Elections Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Elections - Essay Example 4) Biden gave both opening and closing statements, Ryan was defensive, and it was a one sided victory by Biden. 3)The feisty Republican candidate relentlessly criticized and thrashed the opponent Democratic ways, policies and leadership style i.e. Obama care, Libya, economy etc (Espo, and Daly). But on matters such as Taxes, Foreign Policy, American values, he gave baffled answers. The first question out of three that were more prominent was: Biden was anti-war like Obama and said clearly that the last thing that America needed was another war, while Ryan, like Romney said they would continue to increase troops and forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they do foresee a war in the making with Iran due to Iran-U.S clashes. 2) Secondly, Ryan defended well, the fiery questions from Biden, about his Taxes plans and Federal Policy facts 3) Ryan was not able to retain his composure upon questions regarding Foreign policy matters especially the Middle East situation, and National security mat ters such as combating terrorism (Miles). Ryan had the edge over Biden from the start by 42% to 25% margin (Espo, and Daly). But due to his young age and lack of experience and political insight, he failed to get a strong grip of the debate and ended up being wonky and puzzled about questions regarding their tax related policies and foreign policy predictions. I am personally in favor of Biden’s take on all over the debate issues, as he tackled the situations with a lot of reason and logic, and without exaggeration he had facts and figures to support his arguments, and his age, experience and Political know how helped him immensely, to get the audiences’ attention. 4)Although, it is hard to decide which candidate won the debate, as both had their strong and weak moments, but Biden had a clear, easily sensed edge over his rival Ryan. Ryan sounded wonky, less expressive, less concrete and lacking in political rationale. Part 4) 4)2012 results VOTES % WON Barack Obama 62, 611,250 50.6% Mitt Romney 59,134,475 47.8 Others 1,968,682 1.6 (Andrews et al ). SOURCE: AP. Map Barack Obama won the United States Election 2012 by leading from the front, either of the candidates, Barack H. Obama, and Mitt Romney, had to secure 270 seats to achieve the highly anticipated victory. Barack Obama won with 332 Electoral Votes, while Mitt Romney ended up with 206 Votes (Andrews et al ). The Map Analysis prior to the close Electoral Campaign shows that President Obama  carries a momentous, edge over former Massachusetts governor  Mitt Romney  in the battle for 270 electoral votes this fall, according to the first detailed analysis of the map conducted by the Fix ( Chris , and Aaron Blake ) Obama starts the general election with 15 states (plus the District of Columbia) and 196 electoral votes strengthen him while Romney begins with 21 states and 170 electoral votes firmly in his corner. (One of the states sturdily for Romney is Indiana, where Obama won in 2008 but no one expects a repeat performance in 2012). Another three states — Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Michigan (16) and New Mexico (5) — incline toward Obama while Arizona (11) and Missouri (10) lean toward Romney. Adding them up lends Obama 237 electoral votes and Romney 191 electoral votes. (Chris, and Aaron Blake) The SWING States: While Obama was a much likely candidate than Romney, victory will be decided by the nine swing states —

U.S. Social Identity Group and Business paper and presentation Essay

U.S. Social Identity Group and Business paper and presentation - Essay Example For them, stereotypes have been part of their culture since prehistoric days in which slavery was the norm. This paper explores some stereotypes held against Africa Americans and the effect they present on organizational behavior and productivity. Both Americans and other cultural subgroups in United States geographical areas hold stereotypes against African Americans. Largely, since White people were slave owners before the abolishment of slavery, they are the main culprits of such stereotypes. For instance, slaves were perceptibly happy and ignorant people who were ready to serve their masters. According to their White masters, they were lazy people who needed supervision from their masters in order to work productively. Of all minority groups in America, African Americans endure the worst forms of prejudice (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2010). They may fail to enjoy economic and social advantages such as lower employment rates and lower remuneration. Stereotypes affect organizational behavior and productivity in negative ways. The stereotype that African Americans require supervision to show efficiency in the workplace is misguided. It affects organizational behavior because some employees may endure victimization owing to generalization. The probable psychological effects of stereotypes on African Americans may reduce their ambition and honesty to feedback. Eventually, they may fail to demonstrate productivity because of morale issues and uncoordinated efforts at the workplace. Negative expectations and stereotypes have an unconstructive effect on performance levels (Bridges, 2008). For instance, if a stereotype advocates African Americans as less intelligent and with poor work ethic, then some Black employees who are naturally intelligent may fail to realize their work potential and become less productive. In addition, an organization may fail to employ African Americans in managerial or senior positions

