Niels Bohr Essays - Atomic Physics, Chemical Properties,

Niels Bohr Niels Bohr was born in Copenhagen, he is the son of a physiology professor, and went to school at the University of Copenhagen, this is where he got his doctorate in 1911. Bohr won the Nobel piece prize for his theory of atomic structures. According to Microsoft Encarta His work drew on Rutherford's nuclear model of the atom, in which the atom is seen as a compact nucleus surrounded by a swarm of much lighter electrons. He thought that electrons are arranged in definite shells, or quantum levels, at a big distance from the nucleus. The arrangement of these electrons is called the electron configuration. The number of these electrons equals the atomic number if the atom; hydrogen has a single electron, helium has 2, and uranium has 92. The electron shells are built from a first shell to a total of seven shells. The first shell is complete with two electrons, the second can hold up to eight electrons, and the following shells hold larger numbers. The last electrons determine the chemical behavior of the atom.

Free Essays on Welfarfe

Welfare is it the solution or the problem? A 61-yr old system that was used by the government to help citizens during the great depression, but after the Great depression was it still helping; so many questions need to be answered. Why are people complaining about welfare and the government’s role in it? Why was the 61-yr old system ended? What benefits come with Welfare reform? Was it all worth it? Welfare, where did it come from? During the 1920’s or also known as the roaring 20’s, many families starting buying these items that they couldn’t afford on credit. Since no one had the actual money to buy these goods the stock market crashed. When the stock market crashed on October 29,1929 many families lost everything they had. Who was there to turn to? Here is where Welfare comes into the picture. State and local programs were helping so many families during this tragedy but it wasn’t enough, they needed additional help. The government offered their hand in and helped families find food, clothes and shelter. â€Å"The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy, bank failed, and business closed, and millions found them out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.† [PG 1] The Great Depression hit everyone not only the poor but many successful workers, everyone was in need of little assistance â€Å" Even sk illed workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs,† [PG 1] Does the government play a role? Many people don’t know this but there was a form of welfare before the depression. â€Å"A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense on individualism and self – reliance†¦during the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhous... Free Essays on Welfarfe Free Essays on Welfarfe Welfare is it the solution or the problem? A 61-yr old system that was used by the government to help citizens during the great depression, but after the Great depression was it still helping; so many questions need to be answered. Why are people complaining about welfare and the government’s role in it? Why was the 61-yr old system ended? What benefits come with Welfare reform? Was it all worth it? Welfare, where did it come from? During the 1920’s or also known as the roaring 20’s, many families starting buying these items that they couldn’t afford on credit. Since no one had the actual money to buy these goods the stock market crashed. When the stock market crashed on October 29,1929 many families lost everything they had. Who was there to turn to? Here is where Welfare comes into the picture. State and local programs were helping so many families during this tragedy but it wasn’t enough, they needed additional help. The government offered their hand in and helped families find food, clothes and shelter. â€Å"The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy, bank failed, and business closed, and millions found them out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.† [PG 1] The Great Depression hit everyone not only the poor but many successful workers, everyone was in need of little assistance â€Å" Even sk illed workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs,† [PG 1] Does the government play a role? Many people don’t know this but there was a form of welfare before the depression. â€Å"A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense on individualism and self – reliance†¦during the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhous...

