Investigating Ratios of Areas and Volumes

Investigating Ratios of Areas and Volumes In this portfolio, I will be investigating the ratios of the areas and volumes formed from a curve in the form y = xn between two arbitrary parameters x = a and x = b, such that a < b. This will be done by using integration to find the area under the curve or volume of revolution about an axis. The two areas that will be compared will be labeled ‘A’ and ‘B’ (see figure A). In order to prove or disprove my conjectures, several different values for n will be used, including irrational, real numbers (? , v2). In addition, the values for a and b will be altered to different values to prove or disprove my conjectures. In order to aid in the calculation, a TI-84 Plus calculator will be used, and Microsoft Excel and WolframAlpha (http://www. wolframalpha. com/) will be used to create and display graphs. Figure A 1. In the first problem, region B is the area under the curve y = x2 and is bounded by x = 0, x = 1, and the x-axis. Region A is the region bounded by the curve, y = 0, y = 1, and the y-axis. In order to find the ratio of the two areas, I first had to calculate the areas of both regions, which is seen below. For region A, I integrated in relation to y, while for region B, I integrated in relation to x. Therefore, the two formulas that I used were y = x2 and x = vy, or x = y1/2. The ratio of region A to region B was 2:1. Next, I calculated the ratio for other functions of the type y = xn where n ? ?+ between x = 0 and x = 1. The first value of n that I tested was 3. Because the formula is y = x3, the inverse of that is x = y1/3. In this case, the value for n was 3, and the ratio was 3:1 or 3. I then used 4 for the value of n. In this case, the formula was y = x4 and its inverse was x = y1/4. For the value n = 4, the ratio was 4:1, or 4. After I analyzed these 3 values of n and their corresponding ratios of areas, I came up with my first conjecture: Conjecture 1: For all positive integers n, in the form y = xn, where the graph is between x = 0 and x = 1, the ratio of region A to region B is equal to n. In order to test this conjecture further, I used other numbers that were not necessarily integers as n and placed them in the function y = xn. In this case, I used n = ?. The two equations were y = x1/2 and x = y2. For n = ? , the ratio was 1:2, or ?. I also used ? as a value of n. In this case, the two functions were y = x? and x = y1/?. Again, the value of n was ? , and the ratio was ? :1, or ?. As a result, I concluded that Conjecture 1 was true for all positive real numbers n, in the form y = xn, between x = 0 and x = 1. 2. After proving that Conjecture 1 was true, I used other parameters to check if my conjecture was only true for x = 0 to x = 1, or if it could be applied to all possible parameters. First, I tested the formula y = xn for all positive real numbers n from x = 0 to x = 2. My first value for n was 2. The two formulas used were y = x2 and x = y1/2. In this case, the parameters were from x = 0 to x = 2, but the y parameters were from y = 0 to y = 4, because 02 = 0 and 22 = 4. In this case, n was 2, and the ratio was 2:1, or 2. I also tested a different value for n, 3, with the same x-parameters. The two formulas were y = x3 and x = y1/3. The y-parameters were y = 0 to y = 8. Again, the n value, 3, was the same as the ratio, 3:1. In order to test the conjecture further, I decided to use different values for the x-parameters, from x = 1 to x = 2. Using the general formula y = xn, I used 2 for the n value. Again, the ratio was equal to the n value. After testing the conjecture multiple times with different parameters, I decided to update my conjecture to reflect my findings. The n value did not necessarily have to be an integer; using fractions such as ? and irrational numbers such as ? did not affect the outcome. Regardless of the value for n, as long as it was positive, the ratio was always equal to n. In addition, the parameters did not have an effect on the ratio; it remained equal to the value used for n. Conjecture 2: For all positive real numbers n, in the form y = xn, where the graph is between x = a and x = b and a < b, the ratio of region A to region B is equal to n. . In order to prove my second conjecture true, I used values from the general case in order to prove than any values a and b will work. So, instead of specific values, I made the x-parameters from x = a to x = b. By doing this, region A will be the region bounded by y = xn, y = an, y = bn, and the y-axis. Region B is the region enclosed by y = xn, x = a, x = b, and the x-axis. The formulas used were y = xn and x = y1/n. The ratio of region A to region B is n:1, or n. This proves my conjecture correct, because the value for n was equivalent to the ratio of the two regions. . The next part of the portfolio was to determine the ratio of the volumes of revolution of regions A and B when rotated around the x-axis and the y-axis. First, I determined the ratio of the volumes of revolutions when the function is rotated about the x-axis. For the first example, I will integrate from x = 0 to x = 1 with the formula y = x2. In this case, n = 2. When region B is rotated about the x-axis, it can be easily solved with the volume of rotation formula. When region A is rotated about the x-axis, the resulting volume will be bounded by y = 4 and y = x2. The value for n is 2, while the ratio is 4:1. In this case, I was able to figure out the volume of A by subtracting the volume of B from the cylinder formed when the entire section (A and B) is rotated about the x-axis. For the next example, I integrated the function y = x2 from x = 1 to x = 2. In this case, I would have to calculate region A using a different method. By finding the volume of A rotated around the x-axis, I would also find the volume of the portion shown in figure B labeled Q. This is because region A is bounded by y = 4, y = x2, and y = 1. Therefore, I would have to then subtract the volume of region Q rotated around the x-axis in order to get the volume of only region A. In this case, the value for n was 2, and the ratio was 4:1. After this, I decided to try one more example, this time with y = x3 but using the same parameters as the previous problem. So, the value for n is 3 and the parameters are from x = 1 to x = 2. In this case, n was equal to 3, and the ratio was 6:1. In the next example that I did, I chose a non-integer number for n, to determine whether the current pattern of the ratio being two times the value of n was valid. For this one, I chose n = ? with the parameters being from x = 0 to x = 1. In this case, n = ? and the ratio was 2? :1, or 2?. After this, I decided to make a conjecture based on the 4 examples that I had completed. Because