Tasseled Wobbegong Shark Facts

Tasseled Wobbegong Shark Facts The tasseled wobbegong shark is one of the most extraordinary-looking shark species.   These animals have distinctive, branched lobes extending from their head and a flattened appearance. Although these sharks were first described over 100 years ago (1867), they are not well-known.   Tasseled Wobbegong Shark Identification Like other wobbegong sharks, tasseled wobbegongs have large heads and mouths, flattened bodies and a spotted appearance.   These sharks have 24 to 26 pairs of highly branched dermal lobes that extend from the front of the sharks head to its pectoral fins. It also has branched nasal barbels on its head.  This shark has patterns of dark lines over lighter skin, with dark spots and saddle patches.   Tasseled wobbegongs are usually thought to grow to a maximum size of about 4 feet in length, although a questionable report estimated one tasseled wobbegong shark at 12 feet. These sharks have three rows of sharp, fang-like teeth in their upper jaw and two rows of teeth in their lower jaw.   Classification: Kingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: ChondrichthyesSubclass: Elasmobranchii Order: Orectolobiformes Family: Orectolobidae Genus: EucrossorhinusSpecies: dasypogon   The genus Eucrossorhinus comes from the Greek words eu (good), krossoi (tassel) and rhinos (nose). Where Do Tasseled Wobbegong Sharks Live? Tasseled wobbegong sharks live in tropical waters in the southwest Pacific Ocean off Indonesia, Australia and New Guinea. They prefer shallow waters near coral reefs, in water depths of about 6-131 feet.   Feeding: This species feeds at night upon benthic (bottom) fish and invertebrates. During the day, tasseled wobbegong sharks rest in sheltered areas, such as in caves and under ledges. Their mouths are so large, the tassseled wobbegong sharks have even been seen swallowing other sharks whole. This shark can feed on other fish that share its caves. Reproduction: The tasseled wobbegong shark is ovoviviparous, which means that the females eggs develop within her body. During this process, the young get their nourishment in the womb from the egg yolk. Pups are about 7-8 inches long when born.   Shark Attacks: Wobbegong sharks are not generally considered threatening to humans, but their ability to camouflage with their environment, combined with sharp teeth, can result in a painful bite if you come across one of these sharks.   Conservation: These sharks are listed as near threatened on the IUCN Red List, Threats include damage to and loss of their coral reef habitat and overfishing.   Not much is known about this species, but populations appear to be declining, which is another reason for their near threatened listing.   Because of their beautiful coloration and interesting appearance, these sharks are sometimes kept in aquariums. References and Further Information: Bester, C.  Tasseled Wobbegong. Florida Museum of Natural History. Accessed July 31, 2015.Campagno, L., Dando, M. and S. Fowler. 2005. Sharks of the World. Princeton University Press. 368pp.Compagno, L.J.V., 1984. Eucrossorhinus  dasypogon   (Bleeker, 1867).  FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1 - Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(4/1):1-249. Rome: FAO.  In  FishBase. Accessed July 31, 2015. International Shark Attack File. 2015.  Florida Museum of Natural History. Accessed July 31, 2015. Pillans, R. (SSG Australia Oceania Regional Workshop, March 2003) 2003.  Eucrossorhinus dasypogon. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2.   Scales, H. Pictures: Shark Swallows Another Shark Whole. National Geographic. Accessed July 31, 2015.

