Otto von Bismarck :: AP European History, The History of Europe

When Otto von Bismarck was recalled from Paris to become Minister-President of Prussia in 1862, German nationalism was already more than 40 years old. First apparent in the opposition to Napoleon ´s occupation of the German states, national feeling grew into a movement after 1815. This feeling was encouraged by a growth of interest in German literature and music and by increased economic cooperation between the north German states. By 1848 it was strong enough to make the creation of a united Germany one of the main demands of the revolutionaries. Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian patriot who inherited the traditions of love of king, army and country from his family. Bismarck believed that Germany should be united under Prussian leadership and that Austria should have nothing to do with Germany. Bismarck was chosen as chancellor by the Prussian king as he had a proven record as a monarchist and had little time for liberal and excessive parliamentary ideas. Bismarck helped his long term plan to unite Germany and to be the ruler by getting in a strong position with the king. The king owned Bismarck a 'favour ´ as Bismarck had solved the king ´s constitutional crisis. Bismarck played a crucial part in the unification of Germany as he helped to set up the Northern German Confederation after defeating Austria in the second of three wars. The first war was a bit 'weird ´ as Bismarck ´s goal was to get Austria out of Germany but it was the start of a long plan, he teamed up with Austria and together they quickly defeated the Danish. The duchies of Holstein were to be controlled by Austria and the duchies of Schleswig were to be controlled by Prussia. This was to be a major decision to let Austria control Holstein. Bismarck overcame the barrier that was the threat of Austria. Bismarck was very clever in the way that he provoked war with Austria he complained that Austria was not running Holstein properly. The German confederation backed Austria so Bismarck had what he wanted an excuse

Economy Shipping Company :: Business Management Finances Essays

Economy Shipping Company It is recommended that Economy Shipping Company (ESC) replace the steamboat, Cynthia, with a new diesel powered boat. The analysis assumed no operating cost in 1950. Although ESC was presumably still in service during this analysis, the costs associated with the project evaluation were not accounted for until 1951. It was also implicit in the NPV calculations that any upgrade required subsequent to 1950 could be performed without any interruption to the daily operations and were performed at the beginning of the year. Therefore, the stoker upgrade and the engine replacements were considered on Jan 1st of the intended year and did not require any downtime for the installation. The evaluation considered four different scenarios: 1. Rehabilitation of Cynthia with the stoker conversion occurring in 1950 2. Rehabilitation of Cynthia with the stoker conversion occurring in 1952 3. Purchase of a new diesel-powered boat with 2 shifts, 12-hour working day 4. Purchase of a new diesel-powered boat with 3 shifts, 8-hour working day Since ESC was considering other projects with a rate of return of 10%, each of the above options were considered using the same rate of return. The company?s balance sheet suggests that management was very conservative. The debt-to-equity ratio in 1950 was 0.075, indicating that the company could easily borrow at the going rate of 3% without fear of bankruptcy. Moreover, the company had sufficient funds to purchase four new diesel-powered boats. Overall, ECS was in a very strong position to quickly upgrade their fleet and gain any advantage that may come with the new diesel-powered boats. The influence of the union to change the working hours for the crew members is noteworthy in this analysis. If the union succeeded, the steamboats would not be capable of accommodating the 3-shift requirement and therefore be noncompliant with the new regulation. If the new regulation had fines associated for any vessel not in compliance with the new guidelines, the results for the steamboat scenarios would only get worse. In this case, the diesel-powered boats could accommodate the anticipated ruling and therefore continue to operate without fear of being unlawful. Another disadvantage against rehabilitating Cynthia was its age. At the time of the decision the steamboat had already been in operation for 23 years. Although, the realizable cost to renovate the steamboat was already known, the intangible aspect of this alternative was the status of the boat once refurbished. It should be noted that with any overhaul, there are still aspects to the boat that will remain ?old? and will eventually fail. The maintenance and repairs listed in

