Using Anamoblic Steroids can be Harmful, Sections of a...

1. Introduction Hypothesis: Anabolic steroids are more harmful than beneficial to teenage boys. Anabolic steroids are a group of synthetic hormones that are used to boost muscle size and strength. Aim: My aim is to discover whether teenage boys consider it more beneficial or harmful to take steroids, by questioning teenage boys in the Pietermaritzburg area who have taken/are taking steroids. I am interested in investigating this hypothesis because I am curious about the effects of steroids and, because steroids and male body building are displayed in the media in the same way that skinny female models are (i.e. portraying an unrealistic body image). I thought that considering I know a few boys who have access to steroids, I could†¦show more content†¦(2013, October). Steroids | Risky Health Issues for Teens. Retrieved 29 November 2013, from Palo Alto Medical Foundation: http://www.pamf.org/teen/risk/drugs/steroids/ This website explains what an anabolic steroid is, and briefly how they work i.e. increase in muscle strength, size, and recovery time. It provides a list of commonly used anabolic steroids, classified into whether they are injected or taken orally. It gives a little information on the benefits of steroids for athletes (improved performance), and the health risks/ side effects in men and women respectively (such as organ damage and hormone imbalances). This information is relevant because it provides information on the side effects and reasoning behind steroid use, information which I used in my project. I trusted this website as it is a medical foundation, and because the article lists its source as The National Institute of Drug Abuse, whose information would definitely be valid. The information is up to date because the article was published recently. The information is reliable because other sources have similar information. A limitation on this website is that the information th at I needed/used was only given in paragraphs of a few lines and was slightly insufficient. Source 2: Unknown. (2012). Steroid Use in Schools a Big Problem in South Africa. Available: http://taylorhooton.org.org/steroid-use-in-schools-a-big-problem-in-south-africa/. Last accessed 19

Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Free Essays

string(61) " false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation\." Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. We will write a custom essay sample on Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses or any similar topic only for you Order Now Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes. I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606). One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want. Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request. The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen. I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408). What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak. Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful. Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28). Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment. It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation. You read "Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses" in category "Essay examples" This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law. He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university. I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along. According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day. Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them. Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain. Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be inv olved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech. They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore. Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems. So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. How to cite Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses, Essays Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Free Essays string(61) " false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation\." Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. We will write a custom essay sample on Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses or any similar topic only for you Order Now Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes. I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606). One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want. Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request. The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen. I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408). What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak. Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful. Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28). Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment. It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation. You read "Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses" in category "Free Research Paper Samples" This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law. He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university. I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along. According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day. Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them. Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain. Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be inv olved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech. They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore. Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems. So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. How to cite Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses, Essays

Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission free essay sample