I had used multiple variations for the parameters, I have established that they do not play a role in the ratio; only the value for n seems to have an effect. Conjecture 3: For all positive real numbers n, in the form y = xn, where the function is limited from x = a to x = b and a < b, the ratio of region A to region B is equal to two times the value of n. In order to prove this conjecture, I used values from the general case in order to prove than any values a and b will work. So, instead of specific values, I made the x-parameters from x = a to x = b. By doing this, region A will be the region bounded by y = xn, y = an, y = bn, and the y-axis. Region B is the region enclosed by y = xn, x = a, x = b, and the x-axis. In this example, n = n and the ratio was equal to 2n:1. This proves my conjecture that the ratio is two times the value for n. When the two regions are rotated about the x-axis, the ratio is two times the value for n. However, this does not apply to when they are rotated about the y-axis. In order to test that, I did 3 examples, one being the general equation. The first one I did was for y = x2 from x = 1 to x =2. When finding the volume of revolution in terms of the y-axis, it is important to note that the function must be changed into terms of x. Therefore, the function that I will use is x = y1/2. In addition, the y-parameters are from y = 1 to y = 4, because the x values are from 1 to 2. In this example, n = 2 and the ratio was 1:1. The next example that I did was a simpler one, but the value for n was not an integer. Instead, I chose ? , and the x-parameters were from x = 0 to x = 1. The formula used was x = y1/?. In this example, the ratio was ? :2, or ? /2. After doing this example, and using prior knowledge of the regions revolved around the x-axis, I was able to come up with a conjecture for the ratio of regions A and B revolving around the y-axis. Conjecture 4: For all positive real numbers n, in the form y = xn, where the function is limited from x = a to x = b and a < b, the ratio of region A to region B is equal to one half the value of n. In order to prove this conjecture, I used values from the general case in order to prove than any values a and b will work. This is similar to what I did to prove Conjecture 3. So, instead of specific values, I made the x-parameters from x = a to x = b. By doing this, region A will be the region bounded by y = xn, y = an, y = bn, and the y-axis. Region B is the region enclosed by y = xn, x = a, x = b, and the x-axis. The ratio that I got at the end was n:2, which is n/2. Because the value of n is n, this proves that my conjecture is correct. In conclusion, the ratio of the areas formed by region A and region B is equal to the value of n. n can be any positive real number, when it is in the form y = xn. The parameters for this function are x = a and x = b, where a < b. In terms of volumes of revolution, when both regions are revolved around the x-axis, the ratio is two times the value of n, or 2n. However, when both regions A and B are revolved around the y-axis, the ratio is one half the value of n, or n/2. In both situations, n includes the set of all positive real numbers.

Queuing Up

Long Queuing Time Pepper lunch restaurant is famous for providing hot, fast and delicious food to customers. It attracts many people to visit, no matter in peak hours or off peak hours. However Pepper Lunch Restaurant have a poor queuing for customers to buy their wanted dishes. According a servey, a customers said that when he buying a meal, he counted from queuing to get a meal on the get dishes area, it takes around 45minutes in peak hour while it takes at least 15 minutes in off peak hours.Customers have to spend much time when they visit Pepper Lunch Restaurant. The picture at the right hand side showed Pepper lunch restaurant had made a notice for customers which listed about the queuing time is around 20 minutes and apologize for that non-convenience issue. Therefore, the following part is focus on this problem and also suggests some improvements for long queuing time. There are several reasons in causing this problem. One of the reasons is the pepper lunch restaurant in Festi val Walk lack a smart, fast and effective payment system.Only cash is accepted. Octopus card is not accepted as a payment method in the payment system. As all known, nowadays Octopus card is a well-known and very convenience payment method for people to use in buying things and pay transportation fare. Apart from the payment method, Pepper Lunch Restaurant only has one cashier for people to buy their meal. In peak hours, there are at least 20 people in the queue. In off peak hours, there are still 10 people in the queue.A survey interviewed 10 customers who standing outside the Pepper Lunch restaurant, asking whether they would give up if they saw a long queue outside the restaurant. Not surprisingly, 5 people said yes and they would choose other restaurant. The result showed that long queuing time is a serious problem to pepper lunch restaurant. Base on the above problems, we suggest the following improvements. Pepper Lunch Restaurant should install the Octopus card payment system for people to purchase the meal.The Octopus card payment system is a convenience system for payment. It is already widely used in buying food in some specific store or restaurant which installed the Octopus card payment system. Therefore, pepper lunch restaurant should install the Octopus card payment system for people to purchase the meal in order to reduce the time during the payment process and also to save time for change. Apart from installing the Octopus card payment system in the cashier counter, pepper lunch restaurant can set an auto-machine near the cashier counter.This auto-machine is quite like the auto-machine used in cinema. People can order their food by using this auto-machine with their octopus card. It will save much time in queuing. Although setting one more cashier counter, a self-purchase machine and the Octopus card payment system might slightly increase the cost, it can highly reduce the queuing time and attract more people to visit the restaurant. It definite ly would be the best long-term plan for its business and helps to increase profits.Beside, pepper lunch restaurant should set one more cashier in the counter to shorter the waiting time for buying meal. If there are two cashiers in the counter, one cashier could be used for cash while the other could be used for octopus. It would be a great payment system and could shorter the queuing time effectively. The below picture is the orginal layout design of Pepper Lunch Restaurant in Festival Walk The fowlloing picture is our suggested layout design for Pepper Lunch Restaurant.