Death is Definitely Not Justified With Physician-Assisted Suicide Essay

Doctors dedicate their blood, sweat and tears to achieve the ultimate goal of their profession – to preserve the health and well-being of their patients. Doctors positively intervene with life processes in order to maintain and preserve the lives of many people. However, when doctors negatively intervene with a natural process like death, problems can arise because they are caught in a dilemma of whether to forego life and help end the suffering or to preserve it and torment the patients suffering with terminal illnesses. This is why, physician-assisted suicide is not just perceived solely as a medical problem because it also involves legal, ethical, social, personal, and financial considerations. Physician-assisted suicide remained as one of the most controversial types of euthanasia because it violates the Hippocratic Oath. Physician-assisted suicide literally means that the physician provides the medication for suicide to a competent patient who is capable of carrying it out. It is not just morally reprehensible for a physician, or any medical practitioner, to assist the patient to conduct this procedure because it negates their responsibility to preserve life, physician-assisted suicide also devalues the life of the patient as their fate is put entirely in the hands of a human being. Indeed, there exists an unprecedented debate over physician-assisted suicide (also called euthanasia) because involves medical professionals, as well as the patients and their families. The arguments range from determining the dignity of the patients, the quality of their lives, their mental state, and sometimes their usefulness to society. For example, the patient who is in a vegetative state is considered dead by some but not by others, and this case presents substantial moral and ethical problems. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2005) defines euthanasia as â€Å"the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma†. However, euthanasia means much more than a â€Å"painless death†, or the means of procuring it, or the action of inducing it. The definition specifies only the manner of death, and if this were all that was needed to achieve it — a murderer, who is careful to drug his victim to death, could claim that he or she did an act of euthanasia. We find this ridiculous because we take it for granted that euthanasia is â€Å"death† itself, not just the manner of death. How can someone administer a â€Å"medical procedure† to the one who dies in the end? The spate of recent public and philosophical controversy has been over voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), especially physician-assisted suicide. Supporters of VAE argue that there are cases in which relief from suffering supersedes all other consequences and that respect for autonomy obligates society to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. If competent patients have a legal and moral right to refuse treatment that brings about their deaths, there is a similar right to enlist the assistance of physicians or others to help patients cause their deaths by an active means. Usually, supporters of VAE primarily look to circumstances in which (1) a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for a patient, (2) pain management for the patient is inadequate, and (3) only a physician seems capable of bringing relief (Dworkin, Frey & Bok, 1998). A much publicized case of physician-assisted suicide came into the headlines when it shocked people with the bizarre activities of Dr. Jack Kevorkian in early 1990s (or â€Å"Dr Death† as the media have dubbed him) in the USA. Dr. Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, assisted over forty people to commit suicide in recent years in circumstances, which were somewhat beyond normal from regular medical practice. These people travelled to Kevorkian from all over the USA to seek his assistance in suicide. Kevorkian assisted their death by ending their suffering. He even attached his patients at the back of a dilapidated Volkswagen van, where a â€Å"suicide machine† can be found. This machine automatically injects patients with lethal doses of drugs, as patients themselves activate it. Despite being prosecuted for assisted suicide on several occasions, Kevorkian escaped conviction and continued his personal campaign for relaxation of the law in his peculiar way. It was only when he moved from assistance in suicide to euthanasia that he was finally convicted. He filmed himself administering a lethal injection, and the film helped secure his conviction for murder (Keown 2002, p. 31). Of course, his actions provoked discussion of the thin line separating passive euthanasia, which is legal in this country, and active euthanasia. Opponents of Kevorkian’s actions state that he is practicing physician-assisted suicide, which is illegal. Proponents of Kevorkian’s actions argue that the patient’s right to control his or her medical treatment is sufficient justification for assisted suicide. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to agree with physician-assisted suicide. A nationwide survey by the Gallup poll in 2004 showed that 69% of Americans believed that physicians should be allowed to help terminally ill patients in severe pain commit suicide. These results were consistent with those of Gallup polls over the past two years, where â€Å"Americans have shown slightly higher levels of support for doctors ending patients’ lives by painless means than for assisting patients to commit suicide† (Lyons, 2004). Allen et al. (2006) suggest about the reasons for these statistics. They said that â€Å"one explanation could be the increase in education and awareness of advances in both medical technology and research on various chronic diseases†. As more Americans are becoming more aware of the devastating psychological effects of disease on a person’s well being; â€Å"they may be more willing to make informed decisions on end-of-life care†. Armed with knowledge of how painful and grueling pains that patients suffer, Americans think that sometimes the best option for a terminally ill patient is physician-assisted suicide or some other form of euthanasia. Strangely enough, a group of doctors also support physician-assisted suicide. Known as the Hemlock Society, these doctors advocate the legalization of euthanasia (Snyder, 2001). This organization believes that the final decision to terminate life ultimately is one’s own, although it does not encourage suicide for emotional, traumatic, or financial reasons, or in the absence of terminal illness. Conversely, the National Hospice Organization supports a patient’s right to choose, but believes that hospice care is a better choice than euthanasia or assisted suicide (Snyder, 2001). Despite the salient points made by the supporters of physician-assisted suicide, we should not forget that this process essentially negates the purpose of a doctor’s profession. The Hippocratic Oath, which dates back in the 400 B. C. E. states that â€Å"I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel†. Not only that it is in clear opposition to the oath of their profession, it is also morally and ethically reprehensible. According to Somerville (2006), there are two major reasons why people should not allow euthanasia to be legalized. First reason is purely relying on principle that it is not right for one human to intentionally kill another (with the exception of justified self-defense cases, or in the defense of others). Somerville (2006) stated that the second reason is utilitarian, as legalizing physician-assisted death has harmful effects and risks to people and society. In fact, the harms and risks far outweigh any benefits of physician-assisted suicide. While Mak, Elwyn & Finlay (2006) reasoned that â€Å"most studies of euthanasia have been quantitative, focusing primarily on attitudes of healthcare professionals, relatives, and the public†. Most people perceive pain as the major reason for requesting euthanasia, while other factors that convince people to choose it are impairment of functions, dependency, being a big burden, being isolated to people, depression, losing hope, and losing autonomy or control. This is why, Mak, Elwyn & Finlay (2006) thought that legalizing euthanasia is a â€Å"premature† move when research evidence from the perspectives of those who desire euthanasia is not yet proven to be necessary. The researchers suggested that there needs to be additional qualitative patient-based studies in order to broaden the physician’s understanding of patients. They deemed that there should be the â€Å"inclusion of medical humanities, experiential learning, and reflective practice into medical education should help ensure doctors have better communication skills and attitudes†. Thus, doctors and healthcare professionals should focus in examining ways to improve cure and care at all levels so that they can trash out the â€Å"side effects of poor end of life care†. In this way, physician-assisted suicide would not be necessity anymore. In 1997, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not guarantee Americans a right to physician-assisted suicide and returned the issue to the state legislatures for continued debate. In its decision, the Court placed emphasis on the American tradition of condemning suicide and valuing human life. In its ruling, the Court made it clear that the states have a legitimate interest in banning physician-assisted suicide, but it also left it open to them to legalize the practice. As a result, the practice has been legalized in Oregon. Although the law is rather unequivocal in regard to the practice of active euthanasia, the court decisions have been quite ambiguous. This may be a proper stance for the law in that its adamant negative position provides a deterrent to all considerations of the practice and forces deliberation of the merits on a case-by-case basis. But under what circumstances is euthanasia justifiable? Is it permissible to kill the terminally ill? How about those who are not terminally ill but have only lost their appetite for life? Even if society decides that citizens have a right not only to life, liberty, and property but also to death, what part do health care practitioners play in this right? Would the role of physician who conducts euthanasia have a chilling effect on the medical profession? What law cannot answer, ethics and morality could provide the answers of what needs to be done by health professionals when faced with a difficult dilemma, such as physician-assisted suicide. As medical practitioners, medical code of ethics should not just become theoretical concepts, because ethics are important references in the application of one’s moral and value system to a career in health care. Ethics involves more than just â€Å"common sense†, which is an approach for making decisions that most people in society use. Ethics goes way beyond this: It requires a critical thinking approach that examines important considerations such as fairness for all consumers, the impact of the decision on society, and the future implications of the decision. In the end, as doctors, the central issue remains caring for the dignity of the patient, which involves respecting the patient’s wishes, protecting the integrity of the profession, and sparing the life of a person under all conditions which are generally understood to be extremely burdensome. Thus, all forms of physician-assisted suicide are ethically and morally reprehensible because it promotes intentional killing. This principle does not require the preservation of life at all costs, which is essentially the role of all physicians.