The Great Compromise of 1787

The Great Compromise of 1787 The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, Congress would be a â€Å"bicameral† or two-chambered body, with each state getting a number of representatives in the lower chamber (the House) proportional to its population and two representatives in the upper chamber (the Senate). Key Takeaways: Great Compromise The Great Compromise of 1787 defined the structure of the U.S. Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress under the U.S. Constitution.The Great Compromise was brokered as an agreement between the large and small states during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman.Under the Great Compromise, each state would get two representatives in the Senate and a variable number of representatives in the House in proportion to its population according to the decennial U.S. census. Perhaps the greatest debate undertaken by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 centered on how many representatives each state should have in the new governments lawmaking branch, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, resolving a great debate required a great compromise- in this case, the Great Compromise of 1787. Early in the Constitutional Convention, delegates envisioned a Congress consisting of only a single chamber with a certain number of representatives from each state. Representation The burning question was, how many representatives from each state? Delegates from the larger, more populous states favored the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state’s population. Delegates from smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, under which each state would send the same number of representatives to Congress. Delegates from the smaller states argued that, despite their lower populations, their states held equal legal status to that of the larger states, and that proportional representation would be unfair to them. Delegate Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened that the small states could be forced to â€Å"find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.† However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts objected to the small states’ claim of legal sovereignty, stating that â€Å"we never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States and the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty.† Shermans Plan Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman is credited with proposing the alternative of a bicameral, or two-chambered Congress made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state, suggested Sherman, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate, and one representative to the House for every 30,000 residents of the state. At the time, all the states except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures, so the delegates were familiar with the structure of Congress proposed by Sherman. Sherman’s plan pleased delegates from both the large and small states and became known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, or the Great Compromise. The structure and powers of the new U.S. Congress, as proposed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, were explained to the people by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Apportionment and Redistricting Today, each state is represented in Congress by two Senators and a variable number of members of the House of Representatives based on the state’s population as reported in the most recent decennial census. The process of fairly determining the number of members of the House from each state is called apportionment. The first census in 1790 counted 4 million Americans. Based on that count, the total number of members elected to the House of Representatives grew from the original 65 to 106. The current House membership of 435 was set by Congress in 1911. Redistricting to Ensure Equal Representation   To ensure fair and equal representation in the House, the process of â€Å"redistricting† is used to establish or change the geographic boundaries within the states from which representatives are elected. In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the congressional districts in each state must all have roughly the same population. Through apportionment and redistricting, high population urban areas are prevented from gaining an inequitable political advantage over less populated rural areas. For example, if New York City were not split into several congressional districts, the vote of a single New York City resident would carry more influence on the House than all of the residents in the rest of the State of New York combined.

American Music and Protest Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

American Music and Protest - Essay Example In essence, artists such as Haggard, Sandler, Dylan and Lennon used music to express what they were going through as a reaction to what they saw their society go through. Music became a medium of expression for all manner of thought and emotions to go beyond the common feelings of love and sorrow towards more complex emotional states such as regretting the actions of a nation or taking the death of innocents in stride. As discussed by (Rodnitzky,1999, Pg. 56), â€Å"Protest music began as a merger of topical political songs and union songs†. Protest music certainly did not become a mainstream genre of music but there were several notable songs which can be discussed with regard to how some musicians saw war protestors and how they reacted to the idea of war. With war, comes support for the war or protests against the war and it is about these very war protestors that Merl Haggard’s Okie from Muskogee has been performed. Haggard seems to have no patience with the individuals who were protesting against the war in Vietnam since the first line of the song makes it clear that people in Muskogee don’t smoke Marijuana. Similarly, Haggard mentions that the taking of LSD and burning draft cards is only an activity such protesters would engage in. The image of the war protester given by Haggard is a person who is promiscuous, and behaves as the hippies do in San Francisco. In comparison Haggard takes the city of Muskogee in Oklahoma to be a city where people remain patriotic even if they do not believe in the war. They may protest, but they are not against American cultural or social values as noted in the song, â€Å"We dont smoke marijuana in Muskogee;/ And we dont take our trips on LSD. (Haggard, 1969, Pg. 1)†. In fact, even famous protest song writers recognize that by leading people to do something, the performers may actually become what they hate. As discussed by Peddie (2006), remaining true to the ideals was difficult for Dylan himself who

