Essay --

Conceptual Aircraft Design: APU, Pneumatic, and Environmental Control Systems Advance aircraft and spacecraft systems are so far, one of the most revise areas in aviation industry. Every year, more systems are tested, review, and redesign into better advanced applications. However, aircraft’s systems allocate many applications, such as the next generation in avionics and other sub-systems. With new methodologies and technological advancement in aerospace industry, aircraft’s systems can address better operational implementations and provide feedback for safety environments. In recent years, most aircraft’s systems has shaped the way in which aviation is heading. A focus on these developments is the systems redesigning phase. Although, redesigning phases reinforce the aircraft deficiency. By acknowledging system’s background, it allows better proactive and reactive processes for safety and performance. Yet, a very important aspect, is the overall endurance. Endurance approach must convey through all aircraft’s systems. These systems are the driving motor of the aircraft; without a proper integration, it could lead to a total structural failure. When a systems are not properly addressed as the requirement states, it is considered to be inefficient. Providing efficient work capacity through all systems is a minimum and essential condition. As part of an unending process, aviation industry is recurring to research implementations to address situational awareness regarding aircraft’s systems and performance. The continuity o f support to research areas, are very advantageous to this industry. It has led to address deficiencies in products, systems, services, safety factors, and human developments. APU One of the most important key... ...ich, Claudia Werner, Martin Saballus, Florian Gores. F.M. January 28- April 19, 2013. Multifunctional fuel cell system in an aircraft environment: An investigation focusing on fuel tank inerting and water generation. Aerospace Science and Technology. Retrieved 2014. For more information contact Jose Kallo to Josef.Kallo@dlr.de. And /or refer to: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S127096381300076X Ronald M. Heck, Robert J. Farrauto, Suresh T. Gulati. F.M. 2012.Catalytic Air Pollution Control: Commercial Technology. Pp. 361-372. Â © John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved 2014. For more information refer to web source: http://books.google.com/books?id=wB-sqXID5oAC&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=ozone+removal+abater&source=bl&ots=u3drio74zp&sig=HDoj-Hz_veJCM7ady5fcanS2x7Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jLj3UvbEFcaIyAHZ5YGgBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ozone%20removal%20abater&f=false

Negative Effects of Genetically Modified Food/Crops Essay

Genetically modified organisms refer to organisms whose genetic components have been changed to produce an unnatural occurrence. Genetic engineering refers to the technology employed in the alteration of the genetic elements, which also facilitates the transfer of genes between related and non-related species. This technology is applied in the production of Genetically Modified (GM) crops/foods in order to meet the desired objectives of the industry operators. The 1980 US Supreme Court pronouncement on the legal patentability of biological life in the Diamond vs. Chakrabartyn case opened the gateway to genetic engineering (Lex Orbis). There are some perceived benefits of the GM foods industry, both to the producer and consumer, especially in regard to increased food productivity and nutrition. Conversely, there have been reported cases on potential risks to human health and the environment due to GM foods/crops. The harmful effects of GM foods production and consumption cannot be overlooked, due to their impact on human health, the environment and socio-economic operation of a society. The introduction and widespread use of Genetically Modified (GM) foods has been met with uncertainties in regard to public acceptability due to the confirmed and potential harmful effects of this technology. GM foods are disputable for various reasons, one of them being the adverse effects of these foods to human health. There are concerns over deaths, near-deaths and diseases such as cancer and bacterial infections arising out of GM foods. Human beings need food for survival but it is incongruous to consume potentially harmful food for one’s existence just for survival. Studies indicate that there have been recorded deaths attributable to Genetic Engineering in foods. In 1989, a genetic modification of the food supplement known as L-tryptophan produced a devastating disease known as the Eosinophilia Myalgia syndrome (EMS). There were about 37 people who died from the ailment, as well as around 1500 who were physically impaired. The GM food supplement was manufactured by a Japan’s chemical company known as Showa Denko, which offered a $2 billion settlement to the victims, but investigations into the product were not carried out. In addition, initial GM tested products such as Flavr Savr have been reported as harmful to animals, evidenced by the premature deaths of the animals used in these lab tests. Further, in 1996, a company known as Pioneer Hi-Bred, the largest seed company in the US, produced soybeans with the added protein methionine, through splicing Brazil nut DNA into the conventional soybeans (Cummins, Lilliston and Lappe 36). Researchers from the University of Nebraska reported that the use of the GM soybeans may result in fatal allergies to individuals allergic