How to Conjugate the Spanish Verb Oír

How to Conjugate the Spanish Verb Oà ­r Oà ­r is a common Spanish verb that typically means to hear. It is highly irregular, in part because of its use of an accent in its ending. The only other verbs that are conjugated in the same way as oà ­r are those few verbs based on oà ­r, namely desoà ­r (to ignore), entreoà ­r (to half-hear or hear indistinctly) and trasoà ­r (to mishear). Irregular forms are shown below in boldface. Translations are given as a guide and in real life may vary with context. Infinitive of Oà ­r oà ­r (to hear) Gerund of Oà ­r oyendo (hearing) Participle of Oà ­r oà ­do (heard) Present Indicative of Oà ­r yo oigo, tà º oyes, usted/à ©l/ella oye, nosotros/as oà ­mos, vosotros/as oà ­s, ustedes/ellos/ellas oyen (I hear, you hear, he hears, etc.) Preterite of Oà ­r yo oà ­, tà º oà ­ste, usted/à ©l/ella oyà ³, nosotros/as oà ­mos, vosotros/as oà ­steis, ustedes/ellos/ellas oyeron (I heard, you hears, she hears, etc.) Imperfect Indicative of Oà ­r yo oà ­a, tà º oà ­as, usted/à ©l/ella oà ­a, nosotros/as oà ­amos, vosotros/as oà ­ais, ustedes/ellos/ellas oà ­an (I used to hear, you used to hear, he used to hear, etc.) Future Indicative of Oà ­r yo oirà ©, tà º oirs, usted/à ©l/ella oir, nosotros/as oiremos, vosotros/as oirà ©is, ustedes/ellos/ellas oirn (I will hear, you will hear, he will hear, etc.) Conditional of Oà ­r yo oirà ­a, tà º oirà ­as, usted/à ©l/ella oirà ­a, nosotros/as oirà ­amos, vosotros/as oirà ­ais, ustedes/ellos/ellas oirà ­an (I would hear, you would hear, she would hear, etc.) Present Subjunctive of Oà ­r que yo oiga, que tà º oigas, que usted/à ©l/ella oiga, que nosotros/as oigamos, que vosotros/as oigis, que ustedes/ellos/ellas oigan (that I hear, that you hear, that she hear, etc.) Imperfect Subjunctive of Oà ­r que yo oyera (oyese), que tà º oyeras (oyeses), que usted/à ©l/ella oyera (oyese), que nosotros/as oyà ©ramos (oyà ©semos), que vosotros/as oyerais (oyeseis), que ustedes/ellos/ellas oyeran (oyesen) (that I hears, that you hears, that he hears, etc.) Imperative of Oà ­r oye tà º, no oigas tà º, oiga usted, oigamos nosotros/as, oà ­d vosotros/as, no oigis vosotros/as, oigan ustedes (hear, dont hear, hear, lets hear, etc.) Compound Tenses of Oà ­r The perfect tenses are made by using the appropriate form of haber and the past participle, oà ­do. The progressive tenses use estar with the gerund, oyendo. Sample Sentences Showing Conjugation of Oà ­r and Related Verbs Tenemos dos objetivos: erradicar las barreras de la discriminacià ³n que enfrentan los sordos y ofrecer empleo a los que no pueden oà ­r. (We have two goals: to eradicate the discriminatory barriers facing the deaf and to offer work to those who cannot hear. Infinitive.) Todos hemos oà ­do que  «lo que cuenta es lo que est dentro ». (Weve all heard that what counts is whats inside. Present perfect.) Desoyes todo lo que no te interesa. (Youre ignoring everything that doesnt interest you. Present indicative.) Entreoyà ³ una conversacià ³n al otro lado de la puerta. (She half-heard a conversation on the other side of the door. Preterite.) Aquella noche yo oà ­a la lluvia desde la cama y pensaba en ti. (That night I heard the rain from the bed and thought about you. Imperfect.) Es cierto que lo oirà © cada vez que pase por aquà ­. (It is certain that I will hear it every time it passes by here. Future.) Los dispositivos permiten restaurar la audicià ³n en personas que no oirà ­an de otro modo. (The devices provide for the restoration of hearing in people who wouldnt hear any other way. Conditional.)  ¡Desgraciados de los que desoigan mis palabras! (How wretched are those who mishear my words! Present subjunctive.) Yo no querà ­a que oyeras esto. (I didnt want you to hear this. Imperfect subjunctive.)  ¡Oye, oye! (Hear ye, hear ye! Imperative.)