Good, But Not Good Enough Essay

There are times when we feel we must be perfect in order to please others. No matter if we did the best we could do, if it wasn’t perfect we felt like a failure. We want the approval that comes with perfect ness. Every day we see a new commercial or magazine showing an image of a hunky, greased up muscle man or an anorexic model with tons of make up air brushed on her body and society compares you with that image. We as a people tend to use those false images of beauty as a scale to rate the rest of the population by and if you do not fit in that category you are not beautiful. So we strive to be accepted to be approved by the rest of society. In Janice Mirikitani’s poem â€Å"Suicide Note† a young Asian American college student apologizes to her parents for not being perfect. Perfect in school and perfect in life. Even though the girl worked very hard and did very well it wasn’t good enough in her mind and maybe in her parents’ mind to be worthy of her parents’ love or life itself, and so her only option was death to atone for her sin of imperfectness. The poem begins: How many notes written†¦/ ink smeared like bird prints in snow./ not good enough not pretty enough not smart enough / dear mother and father ./ I apologize/ for disappointing you / I’ve worked hard, / not good enough / harder, perhaps to please you.(373.1-9) Clearly the girl in this poem the girl is apologizing for much more than  grades. She has set unrealistic standards for herself and has a lack of self worth all because she cannot achieve these standards. She cannot change the way she looks, yet she is apologizing for not being â€Å"pretty enough†. She also goes on to talk about how life may have been better for her if she were a son instead of a daughter. She would be worthy of love because she associates strength, confidence, beauty and smarts with being male. â€Å"I would swagger through life / muscled and bold and assured,†(373.17-18). Who do we blame for this young girl’s negative self-image? Is it society’s fault that she values being a male more than her own life or is it her parent’s fault for not making her feel the love that she so desperately needs right now? Obviously she was never appreciated for her work because she’s constantly apologizing for not being â€Å"good enough† throughout the whole note and talks about how failure, disappointment and disapproval drive her closer to committing suicide. Maybe if her parent’s voiced how they felt about her this tragedy could have been prevented. Further into the poem she talks about how she will atone for her sin of imperfectness. â€Å"My sacrifice I will drop / bone by bone, perched / on the ledge of my womanhood,/ fragile as wings†(373-374.31-34). She is toying with the idea of jumping from a ledge knowing that death will be the out come of her actions. Who will be there to stop her since she doesn’t matter? † Not strong enough†(374.35) she utters next. She doesn’t yet have the courage to fly like a baby bird from a nest off of her window ledge. She pictures herself as a sparrow â€Å"sillied and dizzied by the wind†(374.39). The reason she pictures herself as a sparrow because a sparrow is a little bird that is not considered to be a really important creature. Compared to a hawk or an eagle, a sparrow is a peasant bird, or an everyday bird. People have noticed sparrows before, but never pointed them out like they would if they were a hawk or an eagle. They would praise a hawk or an eagle, not a sparrow. Each line in the poem is building the young girl up to that state of mind where only death is the escape. She’s thinking of all the things that have led her up to this point. â€Å"not good enough not strong enough / not smart enough†(374.48-49) Maybe this way someone will finally notice her. She hopes that † they will bury / my bird bones beneath / a sturdy pine†(374.57-59). The pine refers back to the beginning where she pictures herself as a male child. The pine represents what would have happened if she turned out to be a boy. This could also mean, that in the afterlife she wants to be as strong as a pine, hoping that she would be brought back in the afterlife as a boy. The suicide was a way for the college student to be noticed. It was very unfortunate that she had to take her own life just to get attention, and to get appreciation for all the things that she had done and still it wouldn’t be good enough for her parents.

