Certification and Standardization of Mediators Essay - 1

Certification and Standardization of Mediators - Essay Example Years later, California added child custody decisions to mediator responsibilities. â€Å"In 1980, California became the first state to mandate all parents with custody or visitation disputes to participate in family mediation prior to a court hearing† (Milner et al., 2004, p.5). By 2004, most states had mandates regarding family divorce disputes, and 38 states had mediation mandates where child custody issues occurred (Tondo, Coronel, & Drucker, 2001, as cited in Milner et al., 2004, p.5). Example One. One of the frontrunners and more controversial figures in divorce mediations was O.J. Coogler, an Atlanta lawyer and author of the book, Structured Mediation in Divorce Settlement (1978). This marriage and family litigator used labor negotiations and social sciences as a guide to build a framework for third-party mediators to use when assisting divorcing couples resolve issues such as property division, alimony, child visitation, and child custody (Milner et al., 2004). Despite establishing the Family Mediation Association (FMA), the bar association harshly rebuked Coogler. â€Å"The bar association declared mediation by non-lawyers to be the unauthorized practice of law and attempted to dissuade lawyers from mediating through the threat of ethical sanctions† (Silberman, 1988, as cited in Milner et al., 2004, p. 5). Example Two. Confidentiality is crucial in court proceedings. In a civil suit involving the still photography and filming of underage girls, the judge ordered mediation in an attempt to circumvent litigation (Zimmerman, 2009). However, the defendant did not take the mediation proceedings seriously. He appeared four hours late, dressed inappropriately, shouted profanities at the court, continually placed his dirty, bare feet on the plaintiff’s table, threatened the plaintiff’s lawyer, and then proceeded to breech confidentiality by telling

Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 114

Essay Example A journalist, writer, researcher, or reporter who is guilty of either plagiarism or fabrication betrays that trust because the reading audience relies on the writer, implying that what was written was original, contributed to the discussion, distilled it with his thoughts and ideas, and gave a new insight for the benefit of readers (Seife, 2013, p. 5), and committing plagiarism or fabrication is mortal sins in terms of its professional ethics. However, it must be conceded that any code of ethics has shades of gray (ibid.) and more so in writing as there is no â€Å"canonical code† for journalists; this is because it can boil down to judgment although those who are in the profession know there is a dividing line and when they had crossed it. This is where the normative code of ethics comes in; a group of journalists and reporters know they have an explicit code of conduct to follow and abide by. This particular sector in society has their own peculiar language (lingo) which only members can understand, and this includes a standard when it comes to its professional ethics not to commit plagiarism or fabrication in their stories. It is indeed a tricky minefield on what constitutes plagiarism or not; in any case, people know when they have committed it or not. Ethics can be quite subjective in the sense it depends on the times and the context in which the ethical rules currently operate. Rules against plagiarism are quite strict when applied in the academic world. This is the assurance by which professors can objectively evaluate their students; otherwise, the students will not learn and the teaching environment will not be conducive to the whole learning process. In this regard, the cheating scandal at Harvard University can be considered from the viewpoint of the second definition of what constitutes normative; in this sense, it means value judgments. A lot of students who were