to Brazilian nuts. Fortunately, the company withdrew the product from the market before any fatalities occurred. Allergenic reactions to GM foods are another area of concern to the consumer public. There has been an increasing rate of food-allergenic individuals in the nation, especially among children, which was confirmed by the Center for Disease Control. The increased alteration of diets contributes to the rising rate of food sensitivity, since GM foods are not comparable to regular foods (Nestle). Other indications of the allergenic quality of GM foods include the following: A study on GM potatoes with cod genes indicated they were allergenic; two independent studies indicated that GM Bt corn produced allergenic effects, even on the farmers who used genetically engineered Bt sprays to produce such corn; in 1999, York Laboratory researchers discovered a connection between the rise in allergic reactions to soy and the consumption of GM soy. The potential risks of GM foods extend to disease causality and bacterial infections. Scientists have established a connection between a protein hormone known as GH and a chemical hormone called IGH-1 associated with breast cancer, and in some instances, prostate cancer. The protein hormone GH is injected in dairy cows to facilitate the production of more milk, thus it has been used to boost the productivity of dairy corporations. Genetically modified versions of the hormone have been approved to enhance milk productivity despite warnings by scientists that this GM hormone increases the IGF-1 hormone in consumers, from about 70 to 1000%. Dr. Samuel Epstein, a University of Chicago doctor and the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition explained the connection between GH and IGF-1; that the GH induces the malignant conversion of human breast epithelial cell types that eventually leads to cancerous growths. However, the US Food and Drugs Administration rejected the importance of such findings. The proponents of GM foods point to some science reviews which claim that GM crops in the market pose limited risks to human health. GM foods undergo protocol tests to determine their effects on human health as well as their allergenic quality. These tests have been evaluated by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the result is that the GM foods currently in circulation pose no allergic effects to people. The World Health Organization further maintains that all GM foods in the global market have been approved after passing the necessary risk assessment tests; hence they are not harmful to human health. Additionally, the organization claims that adverse effects of these foods have not been proved among the general public where the GM foods have been permitted thus there should be no reason for alarm (World Health Organization). However, this position falls short of completely meeting the concerns of consumers, since various scientific studies have reflected negative health effects of GM foods, contradicting WHO’s position. Despite the observation of harmful effects on a minority, GM foods cannot be ruled as completely safe for human consumption. In consideration of all the evidence presented, it is certain that genetic engineering technology presents certain dangers and health hazards that need to be thoroughly assessed before GM foods are absorbed into the global market. The assessment criteria for these products should also be revised with reference to case studies and reports highlighting potential harms of genetic modification (The Economist 19). Consumers should also be fully aware of the type of products displayed in the market in order to make informed choices. Genetic modified foods and crops have also been frowned upon for their potential negative effects to the environment. There are concerns over the toxicity levels in the soil due to genetic engineered farming, leading to soil pollution and destruction of plant and animal life. Despite the positive effects of genetic engineering technology in boosting food supply to the public, the application of this technology raises the use of chemicals and bio-engineered products in farms, hence the environmental degradation. It is essential to support a food crop production system that maintains environmental standards rather than ruin them, thus maintaining the spirit of environmental conservation. The GM crop industry advocates for this technology on the grounds that genetic engineered seeds and plants are helpful to the environment by decreasing the amount of chemicals used in farms. However, most of the GM agricultural products have a high chemical resistance, which in turn increases rather than decreases the use of herbicides or pesticides with toxic effects to the farms. The GM crop industry seeks to profit from the sale of more products, and these include seeds as well as pesticides and herbicides. In light of this issue, it is conceivable that the industry intends to sell more genetic engineered agricultural products as well as chemicals; hence environmental safety is a challenge if farmers rely on these products, since they go hand in hand with great use of herbicides/pesticides. According to environmental scientist, R. J. Goldburg, scientists expect that the use of herbicides will triple due to GM agricultural products (Goldburg 647). An example of a company in this industry is Monsanto, which is a world leading corporation in the production of genetic engineered seeds as well as the herbicide known as Roundup. The herbicide glyphosate, also called Roundup, has damaging effects to plant and animal life. The US Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that Roundup poses a threat to 74 endangered species; it affects natural processes in plant life such as photosynthesis. Further, the herbicide decays in the soil but it leaves deposits on the crops harvested for the consumer. Glyphosate, which is the main component in Roundup, is harmful to humans, and has led to numerous cases of illness among farmers. Various scientific research projects also indicate the harmful effects of GM products to the soil; these include the research carried out by Oregon scientists which indicates the GM microorganism, klebsiella planticola killed vila soil nutrients and rendered it sterile. Similarly, in 1997, it was established that Rhizobium melitoli, a GM bacterium, released toxins in the soil that caused pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency also expressed its concerns over the matter, but these microorganisms are still in operation. The Oregon research also indicated that some of these microbes killed wheat plants when introduced into the soil. Other indicators of the environmental effects of GM products include the creation of super weeds and super pests; plant and animal invasions; destruction of forests; the death of beneficial insects and genetic pollution. GM elements such as Bt endotoxin have been reported to stay in the soil for about 18 months and could be transported to other wild plants, thus forming super weeds, resistant to beetles and butterflies, and this process affects the balance of nature. Super pests are created when common pests like budworms and cottonboll worms develop immunity from toxins due to repeated exposure. Research indicates that cottonboll worms have developed immunity from Bt sprays used in organic farming (Tabashnik, Gassmann and Crowder 199-202). Plant and animal invasions threaten the existing species and result to the imbalance of nature. Emerging GM strains can induce bio-invasions into plant or animal life, such as the invasion of the kudzu vine, which is an exotic plant from Japan with rapid growth. The damage to forest life is yet another justification for the claims against the production of GM foods/crops. GM trees have developed a resistance towards chemical sprays thus when spraying is carried out in a forest with GM trees, they survive but the plant life around them are killed. Unlike rainforests or tropical trees that support animal life such as fungi, insects and birds, GM trees are flowerless and sterile; hence they cannot support forest life in its entirety. Research further demonstrates that GM components destroy beneficial insects in plant life such as the monarch butterfly larvae which feeds on milkweed. In 1997, New Scientist reported that the proteins found in genetically modified canola flowers could potentially harm honeybees (Pain) Additionally, genetic pollution is another negative effect of GM production on the environment. Genetic pollution is facilitated by the transfer of GM pollen through rain, wind, birds or insects, and it becomes difficult to contain since unlike chemical pollution, it does not decay. The government of Thailand terminated field assessments for Bt cotton from Monsanto after the Institute of Traditional Thai Medicine established genetic pollution of nearby plants (GRAIN 1-7). In the face of the controversy around GM technology and its effects on the environment, the supporters of the technology advocate that it offers a solution to environmental strain caused by overpopulation. The proponents of genetic engineering argue that the technology is beneficial to the environment since it presents a solution that prevents further depletion of the environment as the world population rises. It is evident that overpopulation has caused negative effects on the environment, due to the constant struggle for land, water, fuels and other resources necessary for human existence. For this reason, supporters of this technology view it as the means to support the food requirements of the world as a whole while maintaining the status of the environment. GM food production has the potential to support the growing need of food supplies in the present world, but its damaging effects to the environment cannot be ignored since they pose long-term risks, that impact on future generations. These destructive effects on the environment, plant and animal life have been scientifically proven, thus they are not negligible GM crop production definitely introduces harmful effects to the environment and its inhabitants, making it an unsafe means to support food demands. The collaboration of core organizations in the environmental sector should be established in order to forge a way that incorporates stringent environmental standards in the GM food industry. Such organizations include the US Food and Drug Administration and the United Nations Environment Programme. There are a lot of concerns in the GM food industry, with some risks already identified while some remain to be discovered, hence there should be more emphasis on safe food production strategies rather than a technology filled with uncertainties (Krech 580). The other argument against genetically modified foods arises out of the negative political, social and economic implications of the industry to modern society. The extensive application of biotechnology in food production will change established farming drastically, the strongest effect being on the indigenous farmers, and eventually the consumers. GM food production requires patenting, and the large corporations in this sector will eventually push the indigenous farmers