Portia in Shakespeares The Merchant of Venice

Portia in Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice' Portia in Shakespeares The Merchant of Venice is one of the Bards most beloved characters. The Love Test Portias fate is determined by the love test her father gives to her suitors. She is unable to choose her own suitor but is forced to marry whoever passes. She has wealth but has no control over her own destiny. When Bassanio passes the test, Portia immediately agrees to divest all her riches, property, and power over to him in order to be his loving and dutiful wife. She is passed from one man’s control- her father’s- to another- her husband’s: As from her lord, her governor, her king.Myself and what is mine to you and yoursIs now converted: but now I was the lordOf this fair mansion, master of my servants,Queen oer myself. And even now, but now,This house, these servants and this same myselfAre yours, my lord’s (Act 3 Scene 2, 170-176). One wonders what is in it for her... other than companionship and, hopefully, love? Let’s hope that her father’s test really is foolproof, in that the suitor is proven to love her through his choice. As an audience, we know the lengths to which Bassanio has gone to win her hand, so this gives us hope that Portia will be happy with Bassanio. Her name is Portia, nothing undervaluedTo Cato’s daughter, Brutus’ Portia.Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth,For the four winds blow in from every coastRenowned suitors, and her sunny locksHang on her temples like a golden fleece,Which makes her seat of Belmont Colchis’ strand,And many Jasons come in quest of her (Act 1 Scene 1, 165-172). Let’s hope Bassanio is not just after her money but, in choosing the lead casket, we are to assume he is not. Character Revealed We later discover Portia’s true grit, resourcefulness, intelligence, and wit through her dealings with Shylock in court, and many a modern audience might lament her fate at having to go back to court and be the dutiful wife she promised to be. It is also a pity that her father did not see her true potential in this way and, in doing so, he may not have determined his ‘love test’ necessary but trusted his daughter to make the right choice off her own back. Portia ensures that Bassanio is made aware of her alter ego; in disguise as the judge, she makes him give her the ring that she has given him. In doing so, she can prove that it was she posing as the judge and that it was she who was able to save his friend’s life and, to and extent, Bassanios life and reputation. Her position of power and substance in that relationship is therefore established. This sets a precedent for their life together and allows the audience some comfort in thinking that she will maintain some power in that relationship. Shakespeare and Gender Portia is the heroine of the piece when all the men in the play have failed, financially, by the law, and by their own vengeful behavior. She swoops in and saves everyone from themselves. However, she is only able to do this by dressing up as a man. As Portia’s journey demonstrates, Shakespeare recognizes the intellect and abilities that women have but concedes that they can only be demonstrated when on a level playing field with men. Many of Shakespeare’s women show their wit and cunning when they are disguised as men. Rosalind as Ganymede in As You Like It is another example. As a woman, Portia is submissive and obedient; as the judge and as a man, she demonstrates her intelligence and her brilliance. She is the same person but is empowered by dressing as a man and, in doing so, she hopefully gains the respect and equal footing she deserves in her relationship: If you had known the virtue of the ring,Or half her worthiness that gave that ring,Or your own honour to contain the ring,You would not then have parted with the ring (Act 5 Scene 1, 199-202).

