Intro to Aeronautical Science Free Essays

Throughout the years I have been dazzled at the furnished administrations and their accomplishment In the exceptionally hazardous business of avionics. It Is genuinely astounding to envision a secondary school graduate trusted with the lives of others after an exceptionally short square of directions and what appear to be smoothed out preparing. As of late, an extremely Junior repairman was working with a couple of his companions on the rotor arrangement of a helicopter in our armada. We will compose a custom paper test on Introduction to Aeronautical Science or on the other hand any comparative subject just for you Request Now At some point during the early morning, nearly to the furthest limit of a burial ground 12 hour move, the Junior Trooper saw something ricochet off the motor gulf and straight in. The Soldiers up above recognize dropping some equipment from a pack and descend from the airplane to check whether they could recover it. The zone was an unchanged hardstand yet with the brutal condition we face while conveyed, it Is hard to represent everything that hits the floor. Night-time of looking, Inspecting and even a motor bore scope, no equipment could be found in the bay or internals of the motor. Many questioned the lesser soldiers’ memory after his long hard night. The specialized Inspector, Maintenance aircraft tester and Production control Officer all weight in after all the preparatory Inspections were done yet the Junior trooper persevered and was the most significant wellbeing official that day. The motor was evacuated and set to the shop for tear and investigation. Before tear down, the motor was draped upstanding with the bay highlighted the ground. The yield shaft was spun In the expectations that the said equipment tumble to the ground. No equipment was found. The tear started and to the surprise of all included, a 5/1 6 nut was found hidden past the delta direct veins. The weight was at last discharged from the shoulders of all included and the saint of the day was the recently out of secondary school fighter who comprehended the Implications of a straightforward 5/16 nut experiencing the blower cutting edges of a Jet motor. The most effective method to refer to Intro to Aeronautical Science, Papers

Personal statement for hematology oncology fellowship

For hematology oncology partnership - Personal Statement Example It was generally new and continually evolving field. I have frequently been asked by associates for what valid reason I need to be an oncologist and I disclose to them that the choice to turn into an oncologist was impacted by my very own encounters and communications with oncologists when my mom was treated for malignancy. I was with my mom during the whole treatment and I had close interchanges with the oncologists treating her. In view of those encounters I had the option to know what I would need accomplished for a clos relative. I saw how I would have liked to be educated and treated. Moreover, functioning as a clinical eyewitness in a private hematology/oncology center helped me to have a more intensive glance at the claim to fame. Having the benefit to be in a scholarly setting permitted me to have direct contribution from hematology/oncology counsels. Working with a couple of splendid doctors in this field during my residency has been really edifying and fulfilling. It has as sumed a major job in deciding toward this path. I accept oncology is one of only a handful scarcely any claims to fame in inner medication where doctors really have the capacity to really fix patients. Despite the fact that it is beyond the realm of imagination to expect to delay each patient’s life, the very information that I ideally assisted with keeping up an ideal personal satisfaction is a delightful thing.

Philosophy Things

Philosophy Things Economics is a weird kind of science. Like biologists or chemists, economists are of course concerned with gathering empirical data to support or refute their theories about the world. But unlike the hard sciences, which deal in the habits of atoms and molecules, economics explores those of the Human a totally different beast with a whole different set of considerations to cover. Correspondingly, economists deliberate on an additional type of question, the normative (as opposed to the “positive”) or the ought (as opposed to the “is”). Basically, positive economics explores questions regarding how a society is, fueled by familiar scientific practices of devising models and gathering evidence for and against them. The normative component of the discipline, in contrast, tackles a different type of question: how should a society be? Which policies should governments enact in order to best pursue a successful economy? Or more philosophically, what is a successful economy or socie ty? As an economics student, these questions are naturally floating in my imagination pretty frequently, though it’s not like there are any prerequisite courses to finding this subject interesting. It seems totally fundamentally human to possess a basic sense of right and wrong, a deeply intuitive notion of “ought,” and a tendency to imagine how these intuitions should apply on a broader political scale. Especially in an age of social and political divide, questions like this are all but impossible to avoid. During my past few semesters, musings on this broad range of topics had led to a number of late-night conversations with friends and a lot of interesting discussions. Two of these friends independently urged me to take the class 17.01J/24.04J “Justice,” which I ended up taking this past spring, and (to put it simply) thought was amazing! Over the course of the semester we covered a variety of different and mutually conflicting theoretical perspectives on what makes for a just society. I guess with this post I was hoping to share with you one of the topics in the class I found most exciting one about which I found myself rambling to my TA over email and to my professor in person, regardless of the fact that I have never before been a person who engages with faculty, or whatever. I just found the subject exceptionally engaging. I should also maybe warn you that this post is full of ~spoilers~ for the class! I mean, I guess that should be obvious, but I feel like the order of the content is all neatly crafted such that the learning builds on itself and your understanding of each topic is illuminated by the previous ones, and then here I am just coming along and brazenly choosing one of them to kidnap from its proper context and present to you independently. So if that sounds distasteful to you, then maybe it would be better to just take the class yourself and learn all the stuff in the order its presented! Plus, it’s probably more fun to figure out your own position on the subject matter before reading someone else’s.. just a consideration. With that said, here is a comic that makes me laugh, which you should go read. It is a good introduction to the topic. :’) Mister Nozick’s Neighborhood Mister Robert Nozick was a philosopher at Harvard who, for context, lived from 1938 to 2002 and published his widely influential Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. This book would capture the public imagination and help to pave the way for the pro-market, small government wave of thought that prospered in the 1980s under leaders like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Such ideology remains popular in the West