiting.”
But an unusual assortment of players, including furniture makers, the Chinese government, Republicans from states with a large base of furniture manufacturing and even some Democrats who championed early regulatory efforts, have questioned the E.P.A. proposal. The sustained opposition has held sway, as the agency is now preparing to ease key testing requirements before it releases the landmark federal health standard.
The E.P.A.’s five-year effort to adopt this rule offers another example of how industry opposition can delay and hamper attempts by the federal government to issue regulations, even to control substances known to be harmful to human health.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that can also cause respiratory ailments like asthma, but the potential of long-term exposure to cause cancers like myeloid leukemia is less well understood.
The E.P.A.’s decision would be the first time that the federal government has regulated formaldehyde inside most American homes.
“The stakes are high for public health,” said Tom Neltner, senior adviser for regulatory affairs at the National Center for Healthy Housing, who has closely monitored the debate over the rules. “What we can’t have here is an outcome that fails to confront the health threat we all know exists.”
The proposal would not ban formaldehyde — commonly used as an ingredient in wood glue in furniture and flooring — but it would impose rules that prevent dangerous levels of the chemical’s vapors from those products, and would set testing standards to ensure that products sold in the United States comply with those limits. The debate has sharpened in the face of growing concern about the safety of formaldehyde-treated flooring imported from Asia, especially China.
What is certain is that a lot of money is at stake: American companies sell billions of dollars’ worth of wood products each year that contain formaldehyde, and some argue that the proposed regulation would impose unfair costs and restrictions.
Determined to block the agency’s rule as proposed, these industry players have turned to the White House, members of Congress and top E.P.A. officials, pressing them to roll back the testing requirements in particular, calling them redundant and too expensive.
“There are potentially over a million manufacturing jobs that will be impacted if the proposed rule is finalized without changes,” wrote Bill Perdue, the chief lobbyist at the American Home Furnishings Alliance, a leading critic of the testing requirements in the proposed regulation, in one letter to the E.P.A.
Industry opposition helped create an odd alignment of forces working to thwart the rule. The White House moved to strike out key aspects of the proposal. Subsequent appeals for more changes were voiced by players as varied as Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, as well as furniture industry lobbyists.
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 helped ignite the public debate over formaldehyde, after the deadly storm destroyed or damaged hundreds of thousands of homes along the Gulf of Mexico, forcing families into temporary trailers provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The displaced storm victims quickly began reporting respiratory problems, burning eyes and other issues, and tests then confirmed high levels of formaldehyde fumes leaking into the air inside the trailers, which in many cases had been hastily constructed.
Public health advocates petitioned the E.P.A. to issue limits on formaldehyde in building materials and furniture used in homes, given that limits already existed for exposure in workplaces. But three years after the storm, only California had issued such limits.
Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council have repeatedly challenged the science linking formaldehyde to cancer, a position championed by David Vitter, the Republican senator from Louisiana, who is a major recipient of chemical industry campaign contributions, and whom environmental groups have mockingly nicknamed “Senator Formaldehyde.”
By 2010, public health advocates and some industry groups secured bipartisan support in Congress for legislation that ordered the E.P.A. to issue federal rules that largely mirrored California’s restrictions. At the time, concerns were rising over the growing number of lower-priced furniture imports from Asia that might include contaminated products, while also hurting sales of American-made products.
Maneuvering began almost immediately after the E.P.A. prepared draft rules to formally enact the new standards.
White House records show at least five meetings in mid-2012 with industry executives — kitchen cabinet makers, chemical manufacturers, furniture trade associations and their lobbyists, like Brock R. Landry, of the Venable law firm. These parties, along with Senator Vitter’s office, appealed to top administration officials, asking them to intervene to roll back the E.P.A. proposal.
The White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews major federal regulations before they are adopted, apparently agreed. After the White House review, the E.P.A. “redlined” many of the estimates of the monetary benefits that would be gained by reductions in related health ailments, like asthma and fertility issues, documents reviewed by The New York Times show.
As a result, the estimated benefit of the proposed rule dropped to $48 million a year, from as much as $278 million a year. The much-reduced amount deeply weakened the agency’s justification for the sometimes costly new testing that would be required under the new rules, a federal official involved in the effort said.
“It’s a redlining blood bath,” said Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown University Law School professor and a former E.P.A. official, using the Washington phrase to describe when language is stricken from a proposed rule. “Almost the entire discussion of these potential benefits was excised.”
“That’s a huge difference,” said Luke Bolar, a spokesman for Mr. Vitter, of the reduced estimated financial benefits, saying the change was “clearly highlighting more mismanagement” at the E.P.A.