It is my opinion that if given a choice between a robotic and a manned space based exploration, it is better to execute a robotic mission. It is not worth the cost and risk for humans to simply explore space, except when the goal is specifically colonization. First, a manned mission would be much more technically complicated than a robotic one outweighing any incremental benefit resulting from a human presence. Second, the financial cost of manned missions to overcome the complications is not worth the projected costs. Third, funding robotic missions are indirect investments in aiding the current human condition. That is, the cost saving from robot missions could help relieve current issues here on earth. Lastly, pushing the boundaries of the unknown will always be fascinating to humans, but we would be pushing current human boundaries to explore much further past the moon, with our current technology. Advancements in robot technology can allow us to take the next step in advanced space missions. We will write a custom essay sample on Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Some would argue the opposite; some would say that manned missions are essential to quench our curiosity and thirst for uncovering the unknown, our desperate search for answers about the universe, and to find life beyond our planet. There are specific advantages to robotic exploration over human space missions. Space is a dangerous place for humans in many ways; there are many factors working against long term human space travel. There is harsh radiation, zero gravity and the element of time to consider. Radiation, in form of cosmic rays (high energy particles) and other high-energy radiation emitted from our sun, breaks down DNA in our bodies (0), leads to major complications, and poses the largest threat to human space travel. Extended zero gravity exposure leads to bone destiny loss and weakened organs because our physiology evolved having gravity. Time is also a factor against human space travel; we simply cannot go fast enough and live long enough to make it. If we went 123,000 mph with current plasma engines (1) to the closest star, Proxima Centauri – 4. 22 light years away (2), it would take 23 thousands years (2. 1). We cant live that long but robots could possibly go faster and need no protection from anything except sensitive equipment. Robots don’t need to come back, they have no families and we can build new ones. As questions are asked about the cosmos we develop new detectors, telescopes, and probes to answer those questions safely, quickly, and with accuracy. Human space missions are extremely expensive, unsafe, and inefficient(3) compared to robotic ones. A manned mission would most likely involve advanced life support systems, ample social interaction that means more people, food, oxygen, radiation protection, constant exercise, etc. with all systems being mostly self-sustaining or replenishing. This is all equals to weight, cost, time, and research. Also, the effects of zero-gravity and cosmic radiation have not been studied in depth and the long term exposure, could be detrimental(4). Also, the effects on the mind, in the long term, we know little about. (5) Constant isolation and confinement could drive any crew mad. (5. 1) We currently don’t even have spacesuits that protect against radiation. (6) Dennis Bushnell, NASA Langley’s chief scientist said, â€Å"What’s affordable is not safe; what’s safe is not affordable. †(7). A robotic mission would not encounter any of these problems and risks. The space shuttle had a price tag of about $450 million per mission and today unmanned payload cost about $12,000 per pound. (8) Most of this cost is associated with the fuel it takes to escape Earth’s orbit which is burned upon take off. The less weight expended the less fuel is required for takeoff, thus saving money to make it worth these endeavors. Assuming we do not colonize the location we plan on exploring, we would want our fellow space explorers to return home to their families safely. This would require a mission plan home, this is more than one mission, an increase in cost and preparation, making a returning virtually impossible. (8. 1) Robotic space missions could directly address and change human conditions on Earth. The possibilities of immediate results on Earth are enticing, new technologies found through the research of problems encountered could lead to advanced propulsion technologies that could give us more efficient methods of travel here on Earth and possibly end our use of fossil fuels. Reaching and exploring asteroids could lead the way to learning how to divert one here on Earth(9). Possible colonization of new worlds can first be explored by robots, giving us an understanding of our true environment and helps us expand, as the human race; not any specific nation or country but for humankind as a whole. Finding new resources from asteroids, moons, and worlds in our solar system could give us a new era of economic stimulus, growth, and hopefully peace. By 2030 we human on Earth will be consuming the resources of two planets annually (10), this is a scary thought and we must prepare for the possibility of expanding our horizons to the new frontier, united as one people for the common good. Some opposing cases have been argued that it is essential for manned missions to be funded. It is very possible for us to reach Mars in one month (11) with a proposed 123,000 MPH plasma engine. This makes it imperative to do so immediately. With less and less standing in our way to colonizing our solar system, we must see these new frontiers with our eyes. New technologies researched for the survival of colonies in space, could bring many positive effects on Earth, such as closed-loop sustainable habitats would give the poor around the world, enough food. 12) This would not be possible, if we sent robots, since they don’t eat. The necessity for manned missions could inadvertently allow us to discover new technologies that will, assuredly help us on Earth. There even is the possibility of a one-way journey for a single candidate to colonize Mars. (13) This would reduce risk, cost, and the lives of other potential settlers. Since, there is no longer the competition of nations to reach space, like the space-race between USA and Russia, but today we work together, â€Å"Like a club of developers. (14) In conclusion, I feel that a robotic mission is the way to explore space. The cost, risk, and benefits gained from a manned mission are just not worth it, when compared to a robotic one. Although, the possibility of many technologies arising from the research aimed toward at solving current hurdles of successful manned missions, we should not to bear the risks associated with them since, robots are extension of ourselves. Endnotes 0: http://schoolworkhelper. net/2011/02/nasa-mission-to-mars-probes-design-dangers/ 1,11,14.

