Tay-Sachs Essays -- Health Medical Medicine Biology Essays

Tay-Sachs Abstract Tay-Sachs is a disease caused by a mutation to the gene which codes for Hex A. Without Hex A, a cell cannot degrade GM2 ganglioside into GM3 ganglioside. This results in a build up of ganglioside’s in lysosomes of neurons. The result is varying degrees of mental deterioration. New DNA-based screening is currently being developed to replace the enzyme-based screening techniques that have been used since 1969. This will not only speed up the diagnosis, but also allow for earlier detection of Tay-Sachs by using the parents genotypes. Introduction Tay-Sachs disease is one of three autosomal recessive, lysosomal storage disorders, collectively known as the GM2 gangliosidoses. They result from accumulation of GM2 ganglioside in lysosomes, primarily of neurons. The clinical symptoms of Tay-Sachs vary from infantile lethal neurodegenerative disease to less severe adult onset forms. The latter are often characterized by motor neuron impairments. The recognition of the high incidence of this disease among Ashkenazi Jews and the identification of the deficiency of hexosaminidase A as the basic defect were essential findings leading to the establishment of mass carrier screening programs for this disease [2]. Recently, research has focused on the DNA-based diagnostics that are anticipated to play a role in future carrier screening programs [1]. GM2 ganglioside hydrolysis The lysosomal hydrolase, beta-hexosaminidase, occurs predominantly in two forms, hexosaminidase A (Hex A) and hexosaminidase B (Hex B). Hex A is comprised of one alpha and one beta subunit while Hex B is comprised of two beta subunits [3]. While both subunits contain similar active sites, only the alpha subunit can hydrolyze GM2 gan... ... Gravel, R. (1990). The molecular basis of Tay-Sachs disease: mutation identification and diagnosis. Clin. Biochem. 23:409-415. 2. Navon, R., Proia, R. (1991). Tay-Sachs disease in Moroccan Jews deletion of a phenylalanine in the alpha-subunit of beta--hexosaminidase. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48:412-419. 3. Gray, R.G.F., Green, A., Rabb, L., Broadhead, D.M., Besley, G.T.N. (1990). A case of the B1 variant of GM2-gangliosidosis. J. Inher. Metab. Dis. 13:280-282. 4. Meier, E., Schwarzmann, G., Furst, W., Sandhoff, K. (1991). The human GM2 activator protein. J. Biological Chem. 266:1879-1887. 5. Mahuran, D.J. (1991). The biochemistry of HEXA and HEXB gene mutations causing GM2 gangliosidosis. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1096:87-94. 6. Robbins, S., Ranzi, R., Kumar, V., (Eds). (1984). Pathologic Basis of Disease. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Co. 142-145.

How important was Berlin to the development and outbreak of the Cold War, 1945-1961?

The first period of time we need to look at is the year of 1945, when the Second World War ended. This was also the year when the Yalta, in February 1945, and the Potsdam Conference, in July 1945, was hold in order to discuss certain problems and plans that occurred or should have been done after the end of war. The tensions, which had lead to the beginning of the Cold War started to emerge more intensively at those two conferences, as there were many areas of disagreement between the USA and the USSR. One of the four main areas of disagreement was Germany. As the Yalta Conference was hold in February 1945 the war against Germany and Japan was still on going but an end of all terror was close. Problems that had emerged from the Tehran Conference, that had been hold in 1943, had to be resolved at that conference. It was agreed that that Germany firstly had to be divided into four zones being occupied by Britain, France, the USA and the USSR. Germany should also pay reparations to the countries it had damaged in the wart earlier, especially huge amounts to Russia as Stalin demanded. However, Stalin also did not like the idea of splitting Germany into two parts.Could Cold War Have Been Avoided? Germany, by paying huge amounts of money to Russia and other countries, should be weakened by that so I would not become a future threat anymore. Also Stalin intended to finance Russia’s rebuild of the destructions, which it has suffered from Nazi Germany in the war. In the year 1952 Stalin still seemed to favour the idea of a united Germany over which the USSR had no control but some influence. However, there were also other factors of disagreement at those conferences, which caused massive problems in the relationship between the USA and the USSR. Poland for example proved to be more difficult than Germany. Eventually, the superpowers agreed that the USSR’s demands over Poland’s border in the east would be met. Furthermore Poland should receive territorial compensation from Germany. Additionally Stalin did believe that the Allies would have accepted Poland’s mainly communist or USSR sympathetic government. However, Churchill was not sure about what Stalin intended to do and returned to his strong anti-communism by 1945. Adding to that also Roosevelt shared this point of view. After Roosevelt’s death in April 1945 a new harsher era towards the Soviet Union started to emerge under Truman in power of the USA. As the free elections, which had been decided to be carried out in the Yalta Conference, had not taken place in Poland yet Truman refused to listen to Molotov’s explanations for that. US suspicions about Soviet motives about a security in Eastern Europe increased. However, at the Potsdam Conference hold in July 1945 the decision for the acceptance of Russian plans for Poland was made although the issue of Poland was very complex. Stalin saw it as an issue influencing the life or the death of the Soviet Union. Churchill however saw it as an act of honour. Roosevelt had always been against the idea of a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. In Stalin’s point of view however Russia needed this sphere to provide security for the Soviet Union. He created worries about such a sphere, as the new US call for an â€Å"Open Door† policy was introduced, involving the suggestion of not having such spheres of influence. Roosevelt however suggested that those disagreement should be an issue rather as the war would be ended that during the war. This of course motivated or rather gave Stalin the time to ensure Soviet security interests in Eastern Europe. Apart from disagreements about Poland and Eastern Europe there was also a third issue where the USA and the USSR did not agree with each other. Russia