out of their farms, while they control food products and prices. Advocates against GM crop production argue that his industry will displace farmers out of their livelihoods, since they face the risk of being bought out by large multinational companies that can pursue genetic engineering from a large-scale level. The control of the GM food production industry by large corporations amounts to bio-colonization, which by extension refers to the power that bio-technology controllers possess in the current and future market. The ability to control genetic components as well as agricultural resources is the source of so much power, for its food production. Indigenous farmers in the U. S. are currently self-sufficient in food production, but with the advancements in the GM food industry, more and more people will be dependent upon these industry controllers for food. These industry controllers may be referred to as the bio-colonizing companies, which will possess a lot of decisive power in the world economy due to their control of genetic and agricultural resources. Agricultural workers will also be greatly afflicted with the transfer of control in the industry from individuals to corporations or governments. The result will be displacement of farmers from their economic activity by more powerful forces, leading to a high rate of food dependency from companies and the government (Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability 206). Unfortunately, the WTO, World Bank and GATT provide regulations that facilitate large-scale and foreign interests at the expense of local economies, which further impede self-sufficiency in those countries. Another socio-political issue of concern is the debate on the labeling of GM foods. Proponents of GM foods argue that these foods are similar to regular foods thus the need for labeling is unnecessary, but a counterargument is that with the potential risks of GM foods, consumers should be fully aware of the contents of their foods in order to make informed choices. The consumer has the right to be informed of the ingredients in his/her food, irrespective of the safety or harmful levels of the food. Some parties argue for genetic engineering in food production as the solution to world hunger and other economic problems that arise out of food shortages. The proposition is that GM foods can be produced even under harsh soil and climatic conditions since they can be engineered to withstand such conditions. For this reason, most lands that have previously not been utilized for farming can now be made useful, and eventually solve the problem of overcrowding on the fertile lands. According to the proponents, this move is expected to increase food productivity, thus solving two problems at the same time; the scramble for resources and food security. However, such an argument fails to consider the bigger picture in regard to autonomy in food production among local farmers and regions. It is clear that the GM food industry is controlled by large corporations and governments, hence they would in turn control productivity and supply on the international front. In this regard, indigenous farmers as well as small economies do not achieve food security; rather they become more dependent on multinational companies. In summary, genetically engineered foods raise a lot of questions and concerns among the public due to the insufficient information regarding the sector and the potential harm it presents to the people and the environment. There are proponents with valid perspectives who argue for and against the concept, but it is important that the benefits of this technology are weighed against the risks, in order to determine the true value of the industry to consumers (Ackerman). Positive effects include increased food supply and control of overpopulation in fertile lands, but these benefits are overshadowed by the numerous reported and unreported harmful effects of genetic science in food production. From health complications to environmental degradation and negative socio-economic impacts, the GM food production industry is potentially catastrophic in the present time and in the future ahead. Works Cited Ackerman, Jennifer. â€Å"FOOD: How Altered? † National Geographic Magazine. (2002). Web. 18 March 2011. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Washington, D. C. : National Academies Press, 2010: 206-207. Print. Cummins, Ronnie, Ben Lilliston and Frances Moore Lappe. Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2004: 36-38. Print. Goldburg, R. J. â€Å"Environmental Concerns with the Development of Herbicide-tolerant Crops. † Weed Technology 6. 3 (1992): 647-652. Print. GRAIN. â€Å"Bt Cotton through the Back Door. † Seedling (2001): 1-7. Print. Krech, Shepard. Encyclopedia of World Environmental History: F-N. London: Routledge, 2004: 580-581. Print. Lex Orbis. â€Å"Patenting Microorganisms. † Lex Orbis: Intellectual Property Practice. (30 April 2005). Web. 18 March 2011. Nestle, Marion. â€Å"Agricultural Biotechnology, Policy, and Nutrition. † The New England Journal of Medicine (2002). Print. Pain, Stephanie. â€Å"War in the Woods – Dutch Elm Disease is back with a Vengeance. But this time Biotechnology. † New Scientist. (1997). Web. 18 March 2011. Tabashnik, BE, et al. â€Å"Insect Resistance to Bt Crops: Evidence versus Theory. † Nature Biotechnology (2008): 199-202. Print. The Economist. â€Å"Who’s Afraid of Genetically Modified Foods? † The Economist. (19 June 1999): 19-21. Print. World Health Organization. WHO: 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods. 2011. Web. 18 March 2011.