Engineering Disasters Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Engineering Disasters - Assignment Example Investigations unearthed this with a number of recommendations being made to the FAA and the ATA. The disaster led to establishment of measures and guidelines to improve safety of aircrafts and passengers. The disaster had a great impact on material engineering with a resounding need to ensure proper composition and quality of products so as to ensure safety of the users. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 1.Background information 5 2.Investigation: 6 2.1.The NTSB Team 6 2.2.The public hearing 6 2.3.The Process 7 3.Findings and recommendations 7 3.1.Findings of the commission 7 3.2.Probable cause of the accident 8 3.3.Future precautions recommended 9 3.3.1.To the federal Aviation Administration 9 3.3.2.Air Transport Association 10 3.3.3.Other recommendations of the commission 10 4.Impact on Engineering Practice 11 4.1.Regulations or laws instituted 11 4.2.Areas of Engineering impacted 12 Works Cited 15 Introduction Disasters have continued to take place throughout h istory. Many of these are natural however, some are human made. Disasters may or may not be avoided depending on the situation at hand. Most natural disasters cannot be avoided and happen as a result of natural forces operating within the environment (Stoltman, Lidstone and DeChano 25). Such is the case with floods, hurricanes and droughts. It is not possible to control natural disasters or to prevent them from happening as they cannot be predicted. They happen when the conditions are fit for them to happen with little or no warning. The resulting effect is a devastating effect on humans and the environment as a whole. Manmade disasters on the other hand are caused by the activities of the human population on the environment. Each and every activity in the environment has the potential of creating a disaster. The magnitude may be different. Many of the world’s renowned disasters are engineering disasters which has affected millions of people or sections of the world (Alexande r 40). They happen because of faults or errors that happen during engineering processes which may have not been seen during the process. They are also made worse by the ignorance of some of the engineers and also because of the assumptions that are usually made assuming that the situation will correct itself with time. The result has been loss of lives, property, finances, waste of efforts, and damage to the environment (Tierney, Lindell and Perry 23). This paper analyses the flight 232 disaster in American aviation history. 1. Background information Flight 232 disaster is one of the most discussed disasters in the world due to the nature of the incidence and how the crew members handled the incidence to prevent the loss of lives. The flight 232 Airline was a flight headed to Philadelphia international airport. The flight was to pass through Denver, Colorado and then O’Hare International airport before moving to its final destination (Kilroy). The plane is recorded to have cr ashed while on route to its destination as a result of the failure of its tail mounted engine. This failure resulted in the loss of the all flight controls disconnecting the flight from any control tower. The plane had to thus make an emergency landing that resulted in the crash. The plane was carrying 285 people on board. There were 11 crew members, 172 people were injured, and 111 had fatal injuries that resulted in death, while a