had suffered hugely from horrible destruction in the Second World War. As the Axis forces had retreated between 1944 and 1945, they have left systematic destruction behind, destroying 1,700 towns and 17,000 villages. Due to that Stalin saw economic reconstruction as a priority after the war. However, Truman tried everything to contain the Soviet power whenever it was possible. Due to that, at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, Truman said that the USA would agree to any reparations being paid to Russia by East Germany. However, in return Russia would have to send 60% of the, from West received, goods in form of goods and raw materials back to the West again. In 1944 Russia however agreed to join the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But when the USSR asked for a 6 billion dollar loan in January 1945, the USA said she would only agree if the Soviet Union would open its Eastern markets to the US capital. Obviously Russia did not accept these conditions. But at the Yalta Conference it was agreed from both sides that a 10 billion dollar loan from Germany would be accepted as a beginning of the reparations. However, as in August 1945 a request for a 1,000 billion dollar loan was ignored by the US side, the USSR increased reparation payments from it own Eastern sector. A final point of disagreements or rather arguments was the drop of the A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 by the USA. This was a slap in the face of the USSR, as at the Yalta Conference it was agreed that Russia and the USA would end the war with Japan together. It was also seen as a refusal to share new US technology with the USSR. Truman did decide that, in order to prevent any Russian communist influence in Asia. Stalin interpreted that behaviour as demonstration of a strong USA next to a weak USSR. Looking at those different factors overall you can say that the most significant problem in the year of 1945 was the dropping of the A-bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945. Both the USA and the USSR had shown each other before that they would not work together in certain situations. However, as the USA and the USSR had agreed to finish the war with Japan together after Germany would have been defeated but the USA literally ended that issue on its own it clearly amplified the fact of not wanting to work together. Also it showed that there was a sort of competition going on already and that Truman wanted to prevent any Soviet demands for influence in Asia. He wanted, as far as possible, to contain Soviet power and reduce the Soviet sphere. Secondly we need to look at the time period between the years of 1946 and 1949, which were the years just after the world war when everything was recovering and Germany was split up into different zones. By looking at the end of 1945, we can definitely say, that there were great disputes between the USA and USSR already. The West was also concerned about developments in the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean, where the US had significant interests. Iran was mainly an area of US concern, as the USSR was feared to spread its influence there. The USSR also replied with saying that they had as much right as the USA to oil. Immediately the Iranian prime minister was urged by the American side, which forced Stalin to back down in order to get a deal of oil concessions. However, Stalin was never really interested in that area which again shows that the competition and tensions were going on and each side tried to use any chance for an argument or a disagreement. The same situation of the Soviet leader backing down happened in the spring and summer of 1946, when concessions from Turkey were opposed and the Russian leader once again backed down. However, the most significant problems of that time period took place in Europe. To start with, we look at Germany and the problem of reparations. Both sides feared during the cold war the country would become part of the opposite camp. At the Potsdam Conference it was agreed that Germany should be divided into four Allied zones and it should act, as one economic unit administered by the ACC. Berlin should also be divvied into four zones and Germany should be demilitarised, de-Nazified, democratised, decentralised and de-industrialised. During there were agreements on that issue, the issue of reparations still seemed to cause problems. Tensions over the political developments in the Soviet Union started to emerge early. The main area was economic, as the USSR supported the idea of a rather agricultural country but the US demanded an industrialised Germany. At the Paris meeting of the Council of foreign ministers, Byrnes decided to test the Soviet co-operation over the Potsdam agreements by the four allies proposing an act that demilitarised Germany for the next 25 years. Russia agreed but still the USA refused to talk about the question of reparations. Further refusals of reparations from the US side were given in July 1945, when Molotov insisted for a 10 billion dollar loan. Additionally demands for reparations were refused again at the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Moscow. Furthermore Russia had to accept that there would not be shipping of coal and steel to the USSR anymore and that the USSR would have to give back some of the resources it already received by the West. This proposal however was rejected by the USSR. The Soviet Union saw that as an attempt to build up the Western Germany economy and therefore also saw it as another military, potential threat as it might ally to the more or less enemy USA. The meeting of the Council of Foreign Minister in London in December 1947 was judged to fail even before it took place as Britain and the USA would not agree on any reparations paid to Russia by Germany. However at this meeting the creation of Bizonia was decided, where Britain and the US would join to create a separate West Germany. Then half a year later in 1948, France also decided to join this pact and Trizonia emerged together with the introduction of the Deutschmark, a new currency, which was also introduced in West Berlin a few days later. This of course was a clear statement to the Soviet Union that the USA did not have any intentions to work together with the USSR. Tensions between the two superpowers increased further during the first Berlin Crisis at the Berlin Blockade in 1948. As the USSR did not like the idea of a divided Germany they put pressure on West Berlin by cutting of all road, rail and