Caesar Augustus Essay

It was the mid-1st century B. C. E. , Rome was ever-growing and the republic that once ran very smoothly was encountering many problems within itself. Wealthy land owners or patricians were gaining too much power and land and since Roman law read that only land owners could serve in the military much of the military power was reduced. Some people tried to change this, for example Tiberius, but his ideas were seen as controversial and he was assassinated in 133 B. C. E. One man named General Marius instituted a law stating that men didn’t have to own land to serve in the military. Soldiers still wanted land in return for their service though, and the general gave them land but this made soldiers more loyal to army officials rather than to the senate. After Marius retired Rome experienced a brief time of peace only to be broken by the Social War. The Social War was caused by the revolting of lower class Italians that were not entitled to full-citizenship and voting rights. This caused General Marius to come back. He ended the war and seized power of Rome. Marius died of old age and Rome started to become restless. In all of the turmoil there arose a powerful politician, Julius Caesar. Caesar created the First Triumvirate (three men) consisting of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey (also known as Magnus). The Triumvirate really only made these men more powerful though and really didn’t help Rome overall. The Triumvirate disappeared when Crassus died and Caesar and Pompey started to fight. Caesar invaded Rome in 49 B. C. E. and became a dictator there. Then later Pompey was murdered in Egypt in 48 B. C. E. Julius increased the senate from 600 to 900 members to give himself more supporters. In five years Caesar held many powerful offices and almost succeeded in transforming Rome into an empire but was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 B. C. E. Many wars took place after the assassination of Julius Caesar. His adopted son, Octavian, and his friend both formed the Second Triumvirate and defeated Caesars assassins in the Battle of Philippi. Many senators were killed during this time and it was not a good time for the republic. Eventually the Second Triumvirate dissipated and Octavian and Mark Antony turned on one another. Mark Antony married Cleopatra of Egypt and they committed suicide when Octavian invaded Egypt. Octavian became Augustus (exalted one) and now unofficially ruled Rome. Augustus knew that in order to successfully transform Rome into an empire he had to succeed where his father hadn’t. He supported the arts and technology. He rebuilt temples and created road systems. He pleased his people with holidays and special events. Augustus would even give free bread and wine to all of Rome’s citizens. The senate just had to sit and watch as Caesar Augustus became the total dictator of Rome. Literature grew exceedingly during this time. Under Augustus’ rule Rome entered the Pax Romana, the peaceful and golden age of Rome. So in the end Augustus obviously succeeded in the areas where Julius didn’t. Julius didn’t utilize his resources as well and didn’t realize that he needed to take away the senate’s power not enhance it. Augustus extended Rome to a great power and eventually fully ended the once-renowned republic. In a completely unnecessary comparison this story totally reminded me of the movie Star Wars, the fall of the republic and the birth of an empire. Anyways in conclusion, Augustus transformed Rome into an empire by gaining the loyalty of the citizens and soldiers while the senate lost its power. This man was so dominant that he even named the month of August after himself! Not many could have accomplished what Caesar Augustus did and many still marvel at his feats to this day. Caesar Augustus Essay It was the mid-1st century B. C. E. , Rome was ever-growing and the republic that once ran very smoothly was encountering many problems within itself. Wealthy land owners or patricians were gaining too much power and land and since Roman law read that only land owners could serve in the military much of the military power was reduced. Some people tried to change this, for example Tiberius, but his ideas were seen as controversial and he was assassinated in 133 B. C. E. One man named General Marius instituted a law stating that men didn’t have to own land to serve in the military. Soldiers still wanted land in return for their service though, and the general gave them land but this made soldiers more loyal to army officials rather than to the senate. After Marius retired Rome experienced a brief time of peace only to be broken by the Social War. The Social War was caused by the revolting of lower class Italians that were not entitled to full-citizenship and voting rights. This caused General Marius to come back. He ended the war and seized power of Rome. Marius died of old age and Rome started to become restless. In all of the turmoil there arose a powerful politician, Julius Caesar. Caesar created the First Triumvirate (three men) consisting of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey (also known as Magnus). The Triumvirate really only made these men more powerful though and really didn’t help Rome overall. The Triumvirate disappeared when Crassus died and Caesar and Pompey started to fight. Caesar invaded Rome in 49 B. C. E. and became a dictator there. Then later Pompey was murdered in Egypt in 48 B. C. E. Julius increased the senate from 600 to 900 members to give himself more supporters. In five years Caesar held many powerful offices and almost succeeded in transforming Rome into an empire but was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 B. C. E. Many wars took place after the assassination of Julius Caesar. His adopted son, Octavian, and his friend both formed the Second Triumvirate and defeated Caesars assassins in the Battle of Philippi. Many senators were killed during this time and it was not a good time for the republic. Eventually the Second Triumvirate dissipated and Octavian and Mark Antony turned on one another. Mark Antony married Cleopatra of Egypt and they committed suicide when Octavian invaded Egypt. Octavian became Augustus (exalted one) and now unofficially ruled Rome. Augustus knew that in order to successfully transform Rome into an empire he had to succeed where his father hadn’t. He supported the arts and technology. He rebuilt temples and created road systems. He pleased his people with holidays and special events. Augustus would even give free bread and wine to all of Rome’s citizens. The senate just had to sit and watch as Caesar Augustus became the total dictator of Rome. Literature grew exceedingly during this time. Under Augustus’ rule Rome entered the Pax Romana, the peaceful and golden age of Rome. So in the end Augustus obviously succeeded in the areas where Julius didn’t. Julius didn’t utilize his resources as well and didn’t realize that he needed to take away the senate’s power not enhance it. Augustus extended Rome to a great power and eventually fully ended the once-renowned republic. In a completely unnecessary comparison this story totally reminded me of the movie Star Wars, the fall of the republic and the birth of an empire. Anyways in conclusion, Augustus transformed Rome into an empire by gaining the loyalty of the citizens and soldiers while the senate lost its power. This man was so dominant that he even named the month of August after himself! Not many could have accomplished what Caesar Augustus did and many still marvel at his feats to this day.

Personal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 3

Personal - Essay Example For the next three hours, we tried to fix the ATV, while finding some hospitality nearby. Suddenly, as we were driving the ATV broke down as it the bump. No one knew what events were going to happen next. One of my friends was diabetic so we knew that we did not have much time. My friend tried to fix the ATV with many futile attempts. To make matters worse, couldn’t walk, and instead had to shuffle around from a  seated position. In order to gain some relief from the heat, we decided to spray themselves with their truck’ fire extinguishers. Thankfully, we got relief for a few seconds, then developed extremely painful open wounds across their skin from the blasts. The next day people started dying.  He couldn’t get a phone signal before his battery died, and he fell over when he tried to leave his car. He decided to stick with the vehicle, as it would be easier for rescuers to spot. It didn’t take long for him to become thirsty, so he went for the only available liquid—his car’s windshield fluid. However, knowing that he was d iabetic we knew we had no other choice. His lack of insulin was really a problem because we could not afford to lose him. The ATV exploded as my friends watched in vain.   Suddenly, we saw a bunch of men emerging from a view. We began to throw our hands in frenzy asking for attention. It was a very bad decision for many reasons because the men were pirates, kidnapping and stealing things to make money. They tied us up and took to their own cave and demanded us to call our parents to ask for ransom. With type 2 diabetes, we begged our friend to receive some treatment. However, they abductors were pretty much heartless and did not even give us some food/water. With our hands tied down, we tried to get out but it was not working. Our hope was completely dissolved as we thought our fate was sealed. We tried t signaling with his foil blanket, and lit fires at night with

The Two Dominant Political Parties in the United States of America Essay

The Two Dominant Political Parties in the United States of America - Essay Example The federalist also insisted that the government should be run by "best people" or the elite and not by the common people. They supported the executive branch of the government. The Republicans wanted strict and inflexible interpretation of the institution and opposed central government. They proposed that the government lessen its intervention to economy and give the power to the state because they desired more involvement of the people. They also support legislature to formulate laws in governing the populace. Federalists admired the British and wanted to copy the aristocracy of Great Britain. The Republicans favored France. The Federalists' suppression of freedom of press and speech was strongly opposed by the Republicans. There were some similarities of these two political parties. To promote their policies and ideologies, the Federalists created Gazette of the United States and the Republican set up the National Gazette. This increased the involvement of the people, dividing further the Americans. Both parties supported foreign countries: the Federalist for Great Britain and the Republican for France.

