Essay --

During my 3 years at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) as a Maintenance Planning engineer, I breathed planning and organizing. Working for a multi-billion dollar enterprise, I saw the effects of operational efficiencies on the balance sheet. This relevant exposure has shaped my decision to pursue a career in Industrial Engineering, a field that strives to increase productivity and efficiencies by systematic study and innovation. Working at HPCL’s 7.6MMTPA refinery, I was a part of the team that ensured that all units were maintained well to operate at optimal capacity, round the clock. I was responsible for preparing schedules and planning for the men, machinery and material for maintenance activities. It was in this role that I experienced firsthand, the need and applicability of scientifically managed and optimized processes in the industry. During an outage of the Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), a faulty spare gasket had kept the start-up of the unit on hold. I was chosen to procure the replacement, for which I had to fly 500 miles on a moment's notice, having to manage the gasket as my luggage. This trip was satisfying, not just because it brought down the potential loss margins from $250,000 to $70,000, but because I learnt the importance of judicious planning in extenuating losses. After this, I led a 4 person team to catalogue and update equipment spare parts in a database. With lessons learnt during the previous outage, I compiled a checklist that leverages the database to streamline and double-check the material planning process, reducing the probability of a last-minute emergency. 28 months and 7 major unit shutdowns later, in January 2013, I was made team-lead for planning a revamp of a Crude h... ...nt of pursuing graduate studies is to enhance my existing knowledge and skills, so that I can realize my vision of unlocking the potential of process optimization in small and medium scale enterprises in nations with developing economies such as India. For now, though, my focus is on garnering specialized knowledge and skills and furthering my industry experience. UC-B is a college with professional expertise like no other. Being a part of the Graduate community at UC-B with their collaborative inter-cultural community will help develop my personality. The teaching approach at UC-B of encouraging by challenge is ideal for a passionate learner like me. With a hope that you will find the potent combination of talent and determination in me as something that will add value to the legacy of UC-B, I am looking forward to be a part of the esteemed UC-B graduate community.

High Noon Essay -- essays papers

High Noon The movie High Noon is a western style movie about loyalty and betrayal. Throughout the whole movie, you can see how Kane is loyal to the town and how the town betrays Kane. The film tells a story about a man who was too proud to run— a tale of a lone, stoic marshal (Will Kane) who was left desolate and abandoned by the townspeople he has sworn to protect because of a four-man gang led by Frank Miller. This is where the loyalty part comes in. Kane did not have to stay and protect the town’s people because he was â€Å"retired† and was going to leave town with his wife. Nonetheless he did stay because he felt that it was his duty to protect the townspeople even though no one would volunteer and help him. His wife, Amy along with the some townspeople tells him to leave town im...