American Indians and Free

American Indians and Freedom Essay American Indians have striven for freedom ceaselessly since the colonization in 1800s. But for different American Indians, the definitions of freedom vary a lot. For the chief Seattle, the writer of AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE’S TREATY ORATION 1854, the freedom means the rights to live with the nature harmoniously and to keep their religion and traditions. For Carlos Montezuma, the writer of Let My People Go, the definition of freedom is very absolute and stems from political rights. His freedom means the rights of managing the stuffs of American Indians totally without the control of white man. From my point of view, the definition of freedom to American Indians is more close to its political definition because the rights of protecting the holy nature will not be given if they lose the political rights. But I argue that the real freedom does not mean the absolute free. Moreover, the chief Seattle and Carlos Montezuma differ in the issue about whether American Indians should accept the management of colonists. For the chief Seattle, he thinks him and his people can accept the management of colonists on the condition that the colonists will not destroy their holy nature. For Carlos Montezuma, he asks the colonists not to interfere the issue of American Indians because the corrupt management of the colonists. I think that American Indians can accept the management of the colonists if they can own enough political rights. The best way is to contend for a democracy system and government for American Indians rather than just asking for leaving the control of the colonists. It is obvious that the two writers own quite different understandings when they face with the same wordfreedom, as I mentioned at the beginning. The writer of AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE’S TREATY ORATION 1854 shows deep love to his ancestors and the things his ancestors leave for them. He uses â€Å"sacred† to describe its ancestors and â€Å"hallowed ground†, â€Å"verdant valleys†, â€Å"murmuring rivers† and so on to describe his living environment. Also, the writer thinks that their religion is â€Å"the Great Spirit† and gives them in â€Å"solemn hours of the night. † Yet, in the perspectives of these American Indians, the colonists refuse to accept and respect the holy nature and ancestors of Africa Americans. The writer writes, â€Å"Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine! † The quote indicates that American Indians in Seattle fear deeply that the colonial rule will ruin their living environment, religion and traditions. Hence, for the writer, their freedom means the respect of their culture. Nevertheless, Carlos Montezuma, the writer of â€Å"Let My People Go†, asks for totally different freedom. He writes, â€Å"The Indian Bureau is the only obstacle that stands in the way that hinders our people’s freedom. †, â€Å"†¦when the Indians will need the most help in this world , †¦ the Indian. Bureau will cease to exist†¦Ã¢â‚¬  and â€Å"the Indian employees in the Indian Service; their personality is destroyed†¦they have nothing to say. † These quote express the strong willing of American Indians to escape from the control of White Americans because of the corruption of Indian Bureau. So, the definition of freedom to Carlos Montezuma is the rights to express their own willing and achieve more political rights. I quite agree with Carlos Montezuma because he wants to ask for more political rights. Even if the Big Chief at Washington promised that the new colonists will respect the culture of the American Indians in Seattle, he can easily renege on the promise without the political rights or the protection of the law. On the other hand, the chief Seattle and Carlos Montezuma own different attitudes towards the issue about the management of white American. Carlos Montezuma hastily wants to abolish the Indian Bureau system rather than improve the system. Carlos Montezuma writes, â€Å"The Indian Bureau system is wrong. The only way to adjust wrong is to abolish it, and the only reform is to let my people go. † The quote expresses the urgent willing of Carlos Montezuma to stop the run of the wrong system. He owns the opinion to escape the control of White Americans. However, I think that American Indians can accept the management of colonists only if the colonists launch laws to protect the American Indians and give them enough political rights. The opinion of stopping the run of the system is too arbitrary and naive. It is highly possible that a ruder way to manage the American Indians created after the abolition of the old system. Carlos Montezuma cannot accept the management of White Americans at all. But the chief Seattle’s requirements related to the acceptance of the White Americans’ management perhaps is without much consideration. The chief Seattle writes, â€Å"But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. † The quote has implication that the chief Seattle will accept the colonial rule on the condition that the colonists will not hurt their ancestors, friends and children. And in the same paragraph, the writer emphasizes the importance to protect their holly hillsides, valleys, plains and so on again. I argue that his thoughts and requirements are too premature and primitive. These are the basic rights for human beings. Even these rights are promised to give these American Indiana, they are still far away from freedom, as I regard it. Therefore, the real freedom cannot be achieved either by abolishing a wrong system and totally losing control or by asking for so limited rights and show kindness or obedience to the colonists. Of course, freedom definitely is not what the Chief Seattle thinks. He views freedom as the rights on the foundation of compromise and only asks for poor limited rights. Besides, for me, freedom also is not absolute like Carlos Montezuma thinks. It does not mean you can do what you want without others’ management and totally losing control. Freedom means you can own all the proper political rights under the protection of an impartial system or laws. The most significant issue for the real freedom is to create a right system or laws to protect the rights legally for these American Indians. No matter the chief Seattle or Carlos Montezuma, they both lack in the consciousness to create a right system or laws to protect themselves. If this kind of thing can be done, the existence of India Bureau or the colonial rule of White Americans does not matter to them at all. For this reason, it is so vital for American Indians and also other races to force the society to create a more and more impartial system ceaselessly. Works Cited Carlos Montezuma, â€Å"Let My People Go†: An Address delivered at the conference of the Society of American Indians in Lawrence, Kansas, N. p : n. p ,1915 Dr. Henry A. Smith, AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE’S TREATY ORATION 1854, N. p : n. p ,1887.