Key Events in the Space Race Essay

The 60s were infamous for many rapidly changing aspects pertaining to different topics at the time. The subject of space was one not to be left behind. This decade would be one of the world’s golden ages of extraterrestrial research and every event during this time would be recorded into history. In a period most people know as the ‘Space Race’, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (USA) would compete for supremacy in space exploration. Most events occurred in this decade, but the period of the ‘Space Race’ itself lasted from the 1957 to 1975. Sputnik 1, the world’s first artificial satellite, was launched on October 4th, 1957 by the USSR. Sputnik itself was a polished metal sphere, 23 in. in diameter, with four external radio antennae to broadcast radio pulses. It was sent into an elliptical, low-Earth orbit and provided scientists with information. Its purpose was to measure the density and composition of the upper atmosphere, as well as measuring solar radiation, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, etc. It travelled at about 18,000 mi. per hour, taking 96. 2 minutes to complete each orbit. Signals continued to reach Earth for 22 days until the transmitter batteries ran out of energy on October 26, 1957. Sputnik burned up on January 4, 1958 as it fell from orbit upon reentering Earth’s atmosphere. It travelled at about 43. 5 million miles and spent a total of 3 months in orbit. Although life had been sent into space before, Yuri Gagarin would be the first human to exit Earth’s atmosphere. He was born on March 9, 1934 in a small village in the Soviet Union called Klushino. The cosmonaut boarded onto Vostok, a craft that consisted of a spherical descent module, 2. meters in diameter, which housed the astronaut, instruments, escape system, and a conical instrument module, containing propellant and the engine system. Upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere, the cosmonaut would eject from the craft at about 7,000 m. and descend via parachute, while the capsule would land separately. Gagarin’s mission to circle the Earth on April 12, 1961 lasted for 1 hour and 48 minutes. He was only 27 years old at the time and that was the first and last time he went into space, since he was too valued to send on a risky mission again. Gagarin may have been the first human in space, but Alan Shepard became the first American to exit Earth’s atmosphere. He was born on November 18, 1923 in Derry, New Hampshire. Although the flight was originally scheduled for October 1960, delays by unplanned preparatory work meant that this was postponed several times, initially to March 6, 1961 and finally to May 5. On April 12, 1961, Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin had become the first person in space and to orbit the Earth. On May 5, 1961, Shepard piloted the Freedom 7 mission and became the second person, and the first American, to travel into space. The suborbital flight only lasted a mere 15 minutes, but the launch was seen live by millions. While the USSR was showering in fame and glory, ahead of the US in the ‘Space Race’, America’s President John F. Kennedy declared the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending a citizen safely to the Moon before the end of the decade on May 29, 1961. This was announced before a special joint session of Congress. This decision would soon change the world forever in 1969. The Soviet Union left the United States in the dust again when they sent Alexey Leonov, a Russian cosmonaut, to become the first human to conduct a spacewalk on March 18, 1965. He was born on May 30, 1934 in Listvyanka, Kemerovo Oblast, USSR. His walk in space was originally to have taken place on the Vostok 11 mission, but this was cancelled, and the historic event happened on the Voskhod 2 flight instead. He was outside the spacecraft for 12 minutes and nine seconds, connected to the craft by a 5. 35 m. tether. America was humiliated once again in early 1966 as it watched the USSR successfully land the world’s first spacecraft to achieve a soft landing on the Moon. Luna 9 was launched on January 31, 1966 and landed on the Moon’s surface on February 3, 1966. Its mission was to land safely on any planetary body other than Earth and to transmit photographic data back. Signals lasted for 6 days until the last transmission was sent on February 6, 1966. The spotlight was moved from the Soviet Union onto the US for once when the country launched the Apollo 11 mission, an event that would forever change history. The primary objective of Apollo 11 was to complete a national goal set by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961: perform a crewed lunar landing and return to Earth. The crew consisted of Neil Armstrong as the Commander, Michael Collins as Command Module Pilot, and Edwin â€Å"Buzz† E. Aldrin, Jr. as the Lunar Module Pilot. Apollo 11 was launched on July 16, 1969 and successfully landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969. Millions of American watched the event live on television. Armstrong set foot on the moon and declared â€Å"That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. † A few minutes later, Aldrin joined him. Together they collected soil samples and took photographs. They stayed on the moon for 21 hours. Many experiments were tested and 22 kilograms of lunar samples were collected. On July 24, the astronauts returned home aboard the command module Columbia, landing in the Pacific Ocean. On August 13, they rode in parades in their honor in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Indeed, the time of the ‘Space Race’ is one not to be forgotten by the world. The Soviet Union and United States must be well acknowledged for all the effort spent on the study of space alone. While the USSR won some battles, the US won others. That, however, will never change the fact that they impacted the world, science, and history today.