increasingly so in recent years and is most commonly known in the US as Libertarianism. To be sure, Nozick was not the first to advocate for such ideas, with clear influence from economists like Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek. Yet he was certainly a pioneer in both the logical clarity to which he put his arguments and the sheer extent to which he held them. He was the furthest thing from a pragmatist, and believed certain rights were absolute. And while thinkers like Friedman were claiming that taxation reduced autonomy and incentives, Nozick was busy arguing that nearly all taxa tion is not only unjust, but morally equivalent to slavery. One evening my friend Nick and I were in the student center when we happened to run into someone else who we recognized from the class. With a few minutes we had to chat, he asked us what we thought of the material we were learning, at which point we had just begun the Nozick unit. Like me, he seemed sort of puzzled/distraught by it, like “I know I don’t agree with it… but why?” Each proposition seemed more or less palatable to us, but then the conclusions were extreme. Laissez-faire capitalism as the only morally justified economic system? Social welfare programs as forced labor? Indeed, a central and controversial claim of Anarchy, State, and Utopia is that the only justified government function is to protect people and their property from physical harm or theft. Or in its own words, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people’s rights” (p. 149). The book reads fast and I definitely recommend it if you’re into this stuff, but in the interest of not taking too much of your time or pasting an obscenely large amount of (copyrighted) text, I’ll just summarize the argument we focused on in class which puts forth a moral basis for the Libertarian viewpoint. The argument begins with the idea of rights as side-constraints, rejecting the idea of the “greater good” and asserting the moral inviolability of individuals. This perspective was inspired by Immanuel Kant’s moral theory that human beings are ends in themselves, and may never be sacrificed or used as mere “means to others’ ends” without their consent.   Something you shouldnt do, according to Kant  (image source) According to Nozicks formulation, violating a moral side-constraint necessarily entails a violation of one’s rights regardless of the utilitarian benefit that it might allow for others. He then argues that the moral side-constraint relevant to political philosophy is the constraint against the use of force, under which no one may use or threaten the use of physical force against anyone else. If any action violates the moral side-constraint, then it is automatically said to be unjust, as is any situation that arises as a result of it. This idea is importantly intertwined with the concept of consent. Nozick’s thought drew heavily on that of the 17th century philosopher John Locke, who argued that governments can derive their right to coercion only from the consent of the governed. For its time, Locke’s work was revolutionary: a man may not call himself king and implement laws upon a territory if its people have not given their sanction. But whereas Locke pragmatically supposed that implied consent of the governed could suffice, Nozick took this notion further and believed that expressed consent should be theoretically needed from each individual in order for government coercion to be applied legitimately to them. Otherwise, the governed people’s rights would be violated, as the state would be threatening the use of force (e.g. prison) against individuals for disobeying rules which they had never consented to. The first part of Anarchy, State, and Utopia is dedicated to imagining how a state could justly arise in accordance with the moral side-constraint against force. Basically, proto-governments arise as “protection agencies,” which are businesses that individuals subscribe to for a fee to protect them and their property from others. Eventually one of the agencies presumably the most efficient comes to dominate the market and becomes an “ultraminimal state,” which over time, by a process which is not really relevant enough to detail here, settles into its position as a “minimal state.” Nozick begins Part II of the book by explaining his ideas regarding private property, or “holdings.” His ideas about how property can come to be originally acquired and transferred to others comprise the substance of his Entitlement Theory. The theory is as follows: The first part of this theory asserts that an individual justly owns a piece of property if he acquires it in accordance with “justice in acquisition.” Nozick supposes that an individual can justly “appropriate” or claim an unowned object or piece of land as their property so long as no one else can reasonably complain that they are made “worse off” by the act of appropriation. The second part of the Entitlement Theory “justice in transfer” stipulates that property may only be transferred (or rented, lent out, etc.) from one owner to another consensually, as in a mutually agreed-upon transaction or contract. Acts of theft and fraud are prohibited here, as they violate the owner’s consent. Following from these premises, he argues that any attempt by a governing body to interfere with individuals property to promote equality or social welfare must necessarily violate their rights. The simplest form of the argument is that redistributive taxation violates the side-constraint against force by coercing individuals to non-consensually renounce the property they justly own at the threat of a prison sentence. With respect to the concept of equality or a fair distribution, Nozick reminds us that maintaining such an ideal would either force individuals to renounce property that they justly own or forcibly prevent consenting adults from making just property transfers with each other. And then, an additional argument concludes that seizing people’s property and transferring it to others is morally on par with forced labor, because if property is justly acquired as the fruit of one’s labor, taxation to benefit the “social good” would effectively force people to spend some of their working hours for someone else’s benefit. He concludes by this logic that taxing citizens to promote social welfare must necessarily be immoral. The question we then had to answer in our paper was this:        Does Nozick succeed in showing that all redistribution, other than to return stolen goods, is unjust? What do you guys think? Undefined Have you ever seen one of those proofs that say, 0 = 1, or 1 = 2, or more generally that one number equals a different number which it most definitely does not actually equal? See here: One of my teachers in high school showed us this proof and asked us if we could find the error. Personally, I followed the logic right to the end and couldn’t see anything wrong with it! But, as many of you probably know (or recognized), the trick to these cutesy proofs is that because a = b, that means that (a b) equals zero, which we divide by in line 5 to surreptitiously break mathematics. When I saw this, I already knew that dividing by zero was a deadly and forbidden sin, but I didn’t realize we were dividing by zero when we called it “(a b)”. The reality concealed by the expression eluded me, which led to a wacky and unintuitive conclusion. One lesson we can draw from this aside from the perils of division by zero is that terminology can easily deceive