Benjamin Netanyahu - Joint Session of Congress Speech 2015

Binjamin Netanyahu Third Speech to a Joint Session of Congress delivered 3 March 2015, Washington, D.C. Speaker of the House, John Boehner, President Pro Tem, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, House Minority, Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader, Harry Reid Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet. I guess it’s true what they say: You can’t keep a good man down. My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention. I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel. The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Now, some of that is widely known. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. Some of what the President has done for Israel is less well known. I called him in 2010 when we had the [Mount] Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment; or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists. In each of those moments, I called the President, and he was there. And some of what the President has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support. And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome. Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome. Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel. My friends, I’ve come here today because, as Prime Minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated. He tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed. For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The six million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also to the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to export our revolution throughout the entire world.1 I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and thedifference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that. Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke choke-point on the world’s oil supply. Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have have been anything but mock, and the targets have been all too real. Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C. In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. So at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. Now, two years ago we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change. Some moderation. Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists, and executes even more prisoners than before. Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that. Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of â€Å"Death to America,† that same America that it calls the â€Å"Great Satan,† as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America. And don’t be fooled: The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS: The enemy of your enemy is your enemy. The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons, and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember I’ll say it one more time the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen. But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them. Let me explain why: While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it. Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran. The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s. And if if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter. True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them. Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb. Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. Now, I know this is not going to come a shock as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them. The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program.2 Iran was also caught caught twice, not once, twice operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed. Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, â€Å"If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that [Iran] doesn’t have one.†3 Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of grave concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal, because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs. Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium.4 With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. Now I want you to think about that: The former sponsor The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy. And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States. So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program; and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb. So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse? Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite would only wet Iran’s appetite for more. Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism? Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home. This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb. And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. If anyone thinks anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future. We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things: First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state. Thank you. If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do? Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table and this often happens in a Persian bazaar call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do. And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it. Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal a better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends; a better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country no country has a greater stake no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East, and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity. You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire. My friends, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, â€Å"never again.† And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past: not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. But I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. Weve restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldier who soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why This is why, as Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel. You stand with Israel because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors. Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land. And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today: Chizku ve’imtzu, al tiru ve’al te’artzu m’pneihem. â€Å"Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.†5 My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength, and hope. May God bless the State of Israel and may God bless the United States of America. 1 Ruhollah Khomeini cited in Hoffman, B. (1988). The contrasting ethical foundations of terrorism in the 1980s. The Rand Corporation. 2 Statement by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano on 2 March 2015 confirmed: The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. However, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. (Source: iaea.org) 3 Former IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards Olli Heinonen, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 1 March 2013 4 Statement by Ruhollah Khomeini on 7 July 2014: Our officials say we need 190,000 SWU. Perhaps this is not a need this year or in two years or five years, but this is the countrys absolute need. (Source: uk.reuters.com) 5 Quoted from the first part of Deuteronomy 31:6. The entire passage, a parting exhortation from Moses to the Israelites just prior to their entry into the Promised Land, reads as follows: â€Å"Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them, because G-d your Lord is the One who is going with you, and He will not fail you or forsake you.

Computer Networking Security Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Computer Networking Security - Assignment Example VPN only uses TCP port 1723 while the executive Intranet cannot access the application servers through this port. The connection will, therefore, be blocked as it will be malicious. The assistant administrator cannot log into the application server through ssh since it requires him to use port 22 which is a port below 1024. All ports below the range of 1024 have been restricted for general purpose use. The vulnerabilities created can be solved by giving specific port addresses access to the application servers instead of allowing a certain range. Some Internet traffic to the VPN should be limited instead of allowing all inbound traffic to be accepted. Assistant network administrator can be given access rights to the application server through providing specific access rules for him by specifying his mac address as an exception and opening some general purpose ports for him. Additional IP table rules can include rules that restrict the number of parallel connections from one IP client. The network administrator should also implement an IP table rule that only opens a particular range of IP addresses in regards to IP addresses of the several subnets created. The administrator can also provide a strong way of authenticating users to the company network or the VPN and strong encryption methods of for the