Organic vs. Non-organic Food Essay Example for Free

Organic vs. Non-organic Food Essay Bottom line, going green can cultivate envy. The public is constantly bombarded with the idea that organic products are better. Perhaps this is true, but maybe it is brilliant marketing simply selling a status symbol. Envy can come from a neighbor’s luscious, organically grown front yard to the hybrid vehicle a co-worker drives, to the organic foods that consumers in a higher financial echelon seem to be able to only afford. Is this envy justifiable or is the notion of organics and its superiority a tactic of propaganda to boost the already $30-plus billion industry even higher, according to Farm and Dairy’s April, 2012 article â€Å"Organic Food Sales†? Although proponents of organic food insist it is healthier than conventional food, non-organic foods are extremely comparable to its organic counterpart, possibly even more necessary. The United States has evolved into a powerful nation; one that boasts of freedoms, luxuries and an overabundance of practically everything. The United States is also a country which has a population that grows greater and greater each year. Reasons including the number of births outnumbering the number of deaths, as well as the number of immigrants coming to live the â€Å"American Dream. † According to the Census Bureau End-of-2011 estimate, â€Å"the United States will enter 2012 with a population of roughly 312. 8 million people† (Schlesinger, 2011, para, 1). This statistic takes into account one birth approximately every 8 seconds, one death every 12 seconds as well as one new migrant entering the country approximately every 46 seconds. As cited by Schlesinger (2011), this ends up with a population increase of over two million in 2012. This is a staggering number and would only increase over time. In his article â€Å"Point: Industrial Agriculture has Improved Farming for Hundreds of Years,† George Wright (2011) explains how the use of biotechnology and techniques such as caging animals used to increase the profits of agricultural industry is not a contemporary idea. Wright (2011, para. 7) states how â€Å"the use of biotechnology to produce food has been around for over 8000 years. † He gives examples such as enzymes being used to make foods like baked goods and dairy products. Wright also asserts that â€Å"biotechnology is expected to help agriculture by improving quality, nutrition, safety and the processing of raw crops,† (Wright, 2011, para. 7). Biotechnology is not a process that is new to the agriculture industry. Finally, Wright’s article (2011, para. 12) concludes that â€Å"with the world’s population at six billion and heading higher, there is no practical alternative to ‘industrial agriculture’. † He also points out that â€Å"agricultural innovations from industries such as biotechnology are advancing agricultural production,† (Wright, 2011, para. 13). In addition, Avery’s article â€Å"‘Frontline’ Perpetuates Pesticide Myths† (1993), Avert adds that â€Å"it is believed that if the world converts to organic systems of farming, by 2050 this system of farming will not be able to supply enough food for the population and will be responsible for massive amounts of deaths due to starvation. Another organic misnomer claims that organic livestock and plants are free from chemicals and unnecessary medications, unlike their non-organic counterparts. According to Nancy Sprague’s 2011 article, â€Å"Counterpoint: Organic Food is Unnecessary the Current Food Supply is Safe†, there are a myths about organic food that are debunked. She discusses how organic foods are actually prepared and while comparing and contrasting it to the process non-organic foods go through prior to arriving at the grocery shelves. When discussing about the use (or lack thereof) of pesticides, Sprague (2011, para. 4) notes that â€Å"organic farmers can use pesticides from an approved list,† which contradicts the consumer’s belief that organic foods have not come into contact with any pesticides. Sprague goes further to state the toxins that the organic industry supposedly takes pride into avoiding are contaminants that actually cannot be avoided. Nitrates, chemicals and antibiotics are now found naturally within the environment due to â€Å"broad contamination of the earth’s natural resources† (Sprague, 2011, para. 4). The organic industry also asserts that the levels of hormones in non-organic meats are extremely high and in-turn dangerous to the consumers’ health. In fact, in Lester Aldrich’s (2006) article, â€Å"Consumers Eat Up Organic Beef Despite Costs, Unproven Benefits†, he finds quite the opposite conclusion. Aldrich discusses the results of a study by Gary Smith, professor of meat sciences at the Center for Red Meat Safety. This study analyzed and compared the levels of hormones found in two-3 ounce steaks, one each from an organic animal and one from a non-organic animal. The results were shocking. Smith’s compare/contrast analysis showed that there was an almost incomprehensible difference (on a nanogram scale) between the hormone levels from both the organic and non-organic samples,† (Aldrich, 2006, para. 29). Aldrich (2006) then compared these results to the levels of these same hormones to a typical birth control pill that is voluntarily consumed. The results showed â€Å"the average birth-control pill provides 35,000 nanograms of estrogen daily† whereas â€Å"a non-pregnant woman produces about 480,000 nanograms of estrogen, 240,000 nanograms of testosterone and 10. 