Law Sample Essay - Personal Statement

All applicants must submit a personal statement with the application form. This is your opportunity to present yourself, your background, your experiences, and your ideas to the Admissions Committee. You may want to write about your intellectual interests, your career goals, your achievements, your family background, or your involvement in your community.The TransitionOnce in a while I am approached by past research associates who heard that I got out, as several of them put it, and who want to know how I handled the switch. Some of them have no idea that people with science backgrounds have options other than research and teaching, and many are discouraged by the thought that they would have to leave their beloved science in other to engage in those activities. Several of them have called me from home to ask these questions, for fear of being overheard at the laboratory.The first thing I tell them is that there is far more to science than the bench. I myself entered the science fiel d as an undergraduate, when I chose to study veterinary microbial genetics. I worked in the laboratory of Dr. William Sischo, an epidemiologist who specialized in number-crunching but who needed technical assistance with field sampling and laboratory work to generate the data. Dr. Sischo instilled in me a strong desire to learn and experiment in genetics. I was fascinated by the many ways genetics can be used to help understand how or why certain biological functions occur, and I wondered how I could use my knowledge of genetics to benefit society.After I obtained my bachelor of science degree, I went on to graduate school earning a master of science degree part-time while working full-time jobs in a couple of well-establish research institutions. I enjoyed both graduate school and working in the laboratory. I also learned the correct career path — an academic position at a respectable research university — was what we were supposed to want out of life. More specifical ly, academic laboratories were acceptable, but working in industry, even to do research, was generally looked upon as selling out. I believe this attitude has relaxed somewhat since then, since grants and jobs have become harder to secure and tenured positions lack the security they once possessed.It was during my graduate studies that I began to question my goals and the assumptions they were based on. I was becoming increasingly unhappy with the direction my career was heading, and I began to question my abilities and motivation. Finally, when I heard myself mutter out loud I dont want to do bench work forever, I sat up and took notice. I decided that in spite of my training, and even though I still loved science, research was not right for me.I wanted a career, or at least a job for starters, that valued my graduate degree and training, and that was a better fit for my skills and future ambitions. I decided I would do best with a job that was externally driven either by deadlines or by the needs of others; in addition, I wanted to talk, write, and/or evaluate science as a whole rather than focus on one particular aspect of a research project.As a molecular geneticist, I had occasionally interacted with the patent department at SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals in support of my supervisors patent applications. They worked on a variety of intellectual property issues in a number of scientific disciplines that were of interest to the company. I realized then that I could make very good use of my science background as a patent attorney.Earlier this year, I accepted an offer to work as a patent agent in the Corporate Intellectual Properties Department at SmithKline Beecham. The job involves writing and prosecuting patent applications, which in turn requires broad knowledge of both science and law. I soon realized that, in order to become an effective patent practitioner, I must become intimately acquainted with U.S. patent law. Because SmithKline Beecham is an international corporation, I have also learned a great deal about international patent law so that I can assist in foreign prosecution of SmithKline Beechams patents. When I first started the job, it occurred to me that my learning curve was a cliff with an overhang, and I was at the bottom looking up.I was extremely lucky to find a job almost immediately following graduation last January. However, this opportunity was not trouble-free, there were additional risks to consider at the time I made the decision to change. Our company was in the middle of negotiations to merge with another international pharmaceutical company, GlaxoWellcome Pharmaceuticals. As details of the merger were released, we were informed that the majority of the money saved in the merger was going to be invested back into research and discovery. In other words, because of the patent applications that I draft and prosecute, my job as a patent agent will play an essential role in the inventive process in the new c ompany. Daily interaction with inventors keeps me up-to-date with cutting-edge technology in the biotechnology field. As my work progressed, I knew I had made the right decision, and I have never looked back.In October, I took the complex patent bar examination. My determination to take the examination straight away was to become a registered patent agent before entering law school, so that my academic studies will not suffer while I attempt to balance a career and my education. I am now hoping to complete the career transition over the next four years by attending law school at Villanova University and becoming a patent attorney. A few weeks ago, I was offered the opportunity to move to our new research facility in North Carolina, but declined the offer in hopes of attending Villanovas law program, which is well respected among the various pharmaceutical companies on the East Coast for its intellectual property education.Intellectual property is a crucial asset to our company, and I take generating and protecting these assets very seriously. A considerable part of my job involves translating science for attorneys and patent law for scientists. I also have to be able to understand a new result quickly enough to grasp what the specific invention is and ask further questions which allow me to distill the invention down to its bare essence. Organization is also key — this is something I learned as a matter of self-preservation, since this is a deadline-driven, and sometimes crisis-driven, job.I now believe that my job as a patent agent is not a break with the past; rather, it is an exciting, alternative continuation of my career as a scientist. The patent applications that I draft and prosecute make me a critical part of the inventive process at SmithKline Beecham. Furthermore, my interactions with inventors on a daily basis keep me up to date with the latest technology. Not so long ago, when I began research as an undergraduate, I wondered what impact I w ould have on the development of new scientific knowledge. Through my work as a patent agent, I know that I am a key participant in the promotion of scientific progress.I still run into acquaintances from my research days who ask me why I left science. I am quick to set them straight. I may not get my hands wet, but I use far more of my education and training than I ever did at the bench, and I am very much still in science. I firmly believe my experiences in science and patent prosecution will allow me to be a creative and contributing member of Villanova University, both as a student and as a future attorney representing achievement.

Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Example

Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Example Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Essay Topic: House Of Mirth The Caretaker generally followed a pattern: the brilliance of the actors was celebrated and the questions of influence, primarily Becketts, were linked to discussions of the relationship between the comic and serious elements in the play. Interpretations of the meaning varied from the literal to the fully allegorical, by way of generalized abstract tags. Subsequent academic criticism, deriving from textual study rather than stage performance, has early always followed the serio-tragical-symbolical-abstract line- what we might call Modern Man in Search of His Insurance Cards, or, I stink. Therefore I am. The comedy of The Caretaker is not a dispensable palliative. To discuss meaning without taking this into account is to distort the play as a whole and devalue its achievement. The combination of the comic and the serious, laughter and silence, is often deeply disturbing for art audience: but only in confronting it can we begin to understand the play. For one member of the audience, at least, the relationship between the comic and the serious elements was unacceptable. Leonard Russell, the Sunday Times book reviewer, recorded his impressions of a performance at the Duchess Theatre in an open letter to Harold Pinter: I will go so far as to admit that I found it a strangely menacing and disturbing evening. It was also a highly puzzling evening; and here I refer not to the play but to the behaviour of the audience. On the evening I was present a large majority had no doubt at all that your special contribution to the theatre is to take a heartbreaking themes and treat it facially. Gales of happy, persistent, and, it seemed to me, totally indiscriminate laughter greeted a play which I lake to be, for all its funny moments, a tragic reading of life. May, I ask this question- are you yourself happy with the atmosphere of rollicking good fun? Pinters reply is such crucial importance for an understanding of the play: Your question is not an easy one to answer. Certainly I laughed myself while writing The Caretaker, but not all the time, not indiscriminately. An element of the absurd is, I think, one of the features of the play, but at the same time I did not intend it to be merely a laughable force. If there hadnt been other issues at stake the play would not have been written. Audience reaction cant be regulated, and no one would want it to be; nor is it easy to analyses. But where the comic and tragic (for want of a better word) are closely interwoven, certain members of an audience will always give emphasis to the comic as opposed to the other, for by so doing they rationalize the other out of existence. On most evenings at the Duchess there is a sensible balance of laughter and silence. Where, though, this indiscriminate mirth is found. I feel it represents a cheerful patronage of the characters on the part of the merrymakers, and thus participating is avoided. This laughter is in fact a mode of precaution, a smoke-screen, a refusal to accept what is happening as recognizable (which I think it is) and instead to view the actors (a) as actors always and not as characters and (b) as chimpanzees. From this kind of neasy jollification I must, of cause, dissociate myself, thought I do think you were unfortunate in your choice of evening. As far as Im concerned, The Caretaker is funny, up to a point. Beyond that point it ceases to be funny, and it was because of that point that I wrote it. Pinters letter is an essential starting point for discussion of the play. Adequate criticism must be based on a recognition of both the comic and tragic elements compounded in the paralleled process of stage performance and audience response. Out emotional reaction of laughter or silence complements what happens on stage. Both actors and audience create a structure of feeling that the play has in its living moment, as Pinter puts it. The point where The Caretaker ceases to be funny must be found within the movement of the play itself and within the emotional complex of our participation. In order to do so, I wasnt to focus not so much on the physical structure which is relatively straight forward but rather on the structure of feeling, the emotional rhythm of laughter and silence which culminates in the arrested tension of both. Rather than follow the tendency to generalise from paraphrase and thereby lose the essential drama, one must examine certain passages in order to bring out the deeply sensitive psychological insight that lies behind Pinters plain statement. Deeply Sensitive Psychological Insight When the curtain rises, Mick shares the activity of the audience. He slowly looks about The Room looking at each object in turn. He looks up at the ceiling, and stares at the bucket. Then he brazenly separates himself from the audience. Ceasing, he sits quite still, expressionless, looking out front. Silence for thirty seconds. Mick then leaves upon hearing muffled voices. This silent enigma is in dramatic contrast to the end of the play. At the outset Mick, in effect, rejects the audience by walking offstage after a protracted silence, while at the close it is Davies who is left onstage rejected by the audience insofar as we recognize that he must go. But this formal, inverted symmetry is recognised retrospe ctively. Micks silence and departure stays as a qualm, leaving a question behind the laughter that is immediate. Astons opening invitation to Davies to sit down is manifestly frustrated by the evident disorder of the attic. As Aston sorts out a chair, Davies breaks into the first of so many complaints: Sit down? Huh I havent had a good sit down I havent had a proper sit down well, I couldnt tell you Ten minutes off for a tea-break in the middle of the night in that place and I can’t find a seat, not one. All those Greeks had it, Poles, Greeks, Blacks, the lot of them, all them aliens had it. And they had me working there they had me working All them Blacks had it, Blacks, Greeks, Poles, the lot of them thats what, doing me out of a seat, treating me like dirt. When he come at me tonight I told him Daviess categorical discriminations (sit down good sit down proper sit down) express the degree of deprivation that he feels he has suffered. His present gratitude is deflected and finally demolished by recrimination directed at the immediate past. An aggrieved sense of active and collective discourtesy by default is magnified to a major injustice; it is as if the merely adventitious revealed the latent injustice of victimization as a permanent condition of the world. As so often in comedy a mundane occurrence is given an unwarrantedly inflated significance. Daviess bigotry, aggravated by constitutional self-righteous defensiveness, evidently distorts whatever really happened, and as a consequence we laugh rather than sympathize. The insistent repetition inadvertently suggest that, on the one hand, it is both the multi-racial conditions of work and work itself that has pained Davies, and on the other that his appeal is in part determined by a bit of tobacco coming his way: as Aston begins to roll himself a cigarette. Davies watches him. This initial comedy continues to develop in the ever widening gap between the intentions of Daviess speech and its effect on the audience. Daviess Tramplike Appearance and Mannerisms Even before he speaks Daviess tramp-like appearance has prompted a certain predisposition in the audience. Socially, tramps are at an inferior extreme, and their condition precludes a normative response by definition. Reactions to tramps are nearly always compounded of fear, distaste, embarrassment, seeming indifference, or a degree of sympathy arising from unconscious self-reproach at our own well-being. Whatever feeling predominates depends upon the tramps behaviour on a scale from abasement to aggression. Abasement invites individual, summary charity as a token of Societys larger responsibility for victims of circumstance. Aggression (like Daviess), though frightening on actual encounter, ultimately prompts laughter in the dramatic representation of self-determined viciousness. The transformation of the actual into the dramatic, the street into the theatre, the individual into audience, brings with it the laughter of relief. Before taking a seat, winded by climbing the stairs, Davies must loosen himself up. He exclaims loudly, punches downward with closed fist crying, I could have got done in down there. There is no book and Daviess evidently exaggerated claim is undermined even further by comic colloquialism. The stance of retrospective pugilism suggests a purely mimetic valour. It is clear that the combination of self-assertion and self-deception creates for Davies a fiction to live by. But although the imperatives of his existence have confounded fiction and fact, the distinction is evident to the audience throughout. Aston immediately offers Davies a roll-up but he replies: What? No, no. I never smoke a cigarette Ill tell you what, though, Ill have bit of that tobacco there for my pipe, if you like Thats kind of you, mister. Just enough to fill my pipe, thats all. I had a tin, only only a while ago. But it was knocked off. It was knocked off on the Great West Road. Daviess refusal of the roll-up is reinforced by a categorical statement similar to the earlier example which expresses both the certainty of negative choice and yet an alternative possibility in the suggestion of a latent discrimination. His initial question- What? - is a response to Astons putative motive and means; Davies is rejecting what he feels may be charity but offering to accept Astons tobacco in terms of his own positive preference for the more socially acceptable pipe, all the time leaving the actual decision to Aston. Daviess acknowledged indebtedness is modified by the subsequent etiquette. His self-conscious moderation forestalls any charge of excess, establishing his action as a gen tle manly custom rather than revealing a condition of permanent dependence. The closing anecdote is intended to alter the action of giving and receiving into a form of indirect restitution. A similar rationalisation takes place later in the act when Davies accepts a few bob from Aston: Thank you, thank you, good luck. I just happen to find myself a bit short. You see, I got nothing for all that weeks work I did last week. Thats the position, thats what it is. Though retrospective criticism of this nature articulates the ironies of Daviess gesture and utterance, the immediacy of the audiences experience registers this emotively, responding to the comic moment which is immediately fulfilled when Aston fails to corroborate Daviess revision of his misfortune. You heard me tell him, didnt you? Davies asks, Aston replies I saw him have a go at you, forcing him to attempt to draw sympathy by reference to age, Go at me? You wouldnt grumble. The filthy skate an old man like me. But here Daviess aggressive demotic ironically pre-empts the response he seeks, while the claim that breathlessly follows- Ive had dinner with the best- incites the broadest laughter with its blatant i mprobability. Aston, with a neutral imperturbability that promotes our laughter even further, refuses to comply and calmly repeats himself, Yes, I saw him have a go at you. Daviess only recourse is to recall his persona! standards to bolster his present judgments: All them toe-rags, mate, got the manners of pigs. I might have been on the road a few years but you can take it from me Im clean. I keep myself up. Thats why I left my wife. Fortnight after I married her, no, not so much as that, no more than a week, I took the lid off a saucepan, you know what was in it? A pile of her underclothing, unwashed. The pan for vegetables, it was. The vegetable pan. Thats when I left her and I havent seen her since. Davies has no apparent sense that such demonstrative probity is so farcically disproportionate that it cancels what it claims. Following Daviess earlier revision of events, this exaggeration suggests that what we hear is a ludicrous distortion of whatever may have happened. The indis criminately vulgar language of the opening- All them toe-rags, mate, got the manners of pigs- burlesques the posture of arbiter of decorum which it protects. Immediately following this, Davies describes the row in the cafe. While laiming proper respect due to an old man, if a few years younger he would break in half that Scotch git. All the socially regulative values Davies claims- dignity, respect, propriety, decorum- are confounded by the language and gesture of a caricatured ethic more appropriate to an anti-social wild animal, as Mick later describes him. In short Daviess comic character is founded on a total travesty of the mode of being to which he aspires. The pathos of his deprivation is made comic with the citation of a public lavatory attendant as a promoter of a personal hygiene. Vast significance is given to the quotidian- Shoes? Its life and death to me, man, Daviess scale of values inverts the normative values of the audience, accustomed to more abstract priorities, which remain unquestioned since Davies cannot be taken seriously. We reason not the need when it is rendered in comic picaresque. Elaborating on his need for footwear, Davies launches into the celebrated tale of the quest to the Luton monastery. A ‘bastard monk, the representative of a holy order, warns the suppliant, if you dont piss off Ill kick you all the way to the gate. As Davies expands on his misfortunes, mounting audience laughter accompanies each incident, culminating in applause at the close of the story. And with applause action is temporarily suspended. For a few crucial seconds the actor is divorced on the character as the audience celebrates a comic performance. The reality of whatever happened in Luton is subverted by characteristically jaundiced aggression which is transferred to the monk, dramatically evoking laughter rather than sympathy. Therefore, Davies as a credible being struggles not only with Aston and Mick, but with the theatrically formalised predisposition of the audience, a predisposition to see Davies as a type, a brilliantly embodied act, at best a tramp, but hardly an individual Shortly after the Luton story, the anecdote of Sidecup and the papers consolidates this. Davies insists that the Side up papers prove who I am They tell you who I am, but we know he will never collect those chimerical documents of fifteen years ago. Lack of shoes, or bad weather, or something else will always intervene. His re-assumption of a past bureaucratic identity could not alter what he is. It is being a tramp which has shaped his body and soul, and not the fact that he is called Bernard Jenkins rather than Mac Davies. Every utterance and every gesture he makes denote a class rather than an individual, dialect subsumes idiolect. Davies is finally no more than his languge and appearance- and this is how Mick encounters him at the end of the first act. Micks Insight It is as if throughout most of Act I Mick has been listening in, since he shows an uncanny insight into Daviess character. In this sense Mick is almost a representative of the audience, knowing, sardonically, as much as they know. On the other hand Mick knows his Davieses as he knows his London, but he expresses it indirectly in terms of Astons behaviour: Mick: He doesn’t work. (Pause) Davies: Go on! Mick: No, he just doesnt like work, thats his trouble. Davies: Ay. Mick: Hes just shy of it. Very shy of it Davies: I know that sort. Mick: You know the type. At the end of Act: Mick immediately recognises Daviess work-shy type, and his first words, Whats the game ? are really the later statement, I know what you want, put in the form of a question. Comic Relief It has been shown by Peter Davison that Micks first two speeches derive in form from the traditional music-hall monologue. As such, alongwith something like the bag-passing game, they border on the farcical. But there is more to them than this. In laughing at the combination of the ludicrous, the grotesque and the improbable, the audience join s Mick in laughing at Davies. In other words, Mick provides the relief of a new comic perspective which enlists the audience on its side. At this point the verbal slapstick seems almost innocuous: You remind me of my uncles brother. He was always on the move, that man. Never without his passport. Had an eye for the girls. Very much your build. Bit of an athlete. Long-jump specialist. He had a habit of demonstrating different run-ups in the drawing-room round about Christmas time. Had a penchant for nuts. Thats what it was. Nothing else but a penchant. Couldnt eat enough of them. Peanuts, walnuts, brazil nuts, monkey nuts, wouldnt touch a piece of fruit cake. Had a marvelous stop-watch. Picked it up in Hong Kong. The day after they chucked him out of the Salvation Army. Used to go in number four for Beckenham Reserves. That was before he got his Gold Medal. Had a funny habit of carrying his fiddle on his back. Like a papoose. I think there was a bit of the red Indian in him. To be honest, Ive often thought that may be it was the other way round. I mean that my uncle was his brother and may be he was my uncle. But I never called him uncle. As a matter of fact I called him Sid. My mother called him Sid too. It was a funny business. Your spilling image he was. Married a Chinaman and went to Jamaica. In spite of its seeming inconsequentiality this speech manifestly says a lot about Davies, Mick and Aston on a naturalistic and psychological level. Micks sardonic delivery expresses at once both discursive doubt and impatience with the conversation game and a sadistic playfulness. The verbal barrage parallels the earlier arm-twisting: verbal intimidation follows physical domination. Mick is equally dexterous at both. What Mick is really saying behind the formal obliquity of his narrative is this- I recognized your sort, a tramp (always on the move), with your story of papers (never without his passport), your ridiculous physical posturing (Bit of an athlete), thrown out of a monastery (they chucked him out of the Salvation Army) of questionable background (a bit of the Red Indian in him), now mixed up with my brother (Ive never made out of how he came to be my uncles brother), why dont you clear off (married a Chinaman and went to Jamaica). But at the same time Mick is deflecting a suppressed view of his own brother that is forced into his mind by the fact of Daviess presence: my brother (You remind me of my uncles brother) has picked up this nut (had a penchant or nuts), he must be nutty as a fruit cake (wouldnt touch a piece of fruit cake). Micks feelings only emerge eventually by way of his surrogate; Davies whose exclamation Hes nutty! enables Mick to savour the suppressed, emotionally forbidden, work: Nutty? Whos nutty? (Pause). Did you call my brother nutty? My brother. Micks second speech is also something more than an exercise in intimidation. It is a comically indirect way of elaborating on what is implicit: the foreignness of Davies. The indigenous Mick ironically compares the indigent Davies with a fellow Londoner. Micks irony is sharpened by his reflection on the sense of difference felt by a working-class North Londoner for those from south of the Thames. When I got to know him I found out he was brought up in Putney. That didnt make any difference to me. The bloke, after all, was born in the Caledonian Road, just before you get to the Nags Head. Micks North London references are to neighboring localities linked by bus routes at the centre of which is the blocks old mum still living at the Angel. Mick evokes neighbourhood, pub and home- the self-advertisement of a particular kind of Londoner recognising an outsider and reminding him of the fact. By contrast, Davies lonely wandering existence is reflected by sporadic, peripheral references to places outside of London proper (Sidcup, Luton, Watford, Wembley) and to past friends: I used to know a bookmaker in Acton. He was a good mate to me. Whereas Micks two speeches are littered with familial terms (uncle, brother, mother, cousin). Daviess anecdotes suggest that over the years, in all of London between Luton and Sidcup, only two encounters have ever led to friendship- and both friendships of a dubious kind. The style and delivery of Micks speeches suggest the amateur comedian at home in pub, club or family; Davies is only a solitary tramp stranded somewhere on the Great West R oad or the North Circular, an anomaly. But all these serious undertones are checked by a sense of game. Micks interrogation of Davies is deliberately punctured by straight music-hall cross-talk: Mick: Thats my bed Davies: What about that, then Mick: Thats my mother’s bed. Davies: Well she wasnt in it last night! Even when Mick rounds on Davies in this third long speech. Youre stinking the place out. Youre an old robber, theres no getting away from it. Youre an old skate†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. - the serious force of his charges is tempered, firstly by his appropriation of Daviess language (filthy skate, and secondly, by an extended parody of the conditions of tenancy and purchase. Between an outline of costs and recommendation of Aston as decorator. Mick threatens Otherwise Ive got a van outside, I can run you to the police station in five minutes, have you in for trespassing, loitering with intent, daylight robbery, filching, thieving and stinking the place out. Amusing to the audience, this exaggeration is frightening to Davies since the language parallels his own exaggerated sense of persecution. The ludicrous magnification of the obligations, commitments and penalties of legal responsibility in buying a house is a humorous reminder to the audience of an often exhaustingly protracted business, but to Davies it is a manifestation of a bureaucratic world that excludes him. Mick makes the point in his repeated final question Who do your bank with? This complex verbal humour is accentuated by the visual comedy. Throughout the act Davies has been on stage without his trousers, in his long pants, and Mick emphasizes the fact by flicking Daviess trousers in his face- several times. This is then followed, almost immediately, by one of the oldest plays in the slapstick repertoire, the bag-passing game with its knockabout sequence reversal. Threat and menace are conflated in Micks speeches and the bag-passing game is almost wholly funny (but not merely funny, since the same symbolises the way in which Davies himself passes from brother to brother). Then, with the terrifying attack in darkness and the succeeding revelation that it is Mick merely spring cleaning with an electrolux, violence and laughter are powerfully juxtaposed. Thus Pinter exploits different kinds of comedy in a cumulative and structured way: comedy of character is established in Act I and then extended by music-hall monologue and broad farce in Act II. Comedy of language, gesture and action is then allowed to build up to the moment when it is dramatically arrested by Astons long, painful account of treatment in a mental hospital, and the events leading up to it. Astons speech has always been recognized as a major moment in the movement of the play, but its full significance has not been adequately discussed. Astons Behaviour John Russell Brown has pointed out the correspondences between Astons hospital treatment and his present behaviour. He underwent electrical treatment and now fiddles obsessively with electrical equipment: he has a white coat, a pillow and a sheet at the ready: the uncovered light bulb glares down; he stares smilingly over Davies in bed. Brown also points out that Aston did go back to place like the cafe and did talk to strangers again- namely Davies- and suggests that the impetus for this was two-hold. Aston is haunted by revenge and somehow sees his own role as a caretaker of Davies. These are all important points, but need to be taken further. Aston refers to the piles of papers he was shown as medical evidence: Davies refers to the piles of papers kept in the attic. Aston says that the window of his hospital room was barred; the indications are that the attic window was kept open even before Daviess malodorous entry. Aston spent five hours sawing at the bars, and is now preoccupied with saws, ostensibly to carry out the building work. He recognises that in cafe and factory he talked too much, and his long speech is a chilling reminder that he still does. What does all this add up to? Surely the commonly accepted notion of Astons charity in taking in Davies is called a question here. Rather than a disinterested act deriving from an impulse or conviction of moral duty and thus a token of his social rehabilitation it is part of the irreparable damage brought about by his sufferings. Astons charity is a way of simultaneously vindicating himself and impugning those who have harmed him. Davies is there in the attic because of Astons psychology, not because of his ethics: Aston sees. Davies as a version of himself. Astons recollections of the glass of Guinness and the lady in the cafe indicate his continuing disorientation. Both these speeches occur after pauses and have no relation to what precedes them and both after pauses and have no relation to what precedes them, and both contrast forcefully with Astons previous reticence. As conversational gambits they are disastrously bizarre; it is almost as if of an interior monologue has suddenly come to the surface. The preoccupation of Aston and Davies are psychological treadmills imprisoning each in his mutually exclusive world. For Aston to work on the house he needs to clear the garden for a shed. To build the shed on the house he needs to clear the garden for a saw bench, is needed for the shed. Davies, to sort himself out needs his papers at Sidcup. To get to Sidcup he needs good shoes, to get good shoes he needs, money, to get money he needs his papers to sort himself out Both minds have been numbed by the different experiences of being on the road and being in a mental hospital: both are reduced to a preoccupation with the physical function of hands and feet. With Astons speech the laughter ceases. And there is no caretaker for them. The audience is silenced and confounded as the darkness grows. Comic Tableau As Act III opens, and before anything is said, Davies is seen in a comic tableau, pipe in hand and incongruously garbed in a smoking jacket. Here, after the strain of confronting the nature of Astons being, we are at last allowed the relief of laughter. But when Davies speaks, although his concerns seem much the same (the gas stove, blacks, shoes, etc. ) his continual reference to Aston compromise and complicate our response. At this point as subjective coefficient of guilt rises in us, deriving in part from our former complicity with Mick (now more evidently working on his strategy of expulsion) and in part from laughing at Astons expense. Whereas earlier Davies seemed self-determining and thus responsible for what he is, he now seems more like a plaything being used by Mick for certain questionable ends. The serious and the comic are now much more, forcefully counter pointed. Micks dry-mock is still there (You must come up and have a drink something. Listen to some Tchaikovsky and Daviess procrastination, although now invidiously ungrateful, is still lightened to pure comedy (the only way to keep a pair of shoes on, if you havent got no laces, is to tighten the foot, see? But Daviess response to Micks evocation of a penthouse palace- What about me? - gives voice to the inevitable question at the heart of the situation. Micks All this junk here, its no good to anyone, is much less casual than it seems. Davies as, part of the junk, will obviously have to go, and we recognise it. Mick obliquely incites Daviess verbal attack on Aston by giving voice to what the tramp has felt from the outset. Daviess real feelings in surveying the attic are compromised by the fact that Aston has rescued him. As a consequence Davies says the opposite of what he feels: Davies: This your room? Aston: Yes. Davies: You got a good bit of stuff here. Aston: Yes. Davies: Must be worth a few bob, this put it all together. (Pause) Theres enough of it. Aston: Theres a good bit of it, all right. Davies: You sleep here, do you? Aston: Yes. Davies: What, in that? Similarly, Micks pointed summary not only places Davies as part of the rubbish and simultaneously predisposed him to attack Aston, but gives utterance to that protracted stare at the opening of the play: All this junk here, its no good to anyone. Its just a lot of old iron, thats all Clobber. Davies Opportunistic Nastiness Davies echoes this in his viciously prolonged attack on Aston as an irresponsible lunatic, all this junk I got to sleep with this lousy filthy hole. Daviess contemptible vilification is emotionally complex for an audience. If it confirms our opinion, of Daviess opportunist nastiness and strengthen our impulse to reject him as wholly objectionable, at the same time it provides almost a release for our strained protective feelings towards Aston. The opening lines of the speech continue Daviess exaggerated sense of comic victimisation made ludicrous by disproportionate expectation: Its getting so freezing in here I have to keep my trousers on to go to bed. I never done that before in my life. But thats what I got to do here. Just because you wont put in any bleeding heating! We may derive a temporary sense of relief in what follows by intellectually assessing the circularity of Daviess charge- Aston is lunatic because he is irresponsible and irresponsible because he is lunatic- and even maintain our distance when Davies claim the friendship and kindred opinion of Mick. But this relief is completely shattered as Davies sadistically baits Aston with the prospect of renewed electrical treatment. As the emoti on rises both in Davies and the audience it is, paradoxically, both undercut and heightened by localised London slang: Theyd take one look at all this junk I got to sleep with theyd know you were a creamer. Davies charges Aston with what, in all probability, has been levelled at him, acreamer. It is almost funny as an unexpected synonym for the more current nutcase, but at the same time more insidiously mocking for Aston, since Davies uses the highly specific argot of Astons own background. Yet even at this point we are tempted to laugh as Daviess expression gets more and more Welsh in self-righteous anger: You want me to do all the dirty work all up and down them stairs just so I can sleep in this lousy filthy hole every night? Not me, boy. Not for your, boy. But the idioms that provoke laughter also arrest it: Youre up the creek! Youre half off! Our awareness of the possibility of this being true checks our natural tendency to respond humorously to figurative exaggeration. Daviess subsequent question Whoever saw you slip me a few bob? Simultaneously recalls Astons kindness in doing just that, and predisposes the audience to take up a defensive position, on Astons behalf, against Daviess final callousness- I never been inside a nuthouse! Even here, the colloquially derisive reduction makes us want to laugh, as we have laughed at the peremptory idiom of Micks attack on Davies. But as Davies draws his knife on ominous silence supervenes. This tableau recalls Davies ineptitude in threatening Mick earlier, and Aston finally breaks the tension with a delayed understatement that is totally deflating: I think its about time you found somewhere else. I dont think were hitting it off! This is precisely what Mick has been worming towards. He could have thrown Davies out whenever he liked, but he has waited two weeks for Aston to see through Daviess character. Mick has promoted the exposure in order that Aston will see and feel as he does. The usual interpretation of Mick and Astons relationship- that there is an unspoken bond of brotherly love between them- is really rather naive and sentimental. Mick smashes the Buddha to pieces out of a frustrated rage that derives from his suppressed acknowledgement of the truth of Daviess previous accusation (Hes nutty), and his subsequent passionate outburst is a wilful attempt to see Astons condition in terms of his failure to decorate the house, rather than in terms of what lies beneath it. To have thrown Davies out would have been a tacit admission that Aston was a lunatic to have brought him there in the first place. (Perhaps Davies wasnt the first? ) Mick and Aston In other words, Micks obligation to his brother is formal rather than affective. Micks character- tough, sardonic, worldly-wise- is similar to that of the people in the cafe and the factory who found Aston funny and were instrumental in having him put away. Like his mother and the doctor, Mick wants Aston to live like the others. He understands Davies so well because they both have a kind of bureaucratic view of the world. They both see human activity in terms of status conferred by institutions that regulate society (social security, solicitors, etc). Whereas the Buddha for Aston was an example of something well made, for Mick it embodies all that he cannot face in his brother- the inscrutable, the passive, and the alien. But, in tarring over the roof Aston is learning to take over of himself, in Micks term. At the opening of the play the suspended bucker focuses for Mick his brothers condition as he understands it, and their only exchange in Act II concerns the problem of tarring over the leaking roof. As Act III opens, Davies contemplates Astons silence in terms of his single activity of doing the job (ironically this anticipates his own expulsion). This small task signalises that Aston will comply with Micks view of things, a complicity dramatized by the taint smile they exchange towards the close. Mick smiles in recognition of what he sees as his rightness in paying off Davies, and Aston smiles back conceding the fact- his last words to Davies were Get your stuff. Davies must go, however plangent his appeal: What am I going to do?. Where am I going to go. The pauses between each utterance are lengthened into the long silence of the final stage direction. Aston turns back to the window, remains still, his back to him, at the window, but we are faced with Daviess concrete questioning presence. We are forced here to confront not only what laughter has created but also what laughter has suppressed. The repetitions of Davies language echo those moments of comedy which are now stifled by the specter of destitution. Daviess need for material items has created moments of high comedy, but the serious moral implications of such subsistence culminate in those questions. The material, social and cultural privileges that presuppose our presence in the theatre are indices of the totality of Daviess deprivation. Throughout the play Davies has been the object of the solidarity of laughter, but now the audience itself is exposed in its own silence before him. The possibilities of food, shelter and warmth are now to be replaced by the possibilities of hunger, cold and exposure, intimation of which have been present all along (I could have died on the road, Davies says at one point. Was this the substance of his nightmares? ). The harsh regimen of the doss-house has been evoked earlier in Daviess hurried attempt to forestall what he knows must happen as the rule of each daybreak: Dont you want me to get out. Rhythm of the Play The points where the laughter spasmodically ceases are obvious enough in the rhythm of the play. These dramatic moments correspond psychologically to the point in each of us where conflicting impulses and vestigial atavism and ostensible civility meet. We experience in The Caretaker the Hobbesian triumph of superior of laughter ovger inferior objects and ludicrousness transforms the socially embarrassing. But beneath this is the self-protective impulse to remove what is psychologically painful. Just as children laugh at (and thus exorcise) the sight of physical deformity, so we react to Daviess warped morality- all the time expecting him to ask for our compassion. But Davies remains intransigent, he does not offer us the adult compromise of compassion. In our laughter there stirs an uneasy atavism which grows in proportion as Daviess nastiness increases. We cannot finally accept Davies on his own terms- as he is. He has to be either killed off by our laughter, or transformed by the tragic dignity of self-awareness. Our emotional expectations are in part shaped by dramatic convention. Davies must be either contemptible or pitiful, a comic vice exposed in laughter, or, by token of some redemptive self-insight, an ultimately traffic figure. But he is actually neither, and this is what is almost too painful. In the theatre adult emotions are customarily channeled into a comforting species of self-protective compassion. Pinter refuses to provide this. Initially Pinter felt that there would have to be a death at the end of the play, but it is clear that this would have only provided another kind of emotional release- and evasion. Pinter not only dropped this notion but in revision, chose to stress the ineluctable concrete actuality of Davies there, before us: resistant to allegory, abstraction, and moral formula. Here, in the long silence, no longer so much an audience as a disparate assembly of individuals which includes Davies, we are forced to confront the limits of our human response, the edges of emotional vulnerability, the barriers of social ordinance that join and divide us all. This is our participation, and this is where the point of laughter and silence, as Pinters letter reminds us, both begins and ends. Bibliography: http://plays. about. com/od/playwrights/a/pinter. htm