Healthy Fast Food Essay -- Essays on Fast Food

It is nearly impossible to turn on the television or radio and not be hit with advertisements introducing the latest fast food trend – fresh and healthy food options. More often, the media bombards us with slogans such as Subway’s common pitch to â€Å"eat fresh† or McDonald’s million-dollar advertisement campaign to try the new fruit and walnut salad. Attention has made an abrupt turn from the greasy, deep-fried originals at the fast food chains to more health conscious food choices. Even a documentary of a man named Morgan Spurlock made headlines and won awards when he ate McDonald’s three times a day for a month and publicized the effects through a movie called Super Size Me. Shortly after Super Size Me caught high publicity attention, McDonald’s has introduced three â€Å"garden fresh salads.† Other popular fast food chains were not far behind the healthy menu options McDonald’s has offered, and soon numerous salad, yogurt, fruit, and grilled chicken food items popped up on every fast food menu. The message is simple; people are becoming too fat due to the consumption of fast food. Therefore, obesity and the demand for fresh, quick food service have increased the popularity of health conscious food selections on fast food menus.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Obesity, especially child obesity, is becoming more of an epidemic concern among society today and commonly linked to fast food. Recent data suggest that nearly fifteen percent of U.S. youngsters and almost one-third of adults are obese; and everyday nearly one-third of these U.S. children aged four to nineteen eat fast food. Yale University obesity researcher Kelly Brownell said, â€Å"Fast food contributes to increased calorie intake and obesity risk in children† (CBS News). No wonder parents are becoming concerned with the options children have when facing a fast food menu. Parent complaints are not enough of influence to entice the big-ticket fast food joints to make a healthy switch, however, lawsuits is. The nation's obesity epidemic has focused attention on fast-restaurants, and while recent class-action lawsuits attempting to blame McDonald's Corp. for making people fat have failed, many chains have begun offering healthier fare in fear of lawsuits (CBS News). A growing concern with on-the-go food consumers is the freshness and dietary guidelines that go into their diet. Tight schedules make people spend m... ...r, are not the causes for the change – it just happens to fit in perfectly with the scenario. Obesity and freshness have provoked a new health trend in fast food, and it is no secret with all the advertisements. So dare to super size an order of healthy fast food – a once considered oxymoron now becoming more of a reality. â€Å"Diet Trends Today.† May 20, 2004. Blog Spot. June 25, 2005 http://ffood.blogspot.com/ â€Å"Fast Food Linked to Child Obesity.† January 5, 2003. CBS News. June 25, 2005 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/05/health/main591325.shtml â€Å"Fast Food Trends Analyzed.† April 11, 2005. Biz Community. June 25, 2005 http://www.biz-community.com/Article/196/87/6281.html Martin, Andrew. â€Å"What’s Next for Fast Food? McTofu?† June 15, 2005. Chicago Tribune. June 25, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20050615/ts_chicagotrib/whatsnextforfastfoodmctofu Solomon, Jesi. â€Å"Healthy Fast Food.† February 2005. Star Chefs. June 25, 2005 http://starchefs.com/features/trends/healthy_fast_food/index.shtml â€Å"The Next McDonald’s?† December 2002. Springwise Newsletter. Trend Watcher.com. June 25, 2005 http://www.springwise.com/newbusinessideas/2002/12/next_mcds.html

Cheating is beneficial for students Essay

Cheating is an easy shortcut in terms of getting homework, tests, assignments and such done in a quick way. Cheating is efficient in a lot of things in life. Cheating should not be a crime for students, especially in high school. This Argumentive Essay is basically going to be focusing on 3 topics on why Cheating is beneficial for students in high school: 1. Why students should be able to share answers and thoughts with other students for homework, tests, assignments, projects, etc. 2. Why teachers shouldn’t be allowed to accuse students of cheating based off of similar answers/thoughts 3. Much less stressful for students in high school that have other important things to do in their life First of all, students should have the right to share answers and thoughts with other classmates to understand why there answer was wrong or why it was right. If they don’t compare answers and understand why one answer is right and one is wrong, they will never learn. Teachers in this generation seem to expect students to do all of their work independently, but little do they know that more than 60% of students cheat while doing homework, tests, projects, etc. If teachers just mark students work wrong or right and don’t tell them why there answer is wrong, or why there answer is right, how you expect them to learn? Teachers assume if two or more students have similar answers/thoughts, they were most likely copying off of each other. It’s very unlikely, but possible to have similar answers/thoughts, so teachers shouldn’t assume and jump to the gun while giving them zero based off of their assumptions. They should find complete proof on how the students were definitely sharing answers with each other. Last but not least, cheating is highly beneficial for students that go through a lot during their teen years. Unfortunately, some teens are more focused on their love life, popularity level, and jobs more than they are on their education. None the less, if that’s there decision to do all of those things instead of getting a education, they should have the right to do so and should cheat to fly through their high school year.