Treatment of Native Americans Essay Example for Free

Treatment of Native Americans Essay From the very beginning of American history, settlers have poorly treated the Native Americans. As some people know, â€Å"poorly† is an understatement. The treatment of the indigenous people was horrible during the 1800s from being forced to move west, having laws made against them by the government, and mass murder, even though that isn’t what our history books like to tell us today. In 1804, fur trading was established with the Oglala and became a big part of their life. Then, the Oglala and Lakota tribes decided to expand their control and influences west toward the Big Horn mountains. Then, on March 26, the United States government forced the Native Americans to move west past the Mississippi River. This meant that they would have to leave everything they had to move to a reservation where they would have to start all over again. They only had a certain amount of time to move cooperatively but when that time was up, they would be moved forcefully. If the Native Americans did not agree to move, then they were killed. Many laws and acts were passed against the native American people. In 1833, a law was made that no Native American to reside in the state of Florida, so, yet again, the indigenous people of our country were forced to drop everything thing they had to go live in a reservation in the west to start all over again. Also, in 1834, the Indian Intercourse Act was passed. The Indian Intercourse Act said that Congress created Indian Territory in the west that included the land area in all of present-day Kansas, most of Oklahoma, and parts of what later became Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming. The area was set aside for Indians who would be removed from their ancestral lands which, in turn, would be settled by non-Indians. The area steadily decreased in size until the 1870s when Indian Territory had been reduced to what is now Oklahoma, excluding the panhandle. Along with all of the laws and forced movement of Native Americans, there were also many battles that killed a lot of the indigenous people. In 1835 to 1842 was the Seminole War, the second and most terrible of three wars between the US government and the Seminole people was also one of the longest and most expensive wars in which the US army was ever engaged. Thousands of troops were sent, 1,500 men died, and between 40-60 million dollars were spent to force most of the Seminole to move to Indian Territory more than the entire US governments budget for Indian Removal. Another fight between settlers and Native Americans was in 1855. The Ash Hollow massacre was a pretty dumb battle when you think about it. Colonel William Harney uses 1,300 soldiers to massacre an entire Brulà © village in retribution for the killing of 30 soldiers, who were killed in retribution for the killing of the Brulà © chief, Conquering Bear, in a dispute over a cow. Settlers used any excuse they could think of to humiliate and kill as many Native Americans as they could. In conclusion, the treatment of Native Americans in our country was brutal. We are all told that a human is a human and everyone is equal. Well, clearly, people in the 1800s did not think so. They attacked anyone that was different in order to get ahead, including our indigenous people.

The Characters in The Matrix Essays -- The Matrix Science Fiction Movi

The Characters in The Matrix The Matrix (Wachowski & Wachowski 1999) is a battery powering an unending chatter of thought, images, productions, and discourse. In the film, a stabbing needle penetrates the black plug mounted on the back of a human skull, and the mind is overwhelmed by the matrix, an extensive simulacral world that, to its unknowing inhabitants, is in every way the same as reality, and to those merely passing through, is a sinister, green-tinted prison. The film sets, by dialogue and symbolism, a place for analysis, theology, theory, philosophy, and criticism that accommodates any stance within a language of freedom, choice, perception, reality, simulation, mind, computer code, and body. Rationalizations of and within these terms get a place at the table. This setting incites discussion as it limits it. For instance, we have a ready means to discuss what knowing a thing really means, but we are in less of a position to discuss how such paranoia gets off the ground. However, the accessible ph ilosophical vocabulary everywhere present in the film ought not overwhelm our resources to move amongst the dimly legible codes and technologies of the cinematic body and world – the stylized sequences of events that produce the reactions in a viewer that give the film meaning. In this capacity for aesthetic indulgence – and contrary to the theoretical window dressing of the script, The Matrix makes an audio-visual presentation that reformulates agency as a matter of effect rather than choice. Thinking it Everyone knows the movie is full of really captivating philosophical questions. Why is it that, when you’re hurt in the virtual world, you bleed in the real world? Very heavy stuff. The film is easy to transla... ... visible when at a computer than in everyday non-solitary life. Your mother is not watching. [11] In a sense, this pre-9/11 movie set the stage for a kind of sympathy Americans had with terrorists who they could not call cowards. The appeal of a boldness to do what they said out of nowhere and going nowhere is revealing of what disciplines such style juxtaposes itself to. [12] Or machines or computers to bring back the specter of â€Å"the place of technology† in the matrix. Idealized guns, though, are what make the movie go. Guns that never jam, are always beautiful, and are better tossed than reloaded. They are the almost the only way to kill anyone, they are always stylish and specifically chosen, and they make the same comment on how to get your way that the characters do: threats and violence.