Marketing strategy Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Marketing strategy - Assignment Example Macro and Micro Environmental Analysis PESTEL The PESTEL analysis is performed to analysis the macro environment of the industry. The PESTEL analysis provides a frame within which the strategic thinking of the company for the future takes place. The analysis sets boundaries and expectations (Burke, Clarke, et.al, 2008, p.27). Political factors of the US software industry seem to be stable. The government has promoted the IPR protection as the US software industry experience a loss of about $12.8billion due to inadequate protection (Brown, et.al, 1995, p. 9). The US economical factor represents a strong GDP rate of $47200. In the market oriented economy, private firms and individual dominates the business. US business enjoys a better flexibility than the other parts of its counterparts (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d). With the population becoming savvier about the software industry there has been a steady rise in the software applications and industry. The social factor of the US h as demanded the country to produce more software application. The technological factors of US software industry have enabled it for the global distribution of software management teams. With a technological advance the software industry has been able to develop a new phase in the software industry. ... Legal factors include compliance with issues like Open Source Initiatives. The companies are following the source code to protect it against any threat. Also the use of illegal software is prohibited. Product-market industry analysis The product market industry is analyzed with the help of two dimensions and their extremes which is the product-market matrix. This matrix explores the two dimensions Product and Market (Lowy & Hood, 2004, p.134). Figure 1: Product-Market Matrix (Source: Lowy & Hood, 2004, p. 135) Microsoft with the launch of Windows 7 Phone has come up with a product development and hence its product Windows 7Phone would fall under the first quadrant of Product development. Microsoft has understood the positive relationship with its customers and also the goodwill and thrust that accompany it. When ZuneHD was launched it gained a positive feedback and thus Microsoft also expect the same from its 7 phone. With a growth in mobile phone, it has become a major computing pla tform for big giants like Microsoft, Apple. The market of Smartphone is expected to grow by 705 thus investment in this growing sector would help Microsoft gain profits and revenue as well as capture the market share. The new product, Windows 7 Phone, resents a lot of information more clearly and it’s easy to navigate. Therefore the product development by Microsoft is its new Windows 7 Phone. Competitor’s analysis The competitor analysis aims to evaluate the company with its peer group with a motive to analysis the company’s positioning with its competitors. Microsoft top competitors are Apple and Google. Apple known for its innovation, with its release of iPhone has revolutionized the mobile industry. Also with its innovation in desktop and laptops