Just War Theory

War is said to occur when one state declares hostility against another by which it places the people and resources under its authority to enmity against their adversaries as well as their resources (Gardam J, 1993). According to broadminded ed war historian and theorist Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel, there is an implication of the above definition.In placing its people as well s resources to hostilities, each state is in reality declaring war on three phases; first and foremost as to the other state; second as to the people of the other state; and thirdly as to its own dissenting citizens, should they fail to act in accordance with the State’s demand for manpower and resources (Gardam J, 1993).Going by the above definition offered by Jeffrey R. Hummel, just war would comprise that the war should have a just beginning. That is, it must be declared in reaction to violent behavior; the response has to be reasonable and according to the level of aggression, it has to be begun by an appro priate authority in opposition to appropriate enemy; it has to be conducted in proper manner that is justly†¦that is no harming of innocent people knowingly or intentionally (Gardam J, 1993). The war must have a just originThe just war theory asserts that war should originate only if there is violation of rights and only in self-defense. These rights should be individualistic rights as opposed to those that lead to war, for instance breach of a country’s sovereignty on a realistic altitude. Nevertheless, a difficulty arises at once. The fundamentals necessary to judge the justness of the war’s origin for instance, time and relevant information are not often available at the point war is declared.In deciding the idea of German Catholic participating in war during the Nazi period, it was once remarked by a publisher that â€Å"A scientific judgement concerning causes and origins of the war is absolutely impossible today because the pre-requisites for such a judgeme nt are not available to us. This must wait until a later time when the documents of both sides are available† (Allen C, 1966). The war must be a reasonable response As per the theory, it is grimacing for a provoker to be shot whether he acted on purpose or accidentally.While exercising self-defense the level of force utilized has to be proportional to the force used by the aggressor, while the aim of the responsive force should be articulated on the tenets of protection or restitution. Thus, a war with a just origin should have first exhausted all lesser force employment that could have consummated the desired objectives. It becomes crucial to elucidate one idea that the war should be left with the people with, that the state has consigned their rights of defense with.The question is whether States’ declaration of war places all its citizens to take part in hostilities even though a small proportion of them have been aggressed. Secondly, does aggression directed towards those consigned with the right of defense bind all others under declaration of war? If so, the contract appears to be calculated to enhance the level of violence of any differences as opposed to providing protection or restitution. The war has to be declared by a proper authority and against a proper enemy.Under this theory, the proper authority to exercise a right of self-defense against an aggressor is an agent or individual upon whose rights have been violated. Thus, under this heading a state is interpreted to be a proper authority. Here the assumption is that the war is declared against a state that is proper enemy. Just war should have a just ending On the ordinary observation, a just war (precisely since, it is not a campaign) should finish with the reinstatement of the status quo ante. The model case is a war of hostility, which ends justly when the provoker has been conquered, his attack repulsed, the old boundaries reinstated.Conceivably this is not quite enough for a jus t ending: the wounded state might merit compensations from the aggressor state, so that the damage the aggressor's forces meted out (Gardam J, 1993). In considering the atomic bombing of Japan, Was the bombing just? Was it moral? The use of atomic bombs was not meant to be confined to military targets, as these are obviously weapons mass destruction and could not fail to terrorize the civilians. From point of view of justice, discarding the rule that excludes civilians from deliberate attack represented a grave injustice from which the world requires to recover.If the aim was to end the war this could have been achieved without dropping those bombs on civilians (Gardam J, 1993). Appearing in the Nation, an article by Richard Falk titled â€Å"Defining a just war† in issue of Oct 29, he asserted that the war in Afghanistan qualified to be the first just war since World War II (Roberts A, 1993-1994). Although in the issue Falk went on to warn that the justice of the cause could be â€Å"negated by the injustice of improper means and excessive ends†, he did not relinquish his original affirmation.This utterance came from one of the prominent and respected advocates of international peace and justice. How true was his assertion about just war in Afghanistan (Roberts A, 1993-1994)? Interpreting Falk’s position as saying US war could be just, as long as it adhered to the ideologies he articulated, his argument nevertheless was manifestly wrong. First, on the ground that the principles were broken as of the start of the war and secondly, on the dismissal of alternative action that could have solved the impasse through the United Nations.How could this war be justified if the bombings lead to starvation of many millions of Afghanistan’s due inability of aid agencies to deliver their services to the civilians prior to the felling of the first bomb? On the other hand, prior knowledge of humanitarian crisis that could be occasioned by bombing serves to negate it from being construed as just war. First, the war did not meet the criteria of discrimination (not to harm civilians). Secondly, on the proportionality of the force (force should not be greater than the provoking cause), the force employed was greater compared to that of the aggressor (Roberts A, 1993-1994).The war in Afghanistan largely did not meet the criterion of necessity that calls upon force not to be applied if there are other non-violent means available. Before the onset of the bombing, Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan had proposed that they were ready to try Osama bin Laden if America provided evidence connecting him to the attacks in the New York and Washington. Going by the words of this ambassador, it is clear that this war could have been avoided if US offered the evidence they were demanding in order to prosecute the culprit (Mintz A, 1993).In addition, the ambassador had indicated that under Islamic law legal proceedings could begin. Thus, infact tri al could begin pertaining to the raised allegations followed by evidence being provided in court. However, what happened is that Washington refused to offer evidence, declared its demands were not subject to negotiation and started bombardment of Afghanistan (Mintz A, 1993). Whether Taliban’s offer was serious or