Internal Revenue Service Essay Example for Free

Internal Revenue Service Essay According to the Internal Revenue Service, a taxpayer has the choice between five different filing statues. The five statuses are, Single, Married Filing Separately, Married Filing Jointly, Head of Household, and Qualifying Widow(er) with dependent child. For the couple in question, the recommendation I am making is that they use the filing status of married filing jointly. Since the couple has three children they will qualify for three dependency exemptions as well as two exemptions for themselves. Since all three of the children still live in the household and all of the children are under the age of nineteen the couple is allowed to claim them as dependents. On the other hand, the couple cannot claim spouse B’s mother since they did not supply over fifty percent of the support for her for the year they are filing. The total amount of the mother’s living expense, including the cost of rent, food, and other expenses brings the total support to seven thousand dollars and the mother supplies the couple with $7920 a year. The money that she supplies is what she receives from her Social Security benefits. The reason that the couple should not file under the status married filing separately is because the tax rates are higher than the tax rates for those filing under the status married filing jointly. Also, there several deductions, credits, and exclusions that are allowed for the status married filing jointly that are not allowed for those that are choosing to file separately. One example, is that the couple would only be able to deduct $250,000 of the income from the sale of the personal residence if they had filed separately, where if they choose to file jointly they will be allowed to excluded the entire amount of income from the sale. The definition of income, as stated by the Internal Revenue Service, is all income of the taxpayer whether it is taxable or non-taxable. The couple has several items that are considered as taxable income. Those items included, spouse A’s income from the partnership in Fan Company A of $142,000, the $2000 of income from the City Park referee job, the dividends for 2011 that spouse A received from Company E, the income that souse B received form the Controller job of $88,000, and the $5000 loss that spouse B incurred while they were unemployed. The couple also have items that fall under being considered as non-taxable income. Those items are, the child support that spouse B receives in the amount of $2400 for care of the child, the tax exempt interest payments received from Municipal Bonds in the amount of  $900, and the $296,000 of income from the sale of the couple’s personal residence. There is an allowance to taxpayers of $250,000 exclusion on the sale of the taxpayers’ principal residence, and for couples that file under the status married filing jointly, the amount of the exclusion rises to $500,000. A profit on the sale of a capital asset is a capital gain, and a loss on the sale of a capital asset is a capital loss. There are short-term capital gains and losses and there are long-term capital gains and losses. A short-term asset is an asset that has been in the taxpayers’ possession for less than a year, and a long-term asset is an asset that the taxpayer has held for more than a year. Initially it seems that the couple has a long-term capital gain in the amount of $44,000 f or the year since they sold a rental property that the couple has held for four years that was purchased for $90,000 and they sold it for $134,000. The gain would be then added to the couple’s total income for the year. The couple had a short-term capital loss in the amount of $5,000 from the day trading that spouse B was involved while unemployed. The Internal Revenue Service only allows for a $3,000 capital loss per filing year, so the remaining $2,000 will need to be carried forward to the next filing year. The loss would be subtracted from the couple’s total income for the year. If the couple have a gain for one item and a loss for another item, the amounts will offset each other. For example, if the couple has a total of $10,000 in capital gain and a capital loss of $5,000 ($10,000 $5,000 = $5,000), their income would increase by $5,000. Any of the proceeds that come from the sale of a personal residence will be subject to taxes. Since there is a rule for a married filing jointly couple, the couple will be able to exclude the entire $296,000 from income. The rule states that a married filing jointly couple are allowed an exclusion up to $500,000 as long as the taxpayer owns the property and has been residing in the residence for a minimum of two of the previous five years prior to selling the residence. Also the exclusion would not be allowed if the couple had sold a residence and used the exclusion in the last two years. On the other hand, when the couple sold the rental property, all of the proceeds from that sale are taxable. If the couple realized a profit from the sale it would be a capital gain and would be added to total income for the year, and the event that they realized a loss it would be deducted from total income for the year. Since spouse A was in a  partnership, a K-1 was issued to the spouse stating that $142,000 was the spouse’s share of the income from the partnership. This amount would be added to the couple’s total income for the year. Spouse A did withdraw an amount totaling $83,500 over the course of the year. The withdraw amount would not be subject to tax since it did not exceed the basis that spouse A had in the partnership. Passive activities are defined as income producing ventures that the owner does not actively participate in. Owning rental properties are also considered a passive activity. The couple did have some items that would be considered to be passive activities. The couple had two rental properties that they owned which brought in total of $23,000 in rents and had a total of $29,200 in associated expenses and depreciation. The couple would recognize a passive loss for this income of $6,200, ($23,000 $29,200 = -$6,200). The couple also had a passive gain of $44,000 when they sold a third rental property. The impact these items have on the couple’s income would be a total of $37,800 in passive gain. The $44,000 gain from the sale of the third rental property minus the loss of $6,200 on the other two rental properties, ($44,000 – $6,200). A $44,000 passive gain on the sale of a rental property, which could be offset when the adjusted cost basis is figured for the property. This basis will take into account purchase costs, selling costs, improvements, rent received in this period, and accumulated depreciation. The adjustments to income that I would include on the couple’s return would be the alimony that was paid to spouse A’s ex-wife, the contributions that were made to the Keogh retirement plan, a portion of the self-employment tax, a possible deduction for paid health insurance, and possible deduction for their dependent in college. The alimony qualifies as an adjustment because a deduction is allowed for the person paying the alimony. The contributions made to the Keogh retirement plan also meet the rules set by the Internal Revenue Service for deductibility. The amount contributed falls under the maximum allowed and therefore are deductible. The tax code allows for a partner to deduct a portion of the self-employment tax, such tax would have been paid on spouse A’s income from the partnership and the couple would be allowed a deduction. The health insurance that spouse A has through the partnership may qualify for a self-employed health insurance deduction. The  cost of tuition and fees that the couple paid on behalf of their dependent that is attending college might be deductible if the couple’s AGI falls under the maximum allowed income of $160,000. My recommendation is for the couple to take the standard deduction, opposed to itemizing. The standard deductions will offer more than itemizing. Itemizing would require the couple to have expenses that exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income, and with the items that would be allowed for deductions, that amount would not be reached. The couple would receive a larger tax break by taking the standard deductions. The deductions that the couple would not be able to claim are the mileage that spouse B incurred commuting to and from work or the amount spent on business suits because the mileage was not part of actually performing work tasks and the suits would be able to deemed as normal wear and could be worn for activities other than work. The deductions that the couple could claim if they itemized are any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of the couple’s AGI and the charitable contributions that the couple made during the year that totaled $6,000. The credits that the couple would be able to claim would be the Child Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Saver’s Credit. The Child Tax Credit is a credit of $1,000 for each qualifying child, which would give the couple a total of $2,000 as long as the couple’s AGI is not above $110,000, if their AGI is above that amount the credit is reduced. The American Opportunity Tax Credit allows a credit of up to $2,500 for qualifying expenses of a college student, which is applied to couples that have an AGI up to $160,000. The Saver’s Credit allows for a credit up to $2,000 for jointly filing taxpayers that have made contributions to a qualifying retirement plan.