Management of Quality in ABC organisation Assignment

Management of Quality in ABC organisation - Assignment Example For this report it has been decided to adopt a manufacturing company namely Toyota. This paper will cover the theoretical assumptions of quality management and simultaneously will demonstrate that how Toyota has applied all these assumptions in its business processes (Deal In the recent past, quality has gained prominence as the organisations experienced the high cost of poor quality. According to the scholars of the quality management, all the aspects of the organisation are affected by quality and therefore it has dramatic cost implications. Basically cost to quality can be broadly categorised under two heads namely cost of conformance and cost of non-conformance. The first type of cost is incurred to prevent the second one. After Prius recall, management of Toyota has decided to implement new quality plan. Among those, the most important is the developing of the communication plan. They have a plan to open up a regional customer research centre for collecting customer’s queries and for resolving them. Appraisal Cost: Primarily appraisal costs are incurred to ensure that the defects do not reach to the customers. It consists of a cost of assessing suppliers, inspections of incoming and outgoing materials, product testing and performing audits. Toyota has been crediting the ‘Quality Cost Delivery’ (QCD) award to their suppliers whose cost, delivery and most importantly quality exceeds 95% standard of excellence. The management of Toyota evaluated the suppliers on the basis of the rejection rates on the basis of parts per million (PPM). Internal Failure Cost: It has been associated with all those events which are employed to determine the poor product quality before delivering to the customers. It consists of rework for modifying the defects and losses of material. Even it also includes cost of scraps which refers to the defective products that cannot be corrected

N analysis of any assigned primary source document from the book Major Term Paper

N analysis of any assigned primary source document from the book Major Problems in American History Volume II - Term Paper Example In the eighth stanza, Randolph laments that he cannot take up the musket and fight anymore.1 The word â€Å"anymore† illustrates that he probably took part in the recently ended war. The conflict was bitter and quite biased against the North, so he views the Republic and the constitution as mere instruments from the latter region. His biases have thus caused him to speak against critical principles of the US like freedom. Southerners were regarded as masters by their slaves; not only were they going to lose this status, but they now had to submit to the North. The hatred and bitterness should not come as a surprise as the defeat had adverse consequences. It is these sentiments that informed the writer of the song. He probably detested the fact that he now had to play to demands from the ‘Yankees’. He has a rebellious character in the song because he lost so much. It is for this reason that he does not care for their pardons; he boldly claims that he wishes he could kill some more Northerners, but the law does not allow him. The song was written in 1860 immediately after the Civil war; the South had lost, and one of the terms of the war was to integrate them into the Union. A lot of losses had been reported and it was clear that the people were devastated. In the period just before composure of the song, an appalling loss of lives had been recorded. It is estimated that approximately 20% of the adult white male population had been wiped out in the South. Therefore, the men were physically and emotionally wounded. Farm buildings in the region had been fully ruined. Additionally, work animals as well as the machinery used for in economic activities were destroyed. The value of everything within the Southern states was low because of the War. In fact it is estimated that even 10 years after the Civil war, all the assets in the South were still 30% less than their former value. The people left behind would soon have to tackle a long road to