Impact of Opec Essays

Impact of Opec Essays Impact of Opec Essay Impact of Opec Essay The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), inter-governmental organization, was established at the Baghdad Conference in Iraq in September 1960 by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. These five countries were later joined by eight other countries; Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962), United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador (1973), and Gabon (1975). Ecuador and Gabon withdrew from OPEC in 1992 and 1994. The current eleven OPEC members account for about 40 per cent of world oil production, and two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves. Note: Iraq remains a member of OPEC, but Iraq’s production has not been a part of OPEC quota since 1998). The purpose of OPEC is to co-ordinate and unifies petroleum policies among the member in order to limit supplies in the hope of keeping prices high. From 1920s to 1960s, the major oil companies colluded to prevent prices from falling. In th e 1960s, OPEC had started as a group of five oil producing, developing countries, seeking out the member countries’ legitimate rights in the international oil market. So the rise of OPEC was tied to a shifting balance of power from the multi-national oil companies to the oil producing countries. The creation of OPEC intensified the need among the Third World countries for closer cooperation in order to achieve their political and economic objectives. Membership grew to ten within the decade. In 1970’s, member countries took control of their domestic petroleum industries and acquired the right to influence the pricing of crude oil on the world market. There were two oil pricing crises, triggered by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. During the 1973 War between Egypt and Israel, Saudi Arabia refused to increase production in order to halt rising prices unless the United States backed the Arab position. When the U. S. government proposed a military aid package for Israel, Arab States began an oil embargo against the United States and later expanded to the Portugal, South Africa, and Netherlands. The first Summit of OPEC sovereigns and Heads of State was held in Algiers in 1975. OPEC acquired its 11th and final current member, Nigeria, in 1971. In 1980s, oil prices peaked at the early period in the decade. Iranian Revolution and ensuing stop of Iranian petroleum exports had caused panic and speculation in the world oil market. This is called Second Oil Shock. Moreover, the outbreak of the war between Iran and Iraq in 1980 affected the oil market. The Iran-Iraq war removed almost 4 million barrels of oil a day from the world market. Since early 1980s, the world petroleum market confronted OPEC with an unfavorable choice such as cutting price to regain market or cutting production to maintain price. But OPEC did not want to reduce oil prices; for fear that they would loose economic and political gains, and their political influence. Environmental issues began to be discussed as an international agenda In the early 1990s, OPEC experienced a third price crisis when Iraq invaded OPEC member Kuwait. Iraq had long claimed the territory of Kuwait. In 1991 the territorial conflict was worsen by the oil issues. One of them was the continued pumping of oil by Kuwait from a field located under both countries and another issue was low oil revenues for Iraq which made playing off its war debts difficult. Iraqi invasion would expand revenues. Iraqi power in OPEC raised oil price and increases war debts to Kuwait. Iraq thought that the United State response would be political and economic sanction. But the Iraqi invasion causes a military response which was supported by a coalition of western and Arab states. The absence of the two major oil producers (Iraq and Kuwait), could have raised the oil price to ceiling. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil producers expanded production to keep prices from raising a great deal. Since the Persian Gulf War, Iraq has refused to compliant with the United Nations resolutions; in other words, Iraq invasion has resulted in a long term oil embargo. During the 1990s, OPEC continued to emphasize oil production quotas. Oil prices collapsed at the end of the period, but began to increase in the beginning of 21st century, owing to the greater unification of OPEC members and increasing the well-governed oil company in Non-OPEC countries such as (Mexico, Oman, Russia, and Norway), and also increased tensions in the Middle East, and political crises in Venezuela affected oil prices in the world. OPEC has attempted to develop a coherent environmental policy because the international efforts to reduce the oil consumption have been more significant in this century. Economic Impact of OPEC: Our economy depends on its cost, of which a large part is represented by the cost of energy. The cost of the oil products is affected by the price of crude oil, taxation and other causes. The price of crude oil is influenced by the decisions taken by oil producers, especially the price for which they are willing to sell. Oil prices obviously matter to the world economy and OPEC still has influence on oil price decision. Higher oil prices since 1999 was partly caused by OPEC mal-management of oil supply. We can see that OPEC has influence on global economy, because oil prices remain an important determinant of economic performance of each county. If there is a shortage of oil supplies, oil price will rise. This would have all sorts of implications for industry, such as higher transportation costs. Higher costs can lead to lower economic growth. U. S. oil prices began to increase in the early 1970s when OPEC began to assume a major influence on oil prices. In 1970, OPEC members agreed to set an oil export tax rate of 55 percent, and OPEC members started to nationalize the oil industry. In 1973, Arab’s embargo resulted in that crude oil prices increased from average of $4. 