Achieving Access to Healthcare for All Americans

Achieving Access to Healthcare for All Americans Introduction/Background Access to healthcare is one of the major issues facing Americans today. The United States is considered by many to be the greatest nation in the world with great wealth and opportunity for its citizens. However, despite many Americans having access to our advance healthcare system and technology, a significant percentage of our citizens face barriers that prevent them from obtaining basic healthcare services. The problem we face as Americans is our lack of free healthcare for all citizens, as compared to other countries such as Canada who do implement free healthcare to all of its citizens. There are many reasons people do not have access to healthcare. High healthcare costs are still a primary cause for Americans not being able to get the medical attention they need. The most common reason is because people cant afford to purchase health insurance that would allow them to get in to see a doctor. Health insurance can be hard to obtain depending where you are on the socioeconomic ladd er. The Affordable Care Act, which is sometimes referred to as Obamacare, was supposed to fix this problem by creating an insurance system that would allow everyone to afford health insurance regardless of their income. Obamacare is a United States law that reformed both the healthcare and health insurance industries in America. This did help and the latest statistics in 2016 showed that the number of uninsured has decreased from 18% to 13% (Obamacarefacts, 2016). This has not solved the problem completely and there is a lot of concern about the continued high cost of healthcare and the fact that many still dont have access. At some point in their lives, everyone will need health care or medical treatment, but the cost of this essential service threatens our countrys economy. The cost of healthcare has taken an increasing share of the United States economy, and has been rising for many years. In 2010, the US spent 17.9 percent of the nations economy on healthcare, compared to only 7 .2 percent in 1970 and to 9.5 percent on average across 34 other developed countries (Caitlin Cowan, 2015). This article shows that increased spending does not equal higher quality. In fact, many other countries healthcare systems actually provide higher quality care at a lower cost, suggesting that we dont always need to spend more to get better care and outcomes (Caitlin Cowan, 2015). This critical issue of healthcare access has caused many citizens to demand a nationalized or government sponsored healthcare system for all Americans. Nationalized Healthcare is What All Americans Deserve Proponents of nationalized healthcare believe that instituting a national health system would lower the cost of health care in the United States.In one study, under a single-payer system, in which all citizens are guaranteed access to healthcare, total public and private healthcare spending could be lowered by $592 billion in 2014 and up to $1.8 trillion over the next decade by lowering administrative and prescription drug costs (Friedman, 2013). In a study in the American Journal of Public Health, Canada, who provides universal access to healthcare, spends half as much per capita on health care as the United States (Lasser, Himmelstein Woolhandler, 2009). With nationalized healthcare, we could develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors and avoids separate record-keeping systems between doctors and different hospitals. It would eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc . because there would not be a need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The savings in the duplicate records, banking and postal areas alone would be worth significant annual savings estimated in the Billion dollar range (Backman, Hunt, Khosla, 2008). Nationalized healthcare would save lives.In a 2009 study from Harvard, lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year, which is a 40% increased risk of death among uninsured patients (Wilper, Woolhandler, Lasser, McCormick, 2009, p. 2290). In many countries with complete access to healthcare such as Italy, Spain, France, and Norway, people live two to three years longer than people in the United States (Morgan, 2013). Access to free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early before treatment gets severe. Currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the unaffordable costs. This behavior not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost to the system, since preventive medicine costs only a fraction of a full blown illness (Lesser et al., 2006). A government-provided system would remove the deterrent patients have for visiting a medical prof essional. Proponents of nationalized healthcare are also quick to point out that good health is a right that all humans deserve. In fact, many believe that in a country as economically and culturally advanced as the United States, it is an embarrassment that we dont provide this basic service to our citizens. Many European countries with a universal right to health care have a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than the United States, but still provide a right to health care for all their citizens (Backman et al., 2008). Interestingly, in 2005 the United States along with other member states of the World Health Organization signed World Health Assembly Resolution 58.33, which stated that everyone should have access to health care services and should not suffer financial hardship when obtaining these services (United Nations, 2005). Nationalized Healthcare is Bad for America Opponents of nationalized healthcare believe that it would bring on economic disaster for the United States because of the increased cost of healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Childrens Health Insurance Program are government programs that provide a right to healthcare for certain segments of the population. These programs totaled less than 10% of the federal budget in 1985, but by 2012 took up 21% of the federal budget (Korobkin, 2014). Opponents are quick to point out the waste, excess expense and complexities