The Physiological Effects of a Concussion on the Brain Research Paper

The Physiological Effects of a Concussion on the Brain - Research Paper Example On the basis of severity traumatic brain injury can be divided into mild, moderate and severe. Concussion or mild traumatic brain injuries are used to describe any injury in which the symptoms may or may not last. Neurologically a concussion is defined as an injury in which there is loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes and post traumatic amnesia which lasts less than 24 hours. Concussions usually have good prognostic value as usually patient leads to full recovery. A concussion can cause pathophysiological changes to the brain in which there are metabolic and ionic processes due to the twisting of axons (Silver et al 3-6). A concussion occurs due to mild trauma to the brain. The cascades of physiological events that occur are an injury which is followed by abrupt neuronal depolarization. The depolarization excites the neurotransmitters and causes their releases which in turn lead to ionic misbalance and disruption in glucose metabolism. Coupling of neurotransmitters that are excitatory like the coupling of glutamate and the receptor of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor results in additional depolarizing of the neuron with the ejection of potassium ions and inflow of calcium ions. This alteration in the balance of ions results in fluctuations in the physiology of the brain cells which may be acute or subacute. To counter the potassium-calcium misbalance, the pump of sodium and potassium starts to works with an increase need in ATP’s. This causes an increase in the glucose metabolism and ends in an energy crisis. Axonal twisting and stretching has proved to be the core pathology in the occurre nce of a concussion. The metabolic events that occur post traumatically are uncoupling of cerebral blood flow and glucose metabolism which results in energy emergency. Injection of calcium ions leads to impaired oxidative metabolism. Another physiological change affecting the motor functions of the brain is decreased

Physics of Skiing :: physics sport sports ski skiing

Skiing is an old sport; the oldest artifacts date back over 4000 years. It was developed in the Scandinavian region, especially Norway, and didn't spread to the rest of Europe until the sixteenth or seventeenth century. It probably came over with Norwegian and German immigrants during the nineteenth century. Skiing relies on many different forms physics. Newton's Laws of Motion, the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy, air resistance, circular motion, even conservation of circular momentum is used as skiers pump upwards during a turn. Friction is by far the least understood of these forces. The surface of snow is a strange interaction between water, ice and water vapor, the three forms of water found on Earth. Snow changes properties and is difficult to measure and study in its natural environment. Snow changes properties and is difficult to measure and study in its natural environment. Ice Crystals form when water vapor condenses around and freezes upon a foreign particle such as dust or sea salt. These Ice crystals then form various varieties of snow flakes. Snowflakes can fall in many forms, including ferns, crystals and needles. These snow flakes begin transforming as soon as they hit the ground. They begin to morph in a combination of melting, freezing, evaporation and sublimation*. They become needles, columns, and finally simple round pellets. * Sublimation is when ice evaporates directly instead of melting first to water and then evaporating. These pellets the bond again through a process of melting, freezing, evaporation and sublimation at their contact points, this creates a strong snow pack. Snow Compaction and Work One thing that slows a skier down is the compaction of the snow beneath a skier. Snow is mostly air and this allows a great degree of compaction. On packed trails, this compaction is negligible and contributes only slightly to the friction of the snow on the skis. This diagram shows a skier who travels l distance on unpacked snow and sinks in h into the snow. Logically, the distance the skier sinks in, h, is proportional to the skiers weight, FN. Work is defined as a force applied over a distance. The work needed to propel the skier l distance through the snow is the same as the work done be the skiers weight along the height, h. the force used to move the skier is defined as FFORWARD then FN*h= FFORWARD*l With different types of snow, a skier with the same weight will sink in different distances.