not, Washington never bothered to follow, conversely going to war faced with such conditions eliminates the criterion of necessity.Vietnam War first assumed the aspect of political dimension with many at last being pressed towards moral arguments. Of course, the war was seen to be completely irresponsible, and one that could not be won. Its costs, even if the Americans were egoistic, were above the normal. The war was fought unjustly since it involved a lot of brutality by the Americans, a factor that was seen by many as the one that led to the defeat. In a war for â€Å"hearts and minds† as opposed to land and resources, justice stands out to be the main aspe cts to victory.Vietnam War served to educate states that there was a need for state to fight justly and to crown it all, justice has become military necessity. Vietnam was the first war that saw the need for emphasizing the jus in belle principle. It enumerated that Wars unpopular at home should not be fought in addition to wars whereby the state is unwilling to commit its resources. As mentioned earlier Vietnam War was based on doubtful justice and the war was fought unjustly, as it irritated the civilian population. By losing the hearts and minds of the civilians led to the loosing of the whole war.Modern warfare requires that there be support from different civilian populations, expanding past the population facing instantaneous risk. Nevertheless, moral regard for civilians at risk is crucial in winning great support of the war. America has in the past-confused just wars as crusades, as if a war can be just only where the forces of good outweigh those of evil. However, as for Ge orge Bush (elder) he appeared to understand that war, is properly a war of armies, a combat between combatants, through which the citizens should be protected.In good faith, there was nothing of a just war in Iraq bombing in 1991. The civilians there were not protected, since there was destruction of electricity networks as well as water purification plants (Mintz A, 1993). Demolition of infrastructure, that is, significant for civilian existence was rampant during the Gulf War. Nevertheless, American approach in Gulf War was due to compromise among what justice would have necessitated. There was no controlled bombing and collectively as opposed to Korea or Vietnam, targeting was far more unlimited and selective.Conclusion Many people acknowledge that we are faced with moral duty to avoid the evils of war. However, this realization poses many difficult questions, when as responsible individuals we witness tormenting injustices for instance, ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Gardam J, 1993). With millions of lives being risked by war, one is bound to consider if war should ever be justified and if so, for what purpose? In answering the above, it is first important to consider principles of just war theory and finally correlate these principles to historical as well as ongoing conflicts.On the just cause, figures like Ronald Reagan are seen to assert that whether in self-defense or defense for others, remain the only classified cause that justifies waging war. There is a need to justify military intervention in secessionist or revolutionary wars. The conduct of war should also be in accordance with the principles of discrimination and proportionality. Civilians should not be directly targeted ad costs of military action should be proportionate to the expected advantages of ruining military targets. ReferenceAllen C. Isbell, (1966). War and Conscience Abilene, Texas: Biblical Research Press, p. 82. Gardam, Judith Gail. (1993) Proportionality and Force in Internati onal Law. American Journal of International Law, Volume 87, Issue 3, 391-413. Mintz, Alex. (1993). The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Volume 37, Issue 4, 595-618. Roberts, Adam. (Winter, 1993-1994). The Laws of War in the 1990-91 Gulf Conflict. International Security, Volume 18, Issue 3 134-181. Just War Theory The theory of just war is a military ethics doctrine tracing its origin from catholic and Roman philosophy. The Catholic Church in the United States of America was very vocal in the 1960s in asserting the theory of just war especially in their pastoral letter that were released in 1963 known as ‘The challenge of peace: God’s promise and our response. ’ Moral theologians, international makers and ethicists on just war theory maintain that for any conflict to qualify as just it should meet religious, philosophical and political justice criteria.When our eyes are cast back in the history of America, it is true that US has been involved in various wars for example the First World War, the Second World War and Afghanistan war. In the light of the just war theory, was United States ethically right to enter into these wars? This is what this research will mainly focus on. It will analyze the reasons that made US to enter into these wars from ethics point of view using th e theory of just war as the parameter. The paper starts with a short introduction then the main points and at the end there is a conclusion which is basically the summary of the key points.At the very end of this paper is a list of the resources that are used in this research, properly formatted in accordance with MLA formatting style. According to the United States Catholic Bishops, for any military action to be applied to a conflict it must meet four conditions for it to be legitimate. First of all they say that for any military action to be taken, the damage caused by the aggressor must be enormous, specific, grave and lasting. Secondly, it should be used as the last option that is, when all other means at disposal proves to be ineffective or impractical.Thirdly, the prospects of success before entering the war must be high. The fourth and the last criterion is that there should be lesser evils and disorders than the much that the aggressor(s) caused (Evans 4) Generally there are two sets of criteria for determining whether war is just or not. The first addresses the right to enter in the war while the second one is about the conduct of the military in the war. The former holds that the reason for joining the war must be just but should not for used for revenging or repossessing things captured in other words the cause must be just.In comparative justice principle, injustices suffered by one party must exceed that of the other. Again, war cannot be waged by anybody thus can only be waged by a legitimate authority. It is also argued that there must be high chances of winning the war for fighting a losing battle is wastage of resources. Also war should be used as the last resort or when all other methods have failed. Finally the gains of entering the war must be equal to the loss and harms incurred or in short, macro-proportionality must apply.After the war begins, the just war theory holds that any military action should only target specific places and indiv iduals especially the enemies and their strongholds and the condition of proportionality must apply or put in another way, the amount of force to be used must be gauged by the amount of harm caused and that only a minimum force must be put to task for the goal is not to destroy and harm civilians but to correct the mistakes