of other government run agencies. As an example of their beliefs, when the United States Government issued a simplified tax guide several years back, it was over 1000 pages long (Kamarack, 2013). Also, the millions of dollars in waste seen in the Pentagon, Postal Service or Department of Motor Vehicles should make any American skeptical that the government could manage healthcare efficiently or effectively. Nationalized healthcare could increase the wait time and rationing for medical services. Medicaid is an example of a federally funded single-payer health care system that provides access to health care for low-income people. In a 2012 Government Accountability Office report, 9.4% of Medicaid beneficiaries had difficulty obtaining required care due to long wait times compared to only 4.2% of people with private health insurance (United States Government Accountability Office, 2012). Countries with a universal right to healthcare have longer wait times than the United States. In 2013 the average wait time to see a specialist in Canada was nearly 9 weeks but only 18.5 days in the United States (Backman et al., 2008, p. 2055). In addition to the wait to receive healthcare, the government would decide what medical care a citizen deserves. Many countries with universal health care such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, all ration health care using methods such as b udgeting, price setting, and service restrictions (Hoffman, 2013). In this article, the United Kingdoms National Health Service rations health care using a cost-benefit analysis. For example, in 2008 if a drug provided an extra six months of good-quality life and cost less than $15,000, it was automatically approved, while one that costs more would not (Hoffman, 2013). This takes away a persons right to choose what is best for them. Providing a right to health care could raise taxes for all Americans. In European countries with a universal right to health care, the cost of coverage is paid through higher taxes. In the United Kingdom and other European countries, payroll taxes average 37%, which is much higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by an average US worker (Gregory, 2013). According to Gregory, a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, financing a universal right to health care in the United States would cause payroll taxes to double. There is a belief that our country has an entitlement mentality and believes that the government should pay for many services including healthcare. However, since nothing is free we would have to increase taxes to pay for this additional service. When people are provided with universal health care and are not directly responsible for the costs of medical services, they might utilize more health resources than necessary. According to a 2014 study published in Science, 10,000 uninsured Portland, Oregon residents who gained access to Medicaid had 40% more visits to emergency rooms, even though they already had guaranteed access to emergency treatment under federal law (Taubman, Allen, Wright, Baicker, Finkelstein, 2014). Since Medicaid provides access to health care for low-income individuals, expanding this to the full US population could worsen the problem of overusing health care resources. Opponents of nationalized healthcare do not believe the founding documents of the United States provide support for a right to health care. The Declaration of Independence does not guarantee a right to health care. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to promote the general welfare, not to provide for it. This belief is that one may have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not to services such as health care (Maruthappu, Ologunde. Gunarajasingam, 2013). Assessments of Different Arguments The issue of healthcare costs in a national healthcare system seem to be best supported by proponents that show reduction in overall costs when they centralize administrative overhead and duplication of paperwork that occurs now between doctors, hospitals and insurance or government payers. The argument that opponents make referencing governmental waste in other programs seems like more of a scare technique than something that would definitely happen with nationalized healthcare. In fact, providing the security of access to healthcare has been shown to increase spending on consumer goods and to promote employees upward mobility to new jobs without the fear of having to maintain health insurance coverage (Gruber, 2009). It would also expand the medical sector to meet the newly covered individuals which would create new and high quality jobs. These would drive economic growth overall. In addition, any rationing of healthcare like that seen in other countries with universal healthcare, would likely reduce costs significantly. It does make sense that increasing the number of individuals by achieving access to healthcare could increase overall costs leading to increase in taxes. However, the thought is that the overall expense reduction by avoiding duplication of services, allowing preventative healthcare to drive down cost of serious illnesses, rationing of health services and increase in economic factors by expanding the healthcare market, would still make this overall a financially positive situation. When analyzing the different opinions for a National healthcare system, there are several factors that make one more supportive of the opponents viewpoint. It is likely that there would be some component of rationing of healthcare services. In most countries with universal healthcare, there is a formula that evaluates the financial costs of a treatment vs. the likelihood of it prolonging life or quality of life. This would change current practice where patients receive less expensive end of life services and might not get surgical procedures as quickly. It would limit the ability for a patient and their Doctor to be the decision maker for all treatment options. There is also a belief by many in the medical community that it would decrease patients options for choosing a provider as less physicians would go into medicine (Fleming, 2006). Finally, there is a significant disagreement