Emotional Bank Accounts Essay

We all do things that are counter-productive to our relationships. We all like to have people be nice to us. The concept of an emotional bank account is powerful, yet not quite as simple as keeping a ledger of debits and credits. One of the problems is the perception of worth. What is a â€Å"deposit† worth. We may think it is quite valuable. The affected person may consider it so routine it is not even remembered. The trick in making deposits is to know what value the act has for the person holding the account. Herzberg was a psychologist who studied motivational factors in American industry. He came up with the conclusion, since quoted out of context, that money is not a good motivator of people. He called things like money, a safe work place, security and such fundamentals â€Å"hygiene† factors. That is, the employee needed them to be there and assumed they would be there. They were not, however, efficient in motivating job improvement. Herzberg found that various methods of showing personal appreciation were far more important. A company golf team, a compliment, a letter of commendation, a corner office, painting an employee’s name painted on a parking place and such activities were more efficient in motivation. Do you agree? Many students do not. To many people, money is a prime motivator. How then did Herzberg come up with his findings? Is he wrong? No, we have to understand another theory, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow was also a psychologist who studied motivation and found that people had needs that varied with their circumstances. If you are living in the weeds, any job that provides 3 hots and a cot is your dream. You think you would never want anything else. But when you get that job, those needs are satisfied and you quickly want more. Maslow said the second stage was to want security. You want those physiological needs to be there in the future, not just today. And, if you get that security, you then go to stage three where you want a feeling of belonging to a group that reflects your values and goals. If you get this feeling of belonging, you then go to a stage where you want to be singled out and honored. The last stage is one where you  have all those needs met, so you want to contribute in some special way to something greater than yourself. Herzberg did his studies in a shop where people had stage one and two pretty much assured. Those physiological elements did not motivate because they were already met. Those people were at the stage where they either wanted to belong to a group or be singled out for honors. The ability to read another person and determine what is important to them is critical. This gets back to our emotional bank account deposit value. Similarly, actions may have different withdrawal value to different people. To someone who is feeling very insecure because of seeing everyone around them being dismissed in a general layoff, a curt word may have them dusting off their resume and reacting very defensively. It may not have been intended in that way but its effect is the important thing. Our success in keeping a good emotional bank account with other people then depends upon our sensitivity to the values that other people hold, not our own. This sensitivity is difficult for most of us as we often have â€Å"tasks† to do and keeping track of the effect of our actions and words may not be high on our list of things to do at the moment. Yet, in the long term, nothing is more important. I once heard someone say of a particular organization, â€Å"this place is not about competence, this place is about relationships†. I think that is true of just about any organization.

Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places Essays - 1464 Words

During the past few decades it has come to light that smoking kills. The federal government mandates that every pack of cigarettes carry a warning on it that smoking can lead to health problems including death. But the messages are rather clinical, for example: â€Å"Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.† Smoking is a danger to one’s own health but there is now evidence that smoking can affect others as well. Second hand smoke has been shown to cause cancer. Second hand smoke has been shown to produce the same negative health effects that smoking first hand does. Cities across the nation are taking it upon themselves to address the issue of smoking in public place because of the evidence about†¦show more content†¦The hospitality industry has long argued that smoking bans cause great financial difficulty for bars and restaurants because of the link between smoking and drinking. But a new study by the University of Minnesota shows that smoking bans in eight Minnesota cities did not have any significant impact on employment in those businesses (Benson). One of the aspects that are argued is the freedom of choice. Freedom of choice mandates if a person wants to smoke they should be able to. While the freedom of choice issue is debated and measures are taken to assist people in breaking their addiction to smoking there are strong reasons for implementing a nationwide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Smokers want to be able to enjoy a cigarette following their meal or while they sip their drinks. They have lobbied to stop bans around the country and threatened to boycott any business that voluntarily places a ban on smoking in their establishment. For a long time, the hospitality industry maintained that if nonsmokers didnt like smoke, then they shouldnt go into places that allowed it. Few buy that argument any more. Nonsmokers want to go where they want and not have to suffer exposure to smoke as the price they pay. The Tobacco Industry fights smoke-free laws because smoke-free laws result in a decline in the consumption of tobacco products, an increase in the cessation rate among smokers, and an overallShow MoreRelatedShould Smoking Be Banned Public Places?941 Words   |  4 Pagesindividuals get older they try to cope with the stresses of everyday life by continuing to smoking. It makes them feel more relaxed and at ease. Whatever the reason is, it is a hard habit to break once one starts. For many smokers today it is getting hard to find a place to smoke. Comedians joke about going to another planet just to light up. Smoking should be banned in public places because smoking is just as bad for nonsmokers as it is fo r smokers. The effects of secondhand smoke orRead MoreShould Smoking Be Banned Public Places?864 Words   |  4 PagesSmoking is one of the practices which is considered highly dangerous to our health because it impacts the smoker and the people around them. There are approximately one billion smokers. Smoking is a big issue that the nonsmoker faces. For example, when the smokers smoke in public places like restaurants, universities and other public places it hurts the non-smoker. The non-smoker breathing the cigarette, marijuana or hookah smoke from the smoker do both of them are breathing toxic chemicals. In aRead MoreShould Smoking Be Banned Public Places?950 Words   |  4 Pagesday I walk in to public place with a friend right away we sat down to eat, we were having a conversation later we smell cigarette smoke in the air. I start coughing from the smell of smoke. I also notice a lot of customers who like eating dinner at a public place smoking cigarette. Smoking is a big health p roblem I feel it is not fair to take away cigarette for people who smoke in American who desire smoke cigarette. Even thought the same as the concession is able to be taking place on this topicRead MoreShould Smoking Be Banned Public Places?885 Words   |  4 Pagesday I walk into public place with a friend right away we sat down to eat, we were having a conversation later we smell cigarette smoke in the air. I start coughing from the smell of smoke. I also notice a lot of customers who like eating dinner at a public place smoking cigarette. Smoking is a big health problem I feel it is not fair to take away cigarette for people who smoke in American who desire smoke cigarette. Even thought the same as the concession is able to be taking place on this topicRead MoreSmoking in Public Places Should Be Banned Essay474 Words   |  2 PagesSmoking in Public Places Should Be Banned I feel very strongly that smoking in public places should be banned. I will list my reasons for my thinking below and explain why I think this. I cannot stand walking down a street behind someone who is smoking. Every time they exhale I then have to walk into a cloud of their smoke. My clothes smell, because they have been saturated with the smoke, it gets into my hair too. It also affects my health. It was found that sevenRead MoreEssay on Smoking In Public Places Should Be Banned463 Words   |  2 PagesSmoking In Public Places Should Be Banned There should be rules enforced for smoking in public places. Smokers just do not know the negative influence they are spreading. A puff of cigarette can harm a smokers health. When I go to a restaurant I do not like to leave smelling like smoke. It is the same going to a garbage dump, and smelling like garbage. I am not a smoker, and I cannot stand having the stench of smoke on my clothes. The smell of smoke is not harmful, but secondhand smoke isRead MoreEssay Smoking Should NOT Be Banned in Public Places730 Words   |  3 PagesSmoking Should Not Be Banned in Restaurants      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the perfect situation, smoking policy would be set by bar or restaurant owners, and customers would patronize the establishments with the policy they prefer. Customers would decide-without the governments help-if they want to avoid smoke-filled rooms or enter them. They might even choose to sit in an area sectioned off for smokers or non-smokers, but the ultimate issue is choice (Ruwart 1). When the government starts telling restaurantRead MoreEssay about Smoking In Public Places Should be Banned766 Words   |  4 Pages Do you mind people smoking around you in public places? According to the pro-smoking group Air Initiative 7 in 10 of you do. Do you think it is fair to discriminate against smokers, forcing them to stand outside and smoke? On the other hand is it fair that non-smokers should have to inhale second hand smoke which can dame their health? (Do you support this ban or do you oppose it?) Personally I oppose it as I believe that non-smokers shouldn†™t be subjected to a smoky environment on a night out.Read MoreNationwide Smoking Ban: Smoking Should be Banned in All Public Places899 Words   |  4 Pagesthe public about its dangers in 1972 (Schick Glantz, 2005). Do people knowingly have the right to put others’ health at risk? No, they do not. Exposure to cigarette smoke is a public health risk. Therefore, smoking should be banned in all public places, nationwide. There has been no attempt to impose a national smoking ban by the U.S. government. All current bans are in place because of state and local legislation. Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights lists the various state and local smoking lawsRead MoreEssay about Smoking Should be Banned in All Public Places1133 Words   |  5 PagesSmoking Should be Banned in All Public Places Every year thousands of people die because of having cancer or other tobacco related illnesses due to smoking. Smoking is seen everywhere from our own television screens to even the world wide web; the internet. Tobacco is the substance that is in these cigarettes. These tobacco products are promoted through tobacco ads that are found almost everywhere you turn. They are in magazines, television screens, on the internet