that were done by the aggressor(s) (Evans, 5)According to the just war theory the entry of United States in the First World War in 1917 could be said to have been just this was because the decision to join the war was made by a legitimate body and not by a single individual. The then president Woodrow Wilson asked the congress to convene twice to determine the way forward. It was in order for US to declare war on Germany as it kept on violating all the agreements that had been made for example it violated the agreement that it would suspend all unrestricted submarine warfare.Germany had also tried to entice Mexico to join the war against US on condition that Germ any would help it to liberate itself from the United States. The other reason was that Germany attacked all neutral ships that neared what was referred to as zones irrespective of what they carried. This affected US in that its passengers were killed and the trade network was interrupted. (Coffman 25) In accordance with just war theory, if the harm is long lasting and grievous then the war is just. The same was the case in the First World War where the US was losing its people and property due to German’s malicious activities.Again as per this theory the war was just because it was used as the last option. At first the US never wanted to join the war and was following the policy of isolation. It used diplomatic talks and signing of agreements to shun war but this proved to be futile and the only option that was left was war. This war was geared towards stopping what Germany was doing and correcting the mistakes that were done and was not meant as a revenge but when the war da mage assessment is done, the damage caused by this war was more than what the aggressor had caused thus as per this theory’s principle the war could be said to have been unjust.(Coffman 26) The US entry on the world war II could also be said to be just according to the just war theory because it was declared by a legitimate body in 1941 after Japan attacked US spheres of interest in Pearl Harbor. Though the war was declared by a recognized legitimate body according to this theory it could be regarded as unjust because it was more of revenge than order restoration. The US wanted to challenge Japan which had proved to be a bother in the Pacific region.The harm that Japan had caused as per the just war theory was not grievous, lasting or that big enough to have merited the consequences that resulted. Just war theory holds that the harm caused by the war should not exceed the damage done by the aggressor but in the case of Japan, the war caused enormous damage in fact about 100,0 00 people perished when the US dropped atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This is a clear indicator that US was not only targeting the combatants and their strategic positions but also targeted the civilians and thus in the light of the above the war was unjust.(Coffman 27) As per this theory the war could be said to have been just because the chances of US winning the Second World War were high although this was later proved to have been a miscalculation for it extended longer than expected and that was why the US was forced to resort to atomic bombs. This war could also be said to be unjust if it is judged the theory’s principle that argues that war should not be used as a means of achieving personal gains and in this case US used it as such.It wanted to protect its interests in the Western Europe nations because it had invested a lot in those countries in terms of loans and war materials and thus if they were to be defeated by Germany then this would have meant losing all that it had invested. (Gaido and Walters) The third war that will be analyzed using this theory is the US entry in the Afghanistan war in 2001. According to this theory, this war was justified in all ways. The war was declared by a legitimate institution that is the US government and was in response to terrorist activities of bombing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.This was the height of terrorism and that was why the US was forced to act. The war was thus meant to control terrorism but not to avenge. When the issues of damages that were caused by these attacks are assessed, they were enormous that the amount of harm that resulted from this war and for this reason the war was just. As per the theory, the war should be used as the last resort and this is what happened in Afghanistan. The US had tried to use all other methods that were at its disposal and they proved to be ineffective. Terrorism continued to be on the increase despite the measures that were taken against it.The US had tried to hold talks with terrorists asking them to stop their terrorism activities. They kept attacking US citizens and other areas of interest and at this time it was pushed beyond limit and had to act. (Gareau 16) As per the just war theory, there is no need to engage yourself in a losing battle but here the US was confident enough that it would win this war and indeed it won thus on the light of the above, the war could be said to have been just. In conclusion, the just war theory is a theory that is used to determine whether the war is just or not.It holds that the war is just if is declared by a legitimately recognized body, if the chances of winning are clear, if it is for correcting the harms done as opposed to revenge and if it is used as the last option when all other methods have failed. Using it to determine whether US was just to enter in the First World War, Second World War and the Afghanistan war, it is right to justify US entry in the first world war an d the Afghanistan war but using the same criteria its entry on the second war could not be justified. Works Cited:Evans, M. Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh University Press, 2005 Coffman E. M. The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in First World War. University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Gaido, D. and Walters, D. Socialist Workers Party/Workers Party Split. The Second World War: What the War is About. 2005 http://marxists. catbull. com/history//etol/document/fi/1938-1949/swp- wpsplit/swpwp01. htm Gareau, F. H. State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to The War on Terrorism. Zed Books, 2004

Alternatives to Incarceration