between proponents and opponents of nationalized healthcare over whether access to healthcare is a right per our founding fathers or a service that our Government has no obligation to provide. This issue really comes down to semantics and how one chooses to define promotion of general warfare as including health to its citizens. Not surprisingly, proponents or opponents choose to interpret based solely on their desire to support their own argument. Conclusion Access to healthcare can be hard to obtain depending where you are on the socioeconomic ladder. Health insurance is supposed to protect Americans from very high healthcare costs. We have just completed 8 years of President Obama attempting to increase access to healthcare. During his initial campaign promises, he vowed to bring healthcare to all Americans and seemed to be a proponent of Universal Healthcare. His trademark legislation, Obamacare, did increase the number of insured persons but it did not accomplish coverage for all. Now, with the recent Trump election, there is a yet to be understood plan that is supposed to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something that will more effectively provide healthcare coverage to all Americans. This is likely to move away from the idea of government sponsored, nationalized coverage and instead have a significant portion that utilizes private or public non-governmental companies to accomplish their goal. This is an uncertain time for many Americans regarding their access to healthcare. The idea of a nationalized healthcare system for all Americans has been a major issue for many years and continues today. Exploring the many different issues involved with nationalized healthcare provides a clearer understanding of how complicated this issue is with many different viewpoints on both sides. I believe that we cannot continue to allow healthcare costs to increase at their current rate and that as a country, we must provide healthcare to all of our citizens regardless if it is a right or a service. Despite the advantages of a national healthcare system, I do not believe most Americans are willing to limit their access to physicians or their access to the very best treatment options. Ultimately, I believe a combination of government sponsored and private healthcare will be the best option moving forward. Unlike the current situation, I do believe it will require some form of expansion of government healthcare that does have a component of treatment rationing. There will also need to be a private insurance option and for profit companies in the healthcare environment that provide for the heal thcare options that many Americans will demand. As is often the case, the approach of an all or nothing nationalized healthcare system will not work and compromise will be needed. It will require politicians and different factions to compromise on this issue and put aside bipartisan emotions to create a plan that will accomplish healthcare coverage for all Americans. References Backman G., Hunt P., Khosla R., Jaramillo-Strouss C., Fikre B.M., Rumble C. (2008). Health Systems and the Right to Health: An Assessment of 194 Countries. The Lancet, 372, 2047-85. Catlin, A.C., Cowan, C.A., (2015). History of Health Spending in the United States, 1960-2013. Retrieved January 30, 2017 from http://www.cms.gov-Statistics-Data-and- Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ HistoricalNHEPaper.pdf Dartmouthatlas.org. (2016). The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/keyissues/issue.aspx? con=1338 Fleming, K.C. (2006). High-Priced Pain: What to Expect from a Single-Payer Health Care System. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.heritage.org Friedman, G. (2013). Funding HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicaid for All Act. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.pnhp.org Government Accountability Office (2012). Medicaid: States Made Multiple Program Changes, and Beneficiaries Generally Reported Access Comparable to Private Insurance. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.gao.gov Gregory, P. R. (2013). Obamacare a Mess? Liberals Say Go Single Payer. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.forbes.com Gruber J, (2009). Universal Health Insurance Coverage or Economic Relief A False Choice. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 437-439. Hoffman, B. (2013). Health Care Rationing Is Nothing New. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.scientificamerican.com Kamarack, E. (2013). Lessons for the Future of Government Reform. Retrieved on January 30, 2017 from https://www.brookings.edu/lessons for the future of government reform Korobkin, R. (2014). Comparative Effectiveness Research as Choice Architecture: The Behavioral Law and Economics Solution to the Health Care Cost Crisis. Michigan Law Review, 112(4): 523-74. Lasser, K.E., Himmelstein, D., Wollhandler, S. (2006). Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Study. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1-8. Maruthappu M., Ologunde R., Gunarajasingam A. (2013). Is Health Care a Right? Health Reforms in the USA and their Impact Upon the Concept of Care. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2 (1), 15-17. Morgan, K. J. (2016). Americas Misguided Approach to Social Welfare. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.foreignaffaris.com Obamacarefacts.org. (2017). Obamacare: Uninsured Rates. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://obamacarefacts.com/uninsured-rates ProCon.org. (2016). ProCon.org Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues. Retrieved February 1, 2017 from http://www.procon.org/ Taubman, S. L., Allen, H. L., Wright, B. J., Baicker, K., Finkelstein, A. N. (2014). Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregons Health Insurance Experiment. Science, 343(6168), 263-268. United Nations.org. (2005). United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Retrieved February 1, 2017 from http://www.un.org Wilper, A. P. Steffie Woolhandler, S., Lasser, K.E. Danny McCormick, D. (2009). Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults, American Journal of Public Health,99(12), 2289-95.