Homosexuality: Equal Rights For All Essay examples -- Sexual Issues

INTRODUCTION Human beings are born with a nature to judge the things around them in one way or another. We complain, murmur and gossip about what is not normal or even normal in our sight. Yet, we struggle to see how others think about us and always fail look at ourselves first before judging and criticizing others. The measures of normality, intelligence, beauty and peculiarity are very subjective and we as humans are the inventors of these yardsticks. Yet, repeatedly we think that the principles of our measurement are perfect but we as mortal beings are not anywhere near perfect. Thus, is our yardstick and measurement truly perfect? The question that we are to ask ourselves is â€Å"Who are we to judge?† Homosexuality is the disposition to seek sensory pleasure through physical contact with people of one’s own sex in preference to contact with others of the opposite sex (Dover, 1997). Being alongside heterosexuality and bisexuality in the sexual orientation continuum, homosexuality only makes up a minority group of people. However, we are unsure of this because everyone has â€Å"skeletons in their closets† and might face confusion or uncertainties regarding their own sexuality. Homosexuals includes gays (man seeking man), lesbians (woman seeking woman), bisexuals (one who seeks both man and woman) as well as transgender (one who modifies his/her physical appearance to reflect the opposite sex). Transvestites are people who dress according to the opposite sex and this practice is also known as cross-dressing. Transsexuals are individuals who go under the knife to have a sex change operation in order for them to live fully as a member of the opposite sex. Facing pressur e from the society, families and friends, this group of people figh... ...Although everyone walks on the same land and shares the same air, some people just forbid others from having the same freedom as them. Thinking that they are protecting the community and their future generations, they ignore the rights of others and disregard those who go against them. We therefore believe that every human being despite their sexual orientation should enjoy every freedom and practice their rights given as humans without any restriction, hesitation or exception. Works Cited Dover, K. J. (1997). Greek Homosexuality. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press . Esplen, E., & Jolly, S. (2006). Gender and Sex - A sample of definitions. BRIDGE- Gender and Development, 1. Mio, J., Barker-Hackett, L., & Tumambing, J. (2009). Multicultural Psychology: Understanding Our Diverse Communities (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies. Retrieved April 23, 2012 Homosexuality: Equal Rights For All Essay examples -- Sexual Issues INTRODUCTION Human beings are born with a nature to judge the things around them in one way or another. We complain, murmur and gossip about what is not normal or even normal in our sight. Yet, we struggle to see how others think about us and always fail look at ourselves first before judging and criticizing others. The measures of normality, intelligence, beauty and peculiarity are very subjective and we as humans are the inventors of these yardsticks. Yet, repeatedly we think that the principles of our measurement are perfect but we as mortal beings are not anywhere near perfect. Thus, is our yardstick and measurement truly perfect? The question that we are to ask ourselves is â€Å"Who are we to judge?† Homosexuality is the disposition to seek sensory pleasure through physical contact with people of one’s own sex in preference to contact with others of the opposite sex (Dover, 1997). Being alongside heterosexuality and bisexuality in the sexual orientation continuum, homosexuality only makes up a minority group of people. However, we are unsure of this because everyone has â€Å"skeletons in their closets† and might face confusion or uncertainties regarding their own sexuality. Homosexuals includes gays (man seeking man), lesbians (woman seeking woman), bisexuals (one who seeks both man and woman) as well as transgender (one who modifies his/her physical appearance to reflect the opposite sex). Transvestites are people who dress according to the opposite sex and this practice is also known as cross-dressing. Transsexuals are individuals who go under the knife to have a sex change operation in order for them to live fully as a member of the opposite sex. Facing pressur e from the society, families and friends, this group of people figh... ...Although everyone walks on the same land and shares the same air, some people just forbid others from having the same freedom as them. Thinking that they are protecting the community and their future generations, they ignore the rights of others and disregard those who go against them. We therefore believe that every human being despite their sexual orientation should enjoy every freedom and practice their rights given as humans without any restriction, hesitation or exception. Works Cited Dover, K. J. (1997). Greek Homosexuality. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press . Esplen, E., & Jolly, S. (2006). Gender and Sex - A sample of definitions. BRIDGE- Gender and Development, 1. Mio, J., Barker-Hackett, L., & Tumambing, J. (2009). Multicultural Psychology: Understanding Our Diverse Communities (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies. Retrieved April 23, 2012