or prevent us from recognizing what’s actually there. A second important takeaway is that the language we use to describe something cannot change what it fundamentally is; in other words, we can call zero whatever we like and it would invariably still be wrong to divide by it. This point also of course applies to logical reasoning, in which a contradiction is still a contradiction even if we change the vocabulary we use to refer to a given thing. The phrase “enhanced interrogation” gives us rosier mental imagery than “torture,” for example, but you could not consistently be “for” one and unconditionally against the other when they refer to the exact same act. You also could not support enhanced interrogation while being against say, “physical or psychological violence,” a more general term under which the act of torture falls. Of course, this all seems perfectly straightforward when pointed out, but it’s more difficult to recognize in practice. When studying Nozick’s libertarianism, I immediately felt an intuition that something was wrong with it one which Ms. Rand might explain away as an irrational result of my social upbringing, but which I suspected was logical in origin. Yet, despite its potential to serve as a powerful guide, intuitive thought has the unfortunate shortcoming that it can only take you so far, as in this case, when it alerted me that something was logically suspicious and then refused to say where or what. I talked to my professor about it and put forth various suggestions about how this could be resolved. I did believe that consent was important and I didn’t see anything wrong with the side-constraint against force, nor did I notice anything objectionable in the Entitlement Theory. I proposed some possible solutions that were conceivable, but not entirely satisfying, kind of like finding a duck-taped box of batteries and wires under the couch when I was really looking for my cell phone (good enough?). My professor wasnt about to give away any answers, instead preferring a Socratic style which examined thought without really directing it. Though I do remember when I expressed frustration at my confusion, he suggested “maybe you see an issue with original appropriation?” And I said, “huh, I don’t think thats it.” Then two days before the paper was due, it sort of hit me, like  waaait a second! I felt like Archimedes in that bath story, which apparently isn’t actually true, though maybe that makes it even more fitting cause he was probably sitting at his desk just like me when the real “Eureka” moment happened. Finally it all made sense, and I could sleep again (but not actually, cause I had to pull an all-nighter the next night to write the paper). And in the next few days even after I turned it in, the full implications of this simple point would gradually become clear and solid to me. The argument Firstly: What does the moral side-constraint tell us about what people may and may not do to each other? In its simplest terms, it says I may not use or threaten physical force against others. Thus, regardless of who I am (an aspiring king, a random individual..) I may not declare to you that “you may not do X, or else I will use force to punish or make you compensate me.” Following this, it should be even more clear that I also could not proclaim that, “as a rule, not you or anyone except for me may do X, or else I will force you to repent/repay.” Nozick would easily agree that enforced proclamations of this form are both immoral and unjust in the libertarian sense. “X” could be literally anything, given it is not itself a violent act, e.g. practicing a certain religion, saying something mean about me, or wearing a particular silly hat. Rules of this form may only be placed on people with their expressed consent, as in by consensual contract. Secondly: what does Nozick tell us about how property can come to be held? Taking inspiration again from Locke, he imagines humanity starting off in a “state of nature,” in which there is no coercive rule or government and the world is originally unowned. In the state of affairs before original appropriation, the only rule is the moral side-constraint, and everyone is at liberty to do anything they like with the material world. Perhaps an individual will be socially shamed for using an object in a way others find objectionable, but morally they cannot be physically harmed or coerced in punishment for it. Now consider Nozick’s theory of property appropriation. In particular, imagine the hypothetical “State-of-things A,” as I just described, in which no human has yet appropriated property. This is soon followed by a “State-of-things B,” in which the first human has appropriated a piece of land or object as their property. What exactly is the difference between these two scenarios? On first thought we might say the difference is that “well, property has been appropriated (duh),” but this doesn’t tell us any new information, since the abstract phrase doesn’t describe any tangible difference in reality. Instead, we will have to ask what it means, using non-abstract terms, to “appropriate.” Nozick hints at this tangible, real-world meaning by noting that “whereas previously [others] were at liberty to use the object, they now no longer are” (175). And indeed, by pursuing this elusive definition, it becomes ultimately clear that “appropriation” means that a rule is placed upon the rest of society by the act of the appropriator, in the form of “not you or anyone except for me may do X, or I will use force to punish you or make you compensate me.” This is the relevant difference between scenarios A and B; this is what Nozickian property  is. “X” above just becomes “using this given object or plot of land,” and so it logically follows f rom the side-constraint against force that original appropriation (and by corollary, the entire institution of private property) must necessarily be unjust. Murrica. (image source) But then, as you might remember, Nozick explicitly declares as a proposition that “appropriation is just” as long as it is done in a way such that no one can legitimately claim that they are made “worse off” by it. So following from the moral side-constraint, the act of appropriation is unjust, while simultaneously a proposition of the philosophy declares it to be just. But the properties of “just” and “unjust” are conceived to be mutually exclusive, and so as with the activist who opposes “physical and psychological violence” but believes “enhanced interrogation” is okay Nozick’s philosophy is shown to be contradictory. As the logical analogue of division by zero, a contradiction is enough to make an argument instantly fall apart: see the Principle of Explosion (if a logical system contains a contradiction, then literally any statement  can be proven in it), or else the words of Douglas Hofstadter: “contradictions cannot be contained; they infect the wh ole system like an instantaneous global cancer” (from Gödel, Escher, Bach). I think this contradiction would have been easy to notice if the term “appropriation” had been more transparent, but the reality of the act was concealed by the expression, which led to the wacky and unintuitive conclusions that constitute Nozick’s libertarianism. Comrade Rand urging us to reconsider the premise that property is just. If you insist, girl Not quite done though Anticipating potential responses to an argument you make is really important in most any scenario, but especially so in a philosophy paper, which would literally