The Physics of Car Collisions Essay -- Physics

Basic Concepts Issac Newton was the first to state the concepts that are necessary to understanding the physics of collisions. His three laws are used again and again in all the fields of physics: Newton's 1st Law In the absence of external forces, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion with a constant velocity. This law can be best observed in space, far from the gravity of a star or planet, where there is no friction or air resistance. If, in the middle of deep space, you give a rock a little push, it will continue with the direction and velocity you gave it forever. The only way to stop it is to apply a force in the opposite direction. This law is not intuitive because we are surrounded by air and gravity - if we give a rock a little push on the surface of the earth, it won't travel far. Newton's 2nd Law The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass. This boils down to force equals mass times acceleration, F = ma. This little equation turns out to be immensely useful, again and again. If you add together all the forces acting on an object, they equal the mass of the object (in kg) times the acceleration of the object (in m/sec^2). Force is measured in newtons. One newton is the force required to accelerate a 1-kg mass to 1 m/sec^2. Newton’s 3rd Law The force exerted by object 1 onto object 2 is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force exerted by object 2 onto object 1. This law appears to make little sense and can be difficult to grasp. If you push on a brick wall, the wall is pushing back on you with an equal force. If the wall was not pushing back, then your hand wou... ... hammer hitting a concrete wall is about 3,600,000. Sources: Barr, L.C. Safety Report. 1996. University of New Hampshire. 26, Nov. 2002. Borges, Danny. The Physics in Car Collisions. 22, Nov. 2002. Braking Distance. 2002. University of Idaho. 26, Nov. 2002. Safety Fact Sheet. 1999. Airbag Testing Technology, Inc. 26, Nov. 2002. Serway, Raymond A., and Robert J. Beichner. Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth edition. Thomson Learning Inc. U.S.A., 2000. Toor, Amrit, Michael Araszewski and Ravinder Johal. Technical Assessment of Seatbelt Usage and Effectiveness. 2000. Intech. 26, Nov. 2002.