freight traffics as well as the supply of electricity. This however did not result in a hot war in the Cold War, as the USA replied with a massive airlift delivering food and fuel to West Berlin. It was ended as Stalin also called of the blockade one year later. The USA interpreted that blockade as a statement to drive the Allies out of West Berlin and take over the Western zones of Germany. Therefore in May 1949, the FDR was created. The USSR first did not want accept that division but then in October decided to agree with that division and the GDR was set up in Eastern Germany with the Soviet Control Commission supervising that area. This division of Germany demonstrated the division of whole Europe into two hostile camps. However there were also other events than in Germany at that period of time that further increased the tension between the two superpowers. Firstly Kennan’s Long Telegram where Kennan argued that the USSR was a dangerous and expansionist state due to its security fears, internal politics and leadership as well as its Marxist-Leninist views and ideology. He also said the USA would never be able or willing to co-operate with such a state and therefore this telegram influenced US foreign policy towards the USSR, such as the creation of the policy of containment. Furthermore the Iron Curtain speech by Winston Churchill supported what Kennan’s Long Telegram had already amplified. It argued for an end of compromise and arguing against Roosevelt’s idea at the Yalta Conference to co-operate with the USSR. Stalin saw Churchill as Hitler and immediately interpreted that as a call for war with the USSR. Due to that anti-Western propaganda in the Soviet Union strongly increased. Adding to that Kennan had supported the division of Germany and therefore of Europe before it was even considered at the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in London. Meanwhile, the USSR pursued a very flexible approach in the years after the war. It might have had expansionist and opportunistic views and parts but after all the Russians were prepared to communicate and co-operate with the US side. But as time developed and tensions increased people with more extreme and harsher views came to power in these hostile camps. John Foster Dulles for example called for military and economic supports for states threatened by communism. Byrnes spent 5,700 billion dollars on stabilising economy outside the Soviet sphere in 1946. If the USSR had wanted economic support all trade barriers should have been called off and the US should have a greater say in economic issues in Eastern Europe. Next to those events that increased the tensions between the USSR and the USA or rather generally events that caused problems we also need to look at the economic crisis in Western Europe between 1946 and 1947. In America, although there was a great media campaign against the communistic Soviet Union, the majority of people were not convinced to give loans to allied countries or to increase the military budget. There was even voted for a cut of Truman’s budget, including military expenditure. However, the bad situation in Western Europe finally seemed to go into the direction of persuading them to change their opinion: Many countries in Europe had suffered horribly in terms of their economy. Furthermore there were bad harvests due to the severe winter in 1946-1947. Additionally communist parties gained more popularity especially in France and in Italy. George Marshall, the secretary of state, said that there would be needed 17 billion dollars to recover Europe’s economy. This was still not enough for the Republican Congress. Only in 1947, when Britain announced that it would not be able anymore to give economic aid to Greece and Turkey everything changed. Acheson linked economic loans to the communist struggle and persuaded people to support Truman’s policy of containment. He argued with the â€Å"rotten apple† theory and the theory of the domino effect. As a response of that the US side set up the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. As economic aid of 300 million dollars was given to Greece and 100 million dollars to Turkey and military advisors were sent to Greece, Stalin interpreted that as an act to enlarge the US sphere of influence. Coming to the Marshall plan, the US thought it would be able to recover Europe’s economy with a revived German economy. However the agreement about that question failed at the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Moscow in April 1947, as the USA still refused to talk about reparations being paid to the USSR and as the USSR was uncompromising about that topic. Then as the Marshall Plan was announced on 5 June 1947 it was clear that the USSR would not accept the conditions and requirements, which the economic aid required to happen. The USA and the USSR saw the Marshall Plan as an attempt to weaken the Soviet control of the East part of Europe. Furthermore the USSR saw it as a statement of â€Å"dollar imperialism† been introduced to establish US influence in Europe. However, the US economic and political domination Europe did not benefit from the Marshall Plan. Tensions between the superpowers increased further as were was a repeated refusal of reparations paid to the USSR by Germany at talks in early June. After that talk it was decided to exclude the USSR from further discussions. Under Andrei Zhdanov the Marshall Plan was even describes as being an act of preparing to extend the US power in order to launch a new world war. In one of his speeches he even describes the world as being divided into two opposing camps, which later was famous as the â€Å"Two-Camps† Doctrine. Furthermore the establishment of Cominform marked the end of the flexible and hesitant foreign policy of the USSR compared to US actions. Finally, as the tension increased more the CIA intervened in Italian and French politics to act against communist influence. This only motivated Stalin’s determination to control Eastern Europe even more and to get rid of those agents in France and Italy. The Soviet Union replied with plans to increase the control of Eastern Europe and also to integrate their economies into the USSRs one. These measure only increased Cold War tensions even more. Now, by looking at all what happened in this time period, we can definitely say that Germany was the biggest problem at that time. The formation of Bizonia and Trizonia clearly amplified that the USA did not want to co-operate with the USSR and that the establishment of two