The company now have over 300 offices assisting 90,000 users worldwide with an annual turnover of over 100 million with the largest development team in the industry.[5]Clive Martell became chief executive from August 2009.[6]In February 2015, Pete Baxter, former vice president of sales and country manager for Autodesk in the UK, was appointed vice president.[7]
In 2009 Jackson et al. reported that applying LLLT to reducing body fat could be effective on overall circumference. They assessed 67 overweight participants (BMI 25 to 30 kg/m2), which underwent LLLT (635-nm light with 2.5 mW power) for two weeks (three treatment sessions in each week). After treatment by LLLT (Zerona lipolaser was the first device that received FDA clearance), a total of 891-mm fat reduction was observed across waist, hips, and thighs. Maximum fat reduction was reported across the waist (2.66 cm). However, two weeks after the last treatment session, a 7.8-mm increase in circumferences was seen in three treated zones (62). In another clinical study, Jackson et al. reported that treating 689 subjects with LLLT (12 treatment sessions within 14 days) leads to 13.13-cm circumferential reduction in waist, hips, thighs, arms, knees, neck and chest (63).
New PowerShape 2009
and sensitizes everybody to their consequences. By means of swift communication, information flows and exchanges, globalization shapes a new environment to operate (Kapitonenko 2009). Globalization implies the existence of a single socio-political space on a global scale, which is shaped by the gradual decline in significance of boundaries due to the increasing exchanges across boundaries through the enhanced in-terconnectedness between societies, otherwise territorially bounded and different (Bar-telson 2009; Acosta and González 2010).
Even social movements and groups that work for national issues try to go beyond the nation-state, to link up with like-minded groups (Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International) in other countries, or their global umbrella organizations, to address demands not simply to their own governments but also to foreign governments and international organizations (Kaldor 2007). Globalization is shaping a platform for the transformations in the functions/status of states in the world politics. However, by swaying internal political and social systems, it damages the state's sovereignty in international affairs (Kapitonenko 2009). Thus, the foremost character of 'state' in nation-state based polity has been challenged, giving way to redefinition of power players at all levels.
Seemingly, the deterioration of state power has stimulated the 'diffusion of authority away from national governments and produced the problems of non-authority and un-governance' (Strange 1996: 14). The erosion of state sovereignty is shaped by internal social developments, growth of new ideologies and the emergence of non-state actors at various levels (Kreijen 2002). The erosion of sovereignty is generally considered as a consequence of globalization (Beeson 2003). The problems of sovereignty and national security have emerged as critical concerns for the whole world (Chanda 2008; Grinin 2012). Globalization supplies a new perspective for these developments thereby making the state-centered foreign policy subservient to global trends (Kapitonenko 2009).
Since its advent, the Internet has grown to become a major center of entertainment, education, and community (Bartle 2006: 31) and it has many prospects for business, research and politics (Balkin and Noveck 2006). ICTs can assist bridging the trust gap among the nations by information exchange facilities and thus, have the capacity to ameliorate misperception and, eventually bring more security, harmony and less violence (Kapitonenko 2009). These characteristics of ICTs reflect its social, political and economic impacts.
The contemporary developments in modern technologies along with the policies of free market across the world have facilitated intense economic interdependence (Stopford 1998), and the subsequent externalities resulted in the emergence of non-state actors of global character like TNCs or MNCs. TNCs have gradually become the symbols of new power structures in the global economy. These corporate institutions work across state borders to materialize their own interests and not of the state of their origin (Kapito-nenko 2009). For some they are hard-nosed exploiters, but for others - the torchbearers of prosperity (Mazlish 2012).
The information technology driven globalization has drastically influenced the nationstate based polity amounting to a transformation. This transformation has shifted the centers of power from local to global level, and has been encouraging the redefinition of the terms of interaction among the constituent elements of the new polity. It can be contended that 'state' capacity to deal with the current issues has deteriorated and that the new actors have come forward to fill the gap (Kobrin 2001). The civil society and public sphere, which were relatively weaker elements of nation-state based polity, have now become more powerful and have extended beyond the nation-state realm (Kapito-nenko 2009; Khan et al. 2011b).
The emergence of global governance correlates with the organizational shift from the mass society to a network society (Castells 1996). The state governments use the typical structural characteristics of a mass society where the authority is centralized in a hierarchical and vertically integrated bureaucracy. On the contrary, global governance networks are hierarchical and horizontally integrated. Some centers in the network are more influential than others because of their international legal status, legitimacy and resources (Crack 2007). Globalization is not a new phenomenon however, the efforts to govern the interconnections produced by it are not very old (Chanda 2008; Sloterdijk 2009: 33) and this is the reason for the immaturity of global governance institutions. Nevertheless, the relocation of state authorities in the global institutions is reflected in the increasingly emerging economic, political, security, and ecological institutions (Mazlish 2012).
Most theories of international relations still assume a nation-state context in which territorially bounded political societies interact in the absence of a centralized authority (Bartelson 2009). In order to make sense of contemporary global developments, the state-centric theories of international relations need to be abandoned in favor of a planetary or global vantage point (Bartelson 2010).
The state is increasingly enfeebled today (Ferguson 2006). It finds itself bounded by competitors offering alternative rules and norms for global politics. The monopoly of state in international politics is over; interstate relations are turning into transnational realm. These transformations are marked by the notion of an increasing interdependence of various international actors, and globalization reinforces this interdependence (Kapitonenko 2009). 2ff7e9595c