Provision of sustainable security in the society should be a collaborative endeavor between the government and social institutions which form the community. The government has a legal authority to mitigate crime activities through the criminal justice system, a factor that leads to incarceration. On the other hand, social institutions such as the family, church, and learning institutions play the ultimate role of instill reliable character and behaviors to members of the community as a tool for promoting social acceptable conduct in the society (Reisig, Cole, Clear, 2008). According to psychologists, the development of character traits on the young generation is mainly based on the surrounding environment. This is because the young engage in copying and adopting the behaviors of other in the community. Nevertheless, social institutions have failed in ensuring an environment that can promote reliable character among members. Such has been blamed for inhibiting the process of effectively fighting crime in the community. The author seeks to give a discussion on the question; why should we expect the correctional system to be able to accomplish so much when so many other social institutions have failed? When family, school, and churches are unable to inculcate law-abiding behavior. Why should we be surprised if the correctional also system fails? Possible solutions to the problems affecting the effectiveness of American correctional system will also be given. The American correctional system effectiveness The American correctional system has been blamed for its failure in ensuring sustainable reforming of criminals to reflective compatible character and behavior in the society. According to its mandate, the correctional system is marked with the responsibility of incarcerating crime offenders as a mechanism for instilling behavioral change from crime activities. Nevertheless, numerous research findings have evidently shown a high rate of recidivism into criminal behavior by criminals upon release from correctional facilities (Conis, DeLisi, 2009). Indeed, such findings indicate that victims from correctional facilities are more likely to engage in more serious criminal activities than before their incarceration. Numerous factors have been closely attributed with this failure of the American correctional system. First, the system is faced with the problem of addressing individual needs of criminals as a potential drive to committing crime in the society (Western, Weiman, Pattillo, 2004). As an example, the criminal justice system of American has received for failing to appreciate the psychological requirements of drug related crime offenders as well as mentally impaired criminals. According to psychological evidence, imposing punishment on drug abusers and mentally impaired victims serves no more than torture. This is because these individuals have their reasoning and judgmental capability compromised. This has the implication that crime offenders who have mental or drug abuse history can only be effectively corrected by engaging them in resolving their psychological problems first. This has nevertheless, been a major failure in the American correctional system. True from available statistical evidence, drug related crime activities are the leading source of prison population in the American community (Conis, DeLisi, 2009). In fact, this statistics indicate that an estimated over 40 percent of prison population in US is comprised of convicts of drug related crimes. Despite this fact, the correctional system has invested limited resources in establishing rehabilitation rather than incarceration facilities. Another factor which has been associated with the failure of the American correctional system is poor influence among inmates in the correctional facilities. The Federal Bureau of Prisons as the federal agency responsible for administering prisons has been quite efficient in appreciating the need to categorize prisoners depending on their crime. Based on this reasoning, the agency currently operates five security levels of correctional facilities in the nation which accommodate victims depending on the level of security needed (Western, Weiman, Pattillo, 2004). Such facilities range from low security prison camps with weak or no fenced perimeters to high secure prison marked with wall reinforced double-fenced perimeters and high prison guard to inmate ratio. On the contrary, it is commonly asserted that conviction and sentencing of criminals remains the decision of the criminal law courts. Just to be appreciated here is the fact that court trails in the nation are based on the due process procedure clause of the constitution. On the other hand, this constitutional provision bases its decisions on facts presented and the strength of defense given by the defendant in the case (Western, Weiman, Pattillo, 2004). This has the implication that such decisions are subject to error. Indeed, available information has claimed of numerous incidences of unequal conviction for priority criminals. This is because these criminals have been through the system several time and effectively identified the numerous escape loopholes in the system. Based on the above reasoning, the process of categorizing criminals in the correctional facilities based on court judgments remains a major setback to qualify security needs and mitigate poor influence among convicted crime offenders (Conis, DeLisi, 2009). This is because the process leads to accommodating of various levels of criminals in the same, a factor which promotes crime behavioral influence to first time offenders. Such is the reason behind the claim that victims of imprisonment potentially engage in more serious crime upon release from prison. Therefore, the failure of American correctional system can be closely attributed to lack of an efficient mechanism for identifying and group criminals depending on their crime gravity and required correction strategies. Over the passed three decades, the America correctional system has witnessed a high rate of increase in the number of prisoners held in its correctional facilities. This has no doubt been the source for numerous social and political concerns on the problem of overcrowding in the prisons (Meares, 2007). On the other side, overcrowding is to be blamed for increasing facility strain, thus leading to poor living conditions for inmates. According to psychological principles, character is build through persistent instilling of ideas in an individuals subconscious mind. This means that given long-term inhuman conditions imposed by prisoners, they are only bound top develop an attitude of less value for life and others in the society. In addition, numerous research findings have identified a close link between prisoner and prison guard behavior based on correctional facility conditions. It is no doubt that correctional facilities are marked with sense of authority from the prison guards forcing inmates to feel powerless and depersonalized (Wilson, 1993). On the other side, pushed against the wall, human beings are bound to fight back. This implies that the harsh condition imposed on prisoners in correctional facility is a potential cause for law defiance mentality among prisoners. Such attitudes are bound to be transfer to the community level by inmates upon their release, an element that negates their ability to respect law and order in the community. Social institutions as failures in inculcating law-abiding behavior   Sustainable behavior among the young generation is based on the influence brought to them by underlying social institutions in the society. This is based on the fact that at birth a child is purely innocent, only to development attitude and character with time. It is due to this reason why most criminal behaviors in the community are blamed to poor family influence on the young members of the community (Reisig, Cole, Clear, 2008). Family violence in the society is one of the numerous reasons for the failure by parents in promoting law abiding behavior among children. This is because such practices leave parents with limited time to monitor and address behavioral issues of their children.