not be complete without it. Though to clarify, by “potential responses” I’m not really referring to those who are inclined to wave red-and-black flags rising up and/or seizing the means of production at the conclusion that a proper philosophy based on the moral inviolability of individuals’ consent logically cannot incorporate private property. On the contrary, I’m more referring to potential responses by people who still want to believe in Nozick. Callie and Callies mom are both me  (Source:  Pictures For Sad Children) So as for possible counterarguments, here are a few of those: If it can be said that someone owns his labor, then it makes sense that he also can own any object which he labors to create or improve. Nozick himself considers this theory (p. 174-175), discussing its difficulties and logical shortcomings and ultimately rejecting it. He adds that, to date, “no workable or coherent value-added property scheme has yet been devised” (175). Even if this act normally would violate the side-constraint, it should be “allowed” or considered an exception to the rule based on some special property of its circumstance. It a valid possibility that property appropriation is permitted as an “exception” to Nozick’s side-constraint, in which a violation is considered unjust except in this special instance. But if this were the case, it would then seem necessary to give some reasoning for it. Certainly something like “intuition” can’t suffice, because that would warrant an impossible explanation of why this single case is arbitrarily chosen from an enormous list of possible exceptions that could also potentially be justified this way. What about a justification on the basis that no one can complain that property appropriation makes anyone worse off? This too is insufficient by the same logic, since it could equally apply to a bunch of other non-consensually imposed rules which would be entirely impermissible to the philosophy. An argument like this basically asserts that a side-constraint violation is permissible if its effect is neutral or a Pareto-improvement. But Nozick explicitly mentions a “prohibition on … using or threatening force for the benefit of the person against whom it is wielded” (34). So even though he argues that property really makes everyone better off, he still believes that this is inadequate as a justification to ignore the side-constraint. With this out of the way, there is also another way this philosophy could be possible, which is that there is no justification given for why property should transcend the moral side-constraint and that it is permitted entirely arbitrarily. Or in other words, consent is the absolute most important criterion for morality and should be upheld at all costs, except in the one particular instance where a massive and large-scale violation of it allows for the creation of unregulated capitalism, in which case it’s totally fine.. Why? Because Mister Nozick simply declared so. This is a point Id like to elaborate on a bit more, because it took me a while to fully understand it, but I’m really glad that I do now. Basically, this point reminds us that the rule or set of rules that creates the institution of property is a human invention, as opposed to a description of how the world works. That is not at all to say that it isn’t a good one, but rather that it could easily and arbitrarily be something different and should be thought of conceptually the same as any other rule or law. To draw an illustrative parallel: some Americans think that no one should be allowed to have abortions, some think that no one should be allowed to have abortions except for early in the pregnancy, and some favor no restrictions at all. And then, with regard to property: Nozick thinks that no one is ever allowed use an object or piece of land claimed by someone else without their consent, John Locke thinks mostly the same except in the case where the person who owns the propert y is letting it go to “waste” (at which point the owner loses the property right), and Emma Goldman would favor no coercive restrictions at all. Many people might agree that the rule should be “no one may use property owned by someone else, except in the case of democratically agreed-upon taxation to provide public goods.” Other people disagree, and they have their own ideas about what the rules should be. But regardless of anyone’s specific opinion, the point is that there is no a priori justification for favoring the most restrictive conception over any of the others, or viewing it as the default from which others deviate. Does that make sense? Honestly, the only real reason I can imagine for favoring it is if simplicity is our supreme criterion. The institution of property is a natural law, and not invented by humans themselves. Before the first act of property appropriation, anyone may do anything they like with any part of the material world. However, it is possible that this is not because there are no rules, but because a pre-existing “natural” rule has not yet become relevant, namely: “no one may use any material object which has been appropriated by someone else.” It might look like the situation is that “I may do what I wish with X object,” but in reality it is that “I may do what I wish with X so long as nobody has claimed it as their property.” I think the subtleness of this point makes it interesting. It is to say that although it appears in this original scenario that everyone is truly free, they are actually living under this preordained law that came from a source outside of humanity such that the side-constraint remains intact when the first human appropriates. Perhaps the gods read Atlas Shrugged and want laissez-faire capitalism on Earth (who knows?) or perhaps we are (again) arbitrarily declaring this as a theoretical proposition. Epilogue Rescuing consent In light of this inconsistency, where can we go from here to form a coherent theory which incorporates property but properly respects each individuals consent? One thing we could do is to consider what conditions under which we think that, hypothetically, everyone would consent to the institution of property. This solution could allow for the elevated standard of living that a market economy affords, while at the same time attending to issues of exploitation and prospects for equality. John Rawls was a philosopher at Harvard whose office was right down the hall from Nozicks. His work is often credited with reviving the field of political philosophy after publishing his groundbreaking book  A Theory of Justice  in 1971. Central to his philosophy is a simple thought experiment: If a society of rational individuals were put under a veil of ignorance as to who they are and then asked to create a society they would live in, what basic structure and institutions would all of them agree to? Rawls argues that the answer to this is one that allows for inequality if it raises everyones standard of living, but not if it creates a wealthy class at the expense of those less fortunate. Although his theory is slightly different from the one I suggested to remedy Nozick, it seems superior in being far more tractable, but in much the same spirit. ~ Anyway.. I think that is everything I wanted to cover! This post ended up being much longer than expected (lel sorry) but I hope it was informative and/or thought-provoking. In conclusion political philosophy is fun and you should do it. :) Also, if you have questions and ideas and stuff, you should give me those too.