15 per barrel in 1973 to $9. 07 in 1974, which led to the United States recession in 1974. In the late 1970’s, during the Iranian Revolution, declination of oil production led huge price increases. U. S. crude oil prices increased from $12. 46 per barrel in 1978 to $35. 24 in 1981. OPEC had huge impact on the economic industries. In term of oil price development, the cost of crude oil for U. S. refiners was $20 in 1996. Oil prices dropped a little in 1997; the cost fell to $12. 04 per barrel. Countries benefited from the lower cost of virtually oil products. Concerning this issue, OPEC member countries agreed to cut production, and OPEC tried to maintain the crude oil price above U. S. refiner cost in 1999. The production cuts pushed crude oil price up, hitting $30 per barrel in 2000. The production, however, started to increase, because OPEC tried to maintain market stability. Economic impact of OPEC has declined in the decades. The United States and other economies are less dependent on oil than they were 20 years ago. Because U. S. and other nation’s economies produces much more national output for each barrel of oil consumed compare to when they produced before. In 1970s, the U. S. economy generated about $250,000 of national output based on per barrel of oil consumed, but in 1999, economy produced about $450. 000 per barrel. This date shows the improved performance of the U. S. economy based on per barrel of oil consumed. Efficiency improvements, seeking out other energy sources have lessened the dependence of the U. S. economy on oil. Another data shows the declination of economic impact of OPEC, the U. S. economy spent more than 6 percent of GDP in crude oil in 1980 and 1981, when average price of crude oil was $28 a barrel. In 1996 to 1997, the price was $20 per barrel. But the percent of GDP spent on crude oil is less than 2 percent and 1 percent in 1998. These data indicates that oil price increases has less influenced the economy than they had in 1980s. Power of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia’s economy heavily dependent on oil with export oil revenues accounting around 90 percent of total Saudi export earning, 70 percent of state revenues and 40 percent of the its GDP. Saudi Arabia holds the world’s largest petroleum reserves and accounts over one-third and one-half of total OPEC oil production. Saudi Arabia’s oil policy has huge influence world oil pricing. Three basics of its policy are; maintaining stability in oil markets; opposing high oil prices that might discourage demand growth or lead to a rapid rise in Non-OPEC production; maintaining its own dominant market share in the United States. Saudi Arabia has dominated the world oil market by emphasizing the market control and avoiding the new competition and maintaining the higher prices. It is true that the policy has worked well. Saudi Arabia is considered as a dominant firm while many other OPEC countries are price-takers. One thing with the problem that Saudi Arabia is a dominant firm is that its share of OPEC production rose from 24 percent in 1973 to 37 percent in 1980. So Saudi Arabia is in a better situation than other exporters. Within a considerable range of market conditions, Saudi Arabia could stabilize prices by restricting its own production and exports. Saudi Arabia also has a great ability to expand its production, and has wide political influence that reinforces the power that it derives from being the largest exporters of oil. In 1999, Saudi Arabia took a key role in coordinating campaign of OPEC and other oil-producing countries to raise the oil price to its highest level since the Gulf War by managing production and oil supply. Moreover, Saudi Arabia established the Supreme Economic Council to formulate and coordinate economic development policies for institutional reforms. Relationship to Non-OPEC Countries and Prospects: OPEC and Non OPEC countries often agree to reduce oil and gas supply to check prices. This cooperation is rather strange but since both organizations often benefit from high oil price, then each organization may be obliged to cut or increase oil production at the request of the other countries. So oil price is decided based on demand and supply to maximize the profit of producing of OPEC and Non-OPEC. OPEC supplies 40 percent to 45 percent of world’s oil supply and holds 75 percent of proven revenues and Non-OPEC countries produce 60 percent of the world oil (est. 2004). Most Non-OPEC countries have private sectors; there is little government intervention over production level. Non-OPEC productions were more vulnerable to price collapse because Non-OPEC countries’ production costs tend to be higher than OPEC costs. The production of Non-OPEC countries has declined in decades, and OPEC may be more important role to decide oil prices. However, OPEC has actual influence on price, but does not control or set the oil price directly. The world oil market itself appears to be in change of pricing and in a long term the main deciding factor will be substantially of OPEC revenues. The problem of capacity and depletion will be more significant. When oil price increases, countries start to produce more and undersell each other. The question arises as to how efficiently OPEC can implement the long –term strategy? Needless to say, we are faced with the problem â€Å"increasing demand and decreasing supply† in the world oil market. Reduction of oil production in Non-OPEC is also a burden to OPEC. OPEC member countries are aware of growing international need of renewable energy and environmental problems due to use of fossil fuels. But there is no specific alternative energy supply in the near future and there is no significant regulation to control energy consumption in the market based economy. How many people feel it an emergency? How many people know that the United State has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol? It will not take long before our demand completely exceeds the production capability of the oil countries.