1 million nanograms of progesterone daily,† (Aldrich, 2006, para. 30). The comparison is astounding and should put any worries about added hormones in our food to rest. Prior to pasteurization of food, people would die young due to food-borne illnesses. Avery (2002) opens his article â€Å"The Hidden Dangers In Organic Food† with â€Å"Products most people think are purer than other foods are making people seriously ill. † Avery’s (2002) article mentions how the invention of the refrigerator as well as simple procedures such as food refrigeration and washing ones hands before eating or making food would eventually keep food-borne illness to a minimum in the United States, although those individuals who were quite ill or weak would die if exposed to food-borne bacteria. Unfortunately, with all the claims of health, organic food is becoming more notorious for being served on a plate with food-borne illnesses such as salmonella, and now more recently, E. coli. Avery (2002, para. 1) cites the U. S. Centers for Disease Control stating â€Å"people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria,† salmonella or fungus. According to Avery (2002), USDA offered organic famers a method that did not require either pesticides or pasteurization to protect the crops; irradiation. This process used low levels of gamma radiation to kill bacteria while maintaining the freshness of the food. Unfortunately, organic farmers were outraged and more than 200,000 protesters opposed the idea therefore the USDA removed this process from the final organic food standard (Avery, 2002). This has not been beneficial for public safety, as cited in Sprague’s (2011) where she points out that there have been several infections caused by E. coli in the United States during 2009 alone. Organic farming does have one huge positive aspect: it strives for self-sustainability and leaves a small carbon footprint in the environment. With that said, organic farms, regardless of whether or not its food can be proven to be healthier than conventional food, requires a much larger area of land mass to produce the same amount of food than that of a conventional farm. According to Avery (2002), â€Å"agriculture already takes up 36 percent of the world’s land surface. † Avery (2002) translates this to mean that by year 2050, short of a worldwide cataclysm, the world will need 2. 5 times more food output than what is needed today. Wilcox (2011, para. 26) states in her article â€Å"Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming Conventional Agriculture† that until organic farming can contend with the output of conventional farming due to space needed without the ecological costs involved, the need for more space will be severely detrimental to the environment. † Organic farms help the environment on small, local levels. Unfortunately they do not produce the same amount of food that a conventional farm can; between 20%-50% below what a conventional farm of the same size will produce (Wilcox, 2011). Wilcox (2011) also emphasizes that with more advanced technology, organic farming may eventually be able to keep up with conventional food production, however, if more areas of the planet become transformed into organic farmland in the meantime, the planet’s natural habitats will begin to quickly deplete. Conventionally farmed foods and organic foods both have positive and negative aspects to their individual philosophies. Organic farming does not necessarily produce healthier food. Hormone levels in organic and non-organic foods are extremely similar and the lack of pesticides in organic food contributes to a higher frequency of food-borne illnesses. As much as this is true, the organic farm leaves a smaller carbon footprint than a conventional farm, which, in the long run will allow for the environment to sustain itself and be able to continue producing more food. With that being said, when going to the store to buy food, the consumer should make the conscious choice to purchase organic foods when it is affordable, in order to support and promote self-sustainable/organic farming. If the choice is made to buy conventional foods, the consumer should not feel guilty or worried the food is substandard to organic. There should be confidence knowing that USDA regulations are being followed by conventional farms to produce the highest quality food possible. ? References Aldrich, L. (2006, July 12). Consumers eat up organic beef despite costs, unproven benefits. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from htttp://search. proquest. com. proxy. devry. edu/business/docprintview/398944062/abstract/137 Avery, D. T. (1993, Apr 01). Frontline perpetuates pesticide myths. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com. proxy. devry. edu/business/docprintview/398370529/Record/1371 Avery, D. T. (2002, June 25). The hidden dangers in organic food. Retrieved from http://www. cgfi. org/2002/06/the-hidden-dangers-in-organic-food/ Sprague, N. (2011). Counterpoint: Organic food is unnecessary the current food supply is safe. Points Of View: Organic Food, 3. Retrieved from http://search. ebscohost. com/login. aspx? direct=tryedb=pwhAN=43286301site=pov-line Schlesinger, R. (2011, Dec 30). U. S.population 2012: nearly 313 million people. U. S. News and World Report, Retrieved from http://www. usnews. com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people Wilcox, C. (2011, July 18). Mythbusting 101: organic farming conventional agriculture. Scientific American, Retrieved from http://blogs. scientificamerican. com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ Wright, G. (2011). Point: Industrial agriculture has improved farming for hundreds of years. Points Of View: Factory Farming, 2.

Net Neutrality and Freedom on the Internet

Net Neutrality and Freedom on the Internet Net Neutrality: The end of internet freedom The internet has been one of the greatest technological advances ever seen in the last 40 years. It has opened the doors to many new advances in many other fields and has changed the way the world works today. Now, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the government have decided that they need to regulate it. In theory, the regulation they would like to put in place seems like a good idea. The regulation they are putting in place is called net neutrality and it is supposed to do three things. The three things that net neutrality aims to do is no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. These all seem like good ideas and they are, the only problem is what must be sacrificed in order for the government to ensure these regulations are enforced. Net Neutrality laws should be removed so the internet can continue to grow. The first new rule of Net Neutrality is no blocking. According to CNET, this means that the ISP (Internet Service Provider) cannot block access of any legal content, services, or applications. The key here is what does the government consider legal. People would be surprised how much of what they view online each day may not be considered legal by the government. Another problem with the government blocking access to these certain website and services is that in order for them to block someone from visiting an illegal site or service, they must be monitoring them all the time. If someone is not being monitored, they could just as easily visit that site or service as they could before. So, by making strict new rules to block any illegal content, the FCC will always be monitoring everything that everyone is doing online. This will give the government a whole new level of access to peoples’ personal lives and nothing will be completely private anymore. Another common happening to day is networks and systems being hacked (Science Alert). This requires very fast implementation of new security methods and protocols to prevent mass hacking. So, what happens when the government is going to be involved with the ISP’s? Every time an ISP needs to do a network update, it will likely need to be approved by the government first in order to make sure that it is still complying with the no blocking rules. That way, an ISP could not secretly start blocking a service without the FCC being aware of it. As can be demonstrated by how fast and efficient a post office works, the government is not very fast in what it does, this means that if a new network vulnerability is found, it is possible that in the time it takes for the government to look over and approve the update, a hacker or group of hackers could have already hacked into the network and start stealing information from millions of people. How could this be improved? The answer is no blocking, period. ISPâ€⠄¢s simply do not need to block any content of any kind unless their own system detects that it is a threat. Using this method, it would allow all content to be available to everyone just as most people are used to now. However, with an automated threat detector, it would make the internet safer as well and less vulnerable to viruses and other hacking threats. This is basically how the internet works right now. Essentially, the government does not need to fix what is not broken already. Nonetheless, the government does not want things to be that simple. The reasoning behind their no blocking policy is not to protect people from the big evil internet service providers, but rather it is so that no one is downloading or viewing anything illegal (Wired). Otherwise, the government would have little interest in the no blocking policy. This is simply a way for them to get their foot in the door to block people from doing anything they determine to be illegal on the internet. Here are some examples of illegal things that most