Spinoza vs Descartes on God

Abstract and Referential Ontology: Descartes Versus Spinoza on the Existence of God. The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself.Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the truth. Spinoza's argument however, employs sense alone, thus rendering it neither true nor false but quite literally meaningless. A detailed analysis of Descartes' Meditations of First Philosophy in conjunction with Spinoza's Ethics will help elucidate these claims. Before an analysis of Cartesian and Spinozan theology can occur, an understanding of each theory must first take place.The Cartesian proof of God is outlined in Meditation Three of the Meditations. Within this work Descartes suggests a causal argument for the existence of a supreme being. This argument can be broken down as follows: 1. Everything has a cause 2. We have an idea of the infinite 3. An idea of an infinite could not be caused by a finite thing 4. God is infinite 5. Only an infinite God is adequate to cause this idea 6. God exists An argument such as this implies a specific understanding of Causation. According to Descartes, everything from object to idea must have a determinate cause.That is, finite existence is not self-generating but rather the product of something else. The cause in question depends upon the degree of formal and objective reality it possesses. Formal reality refers to existence within this world. For example, a tree has formal reality a s an empirical object just as an idea has formal reality as a mode of thought. Objective reality refers to existence as represented via ideas. That is, an idea of a tree possesses both formal reality as a mode of thought and objective reality as a representation of a specific tree.According to Descartes, a cause must possess â€Å"at least as much formal reality as [its effect] contains objective reality. † (Descartes 16) For example, the idea of a tree must be caused by something of more formal existence within this world than objective existence via its representation. Therefore, the idea of tree must be caused by a specific tree rather than the idea of a specific shrub. Descartes applies this reasoning to the idea of God in the argument above. Regardless of whether or not we think God actually exists we cannot deny that an idea of God is indeed within our mind.If we have an idea of God then this idea must not only have a cause but a cause with more formal reality than obje ctive reality of the idea itself. That is, that which the idea of God is referencing must be more substantial than the finite idea of the mind. The only cause more formally real than finite existence is infinite existence. Since the only conceivable infinite existence is that of God, Descartes' concludes that â€Å"†¦ In creating me, [God] placed this idea within me to be like the mark of the workman imprinted on his work. (Descartes 19) Therefore, God must necessarily exist as the infinite cause of our finite idea of Him. Once Descartes has argued the existence of God via causation he proceeds to prove God's existence via essence: 1. The concept of God is one that is infinite and perfect 2. To not exist would be an imperfection 3. Therefore God exists The general form of this argument is a testament to Descartes' understanding of an attribute. Of attributes there are only two, an Attribute and an Omni-Generic Attribute.An attribute refers to that which is necessary to the ess ence of a specific substance, as perfection is necessary to the essence of God. That is, in order for God to exist it is essential that perfection and infinitude are attributed to this existence. An omni-generic attribute, refers to that which holds of any substance but does not contribute to its essence, such as existence, duration, or number. According to Descartes, to not possess this kind of attribute is a kind of privation or lack of the attribute itself. For example, if a ball is not red it lacks the color red.Therefore, if it is essential that God is both perfect and infinite then non-existence would imply that a perfect being suffers some kind of privation. Clearly this is preposterous, for if a perfect being were to lack anything it would essentially cease to be perfect. Ergo, God exists by virtue of His perfection. Given the above arguments one can begin to understand the nature of the God Descartes is endeavoring to prove. For Descartes, God is infinite and perfect existe nce. God is â€Å"eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and [the creator of] everything else†. Descartes 20) Not only does God possess this nature but it is necessary that He does so. If God is not infinite or perfect God could not exist as these attributes are essential to God's existence. Furthermore, if God is not the ultimate creator the innate idea of God we experience would cease to be innate but adventitious (externally caused) or imaginative (caused by the mind) which is again impossible given its content. Given these qualities one can draw a connection to the omniscient, eternal, creator God of Judeo-Christian interpretation.That is, Yahweh or God is responsible for the creation of all existence, Ex nihilo, or out of nothing. The world is created as an existence separate from that of the Divine and as such exists finitely, or limited by, God's infinite existence. (Van Voorst 212) Given this parallel, one can easily understand the sense in which Descartes understands God as eternal, immutable, independent existence outside of space and time. Now that the Cartesian argument for the existence of God is understood an outline of that of Spinoza must also take place.Spinoza presents his proof for the existence of God within the The Ethics via one precise proposition. Proposition 11 states: God, or the substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (Spinoza 91) This proposition is best explained through the use of three arguments. Each argument, while unique in itself, illustrates an aspect of Spinozan philosophy contrary to that of Descartes. The first argument supposes that God exists as it is necessary given the essence of God itself.Before one can understand this argument one must first understand what is meant by essence. For Spinoza essence is that which is necessary for something to exist. That is, it is that without which a substan ce ceases to be. Spinoza employs this idea of essence in a negative proof for the existence of God: 1. Consider the idea that God does not exist 2. This consideration would mean that God’s essence does not possess existence 3. This is absurd since Substance (God/Nature) necessarily exists 4. Therefore, God necessarily existsWith this argument, Spinoza is suggesting that existence is an attribute of God's essence. By attribute, Spinoza is referring to â€Å"what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence†. (Spinoza 85) This differs slightly from Cartesian philosophy in that for Descartes existence is an omni-generic attribute and therefore does not contribute to the essence of a substance. Regardless, what Spinoza is actually saying is that we perceive existence to be essential to God. If existence is essential to God, then it is in God's nature, as substance, to exist. Therefore, God necessarily exists.Thus, this proof