FINANCIAL MARKETS AND MONETARY POLICY Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 1

FINANCIAL MARKETS AND MONETARY POLICY - Essay Example Since then it has been varying over the years where the present name ‘official bank rate’ was initiated in 2006 replacing the former ‘Repo Rate’ that existed till 1997. The rate of interest is levied by the nation’s central bank or the Federal bank on lending or advances to regulate the supply of money in the banking sector and overall economy. This is essentially conducted on a quarterly term to regulate the inflation rate and strengthen the nation’s rates of exchange. Any deviation in the bank rates stimulates a ripple-impact as it affects every sector of the economy. For example, the stock prices in the exchange market seem to respond to the changes in the interest rates. A variation in the bank rates has an impact on the customers as it affects the prime rates of interests for individual loans. The Bank rate is the rate at which the Bank of England gives to the commercial bank for the extra reserves being kept in safe custody of the Central Bank (Ciro, 2012, p. 122). Conventionally, the treasury determines the rates of interests. But upon the reforms that occurred in 1992, the policy makers organized several meetings and minutes were published, yet they were not autonomous of the state which resulted into a perception that political forces were overshadowing what was stipulated to be fiscal decisions on the monetary policy. In 1997 there was operational accountability to determine the interest rates which was granted to the autonomous Bank of England by Gordon Brown-the Chancellor of Exchequer. Several principles were set for the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) that was enacted in the Bank of England Act 1998 (OECD, 2009, p. 31). The Act also spelled out the accountability of the MPC: this include; meeting on monthly basis, the membership consists of the governor, two deputy governors, two executive directors of the bank

How to prepare yourself for the examination Assignment

How to prepare yourself for the examination - Assignment Example 3-3:30 P.M. Be fresh Be fresh Be fresh Be fresh Be fresh Be fresh Be fresh 3:30 to 6:00 P.M. Human systems Human systems Human systems Human systems Human systems Human systems Human systems 6-8 P.M. Snacks/ Roam out Snacks/ Roam out Snacks/ Roam out Snacks/ Roam out Snacks/ Roam out Snacks/ Roam out Snacks/ Roam out 8-10 P.M. Physical science Physical science Physical science Physical science Physical science Physical science Physical science 10-11:30 P.M. Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths 11:30 -1 A.M. Dinner & others Dinner & others Dinner & others Dinner & others Dinner & others Dinner & others Dinner & others Rest of time Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Amount of time for revision You certainly need not to be worried about the revision. The time schedule in the above table itself will give you the excellent record. But, finish all your exercise within two months time. Using old papers That's really an excellent idea. It will give you clear picture of examination. But use these papers during your revision process. When you are revising all your exercises be ready with the old papers and find out where you are getting the difficulty to answer the question. If needed, go through those sections again and again carefully. Have a good look at all these papers and find out which sections are regularly asked. Emphasize those sections more during your revision phase. Checking time to answer the question This is of course a stupid question to answer, because it depends on various factors. Some of those may be your grasping power, ability to answer the question quickly and correctly, picking which question to answer first and the most important is your knowledge. If you know everything, I am quiet sure you will be answering all questions before time.... How to prepare yourself for the examination? Before you start the below discussed strategy make sure that you are concentrate enough to carry on your scheduled task properly, make excellent study environment in your room, try to stick with table and chair and have a table lamp (If you can manage) for good concentration to your studies. That's really an excellent idea. It will give you clear picture of examination. But use these papers during your revision process. When you are revising all your exercises be ready with the old papers and find out where you are getting the difficulty to answer the question. If needed, go through those sections again and again carefully. Have a good look at all these papers and find out which sections are regularly asked. Emphasize those sections more during your revision phase. This is of course a stupid question to answer, because it depends on various factors. Some of those may be your grasping power, ability to answer the question quickly and correctly, picking which question to answer first and the most important is your knowledge. If you know everything, I am quiet sure you will be answering all questions before time. So never be worried about this phase. But for your own satisfaction you must check it at least once. Just lock your room, be with a watch, got to chair and start answering the questions. Now the wisest point is in picking the paper. Answer those papers which you have not tried during you revision.