Organisational Devlopment: Levels of Diagnosis Essay

It is pointless conducting diagnosis at the individual level, because most issues can be addressed at the organization and group level. Discuss. Within modern business practices continual evolution is essential for long term organisational outcomes. With economic pressures, a growing demand for perceptibly social and environmental responsibility and an increasingly focus towards international and worldwide trade, modern organizations are confronted with an almost constant need for change (Waddell, Cummings and Worley, 2007). Thus it is important for leaders to have a sound understanding of change issues and theories (Waddell, 2002). Organisational development (OD) is described as a systematic application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational structures, processes and strategies for improving organisational effectiveness (Waddell et al. , 2007). Diagnosis it an integral part of successful OD implementation and is performed on one or more levels including ‘individual’, ‘group’ and ‘organisational’ diagnosis. Thus for successful long term outcomes it is necessary to investigate the role of diagnosis within successful OD implementation, with a focus on ‘individual’ level diagnosis in contrast to both ‘group’ and ‘organisational’. Diagnosis within organisation development is described as an intervention that develops information about the various subsystems of an organisation as well as the patterns and processes that take part in an organisation (Beckhard, 1969). Similarly, Waddell et al. 2007) depict diagnosis as the process of understanding how the organisation is currently functioning, in order to successfully develop change intervention. Thus within modern firms this process develops insight for both the client and OD coordinator into the functioning and efficiency on individual, group and organisational levels. Aldefer and Brown (1975) suggest that the process of diagnosis also serves to motivate organisational members to engage in change. Nadler (1977) reinforces this, depicting that diagnosis provides employees or members with a direction for change. As such, diagnosis within OD has been described as the ‘key’ in developing successful interventions (Burton & Obel, 2004). As well the diagnostic process is referred to as collaborative between OD consultant and client (Stacey, 2007), in which the two parties work together to develop action plans for effective change process. Waddell et al. (2007) reinforces this suggesting that the values and ethics that underlie OD suggest that both change agents and organisational members should be involved in developing and implementing appropriate interventions. Organisations, when viewed as open systems can be diagnosed as three levels, including organisation, group and individual (Waddell et al. , (2007). The highest level is the organisational level and includes the design of the organisations structure, strategy and processes. The next level consists of groups or departments within the organisational structure, including group design and interaction devices. The lowest level of organisational diagnosis is the individual level, including job design and personnel characteristics. Todnem (2005) suggest organisational diagnosis can occur at all three levels or it may be limited to problems that occur at a single level. For example, if there was a problem with output resulting from a single job design there would be only need for individual level diagnosis. Similarly Coghlan (1994) illustrates that the key to effective diagnosis is to know what to look for at each level, as well as how the levels affect each other. Waddel et al. (2007) depict the organisational level of diagnosis as the broadest systems perspective that is typically taken in diagnostic activities. This level focuses on the organisation against inputs such as the general environment and industry structure to achieve outputs such as performance, efficiency and stakeholder satisfaction through strategy and organisational design. Todnem (2005) suggests that design components within this level can also include HRM, culture and technology. Similarly the general environment can include a vast amount of extraneous variables including social, technological, economical, ecological and political (Stahl, 1997). Thus this level provides a broad basis for diagnosis within the largest environment. As such this level of diagnosis is most crucial when designing or redesigning action plans focused around the organisation as a whole. These strategies may include organisational goals and objectives, mission or organisational policies. (Waddell et al. (2007). Modern organizations are developing action plans in order to change practices to incorporate environmental and social responsibility. These plans and interventions designed at achieving change include organisational wide strategies, such as redesigning business infrastructure as well as changing major mission values/goals and policies within those companies. An example of integrating effective organisatinoal diagnosis is RIO TINTO’s continual development and change towards more sustainable, environmentally responsible mining processes in order for long term outcomes (RIO TINTO, 2010). Through external forces or inputs they developed and integrated various interventions to remodel major sectors within the firm completely. Thus developing and maintaining successful strategic design requires effective organisational diagnosis. The next level of diagnosis is group, and can apply to both larger operating division of firms such as BHP Billiton, or to smaller departments within organisations (Waddell et al. , 2007). Coghlan (1994) depicts that division or larger groups within such multinational firms generally follow the same dimension and relational fits applicable to organisational level development. Inversely Waddell et al. (2007) suggest that small departments and groups behave differently from larger divisions or organisations and thus require a suitable diagnostic model to reflect those dimensions. As such, group level diagnosis consists of organisational design as an input, resulting in outputs of team effectiveness through design components such as task structure, group functioning, performance norms, group composition and goal clarity. Stahl (1997) describes group diagnosis as relative to a small number of people working face to face on a shared task or program. Laser (1995) suggests supportive organisational design is crucial for effective groups to operate. Harrison and Shirom (1999) reinforce this depicting that group structure and components are highly interrelated to organisational wide strategy and design. Goal clarity is a major design component within group level diagnosis, and refers to how well the group understands its objectives. Waddell et al. (2007) suggest that goals should be understood by all members, moderately challenging, measurable, and monitored and, have structure for providing feedback of achievement. An example may include group targets for sales teams. Stahl (1997) illustrates that goal clarity is of crucial importance to successful group outcomes. Coghlan (1994) reinforces this depicting that clear goals provide motivation and direction to group dynamics. Group level diagnosis is considered a more specific approach to an internalized problem than organisational diagnosis and can include problem solving groups built for a specific function (Stahl, 1997). However organisational and group levels remain highly interrelated through organisational design. The lowest level of diagnosis is the individual job or position. Waddel et al. (2007) suggest that organisations are made up of numerous groups and in turn, those groups are composed of several positions. Callan (1993) depicts individual diagnosis as highly specified and dynamic. Similarily Stahl (1997) described the individual level diagnosis as having a minimal effect on the organization as a whole. As the individual level focuses on a single job design it requires a new model of job-level diagnosis (Waddell et al. , 2007). The inputs within this level are organisational design, group design and personnel characteristics, and the resulting outputs aimed at achieving are individual effectiveness, through performance, job satisfaction and individual development. The design components utilized to transform the inputs within this model are skill variety, task identity, autonomy, task significance and feedback about results. Coghlan (1994) suggests that effective feedback mechanisms are crucial to continual intervention and employee development. Feedback refers to the degree to which employees are provided with clear information about performance and effectives of their activities (Waddell et al. , 2007). Such mechanisms could include both formal and informal methods such as casual on the spot feedback or yearly performance appraisals. Conversely Callan (1993) depicts task significance as a major influence on outcomes within the individual level, suggesting that the level to which the employee’s job impacts on other people’s lives has a powerful affect on resulted outcomes. Individual level changes and restructuring can result in higher outcomes of individual’s position through higher individual interest and personnel investment in their jobs (Waddell et al. , 2007). As well higher productivity on an individual level transfers to more successful organisational outcomes, and thus benefits both the workers and the firm. The importance of diagnosis on an individual level can be relatively debatable dependent on organisational type, infrastructure and individual job function (Mclean, 2005). Individual level diagnosis relies on organisational design, group design and personal characteristics for transference into outputs (Waddle et al. 2007). Thus this job level is highly interrelated and dependent on the effectiveness of the design components of both organisational and group level. Hence, effective intervention development within the first two levels of diagnosis would result in a large proportion of successful outputs on an individual level (Harrison and Shirom, 1999). Conversely personal characteristics can include dynamic and uncontrollable extraneous variables which may result in a varied output on the job level. (Burton & Obel, 2004). Thus in order to limit a varied result within output it may be necessary to conduct individual diagnosis of job design relevant to the specific problem or concern. As well Mclean (2005) emphasizes the importance of employee satisfaction in relation to staff turnover in order for long term development and organisational outcomes. Waddel et al. (2007) reinforce this depicting a ‘two sided’ relationship between employee satisfaction and interest and the consequential favorable outcomes for the firm. Cobb (1986) illustrates that redesigning individual level jobs can be crucial for successful outcomes within specified problems. As well Beer and Spector (1993) suggest that the success of OD interventions rely heavily on the accuracy of diagnosis within organisations. Thus for a higher probability of favorable outcomes for developed interventions it is necessary to conduct diagnosis over all three levels. Organisational development is a critical process for both short and long term outcomes within modern business practice. With growing economic, social and environmental pressure, there is a greater need for organisational change than ever before. Successful OD is heavily reliant on the effectiveness of diagnosis within an organisation in order to develop appropriate interventions to develop change within the firm. All three levels of diagnosis within OD are important to developing effective mechanisms for change. Organisational diagnosis is more responsive to external influences and direct pressure for both social and environmental concerns. However both group and individual levels are highly interrelated with the success of change interventions and in particular the development of productivity and efficiency to provide support against the economic strain. Individual level diagnosis is highly interrelated within the other levels and as such may not be necessary within some OD applications.