Teilhard De Chardin - Place Of Man In The Universe Essays

Teilhard De Chardin - Place Of Man In The Universe Essays Teilhard De Chardin - Place Of Man In The Universe Before the world was made, he chose us, chose us in Christ, to be holy and spotless, and to live through love in his presence, determining that we should become his adopted sons, through Jesus Christ. (Eph. I, 4-5). These powerful words of St. Paul in his first letter to the Ephesians, I think, best characterize the spirit of Teilhard the Chardin, his idea of man and man's place in the universe, and of the common goals of humanity. Just imagine somebody Somebody, whose whole life was a continuous prayer to God, a prayer, in which he constantly asked to break through the seal of traditional authority and common ignorance, and explore the depth of reality, the ultimate beginning and the ultimate end, and the reasons behind the emergence of life and conscious beings in the universe. Of course, that means that your books are put on the Index and you are almost made into a heretic by the True and Holy Catholic Church. But he didn't give up. He clearly saw his goals, his purpose. It was his life's work, to trace back the origins of mankind, and to speculate of its goals and ultimate outcome. It was his type of spirituality, scientific spirituality, that drove him incessantly to spend sleepless nights trying to make sense out of scientific facts, to tie them together with what seemed apparent, and with that which didn't seem so apparent. And the best he came up with was a simple statement, We Are All One. Life is eter nal, love is immortal, and death is but a horizon. Life Is, he would say if someone would have asked him, what is life? Life Is, and ever was, and forever will be - world without end. Composite matter dies and falls apart, but spirit remains. And with it - that indelible part of it, the nuclei of personality, the individual particles which have been with us from the very beginning, which grow and evolve with us, and which strive towards common union into a whole, with God as the center In my paper, I will discuss Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's idea of man's place in the universe, as presented in a variety of his works. I will be using mostly primary sources for my research, as well as talks delivered at the Centennial Teilhard de Chardin Symposium at Georgetown University, and books written by Teilhard's friends or contemporaries. In most of his works, Teilhard establishes a link between anthropology and metaphysics, between science and religion. They are an attempt to understand the universe through man, who is very much part of it. In them, we can see Teilhard's vision of harmony of duality of the universe, which is composed of matter and spirit. Union of matter and mind, of the cosmos and the spirit of the universe, and the evolving of one into the other is one of the main ideas behind all of Teilhard's works. He tries to prove that life didn't emerge by accident, but was a product of evolution. And man has his own place in the evolution of the universe. First of all, universe is not static. That is, there is no permanence in it. Everything is in the constant process of change, and a particular kind of change - evolution. How did man come to be, asks de Chardin. And the only plausible conclusion he can make is, that human being is a link in a chain of evolution. What was before man? And how does God fit into the whole picture? Let us follow Teilhard in his understanding of the universe through ourselves, human beings. Has there always been conscious life in our universe? No, would be Teilhard's answer. Emergence of consciousness was indeed a breakthrough in the evolution of the world. But what kind of a breakthrough? What is the primordial element that gave rise to life in the universe? What is it composed of? As a Catholic priest, he should say, well, the universe was created by God out of nothing in six days, and culminated in the creation of man out of earth. And this Old Testament myth, however surprising it