The review’s outcome galvanized opponents in the furniture industry. They then targeted a provision that mandated new testing of laminated wood, a cheaper alternative to hardwood. (The California standard on which the law was based did not require such testing.)
But E.P.A. scientists had concluded that these laminate products — millions of which are sold annually in the United States — posed a particular risk. They said that when thin layers of wood, also known as laminate or veneer, are added to furniture or flooring in the final stages of manufacturing, the resulting product can generate dangerous levels of fumes from often-used formaldehyde-based glues.
Industry executives, outraged by what they considered an unnecessary and financially burdensome level of testing, turned every lever within reach to get the requirement removed. It would be particularly onerous, they argued, for small manufacturers that would have to repeatedly interrupt their work to do expensive new testing. The E.P.A. estimated that the expanded requirements for laminate products would cost the furniture industry tens of millions of dollars annually, while the industry said that the proposed rule over all would cost its 7,000 American manufacturing facilities over $200 million each year.
“A lot of people don’t seem to appreciate what a lot of these requirements do to a small operation,” said Dick Titus, executive vice president of the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, whose members are predominantly small businesses. “A 10-person shop, for example, just really isn’t equipped to handle that type of thing.”
Big industry players also weighed in. Executives from companies including La-Z-Boy, Hooker Furniture and Ashley Furniture all flew to Washington for a series of meetings with the offices of lawmakers including House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, and about a dozen other lawmakers, asking several of them to sign a letter prepared by the industry to press the E.P.A. to back down, according to an industry report describing the lobbying visit.
The industry lobbyists also held their own meeting at E.P.A. headquarters, and they urged Jim Jones, who oversaw the rule-making process as the assistant administrator for the agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to visit a North Carolina furniture manufacturing plant. According to the trade group, Mr. Jones told them that the visit had “helped the agency shift its thinking” about the rules and how laminated products should be treated.
The resistance was particularly intense from lawmakers like Mr. Wicker of Mississippi, whose state is home to major manufacturing plants owned by Ashley Furniture Industries, the world’s largest furniture maker, and who is one of the biggest recipients in Congress of donations from the industry’s trade association. Asked if the political support played a role, a spokesman for Mr. Wicker replied: “Thousands of Mississippians depend on the furniture manufacturing industry for their livelihoods. Senator Wicker is committed to defending all Mississippians from government overreach.”
Individual companies like Ikea also intervened, as did the Chinese government, which claimed that the new rule would create a “great barrier” to the import of Chinese products because of higher costs.
Perhaps the most surprising objection came from Senator Boxer, of California, a longtime environmental advocate, whose office questioned why the E.P.A.’s rule went further than her home state’s in seeking testing on laminated products. “We did not advocate an outcome, other than safety,” her office said in a statement about why the senator raised concerns. “We said ‘Take a look to see if you have it right.’ ”
Safety advocates say that tighter restrictions — like the ones Ms. Boxer and Mr. Wicker, along with Representative Doris Matsui, a California Democrat, have questioned — are necessary, particularly for products coming from China, where items as varied as toys and Christmas lights have been found to violate American safety standards.
While Mr. Neltner, the environmental advocate who has been most involved in the review process, has been open to compromise, he has pressed the E.P.A. not to back down entirely, and to maintain a requirement that laminators verify that their products are safe.
An episode of CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March brought attention to the issue when it accused Lumber Liquidators, the discount flooring retailer, of selling laminate products with dangerous levels of formaldehyde. The company has disputed the show’s findings and test methods, maintaining that its products are safe.
“People think that just because Congress passed the legislation five years ago, the problem has been fixed,” said Becky Gillette, who then lived in coastal Mississippi, in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina, and was among the first to notice a pattern of complaints from people living in the trailers. “Real people’s faces and names come up in front of me when I think of the thousands of people who could get sick if this rule is not done right.”
An aide to Ms. Matsui rejected any suggestion that she was bending to industry pressure.
“From the beginning the public health has been our No. 1 concern,” said Kyle J. Victor, an aide to Ms. Matsui.
But further changes to the rule are likely, agency officials concede, as they say they are searching for a way to reduce the cost of complying with any final rule while maintaining public health goals. The question is just how radically the agency will revamp the testing requirement for laminated products — if it keeps it at all.
“It’s not a secret to anybody that is the most challenging issue,” said Mr. Jones, the E.P.A. official overseeing the process, adding that the health consequences from formaldehyde are real. “We have to reduce those exposures so that people can live healthy lives and not have to worry about being in their homes.”