Corrections Current Trends

When it comes to prison sentencing there are a lot of trends to go from, probably the main outline you could say is the sentencing models these models are a basic outline of what’s going to happen to an offender while being sentenced.These are the six options which include: capital punishment- for like murder offenders which includes the death penalty only in some states though, imprisonment -for those who commit violent crime and so forth usually sent to state or federal prison longer that one year, short term confinement -for minor offenders those petty crimes such as petty theft and so on normally less than a year served in county, intermediate sanctions- falls between probation and imprisonment which I would say is on the fence could go either way prison or probation which includes house arrest and electronic monitoring, then theirs probation which is a alternative of prison in which the offender is monitored within the community, and then theirs economic sanctions- which I would say an offender like this would be due to vandalism or something in that nature, in economic sanctions the offender is ordered to pay restitution or a fine for their crime.Pretrial diversion is a good system for offenders who are not constant offenders, for instance here in Odessa TX they have what I would call a pretrial diversion program which is called teen court and in teen court offenders for let’s say theft well instead of it going down in the records they chose to do some community service and avoid trial and a criminal record but this type of program is only offered to teens. For those who have the option of pretrial diversion it is a pretty good system which allows first time offenders in most cases to stay out of the system. Plea bargaining is a really good trend in sentencing, because plea bargaining is an agreement in which the defendant decides to plea guilty to the offense in return the defendant gets a lesser sentencing.Plea bargaining is a good system why because if the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense not only does it save time without having to go to court and the expenses they would have to put out their but most times if the defendant know that he or she did it and them pleading guilty to a lesser offense to cut back time in prison or probation most times they will take the bargain. Another great trend in sentencing is the three strikes laws which basically states that felons who commit three felonies are incarcerated for a very long time sometimes even life in prison this trend is good because most times it will keep repeat offenders from committing crimes I guess the thought of getting that third strike and going to prison for possibly life would be a really strong motivation to stay out of trouble and keep doing good.Then again this three strikes law could not be a good thing for instance in the text it talks about jerry Williams who had a record of two prior felony convictions involving violence when he stole p iece of pizza without a weapon from four children, then the judge under mandatory California law, had to sentence Williams to twenty five years in prison. I understand this man had a record and was on the verge of the third strike but I don’t think that sentencing Mr. Williams to twenty five years in prison for a pizza was really necessary that five dollar pizza now has cost the state an estimated 500,000 for the time that Williams is going to be incarcerated a simply being locked up for even a year in county would I think be more suitable and cost friendly in which saves the state a lot of money.Drug courts is also another great trend in sentencing because in drug court offenders who have had or have a problem with run in with the law due to drugs can choose to get help and drug court main goal you could say is to get the offender help and back into the community clean and on their way unlike traditional courts, drug court is not so much to punish the offender but to change the offender according to the text drug courts have proved very promising, and I would say a very good solution on handling a different kind of offender so that they wouldn’t have to go into a regular court and maybe receive six months or maybe even a worse sentence but trying to rehabilitate the offenders who need help and get them back into the community and on the right track. These trends that I listed are only a few that help the sentencing progress move along there are a lot more trends but these are only a few with a slight overview of how they operate and what goes on in the few trends that were listed.