Code of Ethics Sm Investment Corporation - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 936 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/09/14 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Bulanday, Monica Patricia Camille A. 4MKTG02 Social Responsibility Prof. Stella A. Yanuaria August 31, 2010 SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION Code of Ethics/Policies SMIC adopted a Code of Ethics on September 21, 2007 to re-affirm the companys commitment to the highest standards of ethics, good governance, competence and integrity in pursuing the companys mission and vision to serve the best interest of its customers, stakeholders and the country. The Code provides that the company strives to render adequate, reliable and efficient customer service at reasonable cost. The company also protects shareholders and investors interests, including their rights to a fair return of   investment and accurate and timely information. The Code mandates a fair and transparent process for the evaluation and selection of   suppliers of goods and services. It likewise requires an effective monitoring and control system to prevent fraud and other malpractices. The Code prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of gifts by any director, officer or   employee of the company from any business partner, except only for gifts of nominal value or those given for the companys charitable projects. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Code of Ethics Sm Investment Corporation" essay for you Create order It further prohibits conflict of interest,   insider trading, corruption and other illegal acts. The Company selects, develops and compensates the best people to manage the company. It   aims to provide its employees with adequate benefits as well as a safe workplace and environment. It also supports health, educational, social, livelihood and other charitable projects nationwide. Revised Code of Ethics In March 2009, SM Investments Corporation revised its Code of Ethics, which serves as a guiding principle for its directors, officers and employees in the performance of their duties and the conduct of their transactions with business partners. The Code reflects the Companys mission, vision and values statement. The salient provisions of the Code pertain to compliance and integrity, relationship with business partners, employee welfare, shareholder rights and protection of company information. Some of the important provisions of the Code are as follows: * All employees are required to immediately report to the management all suspected or actual fraudulent or dishonest acts. * Solicitation or acceptance of gifts in any form from any business partner is prohibited, except for gifts of nominal value. Any conflict of interest must be promptly disclosed to the management. * All employees are prohibited from disclosing vital business information, unless authorized by the company or required by law. * Insider trading is prohibited. The companys Human Resources and Corporate Governance departments are responsible for implementing and monitoring compliance with the Code. Violations of the Code are punishable by disciplinary action a nd/or the filing of appropriate civil and criminal action. Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts To ensure integrity in procurement practices and the selection of the most appropriate   business partner in each instance, SMIC adopted guidelines on the acceptance of gifts by all directors, officers and employees from the companys business partners. Under this policy, all directors, officers and employees are prohibited from soliciting gifts in any form from any business partner. They are further prohibited from accepting gifts in any form, except for corporate give-aways, tokens or promotional items of nominal value. Insider Trading Policy To implement the prohibitions on insider trading in the Securities Regulation Code and to comply with best practices on corporate governance, SMIC also adopted a policy on insider trading. The policy prohibits directors, officers and employees of SM who know material and confidential information from buying or selling shares of stock of the listed SM companies. All information that is likely to affect the market price of SMs shares is deemed to be material. In line with the companys insider trading policy, all directors and senior officers are required to   Ã‚  Ã‚   disclose their transactions on the companys shares, in accordance with the provisions of the   Ã‚  Ã‚   Securities Regulation Code and other relevant issuances. Guidelines on Placement of Advertisements SMIC further issued a policy to prohibit the placement of advertisements in publications that solicit for such ad placement prior to the release of the official results of an awarding process conducted by the publication and where an SM company or executive is one of the nominees vying for the award/s. SM may consider placing advertisements in such publications as part of its over-all marketing strategy, but only after the release of the results of the awarding process and where it will not create reasonable doubt that such ad placement influenced in any way an award given to an SM company or executive. Guidelines on Travel Sponsored by Business Partners In August 2009, SMIC issued guidelines on travel sponsored by business partners. The guidelines prohibit travel sponsored by business partners, which refer to contractors, suppliers, banks and other entities engaged in business with SMIC. Where a business partner invites SMIC officers or employees to travel for the purpose of attending trade shows or exhibits, or for exposure to new products   and innovations, among other similar purposes, officers and employees are prohibited from accepting such sponsored travel. If the SMIC management deems that such travel is necessary for the business and for the development and training of officers and employees, SMIC will pay for the cost of the travel. The guidelines further prohibit all SMIC officers or employees from accepting any travel sponsored by any current or prospective business partner which is participating in any on-going bidding or selection process for any SM project or transaction. Anti Money Laundering Law Guidelines In May 2009, SMIC issued Anti Money Laundering Law guidelines for its property group. The guidelines lay down rules on acceptance of payment for real property projects and stresses the importance of know-your-client procedures. The guidelines are compliant with the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Law and its implementing rules and regulations.