MAT117 Week 1 DQ 2 Essay

MAT117 Week 1 DQ 2 Essay MAT117 Week 1 DQ 2 Essay MAT 117 /MAT117 Course Algebra 1B MAT 117 /MAT117 Week 1 Discussion Question Version 8 Week 1 DQ 2 1. Do you always use the property of distribution when multiplying monomials and polynomials? Explain why or why not. 2. In what situations would distribution become important? 3. Provide an example using the distributive property for your classmates to solve or evaluate. RESPONSE A monomial is a number, a variable, or a product of numbers and variables raised to natural number powers... Monomials do not contain division by variables. Also, if an expression contains addition or subtraction signs, it is not a monomial. Polynomials are the sum of two or more monomials. Distribution property is used frequently when multiplying monomials and polynomials. It is not always required however. If there is not a variable before parentheses, it is not needed. x(7-2) would required distributing x to both terms in the parentheses. 7-2 however does not require distribution. An example of an equation requiring distribution is: 2(3^3) - (6/2)^3 RESPONSE 2 After reading the text, I learned that the property of distribution is always used when multiplying monomials and polynomials. If you are multiplying a monomial and a polynomial you would use the distributive property to multiply the monomial but the terms of the polynomial. When multiplying a polynomial by a polynomial, it is important to multiply each term of the first polynomial by all of the terms in the second polynomials. Once the expressions are simplified the next step would be to combine like terms. If there is no value for the variable listed, then the expression is complete in its simplified form. The distribution property becomes important when you are multiplying monomials and polynomials. When you have two sets of polynomials multiplied together, it is important to make sure each part of the expression is simplified. By multiplying every term in the first polynomial by the terms in the second. By doing this you will get what each term equals and then you can simplify the expression. My example for the class to evaluate is (7x + 2)(3x + 4). RESPONSE 3 From based off what I was reading in the book it states that the property of distrubution when multiplying monomials and polynomials is commonly and frequently used at all times along with using the product rule when multiplying monomials and polynomials. The reason that the property of distribution is used frequently when multiplying monomials and polynomials is because a monomial consists of one term, whereas a polynomial consists of one or more terms separated by + or - signs and in order to solve these problems in which you need to multiply a monomial by a polynomial, you have to apply the distributive properties and the product rule. The situations in which distribution would become very important is would be when you are going to have to multiply a monomial by a polynomial, which in that case you would have to apply the distributive properties. The example I will give the class to use is the following: 12(9x - 18) RESPONSE 4 When multiplying both monomials and polynomials, you must always use the property of distribution if there is a variable before the parentheses. For instance in the given example: ab(12 +6) you would need to distribute ab to each of the terms in the parentheses, so you would end up with 12ab + 6ab. If there were no variable in front of the parentheses, it would just be simple addition 12 + 6, less the distribution of any other terms so the distributive property would not be necessary. It is important to remember that a monomial usually consists of one term, where a polynomial consists of one or more than one term. However, the polynomial is usually separated by the â€Å"+† or â€Å"-â€Å"signs, but remember you can multiply monomials and polynomials that have more than one variable too. Here is an example for you, the class to solve: 5(15x + 25)

Nissan Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4250 words

Nissan - Essay Example The Company is also engaged in manufacture and supply of automobile parts. Its overseas market includes Europe, North America, Africa, New Zealand, and China. Nissan established an alliance with Renault SA in 1999 in order to resolve its financial difficulty. Renault SA is a French automobile manufacturer, who was looking to expand its brand into other world markets. The alliance was designed to achieve profitable and balanced growth for both the partners through the creation of a bi-national group. Nissan has been working to address global environmental issues that have caused increasing concern over recent years. Renault has been expanding its activities into other world markets by improving core competencies; it is argued that if Renault had not found a partner, it could have found survival difficult when faced with global competition (Autozine, 2002b).The RNA is an agreement concerning a global alliance aimed at "achieving profitable growth for both companies". Both companies have interest of cross shareholding, so they joined alliance for manufacturing facility. Renaults stake in Nissan is a stake in its performance, and vice versa, which immediately moves the alliance away from the likes of Rover-Honda, where no such arrangement existed. The Alliance develops and implements a strategy of profitable growth and sets itself the following three objectives: The Renault-Nissan Alliance is ranked among the worlds leading five automakers. This alliance mainly includes five brands: Nissan and Infiniti for the Nissan group and Renault, Dacia and Samsung for the Renault group. As s result of the synergies generated by the alliance, Renault and Nissan assert their ambitions for future developments. (Nissan). Q.1) In the April-to-December, 2008 period, net revenue fell 14.7% to 6.6858 trillion yen. Operating profit totalled 92.5 billion yen, down 84.0%. Operating profit margin came to