hostile camps was necessary. Furthermore the Berlin blockade showed the same intentions for the USSR, it did not want to work with the USA. Finally he introduction of the Deutschmark symbolised a clear separation between Western Germany/USA and Eastern Europe/USSR. Finally we need to look at the time period between 1954 and 1961 to judge whether Berlin or rather Germany was the biggest problem in the years between 1945 and 1961. After Stalin’s death in 1953 Khrushchev came to power in the USSR. This year marked a development towards better relationships as now Stalin was dead and therefore the extremist views about the US seemed to rest for a certain period of time. The new leader of the Soviet Union seemed to be keen about compromising with the West, as he was less paranoid than Stalin. For Khrushchev Berlin was an embarrassing problem and he wanted to find a solution for that problem. He tried to create better relationships also to avoid a nuclear war. However, as we look at the years between 1958 and 1961 and therefore and the second Berlin crisis we can see that there were also moments of disagreements and argument as there before already. The second Berlin crisis emerged as Khrushchev set up the first Berlin Ultimatum. This meant that the West had to sign a formal peace with Germany and agree that West Berlin should become demilitarised as well as an international area. If that would not be signed there would be a separate peace signed with the GDR handing over the control of the access routes into West Berlin. These moves were firstly done to prevent West Berlin from becoming a nuclear power but also to impress Chinese communist leaders and his own people. Although Khrushchev gave them a time limit of sixth months to sign the Ultimatum neither the act of signing happened nor was a peace signed the GDR. By 1959 however, 200,000 people were moving from East Berlin to West Berlin each year badly affecting the East Berlin economy. Ulbricht wanted to unify Berlin, as he did not want any West be present in East Germany, whereas Khrushchev wanted divisions to occur between the two areas. After the Vienna Summit, Khrushchev gave his OK for Ulbricht the building of a physical Berlin division and set another six months deadline for the West to sign a peace pact. However, as by August 1961 there were 20,00 0 refugees moving to West Berlin Khrushchev approved the Berlin border to be secured between 3 and 5 August. At first a barbed wire was set up and by 13 August the building of a wall was completed. The Berlin Wall remained as Cold War image until the pull down in November 1989 when the Cold War moved away from Germany, Europe. The wall however also solved any problems that had ever existed between West and East Berlin although the US made a shell force in West Berlin after its set up. This and the famous â€Å"face-off† between Russian and American tanks at Checkpoint Charlie finally increased tensions. However, by 1963 the Berlin Crisis was pretty much over. Another incident, where the tensions rose again and relationships became worse was at the Paris Summit and the U-2 incident. At that time West Berlin did not want to make any further concessions of East Berlin. On 1 May 1960 a USSR missile brought down a U-2 spy plane of the USA flying over the USSR. Eisenhower was hugely embarrassed for that but thought he did not apologise for this. As a reaction Khrushchev cancelled Eisenhower’s visit in the USSR and the Paris Summit failed. Additionally the Soviets proposed a confederation between the two German states leaving alliances to the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. West saw that as first moves to wards a unification and German disarmament. This however was resisted due to West Berlin as an espionage base behind the Iron Curtain. This stalemate continued until the free elections in the GDR. However, a first moment of agreement about a certain issue was when the US decided to accept the idea of a neutral Austria and a reduction of direct American influence over Austria. Although Khrushchev followed the theory of â€Å"Peaceful Coexistence† he thought there still could be an international transition to socialism. This was also amplified by his foreign policy, which was established in 1956. It said that in the new nuclear age, peaceful coexistence was possible and necessary. First steps towards that was the establishment of the Warsaw Pact in 1955, which was also a response to Western Germany becoming member of the NATO. The Warsaw Pact was a military alliance between the Soviet Union and all East European countries allied to the USSR, involving East Germany. However, there was one clause in the Pact that said if there was a general European treaty of collective security signed, the Pact should be dissolved. This clearly marked the beginning of better relationships. A second moment of representing and developing friendship between those countries was the Geneva Summit in July 1955. Nuclear weapons and Germany were the main issues that were discussed. The fact that discussions were taking place showed an improvement to the relationship between Stalin and Truman. Although there were made agreements on the need for less confrontation and more co-operations, as well as for a stop of testing nuclear weapons, there was still a disagreement about disarmament, European security and control of nuclear weapons. The idea of a united Germany was also rejected. Eisenhower’s â€Å"Open Skies† proposal was therefore rejected by Khrushchev but U-2 spy planes carried on doing their spy flights anyway. Another moment of friendship and peace was, when Eisenhower invited Khrushchev to Camp David, where he also agreed to withdraw his Ultimatum although the US did not make any concessions. Further discussions should take place at the Paris Summit in May 1960. As a final conclusion, you can definitely say that Germany and especially Berlin was a major factor for the development of the Cold War. The issue if West Berlin being inside the heart of East Germany had always caused huge trouble such as the Berlin Blockade as well as the second Berlin crisis. If a divided Germany had not existed there would not have been that many problems. For example the first Berlin crisis, where Stalin ordered to completely cut off West Berlin from any supplies of the East and the Western part of Germany, nearly a hot war broke out. Furthermore a divided Germany had always represented a divided world at that time. At one side there was communism whereas on the other side there was capitalism.