Responsibilities Under the Health and Safety at Work Act

Responsibilities Under the Health and Safety at Work Act STUDENT NAME: IP OGOLO INTRODUCTION The purpose of this assignment is to compare and contrast the responsibilities imposed by the duties under sections 2,3,4,7 and 8 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This would be achieved by critically analysing different case law, the Health and Safety at Work Act and other relevant literature. In this assignment, the interpretation of various words and phrases in the above mentioned sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 would be looked at and the elements of convictions would also be analysed. OVERVIEW OF SECTIONS 2,3 AND 4 SECTION 2 OF THE HASAWA 1974 Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) 1974, imposes duties on the employer towards his employees. Section 2(1), states that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees. The words health, safety and welfare are not clearly defined (Moore and Selwyn 2015) in the HASAWA 1974 but health includes both mental and physical health. Safety refers to the absence of foreseeable injury while welfare refers to water, lighting, toilet facilities, cloakroom, canteen etc. This duty is imposed on every employer irrespective of the size of the business or organisation, to ensure that such workplace is safe provided it is reasonably practicable for such employer to make it safe. The duties imposed by the HASAWA 1974 do not exempt employers of small businesses and the only defence from employers would be reasonable practicability. For example, an off-license shop employer who only has two part-time employees must also comply with the duties of the employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its part-time employees. Section 2(1) also included welfare unlike other sections of the HASAWA 1974 which only focus on health and safety. This means that employers have a duty to provide welfare facilities such as toilets, change room, eating area, adequate ventilation, adequate lighting, etc. The only defence for small business employers or any other employer who is non-compliant with these duties is the reasonably practicability of such health and safety measures. Reasonably practicability is one of those issues of debate. Reasonable practicable depends on a number of factors which are used to test if it was reasonably practicable for the workplace to be safe or not. These factors are weighed on a scale which measures the risks versus the sacrifices which the employer has to make in order to comply with the duties. These sacrifices could be ( Matthews and Ageros 2016) time, money, man-power or the effort/knowledge available to eliminate or mitigate those health and safety risks. An example of a case law where so far as is reasonably practicable played a significant role in the judgement is in Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 ALL ER 743, where a timberman who worked in a coalmine was killed by the collapse of the side walls of the road in the course of his work. The National Coal Board was taken to court and they argued that it was not reasonably practicable for them to have prevented the accident. They contended that it was not possible for them to predict where and when a collapse would occur, and the cost; labour and effort in propping and lining all their mines outweigh the risk. Reasonably practicability ( Moore and Selwyn 2015) varies in each prosecution and it is a question of fact and evidence; this depends on the employer having sufficient evidence to show that everything reasonably practicable was done to make the workplace safe . Therefore, what might be reasonably practicable for company A may not necessarily be reasonably practicable for company B Figure 1 (Reasonably practicable)    Subsection 2(2) of the HASAWA 1974 states that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that plants are well maintained and safe systems of work are available so far as is reasonably practicable. Safe systems of work (Moore and Selwyn 2015) for plants can only be provided by an employer if the plant is located in a place where the employer has control over it and can give clear directions and procedures on how it should be used. Plants should be regularly maintained and efficient at all times in order to comply with the duties under subsection 2(2)(a). The maintenance (Moore and Selwyn 2015) of plants is a matter of foresight. The employer could have planned routine checks by competent persons or monitoring program in place to meet the requirements of this section. In section 2(2) the employer also has a duty to provide information, training, instruction and supervision to its employees. The information (Moore and Selwyn 2015) which is provided must be accurate and meaningful and also extends to contractors where necessary to ensure safety. In most cases, employers use induction training as one of the ways to provide information to its employees. Some employers use toolbox talks and organised in-house training as means of conveying health and safety related information to their employees. Any employer who does not provide adequate supervision to its employees would be in breach of this section. Section 2 (3)-(7) imposes duties on the employer to provide and revise health and safety policy and also have safety representatives and safety committees depending on the size of the organisation. An example of a prosecution under section 2(3) is Osborne v Bill Taylor of Huyton Ltd [1982] ICR 168. This breach was (Barret and Howells 1995) a failure to prepare an adequate written health and safety policy. The company carried out betting business in thirty-one separate betting shops connected by a central accounting system, management training program etc. The judges decision in this case was that the company was not in breach of section 2(3) because it had less than five employees for the time being. In my opinion, I would disagree with the Judges decision because the fact that the betting shops are centrally controlled means that it is one single undertaking, taking place in several locations and the total number of employees should be about ninety-three (93), see below for details; ÃÆ'- = 93 employees Figure 2 And therefore, should have been found guilty for a breach of section 2(3) because more than five employees were conducting a single undertaking in various locations. 2.2. SECTION 3 OF THE HASAWA 1974 Section 3 of the HASAWA 1974 covers the general duties of employers and self-employed to the public/ other people not employed by them. It states that it is the duty of every employer to conduct its undertaking in such a way to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that persons not in his employment are not exposed to health and safety risks. (The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, 1974) Lays emphasis in subsection 3(3) that the employer and self employed persons must give information about the hazards and risks associated with the conduct of its undertaking to those who may be affected by the conduct of his undertaking in a prescribed manner. This basically means that in some cases, it would be necessary for the employer or self employed persons to provide information which could be in the form of mailed newsletters, letter or formal visits to those who may be affected by the conduct of their undertaking to provide the necessary information about the areas in which these people may be affected and ways to reduce exposure for the benefit of their health and safety. For example, before a construction project commences, the neighbouring community needs to be aware of the health and safety risks such as noise, moving plants and heavy duty vehicles, etc in order for both parties to agree on ways to reduce their exposure. In section 3, the phrase reasonably practicable has been used which means that the employer or self employed persons need to weigh the risks versus the cost to determine if it is reasonably practicable for these safety measures to be in place. Additionally, this section refers to the word prescribed which to my understanding means a specified manner in which the information has to be presented to those who may be affected by the conduct of the employers or self-employed persons undertaking. One of the most common prescribed ways in which such information may be conveyed is through induction training for visitors. In this section, the word risk has been used which means (Moore and Selwyn 2015) the possibility of danger and not actual danger. The HASAWA 1974 does not state that an employer needs to wait for an accident to occur before measures and procedures would be in place. It states that provided there is a possibility of danger or injury, then it is the duty of the employer to either eliminate or mitigate such hazards. Another important word used in section 3 is undertaking which means (Moore and Selwyn 2015) business, work activities, enterprise etc. For instance, if company A gives a contract to company B (Brick-layer) who lays bricks in company As site, then the layering of bricks forms part of company As undertaking. However, the question of how much control the employer has (Moore and Selwyn 2015) over the operation as part of his undertaking could make it difficult in any criminal conviction. For example, if Company B decides to lay the bricks outside company As construction site, then company A may not have much control over how the bricklayers decide to lay those bricks with regards to health and safety. Some case law examples referring to undertaking are R v Swan hunter Shipbuilders Ltd [1981] ICR 831 and R v Mara [1986] IRLR 154, which would be discussed later in the assignment. It is important to note that an employer (Moore and Selwyn 2015) may still be conducting his undertaking even though the business is closed. For example, a food factory may be closed but the cleaning and maintenance of machinery may still be taking place which would still form part of the employers undertaking. 2.3.  SECTION 4 This section states the general duties of persons concerned with premises to persons other than their employees. It imposes duties on people such as landlords, security officers, estate agents etc. who have (Moore and Selwyn 2015) control over non-domestic premises or the means of access (such as doors, stairs, lift etc) or exit or any plant or substances which are used by non-employees as a place of work, to ensure that such areas or plants are safe so far as is reasonably practicable. It is important to note that residential premises are clearly domestic premises except the communal areas such as lifts, stairs, main door etc. which could be used as access for persons such as handyman, repairers, plumber, electricians, etc. as a place of work. The phrase reasonably practicable has also been used in this section of the Act. When a person makes (Moore and Selwyn 2015) available premises for the use of others, the reasonableness of the measures taken to ensure safety must be determined in the light of the controllers knowledge of the anticipated use of those premises and his knowledge of the actual use. For example, if a Landlord rents out offices to businesses, the landlord needs to know the scope of these businesses in order to put certain safety measures in place. This means that the reasonableness of such safety measures (Moore and Selwyn 2015) would be weighed against the controllers knowledge, the finances and effort it would take for such hazard to be eliminated or mitigated. For instance, an uneducated landlord who owns business premises may have the finances but may not have the knowledge or effort in ensuring that such premises is safe however evidence is needed to this defence of reasonably practicability. It is important to note that the duties (Moore and Selwyn 2015) under section 4 are not limited to persons who are at work. Section 4(1)(a) states that these duties are in relation to non-employees, which would protect the general public including children. For example, a person who controls childrens play centres, libraries, schools etc would still have a duty to ensure that such premises are safe and without risks to those who may be affected by the conduct of their undertaking. A case law example under a breach of section 4 is Mailer v Austin Rover Group Plc [1989] 2 ALL ER 1087, where an employee of a contractor was killed while working for Austin Rover. Austin Rover was charged for a breach of section 4 because it had total control of the premises and could have taken measures to prevent such fatality. Another example of a prosecution under section 4 is the case of Westminster City Council versus Select Management Ltd [1984] 1 ALL ER 994. This company managed blocks of flats in London and had control of the common areas such as lifts, staircase, and landings etc and failed to ensure that the lifts and electrical installations were safe and without risk to health and safety. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 4 2.4.1 Sections 2 and 3 refer to the duties of the employer either towards their employees or non-employees. The employer has an obligation to ensure that the workplace is safe. Non-employers would be exempted from the duties under sections 2 and 3. Additionally, sections 2 and 3 create criminal offences for the employer if not complied with (R v Tangerine confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015). A case law example is R versus Swan Hunter Shipbuilders [1981] ICR 831, where these companies were charged for breaching sections 2 and 3 of the HASAWA 1974. On the 25th of September 1976, a welder (an employee of Telemeter) went into a small compartment in the deck where a fire started the moment he started welding. The question that was raised (Barrett and Howells 1995) was whether the duties imposed on Swan hunter under sections 2 and 3 include to provide the employees of sub-contractors with information about the dangers of oxygen enriched atmosphere and secondly with instructions to ensure that safety of the workers on board, including the employees of Swan hunters and Telemeter. Figure 3 From the above diagram the relationship between Swan hunter and Telemeters is wide and the jury made emphasis that the duties under section 2 and 3 are wide enough to cover providing information and instruction to contractors and subcontractors as well. The precedent that was established in the above case law is the meaning of the phrase conduct of its undertaking in relation to the duties imposed on the employer in section 3 of the HASAWA 1974. With regards to undertaking, the welding job done by Telemeter was part of Swan hunters undertaking and therefore, failed to ensure the health and safety of persons not in its employment. Furthermore, section 2 is concerned with ensuring safety and section 3 is concerned with ensuring an absence of safety (Matthews and Ageros 2016) which mean the same thing. The level of safety in the workplace would be determined by what is reasonably foreseeable by the employer. Reasonably foreseeability is an important element in managing risks in the workplace. An example of a case law where foreseeability of risks played an important role in the judgement is R versus Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015. In this case, the defendant was charged in breach of section 2 of HASAWA 1974 because an operator of machinery was crushed to death by a WD machine used in manufacturing sweets. The judge in R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015 stated, Safety must be judged by what might be reasonably foreseen by a reasonable and prudent employer. The defendant stated that the accident was not foreseeable. The foreseeability of risk (R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) is only reasonably practicable if a reasonable person can foresee a material risk which is created by a plant, machinery or work-related activity. In this case, the foreseeability of an injury occurring with the use of the WD machine was obvious. However, the jury had no evidence that (R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) the foreseeability of the risks of this machine caused the accident because the machine had been used for thousands of hours without any accidents. Irrespective of the lack of evidence on foreseeability, the jury concluded that there was a foreseeable possibility that someone might get entangled in the arms of this machine (R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011 ] EWCA Crim 2015). The precedent that was established in the above case is the meaning of foreseeable risk. The risk has to be a material risk which a reasonable person can foresee to be a source of danger. Foreseeability of risks is relevant to the question whether a material risk to safety exists. That is why a risk assessment is an exercise in foresight. Sections 2 and 3 impose a duty on employers to ensure an absence of safety (R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) which makes them think deliberately about risks which are both obvious and not obvious. If an employer does not have the knowledge to enable him/her foresee risks, then it is his/her responsibility to employ a competent person such as a health and safety advisor to assist him in conducting an adequate risk assessment. Another example of a prosecution where foreseeability influenced the judgement is Regina v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd [2014] EWCA Crim 533. Pyranha Mouldings Ltd was prosecuted for a breach of section 2(1) of the HASAWA 1974 due to an incident which occurred on the 2nd of March 2011. This company manufactured plastic Kayaks and canoes which were shipped in shipping containers. On this particular day, the loader/ banksman Mark Malcom was crushed against the roof of container because the forklift driver could not see him. This company was prosecuted because the unsafe system of work had existed for over eighteen years without any risk assessment and lack of supervision of work. The jury stated that (R v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd [2014] EWCA Crim 533) the risk of serious injury or death was substantial and foreseeable but the company did nothing about it. The foreseeability in this case played an important role in the judgement and the elements of conviction for a breach of section 2(1) are that Pyranha mouldings was the employer of Mr Malcom (the injured worker) and the employer also failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of Mr Malcom and other employees including the forklift driver Mr Kevin. The burden of proof rests on Pyranha Mouldings to show the Jury that it took all reasonably practicable steps to keep the workplace safe, which it failed to do therefore was guilty of the offence under section 2(1) of the HASAWA 1974 . Another similarity between sections 2 and 3 is that the duties (Matthews and Ageros 2016) imposed are personal and cannot be delegated. The employer and self-employed have full responsibility to ensure health and safety and have no defence that the duties were delegated to a member of staff who failed to ensure compliance. The difference between sections 2 and 3 (R v Tangerine Confectionery [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) is on the person to whom the obligation is owed. Section 2 creates an obligation towards employees while section 3 is towards non-employees or the general public who may be affected by that employers undertaking/ job activities. An example of a case law is Veola ES v The Queen [2011] EWCA Crim 2015), a refuse collection company that was sentenced for a breach of sections 2 and 3 of the HASAWA 1974. In this case, an employee Mr Griffiths was killed on a fast dual carriage way while collecting litter. The defendant argued that the accident had nothing to do with the operation of the defendants undertaking. The appeal was dismissed because the court did not have to prove causation of the accident. Causation of the accident (R v Tangerine Confectionery [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) was a matter of evidence but not an essential ingredient of the offence. An accident is enough evidence that a material risk existed and his employees health, safety and welfare were not ensured. Under sections 3 of the HASAWA 1974, it was the conduct of the defendants undertaking of litter collection which exposed the defendants non-employees to the accident (R v Tangerine Confectionery [2011] EWCA Crim 2015). Another similarity between sections 2, 3 and 4 is that the phrase so far as is reasonably practicable is being used, which means that these duties are not absolute. This phrase gives those obliged to fulfil their duties the freedom to weigh the risks versus the cost, in order to ensure that the workplace or premises is safe. What is reasonably practicable depends (R v Tangerine Confectionery [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) on degree of foreseeable risk of injury, the gravity of the injury if it occurs and the implications of the measures/ methods in avoiding it. An offence is committed under section 2 if the defendant cannot prove that all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to ensure that its employees are safe in the workplace. While under section 3, an offence is committed if there is a material risk to the health and safety of non-employees (R v Tangerine Confectionery [2011] EWCA Crim 2015) who may be affected by the employers undertaking and the defendant has not taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to avoid those risks. Under section 4, an offence is committed if the person in control of premises so far as is reasonably practicable has not ensured that such premises is safe and without risks to the health and safety of those who might be affected. Another similarity between sections 2 and 3 is that they both refer to the phrase in such cases as may be prescribed and in a prescribed circumstance and prescribed manner which gives an indication that the responsible person based on the situation would fulfil these duties in a particular way. Section 3 and 4 refer to the word undertaking. In section 3 the employer needs to ensure the health and safety of non-employees who may be affected by any risks arising from his work activities. Subsections 4(4) refers to the controllers business activities or undertaking which means that any work activity connected with such controller of premises need to be done in a safe manner. Sections 2(2)(d) and 4 have similarities, in that they both refer to the provision of safe access and exit from work premises, provided it is reasonably practicable to do it. These sections also refer to the extent of control which the employer or controller of such premises has. For example in the Swan Hunter Shipbuilders [1981 ICR 831] case, the issue of control was also raised. Another case example (Barret and Howells 1995) is that of Westminster City Council v Select Management Ltd [1985], where the appellant was in breach of section 4 of the HASAWA 1974 because it failed to ensure that the communal areas of a block of flats were safe. Subsection 2(2)(a) imposes duties on the employer to ensure that plants are safe and without risks to (Barret and Howells 1995) employees, which is similar to those duties under sections 4(2). ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE OF BREACHING THE DUTIES UNDER SECTION 2 In order for the jury to convict an employer for a breach of sections 2(1) the following elements would need to be proven; (Matthews and Ageros 2016) That the defendant was at the material time an employer That the defendant failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees at work. A failure to ensure health and safety occurs when there is an exposure to a material risk to health and safety. The employee (Matthews and Ageros 2016) has to be at work for this to be applicable. This means that when the business is shut or closed for the day and there is no one at work then it is not applicable because no employees are exposed (Matthews and Ageros 2016). The employer would be guilty of a breach of section 2(1) unless it can prove that it was not reasonably practicable to minimise or eliminate the risk to the health, safety and welfare of its employees. Satisfying the test of reasonably practicability (Barret and Howells 1995) involves placing the risk on one scale and the sacrifices involved in taking the necessary measures for eliminating or mitigating the risk ( time, money, effort etc) being placed on the other scale. ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE OF BREACHING THE DUTIES UNDER SECTION 3 In order for an employer to be convicted for a breach of section 3(1) the burden of proof rests on the prosecutor to show the following; (Barret and Howells 1995) That the defendant at the material time was an employer That the defendant failed to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure (Barret and Howells 1995) that persons not employed by the defendant who might be affected thereby were not exposed to material risks to their health and safety. AREAS OF CONTROVERSIES AND DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DUTIES Some words and phrases relating to the duties under sections 2, 3 and 4 have been interpreted differently by different judges and have also created controversies in the court of law. Firstly, the HASAWA 1974 does not directly define the word employer but defines an employee to be someone who works under a contract of employment. Thus, an employer is a person who employs an employee. Therefore, if a person has no employees he/she is not an employer and does not owe a duty under section 3(1) but could be prosecuted under section 3(2) as a self-employed person. The fact that the act does not clearly define the word employer creates ambiguity in the court where someone may be regarded as an employer but no written contract of employment exists between such employer and the employee. This also creates another issue between the contract of employment and contract of service. For example, a small business may have a contract of service with a self-employed cleaner to clean their premises on a daily basis, but there is no contract of employment between them. Would the jury regard such a cleaner as an employee or a contractor? And would the employer still owe a duty under section 2? These questions could only be answered based on the situation and evidence. Moreover, there are companies which employ nobody under a written contract of service but engage a significant number of self-employed workers. In this case, a prosecution of such a company may be undertaken for a breach of sections 2(1) or sections 3(1) with the company alleged to be an employer (Matthews and Ageros 2016) through the extent of its control over those performing the work .For example, R versus Swan Hunter shipbuilder [1981] ICR 831 case. Another area of controversy under these duties is with the phrase exposed to risks to health and safety. It is important to note that an exposure to health and safety risks (Matthews and Ageros 2016) occurs where there is a possibility of danger and this does not require the danger to have occurred or any dangerous occurrence to have come to pass. In some prosecutions, the prosecutors argued that an accident or injury is sufficient evidence to prove that a material risk exists in the workplace. An example of a prosecution relating to this phrase (Barret and Howells 1995) is the case of R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum[1993] 3 All ER 853 ,where the museum was in breach of section 3(1) because two of its cooling towers could possibly be containing legionella Pneumophila bacteria. The prosecutor stated (Barret and Howells 1995) that they did not have to prove that the members of the public actually inhaled the bacteria and that the word risk means the possibility of danger and not necessarily actual danger. Even where an injury has occurred, it may not be enough for the prosecutor to simply claim that the injury demonstrates that there was a risk. Where a prosecution is brought under section 3(1), it may be necessary to identify and prove the respects (Matthews and Ageros 2016) in which the injured person was liable to be affected by the way the defendant conducted its undertaking. Furthermore, could an employer be prosecuted under section 2 when no employee is at work? This is an area where prosecutors have debated over. For example, Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council versus Malrod Insulations Ltd [1993] ICR 358, where the prosecutor appealed on allegations made against an asbestos removal company called Malrod Insulations Ltd. This company was contracted to strip asbestos insulation from the premises of Ingesoll Rand Ltd. On the 21st of November 1989, the premises were inspected by the environmental health services of Bolton metropolitan Borough council. During this inspection, there were no employees at work and it was evident that the asbestos decontamination plant had electrical defects. The prosecutor took (Barret and Howells 1995) this case to court but at the end of the case, the recorder upheld a submission that there was no case to answer because in order for Malrod Insulations Ltd to be found guilty of the offence under section 2 of the HASAWA 1974, its employees had to be at work. The appellant argued (Barret and Howells 1995) that it is not the fact of men being at work while in the course of employment which creates the offence, but the HASAWA 1974 must protect the employees who would come to work the next day. In the above case, the interpretation of the employers duties seems ambiguous. In my opinion, section 2(1) states that the employer should ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees at work and then section 2(2) lays down examples of how these duties can be carried out. However, (Moore and Selwyn 2015) it begins with the sentence without prejudice to the generality of the duties under the preceding subsection. Subsection 2(2)(a) states that the provision of safe plants is a requirement irrespective of whether or not employees are at work. Referring to the above case, the fact that such unsafe asbestos decontamination plant is within the place of work increases its likelihood of been used when workers resume work the following day. The employer could argue that such unsafe plants would undergo repairs before anyone is permitted to use the