people do every day on the internet and dont even realize its illegal. For examples, it is illegal to fake a name online, it is illegal to use ad blocking software, and it is illegal to save pictures from the internet because they are someone elses property. People view lots of illegal content on YouTube all the time and one of the more ridiculous things that is illegal to do online is to post anyone singing happy birthday because it is a copyrighted s ong. If this rule of Net Neutrality were to be kept, many of the freedoms that people are able to experience online today would be gone. No more happy birthday videos on YouTube. The next rule that Net Neutrality will enforce is no throttling. This means that ISP’s cannot slow down or speed up certain services as long as they are legal (USA Today). This comes back again to the issue of what does the government consider legal on the internet. The real point here, though, is that an ISP should not be able to slow down a certain service because they use a lot of bandwidth or if they are providing content that the ISP does not agree with. An example of this throttling happening is if someone were trying to view content on a competitor of the ISP that someone is currently subscribed to. So, if someone on Comcast’s network was trying to view a news story on a website other than NBC (Comcast owns NBC), it is possible that Comcast could throttle them because they are viewing content on a competing news network site. This is where the idea of no throttling is a very good idea, it is not right for one company to throttle data to impair access to a competi tor. However, there is one perspective of throttling that the government does not take into consideration. In some instances, throttling ensures that many people are not impeded by the usage of the few. In other words, a few people could be hogging tons of available bandwidth to access a media intensive site or service while everyone else ends up with reduced speeds and network reliability while they try and do less bandwidth intensive tasks. This has been becoming less of an issue as ISP’s continue to invest in their infrastructure and try to improve total available bandwidth so that more people can be accessing more content at the same time. An example of throttling being necessary, however, was demonstrated when an app on Android became very popular and everyone was using it to communicate, which caused a massive bandwidth problem over the T-Mobile network. In order to keep the network stable so that everyone could still use it in some capacity, T-Mobile had to throttle th e users who were using the communication app. In this case, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few. It’s cases like these where throttling can be a necessity in order to maintain network integrity. Netflix has often been the victim of throttling. Almost one third of the internet traffic, today, is from people streaming Netflix (Time). Most networks now have the capability to allow for that. However, a few years ago, when Netflix was starting to become big, this was quite a strain on the current networks and in many cases people would get stuck with buffering because the ISP’s were having to throttle Netflix in order to keep the network in working order. Throttling is a self-solving problem in many ways. If people complain that a service they like is being throttled, then the ISP will have to make improvements to handle the additional traffic and this leads to network improvements and an overall better service. The part that can be an issue is when an ISP tries to throttle a competitor, which is when Net Neutrality could be good. However, this problem as well can be self-solving. If someone is trying to view something from a competitor of the ISP and they keep getting throttled, they will either complain or they will switch ISP’s. This will then force the ISP to stop throttling that site or they will lose customers. So, once again, the problem solves itself without the government needing to intervene. The third rule of Net Neutrality is no paid prioritization. This is meant to prevent any ISP from favoring some legal traffic over other legal traffic that has paid them (Wired). This is often referred to as â€Å"no fast lanes.† The best way to look at this is to think of a highway. Say there are eight lanes to this highway and the speed limit is the same for six of the lanes. However, two of the lanes have a higher speed limit and have less traffic, but they require a toll to use them. This is basically what some ISPs have been doing. They will charge certain companies to use these faster and less congested lanes so that their service is better. The idea behind this third rule of Net Neutrality is that no one gets access to fast lanes and everyone has equal access to everything. In theory, this is a great idea, but the problem here is similar to the problem with the second Net Neutrality rule. If one service is using most of the bandwidth, they should have to pay a premium t o be a drain on the network. When a massive bandwidth using company like Netflix is being used on a network, it is a huge drain on the network and it requires often expensive upgrades to be made in