Sun Tzu Strategic Management

Sun Assignment 2. Strategic Management . School of Strategy. According to Synder and Neil H. (1982) in their journal called ‘Strategic Management Journal’ , The school of strategy definition of strategic planning that are offered by Henry Mintzberg in 1981 concludes that strategic planning is a process involving all components of planning that integrated decision making, structured procedure with articulate results, and specific tactical objectives that should be seen as a whole process. In the school of strategy, there are 10 school of thought, it is divided into two parts which are prescriptive and descriptive.The details of the strategy are shown below. Prescriptive schools : consist of 3 schools which are Design, Planning and Positioning. Descriptive schools : consist of 7 schools which are Entrepreneurial, Cognitive, Learning, Power, Cultural, Environmental and Configuration. Also, Written in article called â€Å" An Overview of Strategy Development Models and the Ward-RIvani Model’ by Dr. David Ward (2005). In year 1977 another guy came along which a set of strategy alongside Mitzberg that called Whittington.He claimed that there are four criteria that will determine a strategy success which are Deterministic or Emergent, Single Goal or Pluralistic, Strategy Style, and Influences. The Link between Prescriptive schools and Descriptive schools. From what i understand from both of this schools, prescriptive schools are the first step of strategy that needed to be done If we would like to do something. For example, If you want to open your own business, the first step would be the prescriptive school where you need to design what kind of business you would like to do, plan how to do your business (business plan) nd also how you position your business(where do you want your business to be). In the other hand , Descriptive schools of strategies are the strategies and skills that are needed to bring forward you prescriptive schools . Where a ll components of this strategy can effect your business. For example, any successful business need to have a leader who can lead the organization forward where what has been designed, plan , and positioned and to be a leader, strategy as entrepreneurship is essential. The Differences between Prescriptive schools and Descriptive schools.In Prescriptive schools, design and planning are the aim of a company â€Å" to fit organizational capability with environmental ability and to best allocate resources to achieve any chosen goals within a specific timeframe† and to make the aim a success, a proper positioning strategy needed to be done. All of theses examples often using strategies such as environmental analysis such as SWOT analysis (design), forecasting (planning), Market segment & five forces (positioning). Therefore, we would understand here that prescriptive schools are used to understand more about the market.For instance, in strategic management, prescriptive schools are often used to determine who is your target market, understanding your competitors, defining your opportunities, and also what kind of strategy that our company would like to execute properly to gain competitive advantage especially if you are doing business globally or growing your business internationally. In the other hand, Descriptive Schools are more of all the things that needed to be in order within a company or organisation to execute the strategy that has been choose.For example, even with a proper planning but without a proper team to execute it, it will be hard for any business to sustain even in the early stage while making business. Its consist of leader needed, networking we have, culture reflects , economic cycle, environmental circumtances, ethics , and also cognitive psychology. Which means that, in descriptive schools , it is all the components that a company or firm need to have in order to execute any strategy perfectly. How to Profeciently Execute any strategy w hen we already understand about the schools of strategy?In the world business nowadays, understanding the theoretical area of a strategy such as schools of strategy would not be enough to execute a perfect strategy. As had been stated by Gamble and Arthur (2009) in their book called ‘ Essentials of Strategic Management’ , They have stated that there are three elements that needed to be have in order to execute any strategy. The elements are shown below : Human Capital – Intangible assets such as skills, knowledge, and values that are required by the strategy. . Information Capital – Intangible assets such as the systems, databases, and networks that support the strategy. 3. Organizational Capital – Strategy supportive intangible assets such as leadership, alignment of goals, and teamwork. Whittington’s Classification of Strategic Perspective. According to Whittington(2002), in his book called ‘ What is Strategy and Does it Matterâ€℠¢ , increasing profits is the highest goal of business and rational planning needed if we want to attain it.Meanwhile, the strategic aim in business would be earning a return on capital, and if in any particular case the return in the long run is not enough, the deficiency should be corrected or the activity should be abandoned. To sum up the idea of whittington : Classical Approach of strategy. – a classical approach to any strategy requires that the manager must be ready and capable of adopting profit maximizing strategies through long term planning. Besides that there are three more example of approach that are shown below : Evolutionaty Approach of strategy. oes not rely on top management skill to plan and act rationally. Instead, it will all depend on the markets which will determine the profit maximization. Also, in evolutionary perspective, the best selected strategy will determine the performance of the company. Processual Approach to strategy. Organizations and marke ts are wrought with confusion and mess. Therefore, the best Processual method is not strive for the ideal, instead, it needed to work with the reality offers where micro-political view has implied that firms are not united towards a single goal such as profit.Besides that, it will be up on the number of individuals with different interest and bring them to the organization. The main strategy for this approach is to simplify all the complex processes. Systemic Approach on Strategy. – The theorist for this approach believe that the organization is capable of planning and acting effectively. All the social factors such as family, state, and religion influences the means and ends of a systemic approach and will define what is the suitable behavior for each of their members.In this approach, the organization are not just made up by an individuals but of social groups with interests. For instance, class and professions, nations and states, families and gender can be determine as th e systemic variables. Hence, the strategy will depends on the social environment of the firm. Based on four approach on strategy by Whittington, these four theories of action in business will offer us an insight into the motivation behind any companies vision and what are the strategies that the companies would like to implement in order to gain competitive advantage in their market.Reference List : Ward, . (2005). An Overview of Strategy Development Models and the Ward-Rivani Model . . 1 (1), pg12-16. Gamble, Arthur,. (2009). Superior Strategy Execution – Another path of competitive advantage. In: Griffin, L. Essential of Strategic Management. America, New York: McGraw-Hill. pg116-136. Synder, Neil H.. (1982). Research Notes and Communications.. Strategic Management Journa. 3 (3), p265-267. Whittington, Richard (2002). What is Strategy- and Does it Matter?. UK: Thomson Learning. pg29-57.