Free Essays - Understanding The Things They Carried :: Things They Carried Essays

The Things They Carried – An Analysis  Ã‚      The Vietnam War was the most technologically advanced war of its time. The combat was more horrific and terrifying in the Vietnam War. There was no front line and no clear way of identifying the enemy because civilians would attack the soldiers as well as the North Vietnamese army. It was an every-man-for-himself, guerrilla war. Because of advances in medicine, more soldiers were able to recover from wounds caused by shrapnel grenades, land mines, concussion grenades, and other weapons. A person could step on a mine and suffer only an amputation of a limb instead of dying. Tim O'Brien survives two gunshot wounds and an infection, which was almost gangrene. In wars past, if gunshot wounds did not kill a person, the infection almost certainly would. The soldiers in The Things They Carried had the task of fighting two Vietnam wars, an internal war and an external war. Externally, the men were fighting the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Internally, the men were fighting maturity and adulthood. They were desperately trying to remain young through a war that forced them to grow up. Each soldier carried various "weapons" with which to fight the wars. For example, Dave Jensen carried a rabbit's foot, while Jimmy Cross carried a pebble from Martha found "where things came together but also separated." (O'Brien, 9). Lee Strunk carried a slingshot. Henry Dobbins, however, carried two weapons in addition to the regulation army weapons. He carried the nursery rhyme, "A tisket, a tasket, a green and yellow basket, I wrote a letter to my love and on the way I dropped it†¦" which he would sing while sewing stripes on his uniform. He also carried a pair of his girlfriends' pantyhose, which he would wrap around his neck for protection . "He liked putting his nose into the nylon and breathing in the scent of his girlfriend's body; he liked the memories this inspired; he sometimes slept with the stockings up against his face, the way an infant sleeps with a flannel blanket, secure and peaceful." (O'Brien, 129). These weapons allowed these men to dodge Bouncing Betties and gunfire, while enabling them to crawl through dark tunnels and watch friends die everyday. They were able to combat the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, leeches, mosquitoes, ringworm, dysentery, gangrene, and wounds from land mines and guns only to wake up the next morning and fight the same enemies day after day. Free Essays - Understanding The Things They Carried :: Things They Carried Essays The Things They Carried – An Analysis  Ã‚      The Vietnam War was the most technologically advanced war of its time. The combat was more horrific and terrifying in the Vietnam War. There was no front line and no clear way of identifying the enemy because civilians would attack the soldiers as well as the North Vietnamese army. It was an every-man-for-himself, guerrilla war. Because of advances in medicine, more soldiers were able to recover from wounds caused by shrapnel grenades, land mines, concussion grenades, and other weapons. A person could step on a mine and suffer only an amputation of a limb instead of dying. Tim O'Brien survives two gunshot wounds and an infection, which was almost gangrene. In wars past, if gunshot wounds did not kill a person, the infection almost certainly would. The soldiers in The Things They Carried had the task of fighting two Vietnam wars, an internal war and an external war. Externally, the men were fighting the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Internally, the men were fighting maturity and adulthood. They were desperately trying to remain young through a war that forced them to grow up. Each soldier carried various "weapons" with which to fight the wars. For example, Dave Jensen carried a rabbit's foot, while Jimmy Cross carried a pebble from Martha found "where things came together but also separated." (O'Brien, 9). Lee Strunk carried a slingshot. Henry Dobbins, however, carried two weapons in addition to the regulation army weapons. He carried the nursery rhyme, "A tisket, a tasket, a green and yellow basket, I wrote a letter to my love and on the way I dropped it†¦" which he would sing while sewing stripes on his uniform. He also carried a pair of his girlfriends' pantyhose, which he would wrap around his neck for protection . "He liked putting his nose into the nylon and breathing in the scent of his girlfriend's body; he liked the memories this inspired; he sometimes slept with the stockings up against his face, the way an infant sleeps with a flannel blanket, secure and peaceful." (O'Brien, 129). These weapons allowed these men to dodge Bouncing Betties and gunfire, while enabling them to crawl through dark tunnels and watch friends die everyday. They were able to combat the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, leeches, mosquitoes, ringworm, dysentery, gangrene, and wounds from land mines and guns only to wake up the next morning and fight the same enemies day after day.