order to handle that new bandwidth demand. These upgrade costs are partly due to the fact that the bandwidth hog is impeding the networks performance, so they should have to pay a premium for a fast lane so that it can offset the cost of network upgrades. This also allows the network to advance and overall advance the way the internet is used. When a new company comes around and starts putting a strain on the network, this makes it so the network needs to be upgraded in order to handle it which leads to an overall better network. If there is no paid prioritization, then ISP’s may not be able to justify the costs associated with making network improvements and then that will lead to an even worse service overall. Thus, the third rule of Net neutrality is also a bad idea as it will c ause the US to fall even farther behind in average internet speeds around the globe. Those were the three main points that the government highlights about Net Neutrality and about how great it is, but what are they hiding? One key detail that they never want to mention to anyone is the fact that they will have control over how the internet is run. They are trying to stop ISP’s from regulating the internet by regulating it themselves. The government isnt exactly well known for providing great regulations, generally they are tedious and time consuming and ultimately pointless. Why should the internet have to move at the same pace as the government? It has cost taxpayers over two billion dollars so far to make the government run healthcare website work, and it still doesnt work properly. From the beginning to the very end of the enrollment period for the healthcare website, it was having tons of problems. Constantly freezing and glutting and kicking people off the server. The same people that developed this system now want to be in charge of how the internet is r egulated and run. It would be only a matter of time before the government wants to further tighten its grip on how the internet is regulated and run. Before too long, they may end up being completely in charge of how the internet works and that will lead to disaster. The internet today is by no means perfect. However, the last thing it needs is a bunch of incompetent politicians in charge of how it works. These are all things that the Net Neutrality bill will secretly allow. Therefore, it was enacted without a proper vote even being taken, it was just suddenly put into place, a bill that as over 300 pages was put into place without anyone even having time to read it. Essentially, it was put into action without anyone even knowing what it all really entailed. A huge right that will be infringed upon by Net Neutrality is everyone’s own right to privacy. Part of the Net Neutrality act allows the government to monitor internet activity. The NSA is a part of the government which allows the NSA to view every bit of activity from everyone on the internet. No one will have any privacy from the government anymore. Any time someone looks at anything on the internet, the NSA can find out about it. This is a huge infringement on a right to privacy from the government. The government knows enough about the citizens of the United States, they dont need to know what size cloths someone wears or that somebody is very interested in funny cat videos. This is just giving the government more control over what people do every day and not allowing them to feel like what they are doing is somewhat private. The argument to this is that once something is on the internet, it never goes away, and anyone can have access to it. That is true, however, with the government monitoring everyone’s activity, it makes it just that much easier for them to keep tabs on people. The other fact is that while what someone posts to the internet is no secret, what they are doing on the internet can still be unknown to many. With the government able to monitor activity through ISP’s, nothing that is done over the internet anymore is private. The government could start monitoring if someone is selling lots of their things on Craigslist and could then audit them if they did not report their profits on their taxes. Technically, profit made even from selling items can be taxed. This will simply reduce the freedom on the internet even more. It’s all just a step closer to complete government control over what everyone does everywhere. In the end, the government is ultimately enacting these new Net Neutrality rules, so they can gain more control over people on the internet. It will give them a whole new level of access and control over everything that everyone is doing. The no blocking policy allows them to control what is displayed on the internet by not blocking things that are legal, but making sure anything they consider illegal is blocked. The no throttling policy will make it so that everyone has an equal playing ground. This will make sure that things people want to be faster are not simply in order to make it equal for everyone. Lastly, not having the paid prioritization could cause the ISP’s to not get enough money to continue making important network improvements that make the internet an overall better place. The government is going to end up holding