How to Prove De Morgans Laws

How to Prove De Morgan's Laws In mathematical statistics and probability it is important to be familiar with set theory. The elementary operations of set theory have connections with certain rules in the calculation of probabilities. The interactions of these elementary set operations of union, intersection and the complement are explain by two statements known as De Morgan’s Laws. After stating these laws, we will see how to prove them. Statement of De Morgans Laws De Morgan’s Laws relate to the interaction of the union, intersection and complement. Recall that: The intersection of the sets A and B consists of all elements that are common to both A and B. The intersection is denoted by A ∠© B.The union of the sets A and B consists of all elements that in either A or B, including the elements in both sets. The intersection is denoted by A U B.The complement of the set A consists of all elements that are not elements of A. This complement is denoted by AC. Now that we have recalled these elementary operations, we will see the statement of De Morgan’s Laws. For every pair of sets A and B (A  Ã¢Ë† © B)C AC U BC.(A U B)C AC  Ã¢Ë† © BC. Outline of Proof Strategy Before jumping into the proof we will think about how to prove the statements above. We are trying to demonstrate that two sets are equal to one another. The way that this is done in a mathematical proof is by the procedure of double inclusion. The outline of this method of proof is: Show that the set on the left side of our equals sign is a subset of the set on the right.Repeat the process in the opposite direction, showing that the set on the right is a subset of the set on the left.These two steps allow us to say that the sets are in fact equal to one another. They consist of all of the same elements. Proof of One of Laws We will see how to prove the first of De Morgan’s Laws above. We begin by showing that (A  Ã¢Ë† © B)C is a subset of AC U BC. First suppose that x is an element of (A  Ã¢Ë† © B)C.This means that x is not an element of (A  Ã¢Ë† © B).Since the intersection is the set of all elements common to both A and B, the previous step means that x cannot be an element of both A and B.This means that x is must be an element of at least one of the sets AC or BC.By definition this means that x is an element of AC U BCWe have shown the desired subset inclusion. Our proof is now halfway done. To complete it we show the opposite subset inclusion. More specifically we must show AC U BC is a subset of (A  Ã¢Ë† © B)C. We begin with an element x in the set AC U BC.This means that x is an element of AC or that x is an element of BC.Thus x is not an element of at least one of the sets A or B.So x cannot be an element of both A and B. This means that x is an element of (A  Ã¢Ë† © B)C.We have shown the desired subset inclusion. Proof of the Other Law The proof of the other statement is very similar to the proof that we have outlined above. All that must be done is to show a subset inclusion of sets on both sides of the equals sign.