Native Americans in the United States and Short Story Essay

Nacirema The â€Å"Body Ritual among the Nacirema† is a short story about a native American tribe. It wasn’t until more research on my part that I realized that this tribe did not exist. In fact it is a folk tale told in Miner’s own words. In true form Miner gives hint to this short story the Nacirema culture to that of the our culture today. Nacirema is in fact spelled â€Å"American†(Culture). The Nacirema has a hero named â€Å"Notgnihsaw† spelled â€Å"Washington† backwards. There are many similarities to this story as our American culture. Out of similarities Washington is our hero. He was the first President of the United States. Legend has it that Washington â€Å"threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River†, much like the Nacirema threw their native beads across their Pa-To-Mac River. Another story has Washington chopping down a cherry tree. But did Washington actually chop the tree down? â€Å"For he could not tell a lie†. As Americans we have rituals and cultural identities Every household has its â€Å"shrine† much like the Nacirema. Not all shrines are made alike. Is the â€Å"shrine† our homes, our churches, or our bathrooms? Shrines come in all walks of life. Miner gives the perception that the working class go to work and make money. If you have very little money your home is small much like a tent. The more money you make the bigger your home is which is made of brick and mortar. He discuses a specific â€Å"charm box† built into the wall (medicine cabinet). Within this box is collection of magical potions (medicine) where all members of the tribe have faith that he/she cannot live without. â€Å"The most powerful of these are the medicine men, whose assistance must be rewarded with substantial gifts. However, the medicine men do not provide the curative potions for their clients, but decide what the ingredients should be and then write them down in an ancient and secret language. This writing is understood only by the medicine men and by the herbalists who, for another gift, provide the required charm. †(Miner) This indicates folks going to the doctor that write the prescriptions to filled by the pharmacy. Miner talks about how members bow theirs heads in front of the box much like that of washing our hands. The Catholics have a similar ritual of dipping of the fingers in the â€Å"holy water† and doing the sign of the cross(Holy water) or kneeling before entering the pew(Religion:Manners in). The Nacirema have a morbid fascination with their mouths. If it â€Å"weren’t for the rituals of the mouth, they believed their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed. † If these things would have happened they believed their lovers would disown them. † â€Å"The daily body ritual performed by everyone includes a mouth-rite. †(Miner) This is much like the flossing or brushing of our teeth. The floss or bristles on our tooth brush we use is similar to the â€Å"hogs hairs. † The â€Å"magical powders† is that of the tooth paste we brush our teeth with. Miner maintains that the Americans right of passage in ways to throw off the readers. Themes as visiting the doctor, surgical operations, and sex are talked about. I initially didn’t take this story serious in reading it. After thorough research to get a better understanding of the writing I got a eye opening. This story reminds me much of a recent short story â€Å"A Modest Proposal†. Both has similarities of rituals and tales of people. I come from a family of rituals with last names that carry on from family to family or given the middle name of your mother first name. We are all meeting the needs of our own tribes whether it be the Americans, Nacirema or Vietnamese into how each is stereotyped.

Java vs. C++ Essays - Cross-platform Software, Java Platform

Java vs. C++ Essays - Cross-platform Software, Java Platform Java vs. C++ subject = Freshman title = Java vs. C++ Since their inception, computers have played an increasingly important role in todays society. Advancements in technology have enabled computers to become faster and cheaper. Today, the majority of families own a home computer that is vastly more powerful than giant mainframes of years gone by. Computer hardware has been evolving rapidly with no end in sight, and with all of the advancements in computer hardware come advancements in computer software; gone are the days when FORTRAN and COBOL were the languages of choice. Today,vvv two hot new object oriented programming languages have entered the computer programming arena, Java and C++, this paper will examine the similarities and differences between these new languages. Both Java and C++ are object oriented programming languages, but what does that mean? Object oriented programming (OOP) emphasizes data, instead of algorithms for solving problems. Instead of trying to fit a problem to the procedural approach of a language, OOP attempts to fit the language to the problem, in other words, OOP is structured to produce an answer without changing the question. Object oriented programming involves two separate parts, class and objects. Class is a specification that describes a new data form, it is a template that defines how an object will look and behave.(Kaj 1996, 8) An object is that particular data structure constructed using the parameters defined by class.(Prata 1995, 5) The object oriented programming approach to program design is to first design classes that accurately represent those things with which the program deals. A drawing program, for example, might define classes to represent rectangles, lines, circles, brushes, pens, and the like. The class definitions, recall, include a descriptions of permissible options for each class, such as moving a circle or rotating a line.(Prata 1995, 5) The main advantages of OOP, besides being able to create more complex software, and develop answers without changing the questions, are numerous. OOP facilitates creating reusable code, which can save a lot of work. Information can be hidden to safeguard data from improper access. Polymorphism lets the programmer create multiple definitions for operators and functions, with the programming context determining which definition is used, also Inheritance lets the programmer derive new classes from older ones. When using OOP, the programmer can focus on representing concepts, instead of concentrating on tasks. (Prata 1995, 6) Java, although in many respects similar to C++, is actually just a more simplified version of the latter. Java has a C++ like syntax, but it is more purely object oriented, also, memory management, which can be a problem with C++, is no longer a factor with Java, due to the fact that Java incorporates a built in garbage collector, which makes it unnecessary to explicitly free allocated memory.(Kaj 1996, 1) Another difference is that Java, unlike C++, does not contain pointers.(ftc.nrcs.usda.gov/devtools/java/java/noMoreC/index.html) (A pointer is a variable that tells a computer where data is placed.)(Prata 1995, 93) Java does not have an explicit pointer type, instead, it does passes all arrays (information entered into the program and stored in memory) and objects by reference,(ftc.nrcs.usda.gov/devtools/java/java/noMoreC/index.html) meaning that the objects or arrays in question have been defined elsewhere in the program, and the programmer does not have to keep pointing out wh ere that information is stored. Since Java does not contain pointers, struct and union (two C++ favorites) are not part of the language because they rely on pointers to function.(ftc.nrcs.usda.gov/devtools/java/java/noMoreC/index.html) Java differs from C++ in other ways too, command line arguments that are passed to a Java application are different in number and type than those passed to a C or C++ program. For example, when someone starts a C++ program, the system passes two parameters to it: argc- the number of arguments in the command line, and argv- a pointer to an array of strings that contain the arguments. When a Java application is started, the system passes only one parameter, args- an array of Strings (not a pointer to an array) that contain arguments.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov/devtools/java/java/noMoreC/index.html Speaking of strings, (A string is a series of characters, much like a sentence.)(Prata 1995, 8), they are different in Java. In C++, strings are stored in arrays, in Java strings are treated as their own objects, and do

Kickstart Your Team’s Project Workflows With 9 Features In CoSchedule

Kickstart Your Team’s Project Workflows With 9 Features In In a perfect world†¦ You and your team move from idea → publish seamlessly. But reality looks more like Managing dozens of spreadsheets. Filled with passwords, usernames, content plans, to-dos, and reports. Daily status meetings to keep everyone in the loopon the newest versions, attachments, etc And picking up the pieces whenmessages get missed, docs become irrelevant, and content goes LIVE before final approval. 😠± Let’s fix this ^^, shall we? Kickstart your team’s project workflows with 9 nifty collaboration features from !   So, you can: Keep everyone on the same page with clear directives. Never wonder â€Å"who’s doing what† or â€Å"where you are† in a project. With , the entire workflow is in one place comments, tasks, content everything! Create the perfect template for your project workflow. Move projects forward with task specific templates. Recycle task templates for future projects and iterates on them as you continue to improve the process! Get approval FASTER! Eliminate the need for constant email reminders, in-person pleading, and messenger notifications! With ’s task approvals (built directly into your team’s workflow) the right folks get notified at the right time when a task is ready for review. Keeping your team’s project on track, transparent, and movin’ forward. Collaborate with the right people at the right time. @Mention specific team members and add contributors on marketing projects. Giving your team the power to collaborate and communicate more effectively without involving (or bugging) others. Never miss (another) crucial detail! Quit worrying that you’ll miss something that needs your attention. The FOMO ends now. Set up your notification settings to stay connected to your projects. And never miss important feedback, an urgent to-do or pending question again. PLUS  get a *sneak peek* into one wicked smart  feature coming in the next few months. Are you ready to get your team more organized than ever? Now’s the time.

Juvenile Detainees Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Juvenile Detainees - Research Paper Example s responsibility to ensure that the young detainees are provided with special education and psychological restoration, in order to help them regain their well-being and prevent recidivism. Correctional officers come across many unique situations in their profession, where the detainees require special attention and consideration. Cases of substance abuse, sexual abuse, children suffering from mental disorders, those belonging to minority groups and children with disabilities often come under this purview. The role of a juvenile correctional officer is probably one of the most challenging ones, requiring a strong sense of solidarity as well as sensibility towards the juvenile detainees. The responsibilities of a correctional officer extend beyond mere provision of security and supervision. The future of a juvenile detainee often depends on the actions of his/her correctional officer. Such a role can only be fully surmised when the tasks, responsibilities and the tribulations faced by an officer, in relation to the detainees assigned to him, are fully understood. The neurobiological and psychological states of children and adolescents are very fragile, especially in the case of juvenile delinquents. Most juvenile offenders are found to have psychological disorders and mental ailments, which expose them and the correctional officers to dangerous and often life threatening situations. Young detainees are found to have a higher incidence of suicidal tendencies, substance abuse and crimina l inclinations that often place correctional officers in unique situations that need to be dealt with meticulous, clever as well as humanitarian approaches. On account of their violent history, juvenile delinquents take a long time to