not only argues the exist ence of God but the nature of the Spinozan substance as well, in that a substance is that of which existence is its essence. That is, â€Å"it pertains to the nature of a substance to exist†. (Spinoza 88) Spinoza's proof of the existence of God can be further represented via an argument of causation: 1. There is a cause for existence and non-existence 2. The cause of existence or non-existence is internal or external of the thing 3. If nothing can hinder the existence of a thing internally or externally then it exists necessarily 4.There is no cause internally or externally hindering God’s existence 5. Therefore, God exists Like Descartes Spinoza believes anything that exists must have a cause, however Spinoza takes it one step further to suggest that anything that does not exist so too must have a cause. The cause for this existence, or lack thereof, must originate from within or without a substance. If there is nothing within or without the substance that limits its existence then it must necessarily exist. Here, Spinoza is discussing finite and infinite existence. If something is finite then it is limited in existence by something less finite.That is, there is something that limits the finite to its finite existence. Thus all finite things are hindered by the existence of something else, eg, the infinite. The infinite exists in essence as something that admits of no limit. There cannot be more or less of an infinite substance as it is limitless, complete, and whole and thus internally and externally unhindered. Therefore in the above proof, Spinoza is not only saying that God exists because there is nothing within or without of God to hinder its existence, but moreover that God and substance are infinite.If this is the case, then finite existence cannot be possible as this would imply its hindrance in some fashion, deeming it non-existent. If there is no finite existence, then â€Å"every substance is necessarily infinite†. (Spinoza 88) Thus, there can be but one substance: the infinite, unhindered, God. Spinoza's proof of the existence of God as well as the nature of the God he is describing can be further explained through the representation of this final argument: 1. Ability to exist contains power 2. Inability to exist demonstrates a lack of power 3.If an infinite being does not exist a finite being would have more power than an infinite being 4. This is impossible 5. An infinite being exists Similar to Descartes, Spinozan theology can be described via the idea of privation and used to establish a specific understanding of God. For Spinoza, the ability to exist contains some kind of power. This power refers to the ability of a substance to exist independently of anything else as a self-generating substance. A substance possesses the power to essentially spring into being unaided by anything else. Hence, existence implies power.Therefore, to not exist would imply a lack of this power. If we are to go back to th e previous proof we can deduce that God is an infinite substance, meaning that it is unhindered or unlimited by anything else. Given the present argument, if God were to not exist then it would be somehow limited by that which does exist. That is, God the infinite substance would be limited in power by finite substance. According to Spinoza, this concept is absurd as it is impossible by the very essence of an infinite substance to be hindered by anything of the finite, including power.Therefore, God must exist. With the above explanation one can not only deduce that God must necessarily exist but that God must necessarily exist as one, complete, infinite, substance. It can be said then that Spinoza employs a kind of monism to his understanding of God similar to that of Eastern theology. That is, the existence of only one infinite substance, or God, draws a strong parallel to the Brahman or â€Å"divine breath† of Hinduism through which existence was created Ex deo or out of t he substance that is God.Therefore, there is no actual separation between God and human existence rather a perceived separation caused by human ignorance of the divine nature. (Van Voorst, 23) Therefore, although Spinoza will agree with Descartes that God is infinite and all-powerful, both philosophers differ radically in their interpretation of this infinite, all-powerful substance. Significant to both Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy is the fact that God must necessarily exist in order to support the philosophy in question. That is, if God did not place the idea of God within the mind then any analysis of this idea is useless.Similarly, without the existence of an infinite substance, the Spinozan theory of substance is irrelevant. Therefore, God must exist if either theory is to succeed. Despite this fact as well as the above differences, the most significant contrast within Spinozan and Cartesian theology lies within the basis and structure of each argument. From an analytical p erspective, specifically from that of Frege, Descartes argument differs radically from that of Spinoza in that the former possesses the most truth value. Truth value, is determined via the criteria of sense and reference.With regards to a particular proposition, such as â€Å"Aristotle exists† the sense is that which the subject â€Å"expresses†. (Frege 210) That is, sense is the way in which the subject is considered or described. For example, the subject â€Å"Aristotle† could express many senses ranging from â€Å"Citizen of Athens† to â€Å"Philosopher†. The reference is that which is â€Å"designated† by its subject or that which the subject â€Å"stands for†. â€Å"Aristotle† stands for or designates Aristotle himself. (Frege 210) Thus, the reference is that knowable and concrete object from which the subject draws its credit.For Frege, a proposition must contain both sense and reference in order to possess any truth valu e. That is, in order to say anything whether true or false about the world we must first know to what within the world the subject is referring and how exactly it is referring to it. Otherwise we would have no true way of knowing what the proposition means. Given the above description, Descartes' understanding of God describes the Judeo-Christian sense of the term in that it is infinite, immutable, eternal, and responsible for the creation of all existence.According to Spinoza, God is best described in a monist sense as one infinite substance similar to the Brahman of Hindu thought. However, in order to determine the reference of each subject a precise pedigree of Cartesian and Spinozan thought is necessary. The reference of the Cartesian God can be traced back to Descartes' theory of existence in the Cogito. According to Descartes, all that we believe to be true is ultimately subject to doubt as it is provided via the senses which are commonly deceived. This is easily illustrated g iven the perceptions of a single piece of wax.If our senses illustrate a ball of wax as both in a solid and liquid state how is it that we can know anything concrete about the wax? In order to determine what it is that we actually do know we must purge ourselves of all former beliefs and methodically build our collection of knowledge based on that which is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Once purged of these beliefs Descartes determines that regardless of the valid existence of anything else, he cannot deny that he is indeed doubting. If he is doubting he is clearly and distinctly thinking.Therefore, Descartes concludes that there must be some thing that exists as a thinking thing. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. By the same token, body and mind must exist in that regardless of the validity of the empirical world one cannot doubt that something exists to sense it. Thus, with regard to reference, existence refers to the experience of thinking just as the concept of the body refe rs to the experience of sensation. Next Descartes categorizes the thoughts within his mind as ideas, volitions, and judgments.Of his ideas Descartes distinguishes between those that are innate, imaginative, or adventive. Given that an adventive idea is caused by a bodily sensation and an imaginative idea is caused by the mind itself, Descartes determines that an innate idea, such as God, must be caused by God itself by virtue of the theory of causation. If one is to carefully trace each discovery back to its point of reference one would conclude that the existence of God draws its reference from the existence of innate ideas which in turn draw their reference from the experience of the phenomenon of thought.Thus the proposition that God exists possesses the knowable experience of thinking as its reference. Since Descartes' proposed existence of God contains both sense and reference it is indeed capable of saying something meaningful about the world because it both refers to somethin g knowable and expresses something about it. If one were to analyze Spinoza's proposition of God's existence the origin of reference is not so clear. Proposition 11 states that God, or the substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. Spinoza 91) This proposition is the conclusion of the ten propositions before it which are in turn based on seven axioms and eight definitions. Of each of these concepts, proposition 11 refers most ardently to Spinoza's definition of Substance. That is, substance is â€Å"what is in itself and conceived through itself†¦ †. (Spinoza 85) It is self-generating and its existence depends upon nothing else. The definition of essence, as that which is necessary for the existence of a substance, then refers to the above substance.Similarly, the definition of an attribute, as that which the intellect perceives as the essence of a substance, directly refers to the definition of essence which is itself based on the definition of substance. Once these three definitions are proposed Spinoza uses the theory of causation and privation outlined above to help reach the conclusion of God's existence in proposition 11. While logically this lineage is sound, upon closer inspection one must notice that the original idea of substance which forms the foundation for the entire Spinozan theology has no reference!That is, the concept of substance as independent and self-generating does not refer to anything within the world that contains these qualities. While Descartes' theory rests on the experience of thought as its original reference, Spinoza has no concrete, knowable reference to hinge his theory upon. One does not experience self-generating, independent substance in a way in which the construction of knowledge is possible because a self-generating, independent substance is unknowable. The only substance the human mind can make reference to is that which is finit e and graspable as this is what we are in contact with.Therefore, Spinoza's definition of substance may express substance in the sense that it is self-generating and independent but this substance does not refer to anything concrete and knowable. To make this proposition is much like claiming â€Å"The present King of France is bald†. Although, the statement expresses the present King of France in the sense that he is bald, there is no King of France to be bald. Therefore, the present King of France. like the Spinozan substance, is but a concept with no real reference with which to draw its meaning.Since the definition of substance holds no reference, the subsequent definitions of essence and attribute refer only to a concept. If this is the case, the culmination of these definitions in proposition 11 is also based on a concept. Therefore, the entire Spinozan proof of God is but an idea abstracted from a series of underlying empty concepts. Thus, although the Spinozan proposi tion for the existence of God is logically sound it is incapable of saying anything, true or false, about the world. Therefore, the entire proposition is meaningless.Despite its' empty nature, Frege does not mean to say that propositions lacking reference should be dismissed. Rather, propositions such as these comprise the world of art. Take for example a poem. To say that â€Å"Odysseus landed on the shores of Ithaca† is not to say anything true or false regarding the world because although the subject â€Å"Odysseus† describes â€Å"the fictional character of myth† this subject holds no real reference as this character has never existed. This is not to say that the proposition is any less euphonic or pleasing to the intellect. A proposition doesn't have to say anything of value to be beautiful and artistic.Therefore, Spinoza's proposition for the existence of God, albeit meaningless, is still an outstanding artistic accomplishment. In conclusion, both Descarte s and Spinoza argue for the necessary existence of God. Although each argument is similar in execution, the Cartesian idea of God is more aligned with the Creator of the Judeo-Christian tradition whereas the Spinozan concept of God is similar to the monistic Brahman of Hinduism. Although this difference is indeed important the most significant difference lies within the logical structure and foundation of each argument.Given Frege's criteria of sense and reference, the Cartesian proposition for God's existence possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of saying something meaningful about the world. On the contrary, Spinoza's proposition for the existence of God possesses sense but no reference and is therefore built upon an empty concept. Despite its inability to say anything meaningful, true or false, about the world the Spinozan proposition for the existence of God is nonetheless an extraordinary artistic achievement. Works Cited Descartes, Rene. Meditations of F irst Philosophy. Blackmask Online, 2002. Blackmask. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. lt;http://www. blackmask. com>. Frege, Gotlobb. â€Å"Sense and Reference. â€Å"The Philosophical Review 57. 3 (1948): 209-230. JSTOR. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. . Spinoza, Benedict D. â€Å"The Ethics. † A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works. Ed. Edwin Curley. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994. 85-265. Print. Van Voorst, Robert E. â€Å"Hinduism† Anthology of World Scriptures. 7 ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011. 21-27. Print. Van Voorst, Robert E. â€Å"Judaism† Anthology of World Scriptures. 7 ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011. 209-217. Print.