Analysis of the Article Dot.com? Don’t bother! Essay -- Analyzing Arti

Analysis of the Article "Dot.com? Don’t bother!" Posted recently by T.J. Straith on a British website titled I-resign.com- a kind of online financial resource that offers information and services to individuals in the modern workplace –the article "Dot.com? Don’t bother!" provides a somewhat comical yet focused, criticism-based look into the pitfalls associated with investing in today’s tech-related startup companies- the kind that base future earnings, market demand and overall success on guestimation and facts from the current market. Designed to serve as a massive attack against the idea of investing in newly developed or developing tech companies, the article in itself -through the use of objective facts, detailed descriptions of the market, example situations, and even personal experience based on the author’s own investment in a failed tech-company- provides the reader with enough information to understand the truths behind the market, accomplished in an almost completely objective fashion, and then calls for modern investors to place value in realistic goals and not the â€Å"the hyperinflationary world of dotcom valuations.† As an opinion article, Straith’s intent is obviously to educate the reader in such a way that brings the person to his level of understanding- a level at which the hype behind new tech companies should be taken with a pound of salt. In general, the author relies heavily on denotative language to hold the article together, which essentially holds the audience in place. â€Å"The dotcom craze infected whole economies.† Deep reflections on society, religion, philosophy, or anything else representative of connotative language clearly have no real place in the article- it’s designed to inform... ...efit. Hands down, Straith does a fine job of delivering a warning message. Identifying a byproduct in this article is tough- it’s designed to inform readers of many different classes, does it’s job, and leaves no apparent avenue of misunderstanding down which a reader might lose him or herself in a mess of unrelated or confusing facts. His use of informal tone, understandable language, and mild humor is enough from which readers can reap an understanding, business people and common-types alike. His writing style and method of delivery support his goal of informing potential investors of the common blind-sightedness that has been such a dominant factor towards dotcom investing in the past, while his apparent interest in the financial welfare of others is a credibility-adding factor that- the mind of the reader –can set him aside from other authors in his class.

Rene Castellani

In 1965, Rene Castellani was working as a radio promotions manager on his show â€Å"The Dizzy Dialer† in New Westminster, and slowly killing his wife, Esther Castellani, by poisoning her with arsenic. This had been going on for a period of several months with no one noticing, not even the doctors. Mrs. Castellani had gone to the hospital many times but doctors could not discover what was causing her illness. After having been sick for nine months Mrs. Castellani died on July, 11 1965.The autopsy report showed that Mrs. Castellani had died from â€Å"a viral infection and heart attack. † Several months after her burial, a woman named Adelaide Miller, presumably Rene’s accomplice, who planned to marry him after Rene had collected the insurance money, contacted the Crown Attorney and said she knew how Mrs. Castellani was killed. She and Rene Castellani had been having an affair from approximately the fall 1964 to the spring of 1966. Both Adelaide Miller and Rene Ca stellani were poisoning Mrs.Castellani with arsenic. Authorities exhumed the body of Mrs. Castellani on August 3rd, 1965 from the cement crypt of Forest Lawn Memorial Park in the Municipality of Burnaby, and delivered it to a morgue in Vancouver where a post? mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Thomas Redo Harmon. Tests known as â€Å"X-ray diffraction† procedures were done. The results showed that the arsenic levels in her body were high enough to kill her. During the trial, which took place on 26 September 1967, Dr.Moscovitch, who treated Mrs. Castellani, said he had never considered arsenic poisoning. Dr. Moscovitch said: â€Å"The possibility of arsenic never occurred to us at all. † Of all the 125 clinical tests that had been performed during her illness, none had identified arsenic. Subsequently, Mr. Castellani was arrested, sentenced for murder on November 12, 1966, found guilty, and sentenced to death, which was later changed to life in prison. Rene Castell ani died on January 4, 1982.