The Causes and Aims of World War One

The Causes and Aims of World War One The traditional explanation for the start of World War 1 concerns a domino effect. Once one nation went to war, usually defined as Austria-Hungary’s decision to attack Serbia, a network of alliances which tied the great European powers into two halves dragged each nation unwillingly into a war which spiraled ever larger. This notion, taught to schoolchildren for decades, has now been largely rejected. In The Origins of the First World War, p. 79, James Joll concludes: The Balkan crisis demonstrated that even apparently firm, formal alliances did not guarantee support and co-operation in all circumstances.† This doesn’t mean that the formation of Europe into two sides, achieved by treaty in the late nineteenth / early twentieth centuries, isn’t important, just that the nations were not trapped by them. Indeed, while they divided Europe’s major powers into two halves - The ‘Central Alliance’ of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the Triple Entente of France, Britain and Germany - Italy actually changed sides. In addition, the war was not caused, as some socialists and anti-militarists have suggested, by capitalists, industrialists or arms manufacturers looking to profit from conflict. Most industrialists stood to suffer in a war as their foreign markets were reduced. Studies have shown that industrialists did not pressure governments into declaring war, and governments did not declare war with one eye on the arms industry. Equally, governments did not declare war simply to try and cover up domestic tensions, like the independence of Ireland or the rise of socialists. Context: The Dichotomy of Europe in 1914 Historians recognize that all the major nations involved in the war, on both sides, had large proportions of their population who were not only in favor of going to war, but were agitating for it to happen as a good and necessary thing. In one very important sense, this has to be true: as much as politicians and the military might have wanted the war, they could only fight it with the approval – greatly varying, maybe begrudging, but present - of the millions of soldiers who went off to fight. In the decades before Europe went to war in 1914, the culture of the main powers was split in two. On the one hand, there was a body of thought – the one most often remembered now - that war had been effectively ended by progress, diplomacy, globalization, and economic and scientific development. To these people, who included politicians, large-scale European war had not just been banished, it was impossible. No sane person would risk war and ruin the economic interdependence of the globalizing world. At the same time, each nation’s culture was shot through with strong currents pushing for war: armaments races, belligerent rivalries and a struggle for resources. These arms races were massive and expensive affairs  and were nowhere clearer than the naval struggle between Britain and Germany, where each tried to produce ever more and larger ships. Millions of men went through the military via conscription, producing a substantial portion of the population who had experienced military indoctrination. Nationalism, elitism, racism and other belligerent thoughts were widespread, thanks to greater access to education than before, but an education that was fiercely biased. Violence for political ends was common  and had spread from Russian socialists to British women’s rights campaigners. Before war even began in 1914, the structures of Europe were breaking down and changing. Violence for your country was increasingly justified, artists rebelled and sought new modes of expression, new urban cultures were challenging the existing social order. For many, war was seen as a test, a proving ground, a way to define yourself which promised a masculine identity and an escape from the ‘boredom’ of peace. Europe was essentially primed for people in 1914 to welcome war as a way to recreate their world through destruction. Europe in 1913 was essentially a tense, warmongering place where, despite a current of peace and obliviousness, many felt war was desirable. The Flashpoint for War: the Balkans In the early twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and a combination of established European powers and new nationalist movements were competing to seize parts of the Empire. In 1908 Austria-Hungary took advantage of an uprising in Turkey to seize full control of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region they had been running but which was officially Turkish. Serbia was livid at this, as they wished to control the region, and Russia was also angry. However, with Russia unable to act militarily against Austria – they simply hadn’t recovered enough from the disastrous Russo-Japanese war – they sent a diplomatic mission to the Balkans to unite the new nations against Austria. Italy was next to take advantage and they fought Turkey in 1912, with Italy gaining North African colonies. Turkey had to fight again that year with four small Balkan countries over land there – a direct result of Italy making Turkey look weak and Russia’s diplomacy - and when Europe’s other major powers intervened no one finished satisfied. A further Balkan war erupted in 1913, as Balkan states and Turkey warred over territory again to try and make a better settlement. This ended once more with all partners unhappy, although Serbia had doubled in size. However, the patchwork of new, strongly nationalistic Balkan nations largely considered themselves to be Slavic, and looked to Russia as a protector against nearby empires like Austro-Hungary and Turkey; in turn, some in Russia looked at the Balkans as a natural place for a Russian-dominated Slavic group. The great rival in the region, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was afraid this Balkan nationalism would accelerate the breakdown of its own Empire  and was afraid Russia was going to extend control over the region instead of it. Both were looking for a reason to extend their power in the region, and in 1914 an assassination would give that reason. The Trigger: Assassination In 1914, Europe had been on the brink of war for several years. The trigger was provided on June 28th, 1914, when  Archduke Franz Ferdinand  of Austria-Hungary was visiting Sarajevo in Bosnia on a trip designed to irritate Serbia. A loose supporter of the ‘ Black Hand’, a Serbian nationalist group, was able to assassinate the Archduke after a comedy of errors. Ferdinand wasn’t popular in Austria – he had ‘only’ married a noble, not a royal - but they decided it was the perfect excuse to threaten Serbia. They planned to use an extremely  one-sided  set of demands to provoke a war – Serbia was never meant to actually agree to the demands – and fight to end Serbian independence, thus strengthening the Austrian position in the Balkans. Austria expected the war with Serbia, but in case of war with Russia, they checked with Germany beforehand if it would support them. Germany replied yes, giving Austria a ‘blank check’. The Kaiser and other civilian leaders believed swift action by Austria would seem like the result of emotion and the other Great Powers would stay out, but Austria prevaricated, eventually sending their note too late for it to look like anger. Serbia accepted all but a few clauses of the ultimatum, but not all, and Russia was willing to go to war to defend them. Austria-Hungary had not deterred Russia by involving Germany, and Russia had not deterred Austria-Hungary by risking the Germans: bluffs on both sides were called. Now the balance of power in Germany shifted to the military leaders, who finally had what they had been coveting for several years: Austria-Hungary, which had seemed loathe to support Germany in a war, was about to embark on a war in which Germany could take the initiat ive and turn into the much greater war it desired, while crucially retaining Austrian aid, vital for the  Schlieffen Plan. What followed was the five major nations of Europe – Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, France, Russian and Britain on the other – all pointing to their treaties and alliances in order to enter into the war many in each nation had wanted. The diplomats increasingly found themselves sidelined and unable to stop events as the military took over. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia to see if they could win a war before Russia arrived, and Russia, who pondered just attacking Austria-Hungary,  mobilized  against both them and Germany, knowing this meant Germany would attack France. This let Germany claim victim status and mobilize, but because their plans called for a quick war to knock Russia’s ally France out before Russian troops arrived, they declared war on France, who declared war in response. Britain hesitated and then joined, using Germany’s invasion of Belgium to mobilize the support of the doubters in Britain. Italy, who had an agreement with Germany, refused to do anything. Many of these decisions  were  increasingly taken by the military, who gained ever more control of events, even from national leaders who sometimes got left behind: it took a while for the Tsar to be talked round by pro-war military, and the Kaiser wavered as the military carried on. At one point the Kaiser instructed Austria to cease trying to attack Serbia, but people in Germany’s military and government first ignored him, and then convinced him it was too late for anything but peace. Military ‘advice’ dominated over diplomatic. Many felt helpless, others elated. There were people who tried to prevent the war at this late stage, but many others were infected with jingoism and pushed on. Britain, who had the least explicit obligations, felt a moral duty to defend France, wished to put down German imperialism, and technically had a treaty guaranteeing Belgium’s safety. Thanks to the empires of these key belligerents, and thanks to other nations entering the conflict, the war soon involved much of the globe. Few expected the conflict to last more than a few months, and the public was generally excited. It would last until 1918, and kill millions. Some of those who expected a long war were Moltke, the head of the German army, and Kitchener, a key figure in the British establishment. War Aims: Why each Nation went to War Each nation’s government had slightly different reasons for going, and these are explained below: Germany: A Place in the Sun and Inevitability Many members of the German military and government were convinced that a war with Russia was inevitable given their competing interests in the land between them and the Balkans. But they had also concluded, not without justification, that Russia was militarily much weaker now than it would be should it continue to industrialize and modernize its army. France was also increasing its military capacity – a law making conscription last three years was passed against opposition – and Germany had managed to get stuck in a  naval race  with Britain. To many influential Germans, their nation was surrounded and stuck in an arms race it would lose if allowed to continue. The conclusion was that this inevitable war must be fought sooner, when it could be won, than later. War would also enable Germany to dominate more of Europe and expand the core of the German Empire east and west. But Germany wanted more. The German Empire was relatively young and lacked a key element that the other major empires – Britain, France, Russia – had: colonial land. Britain owned large parts of the world, France owned a lot too, and Russia had expanded deep into Asia. Other less powerful powers owned colonial land, and Germany coveted these extra resources and power. This craving for colonial land became known as them wanting ‘A Place in the Sun’. The German government thought that a victory would allow them to gain some of their rivals’ land. Germany was also determined to keep Austria-Hungary alive as a viable ally to their south  and support them in a war if necessary. Russia: Slavic Land and Government Survival Russia believed that the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were collapsing  and that there would be a reckoning over who would occupy their territory. To many Russia, this reckoning would be largely in the Balkans between a pan-Slavic alliance, ideally dominated by (if not entirely controlled by) Russia, against a pan-German Empire. Many in the Russian court, in the ranks of the military officer class, in the central government, in the press and even among the educated, felt Russia should enter and win this clash. Indeed, Russia was afraid that if they didn’t act in decisive support of the Slavs, as they had failed to do in the Balkan Wars, that Serbia would take the Slavic initiative and destabilize Russia. In addition, Russia had lusted over Constantinople and the Dardanelles for centuries, as half of Russia’s foreign trade traveled through this narrow region controlled by the Ottomans. War and victory would bring greater trade security. Tsar Nicholas II was cautious, and a faction at court advised him against war, believing the nation would implode and revolution would follow. But equally, the Tsar was being advised by people who believed that if Russia didn’t go to war in 1914, it would be a sign of weakness which would lead to a fatal undermining of the imperial government, leading to revolution or invasion. France: Revenge and Re-conquest France felt it had been humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 – 71, in which Paris had been besieged and the French Emperor had been forced to personally surrender  with  his army. France was burning to restore its reputation and, crucially, gain back the rich industrial land of Alsace and Lorraine which Germany had won off her. Indeed, the French plan for war with Germany, Plan XVII, focused on gaining this land above everything else. Britain: Global Leadership Of all the European powers, Britain was arguably the least tied into the treaties which divided Europe into two sides. Indeed, for several years in the late nineteenth century, Britain had consciously kept out of European affairs, preferring to focus on its global empire while keeping one eye on the balance of power on the continent. But Germany had challenged this  because it too wanted a global empire, and it too wanted a dominant navy. Germany and Britain thus began a naval arms race in which politicians, spurred on by the press, competed to build ever stronger navies. The tone was one of violence, and many felt that Germany’s upstart aspirations would have to be forcibly slapped down. Britain was also worried that a Europe dominated by an enlarged Germany, as victory in a major war would bring, would upset the balance of power in the region. Britain also felt a moral obligation to aid France and Russia because, although the treaties they’d all signed didn’t require Britain to fight, it had basically agreed to, and if Britain remained out either her former allies would finish victorious but extremely bitter, or beaten and unable to support Britain. Equally playing on their mind was a belief that they had to be involved to maintain great power status. As soon as war began, Britain also had designs on German colonies. Austria-Hungary:  Long-Coveted  Territory Austria-Hungary was desperate to project more of its crumbling power into the Balkans, where a power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire had allowed nationalist movements to agitate and fight. Austria was particularly angry at Serbia, in which a Pan-Slavic nationalism was growing which Austria feared would lead to either Russian domination in the Balkans, or the total ousting of Austro-Hungarian power. The destruction of Serbia was deemed vital in keeping Austria-Hungary together, as there were near twice as many Serbs within the empire as were in Serbia (over seven million, versus over three million). Revenging the death of  Franz Ferdinand  was low on the list of causes. Turkey: Holy War for Conquered Land Turkey entered into secret negotiations with Germany and declared war on the Entente in October 1914. They wanted to regain land which had been lost in both the Caucuses and Balkans, and dreamed of gaining Egypt and Cyprus from Britain. They claimed to be fighting a holy war to justify this. War Guilt / Who was to Blame? In 1919, in the Treaty of Versailles between the victorious allies and Germany, the latter had to accept a ‘war guilt’ clause which explicitly stated that the war was Germany’s fault. This issue – who was responsible for the war – has been debated by historians and politicians ever since. Over the years trends have come and gone, but the issues seem to have polarised like this: on one side, that Germany with their blank cheque to Austria-Hungary and rapid, two front mobilization was chiefly to blame, while on the other was the presence of a war mentality and colonial hunger among nations who rushed to into to extend their empires, the same mentality which had already caused repeated problems before war finally broke out. The debate has not broken down ethnic lines: Fischer blamed his German ancestors in the sixties, and his thesis has largely become the mainstream view. The Germans were certainly convinced war was needed soon, and the Austro-Hungarians were convinced they had to crush Serbia to survive; both were prepared to start this war. France and Russia were slightly different, in that they weren’t prepared to start the war, but went to lengths to make sure they profited when it occurred, as they thought it would. All five Great Powers were thus prepared to fight a war, all fearing the loss of their Great Power status if they backed down. None of the Great Powers was invaded without a chance to step back. Some historians go further: David Fromkin’s ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ makes a powerful case that the world war can be pinned on Moltke, head of the German General  Staff, a man who knew it would be a terrible, world changing war, but thought it inevitable and started it anyway. But  Joll  makes an interesting point: â€Å"What is more important than the immediate responsibility for the actual outbreak of war is the state of mind that was shared by all belligerents, a state of mind that envisaged the probable imminence of war and its absolute necessity in certain circumstances.† (Joll  and Martel, The Origins of the First World War, p. 131.) The Dates and Order of the Declarations of War