Free Essays on Domestic Couples

Marriage has persisted as a union between two people. Many people do not readily commit themselves and accept marriage as their option. Domestic partners include unmarried couples- same sex or opposite sex- who live together. American corporations should extend benefits to domestic partners as well as to spouses. For example, if individuals of the same gender marry, wouldn’t they fight for their rights and benefits as citizens? Same sex gender and different sex gender people should all receive the same benefits as eligible citizens. Our society has trained people to think and behave in a synchronized way. Society has always tried to group people together who seem different or who have different beliefs. Therefore, making it very difficult for domestic partners to receive any benefits for themselves and/or for their partners. However, on the other hand if we start to give the domestic partners all benefits in the work place then we are saying to people that it is ok to have domestic relationships because one will receive the same creditable benefits as a married couple would. American corporations should extend benefits to domestic partners and their spouses, just as they would extend benefits to a married couple. Businesses should respond to domestic partners in the same way they would to a regular married couple. How can one distinguish an individual’s benefits from another’s just by knowing if the couple has been legally married or not? Equality between individuals should exist in a working environment. According to Lisa Schiffren, who wrote an article in the New York Times stated that, â€Å"The Government gives tax benefits, inheritance rights and employee benefits only to the married† (258). This statement seems one sided, since it will eliminate more than half of the people. It does not seem fair that one individual cannot get, more or less, the same benefits just because of a marriage issue. However, on t... Free Essays on Domestic Couples Free Essays on Domestic Couples Marriage has persisted as a union between two people. Many people do not readily commit themselves and accept marriage as their option. Domestic partners include unmarried couples- same sex or opposite sex- who live together. American corporations should extend benefits to domestic partners as well as to spouses. For example, if individuals of the same gender marry, wouldn’t they fight for their rights and benefits as citizens? Same sex gender and different sex gender people should all receive the same benefits as eligible citizens. Our society has trained people to think and behave in a synchronized way. Society has always tried to group people together who seem different or who have different beliefs. Therefore, making it very difficult for domestic partners to receive any benefits for themselves and/or for their partners. However, on the other hand if we start to give the domestic partners all benefits in the work place then we are saying to people that it is ok to have domestic relationships because one will receive the same creditable benefits as a married couple would. American corporations should extend benefits to domestic partners and their spouses, just as they would extend benefits to a married couple. Businesses should respond to domestic partners in the same way they would to a regular married couple. How can one distinguish an individual’s benefits from another’s just by knowing if the couple has been legally married or not? Equality between individuals should exist in a working environment. According to Lisa Schiffren, who wrote an article in the New York Times stated that, â€Å"The Government gives tax benefits, inheritance rights and employee benefits only to the married† (258). This statement seems one sided, since it will eliminate more than half of the people. It does not seem fair that one individual cannot get, more or less, the same benefits just because of a marriage issue. However, on t...

Buy It or Review It (Or Preferably Both)

Buy It or Review It (Or Preferably Both) I believe Ill touch a nerve here, which is sometimes fun. But most of the time, it means a controversial topic that wakes people up.and makes people make excuses for what they thought was righteous behavior. Well see. Not long ago, I wrote a piece about paying writers properly. I posted this abbreviated version on Facebook: If you are a writer, ask to be paid for your work. If you are asking a writer to appear, pay them. If you read a book, pay for it. If you accept a free book, post a review. Anything else is eroding the careers of writers everywhere. A lot of people got on board with rants about not getting reviews after giving away so many books. We all get that. I give away 100 books the first few weeks of a new release, and barely half of the recipients initially keep their promise to review. Its difficult to add a book to your busy schedule. But its wrong to agree to review then not do so. It amazed me the ones who DID review, and pained me seeing the ones who DID NOT. However, few got my point, that as writers, we tend to cannibalize our own. When we act as readers, do we review every book we read? As badly as we crave reviews, are we loyal to other writers in Doing Unto Them as Wed Like to Be Done To? It really boils down to this: When you obtain a book, you have two choices: You pay for it or you review it. If you can find the time to spend hours reading the thing, you can take three to five minutes to review it. What about all those souls giving away free books? Personally, I only take a free book if I intend to read it as a reviewer. And frankly, I prefer to pay for my books. Why? Because I prefer people pay for mine. I refuse to download a free one, much preferring to at least pay $1.99 or more. Its a principle of mine. Yes, I give away a few books with the clear message that they are review copies. And against the advice of others, I even follow up with those readers. The system goes like this: 1) I ask for reviewers for a book on social media or in my newsletters 2) I make a list and determine how many books to send out 3) I send the books 4) I wait a month then email/mail postcard asking if they received the book no mention of a review 3) I wait another month then email/mail a postcard asking if they enjoyed the book no mention of a review Thats it. No harassment. You have a list of names who reviewed your work. You love these people. You dont mind asking them to review again in the future. You know they will follow through. And you also know those who have not reviewedand to not ask again.