Moral Dilemas Essay

This situation is a moral dilemma because Captain Ericson has to make a very hard decision, to either destroy the u-boat whilst killing the men in the water or to save the stranded men but risk future trouble and destruction by letting the u-boat go ie it is a situation to which his everyday morality cannot identify a solution. The ethical principles in this situation are very simple but it is very hard to determine what is best for everyone. If you sink the u-boat and kill the men you may have saved the lives of thousands of people in the future but at the same time you have slaughtered 40 hundreds of your own men who have done nothing but fight for their country. Having said this if you leave the u-boat and save your comrades from the water you have saved the lives of a few men but risked the lives of tens of thousands in the future. By destroying the u-boat he is obeying the principle of the military duty of an officer to his superiors and his country by destroying the enemy, and I quote â€Å"attacking at all costs†. On top of performing his military duty by getting rid of the u-boat he is likely to save the lives of the men on convoys that would be threatened by the same u-boat if it were not destroyed. Ericson â€Å"shut and battened down his mind† because it is human nature to doubt a decision directly after having made it; this is done because of our need for perfection. And so Ericson did this because he did not want nor could he allow doubt to enter his mind for even a second for fear of inaccuracy in judgement and failure to carryout his decision with precision. Also in order to be at ease with his decision he constantly needs to reassure himself that it was the right choice and this would be extremely hard to do if he constantly had doubt creeping into his head. Also he needs to block out all human emotions and pity for those men in order to make the correct decision. Some would argue that Ericson’s actions were completely irrational because instead of avoiding violence and death which would have spared many lives he went ahead with his military instinct, as a result killing many men both English and foreign. Some would argue that he had the chance to come out of the situation without a slaughter on his hands, which according to the religious man would have been the moral thing to do. However we must ask ourselves what we are doing in a war if we are not prepared to make a decision based in military procedure and ethics for the greater good. Therefore from my point of view I feel that Ericson made a responsible decision taking into account the factor of the safety of other men in an extremely pressured situation, a situation which thankfully I will probably never have to make nor do I feel I would have the strength nor the character to make a well balanced decision and stand for the consequences. His decision may not have been the right one but there are always going to be people with different points of view on things but whether it was the right one or not is not really relevant nor should it be dwelt upon as everyone makes mistakes at some point in their lives. In this case it was his decision to make because his superiors obviously thought he was the right man for the job, not without reason and so he made the decision under extreme pressure and in a situation which did not have many alternatives which he had been appointed to make following not moral procedure but military procedure as is the custom during. And so taking all of this into consideration I personally feel he did the right thing. As always with a question like this we must consider both arguments. To be honest we cannot establish whether Ericson is a good person or not, as the case may be simply by examining one event as people make mistakes, that is what makes us human. Having said this there is no real reason to assume that his actions were a mistake and that he acted wrongly. On the contrary I feel that Ericson did exactly what a man in his position should do. He acted only after he was sure and only after taking into account the consequences of his actions and in this case he clearly felt that he would be acting for the greater good. In war it is the norm to sacrifice one man for the safety of hundreds of others and I feel that even thought his theory is not religiously moral it is still correct because in a time of war we have no time for things like moral issues, its either kill or be killed, the enemy will shoe no mercy so why should we. Therefore I do think that he is a good person as I simply think that he is a very stressed out man in a very difficult situation with the lives of hundreds at his mercy trying to do the right thing which is military procedure which he would have been taught; kill for the greater good. Having said this a religious man would say not necessarily that he is a bad man but that he made the wrong decision in this case because instead of avoiding murder which although is lisenced in war is morally wrong. He would look much deeper into the emotions of those men in the water which is exactly what military school trains you not to do, mixing emotions with actions can get you confused and in a military situation this can make you weak and vulnerable. Therefore in conclusion I think it is fair to say that we cannot really establish whether he is a good man or not but that according to some peoples’ views he made the wrong decision.