Bus 174 Commentary

Bus 174 Commentary Introduction Directed by Jose Padilha, Bus 174 is a fascinating documentary published in 2002 in Brazil. It includes people like Sandro, Williams, Luciana, among others. Sandro is a street boy who hijacks a bus, demanding to kill the passengers, a case that forces their journey to stand still for four hours. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Bus 174 Commentary specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The media collect this information. During the event, the police force fails to turn up in time, a situation that gives the street children a good opportunity to harass and steal from the passengers. This movie gives the findings of Padilha’s research on the situation of media and traffic in Rio de Janeiro basing on how the two responds towards the hijacking. Street children are all over the city, some begging and stealing while others are harassing the innocent people. Neither police nor media is interested in assisting . Bus 174 provides a picture of the level of poverty in the city through the street children who had parents and relatives but now are alone to feed and sustain themselves. This on the other hand sets clear the reason as to why the kids have turned to robbers. The documentary aims at portraying the life of those living in slums in Brazil. It also shows mistreats of the poor by the government. Padilha is interested in knowing Sandro’s motives behind the hijacking where he searches the information from the present as well as previous street kids. He also questions the police, family members, not neglecting sociologists to gather clear reasons. This film finds out the background of Sandro as a representative of all Brazilian street children. It explores the kind of police Brazil has, who participate in crimes rather than nurturing peace, love, and harmony. Many people have set out to comment the movie and among them is Soares. This overview tackles the relationship between his ideas and the current global state of street children as well as what is being done to meet their needs.Advertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Soares’s comments Sociologist Luiz Eduardo Soares after seeing and understanding the documentary, goes further to comment it. Based on what Sandro does to the passengers in the bus, Soares views him as an illustration of the kids neglected by their parents. He says that they end up accumulating pain as a result, which later is poured to other people inform of fighting. In response to this comment, Erving (1963) portrays how neglected people, not necessarily street kids, express their pains and how they use it to communicate to those available to cater for their unattended needs. An example from the movie is seen when Sandro points a gun to a pregnant mother shooting her to death. Soares goes on to comment about the reason for their violence (Padilha, 2002). Any sound mind person expects love; he/she needs to be felt by the society and expects no discrimination based on race, religion, or finance. This is what Soares gives as another reason, generally given by all, who end up lacking the aforementioned requirements. He says that they do this because of the stigma attached to them. According to Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl, and Hull (2000) this category of people experience negligence and are prone to attacks, a situation that presses them forcing them to show it through reactions .Soares comments that these children are usually fighting against invisibility. This simply shows how they a treated as if they do not exist. They view the society as feigning blind when they meet them. They pretend not to understand that these are children like any others and ought to be taken care of. Their fight serves to open the eyes of the society to see their sufferings and their need of attention. For instance, in the movie, the young and poor Sandro watched his mother murdered. There was none to see and respond towards the incidence (Brussat Brussat, 2009). Therefore, in retaliation, Sandro engages in violent acts because just like any other neglected child, he believes that it is only through force that the invisibility aspect can be arrested. They have at the back of their minds that they are valuable and important but none seems to realise this and this is what they want to instil to the concerned people. They are hungry, not only for food but for love and social interaction that the society ought to give. They have been quiet hoping common sense will do it all only for them to realise that it is through raising alarms inform of violence that the ears and eyes of the society will be opened for them.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Bus 174 Commentary specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Current global trend of street children Ranselà ¢â‚¬â„¢s research provides the world news about street children. He has given the estimates of the number of the street children in various countries of the world. For instance, Yemen registers an approximate of 30,000 street children (Ransel, 1998). It goes further to give the factors thought to influence the number, not only in Yemen but also through out the entire world. Poverty, lack of jobs, inadequate socialization, government’s failure to intervene the situation of orphans, among others plays a major role in raising the number of these children. Street children have the right of attention by the government but on the contrary, the government views them as sources of embarrassment and pays no attention to them. As poverty increases day by day, the number of those going to the streets also goes up with the children opting to beg in order to sustain their deteriorating lives. This is in accordance with soare’s idea that they feel neglected by the rest, including the government. The current global economy is in crisis. All countries are running short of finance to run their businesses. As a result, retrenchment cases are being reported everywhere with parents of large families leaving jobs. Any home with no source of income is subject to conflicts. Charles (1855) says that these conflicts end up breaking the families and as a result, the children suffer inadequate parental care and guidance. They enter their nearby towns yearning for socialization, food, and parental attention. To take care of these, they venture into businesses like drug trafficking, prostitution, as well as stealing. This happens because people view them as dirty, cannot allow them in their homes, and not worthy of assistance. Soares got it right when he said that these children are stigmatised and suffer a lot as a result. Death of parents though diseases, accidents, or old age has also been viewed by the globe as a major cause of the increasing number of not only stree t children, but also children at large. It has been shown that places prone to diseases register the largest number of children at risk. Impact of the view of invisibility of street children on programme development Following the efforts made by the children in fighting against invisibility, the world has responded through various ways. It has come up with suitable criteria that, if well managed, can help rid the issue of street children. Statistics show that in all the countries, children at risk are the minority but the number is gradually increasing. Advertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This has called for a quick action from the government to curb the matter before it worsens. It has seen the importance of recognising them just like theirs. Organizations, not only governmental but also non-governmental have stood out to address the requirements of street children, some of which have proven effective. Media is one of the key means of responding to the battle. Any scenario that abuses the rights of children is aired immediately and stern actions taken against the abuser boosting respect between other people and the children. This is clear in the movie where the hijacking event channels to televisions, which in turn alerts the police force (Hayden, 2009). Other programmes have been established to prevent the children from adopting the street life. These include family care and free education programmes. Other programmes have set out to specifically deal with those children who had gone through sexual, physical, or drug abuses. These offer rehabilitation services to the children helping them recover from the harassments. Some Non-Governmental-Organizations have set up programmes that assemble the children in homes managed by the organizations. In these homes, the children have people, paid by the organization, who attend to them on a day-to-day basis. These people provide them with food, shelter, clothing, and education, among others. Others extend their services by following up and counselling those who have recovered and gone back to their original homes. Medical programmes have also been set in place to check the health of the children. By so doing, they are able to prescribe the necessary feeding habits of the children. Outreach programmes have not been left out. They aim at maintaining close relationship between the organization and the children. Conclusion Bus 174 is a documentary that is heavy laden with lessons, not only for the Brazilian, but also for all in general. Following the hijacking of the bus by a boy from a poor family bac kground, it is open that the incidence is a way of communicating to the world and applies to the oppressed, neglected, and the stigmatised. It is experienced by all countries and is commonly portrayed by street children. It has been proved effective since it has opened the ears and eyes of a variety of agencies devoted to caring the children. This on the other hand, has lowered cases of theft, drug abuse, and sexual harassments. Reference List Brussat, F., Brussat, M. (2009). Bus 174. New York. Charles, D. (1855). Household Words: Vol. 10, Bradbury press: India. Erving, G. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall. Hayden, S. (2009). Factual Documentary Covered Hijacked Bus in Rio de Janeiro. Heatherton, et al, (2000). The Social Psychology of Stigma, The Guilford Press. Padilha, L. (2002). Bus 174. Golden Globes. Ransel, L. (1998). Mothers of Misery: Child Abandonment in Russia. Princeton.