back the internet and will slow down its evolution. If the government had been in charge of the internet from the beginning, it would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today. E-Mail probably never would have come into existence because it would compete with the Post Office, making the Post Office less profitable. The way the very world today works could have been changed if the government had been in charge from the beginning. Hopefully, in the future, the Net Neutrality laws will be repealed to help the internet grow, not the government. So far, seven ISP’s have filed lawsuits against it, so it is likely that more ISP’s will join together to help ensure that the internet will not become crippled by the government. The government needs the internet, the internet does not need the government. Works Cited Babcock, Grant. Net Neutrality And Obamas Scheme for the Internet Are Lousy Ideas.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Reason.com. Reason Foundation, 12 Nov. 2014. Web. Apr. 2015. Beck, Glenn. Tell The FCC To Stay Away From The Internet. Glenn Beck. MERCURY RADIO ARTS, 16 Feb. 2015. Web. Apr. 2015. Berkman, Fran. Net Neutrality Jargon Explained. The Daily Dot. N.p., 25 May 2014. Web.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Apr. 2015. Cobb, Kelly W. Why Net Neutrality and Open Internet Mandates Are Bad for Consumers.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Americans for Tax Reforms. Braynard Group, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. Apr. 2015. Dorfman, Jeffrey. Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea Supported By Poor Analogies. Forbes. Forbes   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Magazine, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. Apr. 2015. Gillula, Jeremy. The FCC Is Keeping an Eye on Interconnection, But More Clarity Is Needed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. Apr. 2015. Gross, Grant. Thousands Call on Congress to Overturn Net Neutrality Rules. PCWorld. IDG   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Consumer & SMB, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. Apr. 2015. May, Randolph. Why Net Neutrality Is Incompatible with Internet Freedom CNET. CNET.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   CBS Interactive Inc., 03 Sept. 2012. Web. Apr. 2015. McSherry, Corynne. The FCCs Latest Net Neutrality Proposal: Pros, Cons, and Question   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Marks. Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. Apr. 2015. Skorup, Brent, and Berin Szoka. Killing Net Neutrality Helps Underdogs Succeed | WIRED.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 17 Feb. 14. Web. Apr. 2015. Steimle, Joshua. Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 14   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   May 2014. Web. Apr. 2015. Walker, Bruce E. Net Neutrality Is a Bad Marriage of Government, Internet. Net Neutrality Is a Bad Marriage of Government, Internet. The Heartland Institute, n.d. Web. Apr. 2015.

Tree for Thought :: Free Essay Writer

Tree for Thought On a winding hillside along Birch Lake, various trees and organic landscapes hide my sacred place. It is located in the backyard of my grandparents’ house. To the average outsider, it is just another pine tree growing among piles of leaves and pine needles that blanket a grassy hill leading down to the lake. In my world, it was a place where I could lie at an acute angle and visit a tree I gave life to. I still remember the smell of the freshly baked bread my grandmother made that morning. I was only six years old, but when a fresh loaf of bread came out of the oven, I had the appetite of an adult. After stuffing ourselves, Grandma and I made our way to the shed in search of tools to plant a tree. As we searched for a shovel, fumes from the leaky gas tank of the lawnmower kept us in high spirits. We eventually found a spade and looked for a place to dig. The hill in the backyard was blocked off with a short fence. Dilapidated stairs led down to the beachfront. Grandma and I scaled the foot-high fence and sidestepped down the incline. About ten steps down, we found the perfect place for the tree. She gripped the ribbed, rubber handle of the shovel and began carving a hole into the fertile soil. I cradled the newborn tree, making sure he would be able to enjoy the new home we were making for him. The clouds were threatening as if they were predators preparing for an attack on their prey. The rolling thunder, snarling and growling, kept us working at a fast pace. My grandmother assured me that Spike that’s what I named the tree ¾would be fine when the storm struck later that afternoon. Once she finished digging the hole, we could have fit a soda can perfectly inside, but Spike fit much better. He seemed to like his new home. In time, mossy friends would keep him company, rain would nurture him, and dogs would soon make him their own. Grandma sent me back up the hill to grab the watering spout so we could feed Spike’s green needles the nutrients they needed to keep him alive and well. We were careful not to drown him, knowing that he would receive more water later that day.