Arrepentirse Conjugation in Spanish, Translations and Examples

Arrepentirse Conjugation in Spanish, Translations and Examples The Spanish verb arrepentirse  is frequently translated as to regret or to feel sorry, although it can also mean to repent. In some contexts, it can also refer to simply changing ones mind, as when someone backs out of a deal or contract. The tables below show  arrepentirse  conjugations in the present, past and future tenses, in both the indicative and subjunctive forms. The charts also include the imperative, participle, and gerund forms. How to Conjugate Arrepentirse Arrepentirse is a reflexive verb derived from arrepentir, which is almost never used nonreflexively. When used reflexively, it requires the reflexive pronouns  me, te, se, nos, and os, as seen in the conjugation charts. Arrepentirse  is irregular in two ways. The -e- of the stem changes to -ie- when stressed. And when unstressed, the -e- sometimes changes to -i-. The irregularities affect all of the subjunctive (present and imperfect) and negative imperative forms. A few forms in the indicative present and preterite are also affected, as well as the gerund. Present Indicative of Arrepentirse The present tense indicates that an action is happening now or that it happens generally or habitually. Yo me arrepiento I regret Yo no me arrepiento de nada. T te arrepientes You regret T te arrepientes por tus crmenes. Usted/l/ella se arrepiente You/he/she regrets l se arrepiente de todo lo que ha hecho. Nosotros nos arrepentimos We regret Nosotros nos arrepentimos por nuestros pecados. Vosotros os arrepents You regret Vosotros os arrepents de no haberme escuchado. Ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepienten You/they regret Ellos se arrepienten de haber apoyado al presidente. Arrepentirse Preterite The preterite is a type of past tense that refers to actions that came to a definite end, much like the English past tense ending in -ed for regular verbs. Yo me arrepent I regretted Yo no me arrepent de nada. T te arrepentiste You regretted T te arrepentiste por tus crmenes. Usted/l/ella se arrepinti You/he/she regretted l se arrepinti de todo lo que ha hecho. Nosotros nos arrepentimos We regretted Nosotros nos arrepentimos por nuestros pecados. Vosotros os arrepentisteis You regretted Vosotros os arrepentisteis de no haberme escuchado. Ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepintieron You/they regretted Ellos se arrepintieron de haber apoyado al presidente. Imperfect Indicative Form of Arrepentirse The imperfect is another type of past tense. Its usage is similar to the constructions used to verb or was verb -ing in English. Yo me arrepenta I was regretting Yo no me arrepenta de nada. T te arrepentas You were regretting T te arrepentas por tus crmenes. Usted/l/ella se arrepenta You/he/she was regretting l se arrepenta de todo lo que ha hecho. Nosotros nos arrepentamos We were regretting Nosotros nos arrepentamos por nuestros pecados. Vosotros os arrepentais You were regretting Vosotros os arrepentais de no haberme escuchado. Ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepentan You/they were regretting Ellos se arrepentan de haber apoyado al presidente. Arrepentirse Future Tense Yo me arrepentir I will regret Yo no me arrepentir de nada. T te arrepentirs You will regret T te arrepentirs por tus crmenes. Usted/l/ella se arrepentir You/he/she will regret l se arrepentir de todo lo que ha hecho. Nosotros nos arrepentiremos We will regret Nosotros nos arrepentiremos por nuestros pecados. Vosotros os arrepentiris You will regret Vosotros os arrepentiris de no haberme escuchado. Ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepentirn You/they will regret Ellos se arrepentirn de haber apoyado al presidente. Periphrastic Future of Arrepentirse The reflexive pronoun of the periphrastic future can come before the conjugated form of  the verb  ir (to go), as shown below, or attached to arrepentir. Thus, the first example sentence in the chart could have been written as Yo no voy a arrepentirme de nada. The method shown below is more common. Yo me voy a arrepentir I am going to regret Yo no me voy a arrepentir de nada. T te vas a arrepentir You are going to regret T te vas a arrepentir por tus crmenes. Usted/l/ella se va a arrepentir You/he/she is going to regret l se va a arrepentir de todo lo que ha hecho. Nosotros nos vamos a arrepentir We are going to regret Nosotros nos vamos a arrepentir por nuestros pecados. Vosotros os vais a arrepentir You are going to regret Vosotros os vais a arrepentir de no haberme escuchado. Ustedes/ellos/ellas se van a arrepentir You/they are going to regret Ellos se van a arrepentir de haber apoyado al presidente. Present Progressive/Gerund Form of Arrepentirse It is common to attach the reflexive pronoun to the gerund (also called a present participle) as shown below. It is also possible to place the pronoun in front of the verb phrase, so the sentence below also could have been rendered as Él se est arrepintiendo de todo lo que ha hecho. Gerund of Arrepentir est arrepintià ©ndose -  Is regretting Él est arrepintià ©ndose de todo lo que ha hecho. Past Participle of Arrepentirse As with other past participles, arrepentido can function as an adjective, in this case meaning repentant or otherwise feeling sorry. Participle of Arrepentir se ha arrepentido -  Has regretted Él se ha arrepentido  de todo lo que ha hecho. Conditional Form of Arrepentirse Yo me arrepentira I would regret Si fuera t, yo no me arrepentira de nada. T te arrepentiras You would regret T te arrepentiras por tus crmenes si fueras sincera. Usted/l/ella se arrepentira You/he/she would regret l se arrepentira de todo lo que ha hecho, pero no quiere ir a la crcel. Nosotros nos arrepentiramos We would regret Nosotros nos arrepentiramos por nuestros pecados, pero no hemos cometido errores. Vosotros os arrepentirais You would regret Vosotros os arrepentirais de no haberme escuchado si fuereis inteligentes. Ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepentiran You/they would regret Ellos se arrepentiran de haber apoyado al presidente, pero les gusta su personalidad. Present Subjunctive of Arrepentirse Que yo me arrepienta That I regret Es lamentable que yo no me arrepienta de nada. Que t te arrepientas That you regret El juez quiere que t te arrepientas por tus crmenes. Que usted/l/ella se arrepienta That you/he/she regret Sofa quiere que l se arrepienta de todo lo que ha hecho. Que nosotros nos arrepintamos That we regret Mam quiere que nosotros nos arrepintamos por nuestros pecados. Que vosotros os arrepintis That you regret Quiero que vosotros os arrepintis de no haberme escuchado. Que ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepientan That you/they regret Me alegra que ellos se arrepientan de haber apoyado al presidente. Imperfect Subjunctive Form of Arrepentirse There is very seldom any difference in meaning between the two forms of the imperfect subjunctive shown below, although the first option is more common. Option 1 Que yo me arrepintiera That I regretted Era lamentable que yo no me arrepintiera de nada. Que t te arrepintieras That you regretted El juez quera que t te arrepintieras por tus crmenes. Que usted/l/ella se arrepintiera That you/he/she regretted Sofa quera que l se arrepintiera de todo lo que ha hecho. Que nosotros nos arrepintiramos That we regretted Mam quera que nosotros nos arrepintiramos por nuestros pecados. Que vosotros os arrepintierais That you regretted Yo quera que vosotros os arrepintierais de no haberme escuchado. Que ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepintieran That you/they regretted Me alegra que ellos se arrepintieran de haber apoyado al presidente. Option 2 Que yo me arrepintiese That I regretted Era lamentable que yo no me arrepintiese de nada. Que t te arrepintieses That you regretted El juez quera que t te arrepintieses por tus crmenes. Que usted/l/ella se arrepintiese That you/he/she regretted Sofa quera que l se arrepintiese de todo lo que ha hecho. Que nosotros nos arrepintisemos That we regretted Mam quera que nosotros nos arrepintisemos por nuestros pecados. Que vosotros os arrepintieseis That you regretted Yo