Are There Any “Winners” in War? Essay

War is not a game people play to win prizes or gain recognition for their skill. After one side surrenders, and a treaty is signed, one side does go home feeling like a winner. Both sides suffer irreplaceable losses. For this reason, there are no true winners in war. Some people may feel that they came out of the war victoriously, but as Agatha Christie said, To win a war is as disastrous as to lose one. For example, in the American Revolution, we won, but is it really victory when 8,000 Americans died on the battlefield? We lost more soldiers than the British lost during that war, yet we came out of it looking like winners. Theres a reason that every country that participates in war is a loser, whether they lost more men, they didnt get what they wanted out of the war, or they started the war and caused all the deaths that took place within it. So far 3,974 soldiers have died since the war was launched in Iraq on March 20, 2003. More than 81,000 Iraqis have died in the same war. These lives can not be replaced. These atrocities can not be mended. The moment lives are disrupted, and the moment a life ends, you have officially lost the war, even if it hasnt ended yet. When a soldier is sent to war, their loved ones hope for their safe return, but all the while knowing that some will be lost along the way. And all they can do is hope that their loved one will not be one of the thousands that die. Numerous soldiers from both countries come home with severe injuries that affect how they will live for the rest of their life. 29,320 American troops alone have been wounded in the Iraq war. They are not able to do things they once could and they often regret joining the army. Because of the appalling events that soldiers are subjected to, they often return from battle with harsh psychological effects, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I man I know has slept with a weapon in hand for thirteen years after coming back from being in the war. He sometimes wakes up in the middle of the night and thinks he is in combat. He frantically looks for his gun and screams for someone to give him orders. Some Soldiers also have survivors guilt, and they feel bad that they made it out alive but a friend didnt. In addition, some soldiers may feel remorseful over killing somebody, and from there on  live a lamented, guilt ridden life. Most people who are involved with war go through at least one of these things, which is another reason that nobody comes out of war being a winner. The countries involved in the war suffer economically as well. For example, the United States has spent almost 500 billion dollars on the war in Iraq, which could have been forestalled. Instead of using this money to support war, it could be donated to hospitals, or used to help find cures to diseases. Using the money for these causes would benefit us to a great extent, unlike using the money for war. Iraq will have to rebuild their country because of all the destruction we have caused over there, which will also cost a lot of money. Regardless of who wins according to who drops or surrenders first, both sides lose. Neither side wins because neither side was courageous enough to go about their disputes in a means other than war. They couldnt come to a consensus over how to solve their problems. Adults should act like adults and work out their problems through conversation instead of acting through violence, because if they fail to do so, the consequences will be extremely unpleasant. In war, you always lose more than you gain. You may get what you went to war for in the first place, but in the process you have lost so much that it just isnt worth it. There are no winners in war, just survivors. bibliography: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/http://www.iraqwarveterans.org/war_stories.htm