Scene Analysis - The Big Lebowski - 1516 Words

GE3401 – TB2 Exploring English Cinema Scene Analysis â€Å"Scattering Donny’s Ashes† Scene in The Big Lebowski (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1998) Student Name: Fan Ho Nga, Gloria Student ID: 52948216 â€Å"Scattering Donny’s Ashes† Scene in The Big Lebowski (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1998) The Big Lebowski (1998) by the Coen Brothers is no doubt a comedy film about friendships between three bowling buddies with differing personalities who met and stuck together as friends by choice in Los Angeles when the U.S. army invaded the Middle East. The Coen Brothers managed to capture the spirit of friendship bonding, conflicts, characters’ internal struggles as well as personal desires with exceptional cinematography and mise-en-scene†¦show more content†¦In your wisdom, Lord, you took him. As you took so many bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, at Langdok, at Hill 364! These young men gave their lives. And so did Donny. Donny, who loved bowling.’ The reason why the director placed this line in the eulogy is to show how Walter considered this an opportunity to a closure of years and years wasted in memories. The Coen Brothers put a vivid, living proof of Walter being stuck in the past on screen via his costume throughout the movie with his trademark safari vest, amber lens aviator sunglasses and the military dog tag that he always kept close in the film. Apart from the genuine friendship between the Dude, Walter and Donny, the eulogy dialogue also implies another layer of meaning from the movie concerning generation loss, changes and the cycle of life. Although the three main characters are bound together by bowling but Donny is the only one we ever do see bowl, in fact, we only seem to notice his existence at the bowling alley but his bowling results never did come to the Dude nor Walter’s notice. From the way how Donny let Walter call him names, swear at him and never really get to enjoy bowling’s fun, to Donny being scared to death with an heart attack caused by Nihilists attack or even after Donny’s death, when there is no family member but only Walter and the Dude to take care of his remains indicates a generation ignored and lost. In the eulogy scene, the director used an unusual composition thanShow MoreRelated Country Music in O Brother, Where Art Thou? Essay3561 Words   |  15 Pagescountry music. Whether it be through white trash country music narratives or the use of country music on film soundtracks to signify white trashness, it is undeniable that white trash has a special affinity with country music. For this reason my analysis of O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2001) will demonstrate the way early forms of U.S. country music emphasise the white trashness of the film s characters. What exactly is white trash? U.S. cultural critics Annalee Newitz and

Porters Theory Free Essays

Overview of Porter’s theoretical perspective The theory of Porter is a study which works as a tradition that is related to the neo-classical economics with the nature of self adjusting nature of markets. The theory of Porter places innovation and industrialisation of geographic which is one of the number of theories for competitive advantages which aims at the process and development (O’Connell et al. , 1997). We will write a custom essay sample on Porters Theory or any similar topic only for you Order Now The industries which work within the nations are focused by the Porter’s theory. Competitive advantage is given by the home nation with certain characteristics and concentration of geographic and this process is enhanced by the rivalries. The systemic character of the Porter’s Diamond Model is shown in Figure 1 which outlines the components of it. Although, determinant of diamond theory interact each other but the systemic natures variable in diamond theory. The arguments on two elements are raised by the Porter which are – concentration of industry geographic and the domestic rivalry and these two elements has simply a great power to make a system by changing this diamond.It promotes the entire national diamond upgrading because of this domestic rivalry. The Porter theory translates it into system because of its magnifying principle of the interactions in the geographic concentration. The final stage of the Diamond Porter’s Model is the linkage between the industries and it promotes clustering to the systemic nature (Clancy et. al. , 1999). Figure 1: Porter’s Diamond Theory Competitive Advantage, Marketing and Porter: Any firm which achieve success is known as Competitive advantage which is not a domain of any of the single academic discipline in it.Thus through a review which reveals that marketing plays a central role in building up a competitive advantage. A number of popular approaches include: strong market positions with products and services are not easily substituted, entry- barriers, strong bargaining position, balanced portfolios; mobility barriers; core competencies, innovation and speed or time based competition (Eccles and Nohria, 1992). Here security in market positions, maintains the stable flow and enhance the emphasis of predominance. As per within the organisations, competitive advantages is first related to the marketing function. The work of Michael Porter exaggerated marketing as an extensive in order to address â€Å"competitive advantage. † Porter’s â€Å"five model† (Porter, 1985) provides the basis for structural analysis of industries in most texts (Baker, 1992; Bradley, 1995). The domain of macro- economists was aimed in such a way that was highly popularised by the Porter’s model, mainly the study of competitiveness. This shows that the study of firm advantage needs to take place in the context of a national environment. The name Diamond was tagged for four determinants (and 2 exogenous variables) which was conceptualised by the national environment.Thus, increasingly, marketing courses and texts incorporate the diamond as part of the analysis of industry (Baker, 1992). The important innovation in Porter’s work for business researchers across various sectors is a translation into a framework of ideas and concepts from different fields. The dynamic and evolutionary view represents the model as the creation of firm advantage depending upon a number of traditions; for example- the theory is based upon the resource and industrial organisational economics. Porter not only provides a point of reference for analysing the research but also a model for strategy research.Analysis with Porter’s Diamond Framework: The enabling environment providing the competitiveness only helps the firms to leverage its competitive advantage whose are supporting the activities of the firms. Porter’s Diamond theory reflected all these fundamental concepts in its model and in every question put by the Porter lies under the elements which