quera que vosotros os arrepintieseis de no haberme escuchado. Que ustedes/ellos/ellas se arrepintiesen That you/they regretted Me alegra que ellos se arrepintiesen de haber apoyado al presidente. Imperative Forms of Arrepentirse The reflexive pronoun is attached to affirmative commands but comes before negative commands. Imperative (Positive Command) T arrepintete Regret! Arrepintete por tus crmenes! Usted arrepintase Regret! Arrepintase de todo lo que ha hecho! Nosotros arrepintmonos Lets regret! Arrepintmonos por nuestros pecados! Vosotros arrepentos Regret! Arrepentos de no haberme escuchado! Ustedes arrepintanse Regret! Arrepintanse de haber apoyado al presidente! Imperative (Negative Command) T no te arrepientas Dont regret! No te arrepientas por tus crmenes! Usted no se arrepienta Dont regret! No se arrepienta de todo lo que ha hecho! Nosotros no nos arrepintamos Lets not regret! No nos arrepintamos por nuestros pecados! Vosotros no os arrepintis Dont regret! No os arrepintis por no haberme escuchado! Ustedes no se arrepientan Dont regret! No se arrepientan de haber apoyado al presidente!

Cutting the budget to the education system will do more harm than good Essay

Cutting the budget to the education system will do more harm than good - Essay Example The recent case of the state of California grants insight into the immediate impact of budget cuts on education systems. As of 2009 the California government had enacted budget cuts of about 12 billion, with an additional 1.2 billion proposed (O’Connell). This has led to â€Å"class-size increases in Pasadena† and â€Å"the expected laying off of 2250 teachers,† both linked to lower graduation rates (O’Connell). The consequences, however, reach farther than immediate effects on classroom quality and graduation. Lower education rates seem to lead to lower economic performance. According to Business Weekly, even at current rates decreases in educational performance could lead to a cut of as much as 2% of GDP due to changes in demographics and expected graduation rates (Symonds). With the growth of global markets and the precedence placed on economic performance in the burgeoning economic powerhouses of India and China, for instance, the United States must wo rk harder to compete. Symonds warns of the possibility of â€Å"more US white collar jobs [moving] offshore† as high school graduation rates in the US’ competitors increase. We cannot neglect the other side of the budget cuts.

Opening of Rohan Stores in Iran Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Opening of Rohan Stores in Iran - Assignment Example Hence, by investing in Iran, the business will be entering a market with a completely different culture. Adizadeh (2010) states that despite the significant role that franchising has played in all economies; researchers have paid little attention to it in the Iranian market. The author further adds that there are very many barriers facing Iranian firms with considerations of adopting franchising. The barriers include legal, cultural, political, tariff, and economic. However, managers of already existing franchises in Iran affirm cultural barriers as one of the most important hindrances facing franchisors and franchisees in the country (Adizadeh, 2010). Leung et al. (2005) noted that the source of cultural barriers is the variations in cultural variables such as religion, material culture, language, social organization, popular culture, and aesthetics between the resident and foreign nations. The authors continue to point out that an increase in such dissimilarities translates to larg er cultural distances between the foreign and home countries. Consequently, an increase in the cultural distances creates challenges in the process of transferring the investment from the resident country. However, Ewah and Ekeng (2009) identify an increase in the levels of saturation and competition in the markets of developed countries. For this reason, Rohan’s most viable solution would be developing strategies to deal with the cultural differences and, subsequently, invest in Iran as an emerging market economy.