Arpit Essay

One of these slogans are Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. This, as a whole, means that the past has an effect on the future, for previous events that occurred ensure the mindset of the people in the future, and whether or not they want to repeat history. Also, the party controls the people in the present, and can therefore control the past with the authority to go back and modify history on paper to control what is being taught to the masses. Events in the past have a great influence on events in he future.This is an ideal held to be true not only in the society in 1 984, but also in todays society. The past is recorded in history books, and is taught in schools. If the past was ideal, then people will try to re-establish it. However, if the past was horrendous, then people will try to ensure that such events wont happen again. This correlates to the technique used by the party. They created a past of desolation and anguish through altering history records, and claim to have liberated the people of Oceania.As a result, everyone fully bides by the Party, for they dont want to repeat the past. Therefore, who controls the past controls the future. Anagram 2 The Party itself controls the present, therefore it is able to control the past. Their main objective is to remain in total command at all times, and control everyone both physically and mentally. Physically, they use telescopes to monitor their subjects every move, so that they are under constant surveillance and put under pressure of the government. For the mental effect, they rewrite and manipulate the intent of historical resources. This allows them to have power over the way in which its subjects think about the past. This is an advantage, for all of their resources reflect the ideology of the Party itself, and they are able to show themselves in a positive manner so that they can stay in power. In addition, everyone is prohibited from keeping journals and other keepsakes from their pasts. As a result, the citizens of Oceania have an imprecise and fleeting memory, which allows the Party to tell them anything, knowing that they will live it.Thus, the Party controls the past with controlling the present. In 1984 by George Orwell, Party slogans are significant ways to hold their main principles. The slogan, Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past is noteworthy for its true meaning. It means that past events are influential on the future, and determines the recurrence of history. Also, it means that the government that controls the present has the ability to control the past, through changing historical records.

Summary and opinion on each article Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Summary and opinion on each article - Essay Example Everything happening in this world has the cause and effect, and if a human being fails to understand it, it is the failure of the human being, not of the eternal system. As Camus reveals through Sisyphus, the acknowledgement of and rebellion against the Absurd, the exercise of free will in self-investment in the performance of life to find intrinsic meaning, despite the incomprehensibility of the world, is to live well. A human being is just a dot in this world. The world cannot run as per the desire of an individual nor the group of individuals. Everything happens in this world as it should. What is important is the process of living, and not complaining about the so-called absurdities. For example, the lotus is born in slush and mud; lives in it, and when in bloom enthralls the viewer. It does not complain, nor does it think of committing suicide. Why complain about the thorns? Think of the beauty and fragrance of the roses. One should not complain about one’s fundamental r elationship with the world. The world cannot run on happiness. ... It is a process that can be experienced instantly and the authentic process of living begins after that experience. One cannot say that the ocean is absurd because there are waves. Waves are the very nature of the ocean and one need to tackle the waves and do the swimming. Similarly, the fulfillment and non-fulfillment of one’s desire is part of the eternal function of nature. So, to invite crisis with the feeling of absurdity is a meaningless exercise. Camus describes â€Å"Suicide like the leap, is an acceptance at its extreme.†(435. n. p.) and art of living is the state exactly opposite to it. Nevertheless, finding the meaning of human existence cannot be a time bound program. Suicide is termination of life; as such it has no meaning. It is the domain of the coward. Suicide is a futile exercise, because one arrives in this world, without taking permission, and one cannot leave it without being permitted. Suffering is not useless; it is the process of renewal of human existence and part of the eternal struggle. Finally, Camus reveals the limitations of Absurd. Participation in action of life to find its true and full meaning is better than renunciation of action. The world is perfect and incomprehensibility is in the state of our mind. The human life is worth living, notwithstanding its trials and tribulations. Moral Luck -- Thomas Nagel What you do is important; but how you do what you do is more important. Thomas Nagel’s â€Å"Moral Luck,† concerns the second part of this sentence. No one knows the level of perfect morals (discipline) in life. As such carry on with the available discipline and perform actions to the best of one’s ability and judgment. Nagel discusses the issue of moral assessment. He