Time Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 3

Time Management - Essay Example Chris had to seek help on time management after failing in a job interview due to lateness. The head of the interviewing panel was particular to him that they would not like an employee who comes to work late. He therefore got time management skills from a management consultant to whom his brother recommended him. The consultant took him through a series of lessons on time management skills such as planning and prioritizing before testing him on the learned skills and finally subjecting him to a series of rigorous instances that required application of the skills. He was efficient in time management before the end of his scheduled exercises. Stacy however learnt her time management skills through observing her friend’s ability in time management. She severally visited her friend after learning of her efficiency in time management and helped the friend in undertaking her activities. It took her some time but she eventually adopted her friend’s potential in time managemen t (Marquis and Huston, p. 188). It is very difficult to manage time in college. This is because of scarcity of time relative to possible ventures such as attending classes, undertaking personal studies, and participating in extra curriculum

Literature Support Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Literature Support - Research Paper Example The primary methods of data collection entailed questionnaires and interviews. Through interviews, patients who are prescribed to medical regimens were asked questions by the investigator with a view of determining the behaviors that determine whether they adhere to their medical regimens or not. Furthermore, questionnaires were used to give patients sufficient time and privacy of answering various questions that are designed to investigate the behaviors that define their behaviors towards adherence to medical regimens. Inclusion criteria for the primary research involved selection of a sample from individuals prescribed with medical regimen. Therefore, patients with heart conditions, diabetes and chronic diseases were included in the investigations. Moreover, the inclusion criteria focused at ensuring that there is diversity among respondents. Consequently, individuals from various social economic backgrounds, nationality, culture and race were included in the research. This is esse ntial since it helps the investigator achieve results that cover all factors that determine the behavior that affect adherence to medical regimen. Accordingly, the research accounted for factors such as economic abilities, cultural values, family relations and social background. The exclusion criteria involved exclusion of specific age groups from participating in the study depending on the medical condition that the regimen targets. For example, an investigation of management of heart conditions targeted adults, and exclude children because heart conditions are common among adults. Secondary research methodology entailed the review of relevant information databases. Credible sources of information among these databases will be included. The study was cautious while selecting the data to be used in the study to ensure that only relevant databases were included in the investigation. Particularly, databases with medical journals such as EBSCO and Pub Med and ProQuest were targeted in the collection of secondary information relevant to the topic. In order to ensure credibility, research based, and peer reviewed articles were included in the search. Moreover, the secondary search for information was promoted by the use of keywords related to the research topic. Accordingly, the search emphasized on the keywords like adherence, non-adherence, behavior, medical regimen and factors. Irrelevant materials were excluded while publications related to factors influencing adherence and non-adherence of the medical procedures and management of the diseases were selected. The study examined conditions that require medical regimens for effective management and care. These included evaluation of heart conditions, diabetes, cancer and HIV/AIDs. Consequently, the investigator included patients prescribed for medical regimen for management of the subsequent four conditions as case studies. Summary of Research Studies Griffith, R. (2008). Improving patients' adherence to medical r egimens. Practice Nurse, 31(4), 21-26. Retrieved from: http://www.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu.2048/ This article is a comprehensive research based information source with wide scope that includes the causes of patient non-adherence to medical regimens and ways in which adherence can be improved among these patients. Accordingly, the article is credible and relevant to the