are categories under four in his model. He considered that the company’s analysis should not be done by the approach of backward looking but should be considered by the view of looking forward.But this forward looking approach creates an idealistic scenario rather creating of an realistic approach. Although taking into consideration the future perspective, an assumption is being mounted by Porter, the Diamond Model functionality accommodates experiences of the past which indicates the flexibility. Thus, the model is created considering the perspective to be balanced which combines the past experiences with the future expectations. In the four elements of the analysis one more element Government – is added as this element plays a vital role in competitive environment nationally for the industry.Indian Shrimp Industry on Porter’s Framework: In the world of Shrimp productions India occupies top five positions. After china in the production of aquaculture it is the second largest producer of aquaculture. Contribution of aquaculture is 21. 56% by volume and by value its 49. 76% of overall seafood export production whereas by volume of farmed shrimps it contributes 76% and 83% by value of exports of shrimps (Rajitha et al. , 2006). The current exploitation for shrimp farming in India is only 16% which is out of 1. 2 million hectors are available for farming.In the country 90% of the shrimp farming are owned by the farmers of small and marginal levels. The black tiger shrimp is the major cultured spices (Penaeus Monodon). According to the research 58% of the total export values, in the export basket frozen shrimps is the largest items, of which the cultured shrimp shares above 80% (MPEDA, 2006). With the help of Diamond model of Porter’s the national competitive environment and the Indian shrimp industry van be assessed and is presented in Figure 1. i. Strategies of Firm, Rivalry and Structure:The farmers, exports and processors and the allied players are comprised under the Indian shrimp industry. 30 million is the capacity of production average in hatcheries of over 290 shrimp and 30 feed mills with a installed capacity of total annually of 250,000 metric tonnes. From a area of brackish water production of shrimp in India is 1, 43,000 metric tonne within a field of 140,000 hectares (MPEDA, 2006). In the mid 1980’s the production of shrimp farming started in India and there is a rapid growth of cultured farming of shrimp through 1990s (Kumar et al, 2004). Only 2. hectare area of water is own by the more than 90% of the aqua farmers. In the country farms below 5. 0 hectare of the total shrimp area farms occupies 65%. Among the 500 leading companies in India only 10 companies are involved in aquaculture. These 10 companies occupies 1898 hectare of land, of which shrimp farms contributes 758 hectares. The water spread in total is constituted just 0. 54% of this which is out of the 140,936 hectare in country is developed for culture of shrimps. On the front of the processor, there could be an either exporter only or the processor – cum – exporter. The Indian shrimp company has most marginal players except the large player handful. The Indian company of shrimps does not seen interested in foreign investors except Thailand. Except few of the companies like the ITC, Hindustan Liver Ltd etc. most of the companies are oriented family based. The growth which has evolved from the last few decades created this situation. The holdings on an Average basis are small and policy meyaking is fragmented and difficult to make implementations. ii. Factor Conditions:The entire coastal belt of India comprises of 369 freezing plants which are spread over these belts in which India has a v well developed infrastructure. The processing of fish is mainly from exports. India needs to develop its infrastructure for maintaining the quality for leading in the processing facilities. In India one can reduce the production cost easily because of the availability of the cheap labour for the shrimp which is one the amongst all the shrimp producing countries. The women workers are mostly more recruited in shrimp industries because of the dealt skilful hands of the women’s workers.Although these women’s are not professionally trained but learn how to do the work after bringing them into the factories. The two of the most important factors are rendered in a scenario of flexibility which are – support and labour and development support- which are required for the technology development and advancement of knowledge which are presented for good measure. iii. Demand Conditions: According to Porter (1990) one can be demanding if the buyers have an international outlook with the home base buyers.Their demands are really sophisticated and demanding. They need the product to be highly standardised and need to be full of quality. In India, these kind of businesses like exports and marine exports does not exist. These kinds of reasons are responsible for which India does not able to value chain move up. Customers export bulk quantities from India for shrimps and sold it to the other destinations after repackaging like USA, Europe and Japan. Retail packaging is different from export packaging in bulk. After Thailand, India is the econd largest shrimps exporter in the world but shrimps of India does not able to create its own brand like Thailand in the global markets. Therefore, the exporters get little exposures because of the less demanding market and hence cannot get the proper international exposure to compete in the international conditions. This lead to the opportunities to be limited and limited challenges in an international competition to understand. In this conditions, exporter just follow certain forms of rules for exports, starts losing the opportunities but learns new facets about international trade and tries to spread the business. v. Government Interventions: The support and government intervention to the shrimp industry generally comes majorly through Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) especially for exports, under the government under industries of India and Ministry of Commerce and so me of institutions of marine research. The policies related to export are recommended by MPEDA to the Commerce Ministry of the central government and the decisions foe the policies are taken by the MPEDA.In financial institutions this body acts like a liaison agency between prawn and shrimps stakeholders and farmer’s entrepreneurs and farmers etc. Conclusion: In the conclusion, it is clearly indicated that the government intervention plays a significant element for the study as Porter considered this element to be the choice of optimism. The developing countries generally face these kinds of scenarios. The concepts like international success, national environment and the competitiveness are the concepts who have references of several parameters.Although to understand these kinds of parameters, the theory of flexibility is useful but somehow Porter’s Diamond Theory also suggests about these parameters. The research showed data about the shrimp industry of India with their business environments. The importance of this essay limits only to the shrimp industry, preliminary understanding of competitiveness of shrimps to various export sectors of India. This competitiveness is in the context of environments to be taken nationally. The scope for the future research is based on the detailed empirical research in the context of diamond model analysis.References: 1. Baker, M. J. (1992), Marketing Strategy and Management, Macmillan, London. 