Project submitted in partial fulfillment Essay

Declarations I declare that the material contained in this project is the end result of my own work and that due acknowledgement has been given in the bibliography and references to ALL sources be they printed, electronic or personal. Abstract The current research is an investigation of contemporary literature on product placement and validating these against the results of the survey herein used. The latter involved 100 international students who are also movie-goers. Product placement has been investigated in terms of its benefits to its benefits before moving on to its history and how it has become to what it is today. The different facets of product placement were assessed in terms of its impact on movie goers. Moreover the current study made use of a questionnaire as a means of data gathering. The respondents have been randomly selected, and made to answer a product placement questionnaire focusing on the movie Transformers. The results of the survey suggest that product placement is an effective form of advertising regardless of its form. In addition, since the movie has longer life span than other types of advertisements, this makes product placement more desireable and more effective. Just in the case of this paper, a study of the movie Transformers reveal that indeed, many of those who were surveyed has seen the movie. Perhaps they have seen it in movie theatres. But even if its already not yet showing, some were still able to see it since it is available in other forms such as DVD and VCD. Most of the respondents were still able to recall one of the main characters in the movie – Bumblebee – suggesting that it is able to increase brand recall. When most of them say they would buy the brand they recalled and only very few said they wouldn’t because they do not trust the brand, it can therefore be said that indeed, product placement is very effective. In conclusion, product placement is an effective means of encouraging recall and raises the probability of an actual purchase. List of Tables    Table 4-1:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: Have you seen the movie â€Å"Transformers?† Table 4- 2:   Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: If you haven’t seen Transformers, to what extent are you familiar with it? Table 4-3:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: What type of car is autobot bumblebee? Table 4-4:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: What type of car was the evil decepticon police car? Table 4-5:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: Suppose you have no financial restrictions (i.e., you can buy any car   you want), rate the probability of you choosing the following car? Table4- 6:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: Name a brand you have seen in the movies recently. Describe how it was shown. (e.g. worn by a villain, advertised on film, actually used on film, you saw the logo) Table 4-7:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: How vividly can you remember the details of this brand? Table 4-8:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: How did this brand appear in the movie? Table 4-9:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Responses on Question: Was this brand at the center of the story? Table 4-10:   Ã‚   Responses on Question: Was there audio and visuals associated with this brand? Table 4-11:   Ã‚   Responses on Question: How long was its duration on screen? Table 4-12-1: Responses on Question: Did you actually purchase the brand? Table 4-12-2: Responses on Question: What could be the possible reason for not purchasing the brand which you purchased? Table 4-13:   Ã‚   Responses on Question: Did you notice anything new product from this brand after you have watched the movie in the billboards and TV commercials? Table 4-14:   Ã‚   Do you think you would have noticed it if you hadn’t watched the movie? Table 4-15:   Ã‚   How much did you enjoy the movie? Table 4-16:   Ã‚   Do you think advertising using product placement works