Listening Is a Desirable Skill in Organizational Settings Essay

Listening is a desirable skill in an organizational settings; good listening can improve worker productivity and satisfaction. The challenge facing the workplace of today is how we will do business going forward. Far removed are the face to face staff meeting and on site work functions of the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s. In today’s workplace staff meetings are held virtually with offsite employees, conference calls, and video conferencing. Although much research in listening has taken place over the last few years, little of that research addresses workplace listening directly and much is based on false assumptions: that listening is a unitary concept. Listening is a cognitive function rather than a behavioral skill, and that listening is a linear act. In the past years many businesses /organizational have taken a closer look at listening and its competency that apply directly to the workplace. And have come up with a strong argument for listening to be the most important skill of effective communicators. This paper explains the process of listening, the significance of this form of communication, and it domination of effective workplace communication. Listening is one of the most important skills you can have. How well you listen has a major impact on your job effectiveness, and on the quality of your relationships with others. The purpose of communication is achieved only when the receiver receives the message sent by the sender fully and clearly. Developing good listening skills is a key step toward collaborating with colleagues. Good communication, therefore, calls for active listening skills. These skills will help you clarify and understand the messages that are being sent to you. To be a successful collaborating professional, you must understand the intent of those with whom you interact. It has been proved by many researchers that the success of a business essentially depends on the promotion of good listening skills at all the levels in the organization. {{3 Rane,D.B. 2011;}} The ability to understand and give response effectively to verbal communication is known as listening. The effectiveness in listening doesn’t necessarily depends on the interrelationships between the sender and the receiver of the message, but more is found to be a vital skill more particularly for the managers in business organizations while obtaining need-based information to perform their jobs successfully. The quality of relationships with others and job effectiveness largely depend on the listening ability of the individual concerned. Lack of listening ability at all the levels in any organizations lead to work-related problems. Thus listening, among others, is one of the most essential skills one should have. This reveals that improvement in workplace productivity is quite possibly developing active listening and better communication at all the levels. {{6 Johnson, Lawrence J. 2004; 3 Rane, D.B. 2011 ;}} Listening emphasizes two effective behaviors: accuracy, that is, confirming the message sent; and support, that is, affirming the relationship between the speaker and the listener: This model serves as an effective basis for improving workplace listening, both through formal training programs and through individual workers’ own efforts. References Abbasi, M. H., Siddiqi, A., & Azim, R. u. A. (2011). Role of effective communications for enhancing leadership and entrepreneurial skills in university students. International Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(10), 242-250. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=64758501&site=eds-live&scope=site Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (2000). The key role of listening in business: A study of the singapore insurance industry. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 41-51. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3184193&site=eds-live&scope=site Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (2004). Listening skills to facilitate effective communication. Counseling & Human Development, 36(6), 1-8. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20481483&site=eds-live&scope=site Mercer County, C. C. (1992). The art of active listening http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED351594&site=eds-live&scope=site Rane, D. B. (2011). Good listening skills make efficient business sense. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, , 43-51. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire

Romeo and Juliet prologue Essays

Romeo and Juliet prologue Essays Romeo and Juliet prologue Paper Romeo and Juliet prologue Paper The prologue foreshadows whole story and that makes some audience sad because in the prologue it looks like there is only death and even when love accurse between two young lovers its still will be taken away because both of them at the end will die. At the beginning of the prologue Shakespeare has wrote ‘’from ancient grudge break to new mutiny’’ by writing ancient grudge Shakespeare wanted to tell us that the fight was going for a long time and by writing new mutiny Shakespeare told us that the fight is new again and it tells us that it was strong and now it might be even stronger this time. Later in the prologue in the 6th line Shakespeare writes ‘’two star crossed lovers take their life’’ by writing that hi explains us that there will two lovers and their love is marked by death this bit links back to rivalry because it tells us that even death can’t stop the feud between those two families, this then makes audience sad and confuse because their start to guess how strong is this feud. In the 8th line of the prologue Shakespeare writes’’ doth with their death buries their parent strike’’ by writing that Shakespeare foreshadows the sad end of this story and explain to the audience that the rivalry between those two families are so strong that only their children’s death could end. This bit of the prologue makes audience sad and makes them guess how sad is this story and how it have changed life of the two families. Whole prologue foreshadows that there will be allot of deaths which then makes audience sad all thou it also tells that there will be love to which then makes audience a bit happier.