2. Clancy, P. and Twomey, M. (1997), Clusters in Ireland: The Irish Popular Music Industry – An Application of Porter’s Cluster Analysis, NESC Research Series, Dublin, NESC. 3. Clancy, P. O’Malley, E. , O’Connell, L. and Van Egeraat, C. (1997), Clusters in Ireland: A Study of the Application of Porter’s Model of Competitive Advantage of Three Irish Sectors, Report for The National and Economic and Social Council, Dublin, NESC. 4. Eccles, R. and Nohria, N. 1992), Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 5. Bradley, F. (1995), International Marketing Strategy, Prentice-Hall, London. 6. Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York, NY. 7. O’ Donnell, R. (1998), Post-Porter: Exploring Policy for the Irish Context, â€Å"Sustaining Competitive Advantage†, NESC Research Series, NESC, Dublin. 8. MPEDA (2006), Mission Document. Marine Products and Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; Government of India. . Rajitha, K.. Mukherjee, C. K, and Vinu C, R. (2006),† Applications of remote sensing and GIS for sustainable management of shrimp culture in India†. Aqua Engineering. Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-17. 10. Porter. M. E. (1990). â€Å"New Global Strategies for Competitive Advantage†. Planning Review: Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 4 to14. 11. Kumar, A.. Motwani. J.. Douglas, C, and Das, N. (1999). â€Å"A Quality competitiveness index for benchmarking†, International Journal of Benchmarking and Quality Technology, Vol. 6 No. l . pp. 12- 21. How to cite Porters Theory, Papers

Ranking in Round-robin tournament free essay sample

Most common way to rank players or teams in round-robin tournament Round-robin tournament is widely applied in competitions which are able to be held for a long period and need a comprehensive ranking of the players or teams. In order to acquire the ordering of teams and player, the most convenient and common way is to rank the participants according to their total victories. Nevertheless, tie may appear in an individual competition of the whole tournament. Considering three possible outcomes of a match, different scores are rewarded for having a winning, tie and losing game. The method used in the well-known English professional football league, Premier League, can be taken as an example here. Premier League is constructed by the competitions between the 20 top football clubs in England, in which double round-robin tournament is used, implying each team competes with all other teams twice. Three, one and zero point will be rewarded for a win, tie and lose in each competition. We will write a custom essay sample on Ranking in Round-robin tournament or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In the end of the league, a ranking list will be mainly arranged by the total scores of each team. Problems arisen by ranking with total scores Yet, this method may not be a perfect one when taking account of the outcome and fairness. Firstly, the total scores of the top two teams may be the same, showing that comparing only score is possibly inadequate to decide the champion. Secondly, the ranked ordering does not accurately reflect each team’s ability as a victory against a stronger team is more worthy than a win against a weaker team. (M. Stob,1985) Solution to the problem of tie in ranking To tackle the first problem, other criteria can be added into the arrangement of ranking by considering the nature of that sport itself. Referring to figure 1, the top two clubs have the same points but different ranking in the Premier League 2007/2008, because if there are same points between teams, the goal difference (Number of goal scored – Number of goal conceded) will be the second comparing factor, and the total goal scored will be the  third factor. Lastly, if there is really such a coincidence that two important teams are still with same point, an extra match between them will be launched to solve the ranking problem. (Deloitte LLP, 2012) Likewise, other types of competition can consider extra factors other than just counting total points to avoid same ranking of teams. Solution to the problem of fairness For the second problem, it is much more complicated to deal with it. Goddard (1983), who had a deep study in ranking players in round-robin tournament, has proposed the concept of upsets to reflect the fairness of a ranking system. Upset in an ordering refers to a team with lower ranking defeats another team with higher ranking according to that ordering. (M. Stob,1985) From the table, every row refers to the competition performance of each team. A team gets 1 point if it wins and 0 point if it loses. There are a total of two upsets in this ranking system, in which team 7 (weaker team) defeats team 1 (stronger team) and team 6 (weaker team) defeats team 2 (stronger team) are exactly the two upsets. Having figured out the measure of fairness, Goddard suggested a new ranking approach called p-connectivity matrix which takes the different importance of victory into account. It actually works like how Google calculating the importance of web pages. (Springer US. 2005) Firstly, it takes the ranking of comparing total points as the basic ranking. Then, every victory in the tournament should be weighted in accordance with the primary ranking of the losing team, in other words, winnings against teams with higher primary ranking have a higher weight. The second ranking can thus be constructed with weighted winning. Similarly, the third ranking is built by using weighed victory which is adjusted according the second ranking. This process then repeats many times, in which generates many different ranking and the one with minimum upsets should be chosen as the final ranking. (M. Stob, 1985) Nevertheless, neither the calculation process nor result of this ranking method is convinced to the teams and players. Even though the importance of different winning games is considered, players and teams may not be convinced to the fact that they get more victories but lower ranking than another team with less wins. Therefore, most of the round-robin tournament still adopt ranking without weighted victory. All in all, it is not easy to find the fairest ranking system. Even until now, there is not a so-called fairest ordering method.