Sleeping Disorders and the I-Function :: Biology Essays Research Papers

Sleeping Disorders and the I-Function As we all know, sleep is an important part of our lives. Without the proper amounts and type of sleep, fatigue and other problems can arise. Generally, we can clearly distinguish between a sleeping person and a person that is awake. With sleeping disorders, the distinction between an awake person and a sleeping person becomes more intriguing. What is the difference, how does it relate to the I-function and consciousness? Each sleeping disorder has its own unique answer to this question. It is essential to understand sleep to fully appreciate it. However, many aspects of it remain a mystery. We do have some degree of understanding of sleep. Within our sleep cycle a type of unusual sleep occurs, REM sleep. During this cycle the periods of REM sleep are interspersed with slow wave sleep in alternation. Each period of REM sleep (there are usually 4 or 5 periods a night) lasts for approximately 5 to 30 minutes. During these periods a sleep paradox occurs. An enormous amount of brain activ ity takes place; this is sometimes even more activity then when awake. This clearly indicates that sleep is not simply to rest our mind and not to think. So, during this period our brains are extremely active, yet there is usually no input or output. During this period, along with the random eye movement (REM), there is a complete loss of muscle tone. Essentially, at this point, the motor system is paralyzed (normally the body inhibits any movement). The autonomic nervous system also alters its behavior. The regulation of body temperature is lost and the blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rates shows increased variability. REM sleep can be detected by measuring the electrical activity of the brain with an electroencephalogram. At this point, the EEG will show the same pattern of activity as when the brain is awake. It is fascinating that at this point, REM sleep, where dreaming is frequent, the body shuts itself down. If, as suggested in class, the I-function is active at this stage, it is interesting that all body movement is inhibited. During other stages in which there are synchronized EEGs, and the I-function is not supposed to be present, the body does not inhibit all motor activity. This seems to imply that when the I-function is present it will control the body as it sees fit. One of the more ubiquitous parasomnias is sleep talking or somniloquy.

The Lottery Essay -- essays research papers

When one thinks of a lottery, they imagine winning a large sum of money. Shirley Jackson uses the setting in The Lottery to foreshadow an ironic ending. The peaceful and tranquil town described in this story has an annual lottery, and you can’t possibly guess what the â€Å"prize† is†¦   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The author foreshadows an ironic ending at the very beginning by establishing a cheerful setting. The story occurs â€Å"around ten o’clock† on June twenty-seventh, a time of day that is very bright and joyous and a time of year that is warm and makes people feel happy. The town’s physical setting also contributes to the overall â€Å"normal† feeling of the story. The grass is described as â€Å"richly green,† and the flowers are â€Å"blossoming profusely.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   An ironic ending is also foretold by the town’s setting being described as one of normalcy. The town square is described as being â€Å"between the post office and the bank;† every normal town has these buildings, which are essential for day-to-day functioning. The townspeople also establish a normal, comfortable setting for the story. The children are doing what all typical kids do, playing boisterously and gathering rocks. The woman of the town are doing what all stereotypical females do, â€Å"exchang[ing] bits of gossip.† The men are being average males by chatting about boring day-to-day tasks like â€Å"planting and rain, tractors and taxes.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Despite this comfortable and normal setti...