15 French Words and Phrases That Dont Mean That in French

15 French Words and Phrases That Dont Mean That in French 15 French Words and Phrases That Don’t Mean That in French 15 French Words and Phrases That Don’t Mean That in French By Mark Nichol This post lists a number of words and phrases used in English that are derived from French but are no longer employed with the same idiomatic sense in French (if they ever were). Each term is followed by the literal French translation, a brief definition, and a comment about its status in French and how the French language conveys the idiom. 1. au jus (â€Å"with juice†): a brothlike meat sauce (the phrase is often incorrectly treated on menus as â€Å"with au jus†)- obsolete in French except for the slang phrase à ªtre au jus (roughly, â€Å"be with juice†) 2. cause cà ©là ¨bre (â€Å"celebrated cause†): controversial or emotionally weighted issue- obsolete in French, but originally referred to a sensational or unusual legal decision or trial 3. demimonde (â€Å"half world†): fringe group or subculture, or prostitutes as a class- obsolete in French, though une demi-mondaine refers to a prostitute (in English, demimondaine is synonymous with â€Å"kept woman†) 4. double entendre (â€Å"double to hear†): a comment that can have a second, often provocative, connotation- faulty grammar in French, which uses double sens (â€Å"double sense†) 5. en masse (â€Å"in a masse†): all together- in French, refers to a physical grouping, so when using that language, one would not refer to a chorus of voices as being en masse 6. encore (â€Å"again†): additional songs played after the scheduled end of a concert, or a call for such an extended performance- in French, â€Å"Une autre! (â€Å"Another!†) 7. en suite (â€Å"as a set†): usually refers to a bedroom and bathroom connected to each other- not used as such in French 8. esprit de l’escalier (â€Å"wit of the stairs†): a witty comment one thinks of only after the opportunity to share it has passed (when one is departing a social occasion)- nearly obsolete in French 9. in lieu (â€Å"in place of†): instead of- a partial translation; in French, au lieu 10. legerdemain (â€Å"light of hand†): deception in stage magic- not used in French 11. marquee (â€Å"awning†): sign above a venue announcing the featured entertainment- not used in French 12. passà © (â€Å"past,† â€Å"passed,† or â€Å"faded†): unfashionable- in French, passà © de mode (â€Å"way of the past†) 13. pià ©ce de resistance (â€Å"a piece that resists†): the best, or the main dish or main item- in French, plat de rà ©sistance (â€Å"dish that resists†) 14. rouge (â€Å"red†): blusher, or red makeup- in French, fard joues (though lipstick of any color is rouge là ¨vres) 15. venue (â€Å"arrival†)- location- not used as such in French Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Useful Stock Phrases for Your Business Emails"Have" vs "Having" in Certain Expressions30 Words Invented by Shakespeare

The relationship between United States and Israel and its effect on Research Paper

The relationship between United States and Israel and its effect on other Middle Eastern countries - Research Paper Example The liaison between Israel and the United States is one of the most unstable and contemplated relationships in world history. From the period since its establishment in 1948 to today, Israel has faced up to eight diverse American presidents, and eight different outlooks toward Israel as a state, how the U.S.-Israeli relationship should be dealt with, and the issue of Palestine and its people. The relationship between the United States and Israel in the past six decades can be segregated into two schools of thought: the â€Å"special relationship paradigm† and â€Å"national interest orientation† stated Professor Robert Lieber of Georgetown University, an expert on US-Israeli relations . The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent State because at the time in 1948, and until today, the U.S. Government presumes that it shares certain common values and political aims. Under the special relationship paradigm, which forms the basis of U.S. s upport of Israel even today, the Truman Administration sensed that Israel, like the U.S., held a revolutionary fortitude, was compiled of a diverse societal symphony, and shared its democratic ideals. The national interest orientation transpired over time and included mutual aims such as extenuating the Arab-Israeli conflict, sustaining Western access to Middle Eastern Oil, the battle against Islamic Fundamentalism, and with Israel in place, the U.S. was assured continued influence in the Middle East. Definitely, the initial support of the U.S. for Israel was not all politically motivated rather they were initiated on the basis of moral, cultural, and religious sentimental grounds stemming from the mayhem committed in Europe during the Holocaust, which resulted in the major immigration of Jews to Jerusalem and the surrounding areas in the first place (Ben-Zvi 2009). The period from 1948-1957 forms the first phase in the history of U.S.-Israeli relationship. As stated before, the Uni ted States was the first nation to give de facto recognition to the State of Israel primarily on grounds of moral obligation and geo-strategic concerns. This unambiguous assertion of support gave birth to a lifetime relationship between the two countries. However, in these starting years, the United States’ faith in Israel was low, and they were not provided any assistance in monetary or military form. The primary reason of U.S. for making Israel its ally during this period was that in the midst of the Cold War, Israel stood alone as the solitary supporter of the West and discourager of communism in the Middle East. The Truman Administration called this approach an eccentricity of the modus operandi, or method of operation, of stemming Soviet influence in the