Digital Media Strategy and Implementation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Digital Media Strategy and Implementation - Essay Example Digital companies focus on being the first to provide news to the people. Their content is different, from business related to political, entertainment and financial; they seek to find the best areas where they can capture the most customers. Speed of browsing and the user friendliness of the sites is a strategy issue too. Of equal importance however, is the provision of the content in mobile phone devices for various customers, enabling people to access them from their mobile browsers. The digital media has engaged itself in a number of issues. Most particularly however, are the businesses and the issues that the business community is facing currently. Focusing on the issues facing Sony and Netflix companies, this paper seeks to address their challenges as highlighted by the blogs. Additionally, it will focus on measures that have been put into place to address the same issues. In the recent past, Sony has made headlines after the announcement of the lunch of the PlayStation 4 game with increased features that will allow online streaming of games. Following this announcement, a series of bulletins have been published focusing on Sony as a company and the PlayStation 4 game as a product. ... The company manufactures mobile phones, home appliances, electronics machines, games and Blu-ray discs. Not only are losses a part of the company’s challenges, the company is also faced with reduced sales of its products, loosing market to competitors like Samsung and the Apple. Samsung has taken over in the smartphone business and home appliances, while Apple has an upper hand in the smartphones and tablets markets. Both companies offer features of online streaming of games, which fiercely counters Sony’s console PlayStation series (Kovach n.p.). This has seen massive losses made by Sony with its PlayStation 3 version of the game. A number of mitigating measures have been put into place by Sony to get her into the top of the business. The CEO of the corporation has decided with other top 40 managers to forgo their annual allowances in a move that will save the company operating expenses in the current financial year, 2013 (Wakabayashi n.p.). Additionally, the company h as improved the features of its intended PlayStation 4, which will allow users to stream games online and thus offer its customers a variety of games. This move is expected to help the company counter games available online such as those offered by Apple and Samsung. The company is investing into the smartphones business, with improved versions of its Sony-experia mobile phones. The company’s revenues are expected to reach at $684.8 million in the fiscal year. Sony is not the only company to receive negative publicity in the digital media due to its challenged business. Netflix, an online movie lending store has too been a center of news headlines in the recent

Management Information System In Oil Company In Libya Research Paper

Management Information System In Oil Company In Libya - Research Paper Example   According to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), although Libya ranks 17th as a world oil supplier, it is Africa’s largest oil reserve, producing 1.8 million barrels per day (bbl/d). Libya contains nearly 46.4 billion barrels of oil, as of January 2011. The majority of existing oil fields are located in three major basins; Sirte, Murzuk, and Pelagian (Stankosvka& Lavender, 2011).   This is more than sufficient to give it much greater international leverage than its tiny population (just over 6 million people) or modest per capita GDP ($16,000)would normally suggest. Libya's oil industry is dominated by its state-owned National Oil Company, which controls at least a majority interest in all oil exploration, production, and refining (Zweig, 2009). This study is aimed to find out information about management information system used in oil companies in Libya which have to maintain their production of oil to supply the domestic and international demand.   The durat ion of the study is two months, from the middle of March 2014 to the beginning of May 2014.According to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), although Libya ranks 17th as a world oil supplier, it is Africa’s largest oil reserve, producing 1.8 million barrels per day (bbl/d).   Libya contains nearly 46.4 billion barrels of oil, as of January 2011. The majority of existing oil fields are located in three major basins; Sirte, Murzuk, and Pelagian (Stankosvka& Lavender, 2011).