Is Abortion Murder or a Life-Saver free essay sample

Even in some of these cases abortion is not okay because adoption is always available if you cannot handle a child. Everyone has their own opinions and mine is that I’m â€Å"Pro-Choice†. Meaning that I’m not fully against abortion, but I’m not fully for it. I believe that it’s your own decision what happens to your child. According to State Health Facts. org, 17% of people in the United States that have had an abortion have been under the age of nineteen. Often times people at this young age feel that they are not quite ready to give birth to and take care of a whole other human being. Other times parents get involved, not allowing their children to have abortions and allowing their children to have abortions and decide to raise the child as their own which causes them unnecessary stress that may reflect on the child’s upbringing. Every so often a child is consumed because of an unfortunate event where a woman has been raped. â€Å"The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5% per rape among victims of reproductive age (12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. † This is why I believe that in certain cases the circumstances vary and should be taken into serious consideration. It is in fact murder, but sometimes abortion can be the better option. When a child that is unwanted is born, occasionally it will end up being mistreated, unloved or abused. A child that is neglected by its parents won’t be able to grow up and become a healthy, happy adult. â€Å"Every year over three million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving nearly six million children. †(Childhelp) Neglect causes 78. 3 % of all child abuse. Just the feeling of being unloved can cause that child to make choices that could hurt themselves or others around them. This is why I’m pro-choice. I’m not totally against abortion (pro-life), but I am also not fully for abortion. I believe that it all depends on the kind of environment the child will be born into. Often times some women who are pregnant abort their child so that they don’t â€Å"look bad†. Many women decide that they do not want to have a child because of all the side effects and difficulties that go along with child birth. Other women have abortions because they are sick or unhealthy and don’t want to pass it down to the child. Being pro-choice in this case makes me think that these women are making this choice with haste and not thinking about the long term consequences. Being pro-choice also makes me think that they are making the right choice for their own lives by thinking about what’s best for them over what’s best for them over what’s best for the child. Some women feel that if they don’t have an abortion the child may have to be put in an orphanage because she can’t afford to take care of them. Over five hundred thousand children were in the U. S. foster care system on September 30th, 2005. (Foster Care Alumni) These children could have been adopted and always wonder if they weren’t good enough or will stay in the orphanage, unloved and unwanted; neither of these options all appealing to young parents. The thought of not being able to provide for their child scares them and causes them to feel that abortion is a better answer. This feeling isn’t unusual, many women feel this way. They think about the up sides to giving their child up for adoption instead of abortion such as getting the chance to watch them grow up and having a good life. People make decisions based on what they believe will be the easiest but abortion is not a matter to be taken lightly. It takes time to decide what is best for everyone that it will affect. Often times women aren’t ready to have and to provide for a child so they abort it. Many women have abortions because of an unwanted child cause by rape, but even in terrible cases like rape if you cannot handle keeping the child adoption is always a better option than abortion. On the other hand, a child that will be unwanted, unloved, mistreated or abused should be placed in a safe environment whether that means it’s actually born or not. Some people might call it selfish but it’s the mother’s choice since it is her life, her body and her unborn child. Perhaps a woman is too sick for a child birth and will die unless she has an abortion. 5% of women who have abortions do it because they are homeless and can’t afford children. In some cases I believe abortion is wrong but in other cases I think it’s the better choice. This is why I’m pro-choice, meaning I’m not fully against abortion and I’m also not fully for it. I believe it’s your life therefor, your choices. Is abortion murder or a life-saver? Jacqu eline Paziuk Bibliography: http://www. fostercarealumni. org/resources/foster_care_facts_and_statistics. htm http://www. ncregister. com/blog/danielle-bean/mom_so_sick_she_chooses_abortion http://articles. latimes. om/2012/aug/23/news/la-pn-statistics-on-rape-and-pregnancy-are-complicated-20120822 http://www. policyalmanac. org/culture/archive/abortion_statistics. shtml http://www. statehealthfacts. org/comparemaptable. jsp? typ=2amp;ind=464amp;cat=10amp;sub=111amp;sortc=1amp;o=a http://www. ncregister. com/blog/danielle-bean/mom_so_sick_she_chooses_abortion http://www. guttmacher. org/pubs/journals/3711005. html http://www. nationalchildrensalliance. com/nca/pubs/2003/Children_in_Care_March_2003. pdf https://www. childwelfare. gov/pubs/factsheets/foster. cfm http://www. gargaro. com/healthproblems. html

Should Chinas Human Rights Record Prevent Permanen Essay Example For Students

Should Chinas Human Rights Record Prevent Permanen Essay t Normal Trade Relations Background Since the initial warming of U.S.-China relations in the early 1970s, policymakers have had difficulty balancing conflicting U.S. policy concerns in the Peoples Republic of China. From Nixon to Clinton, presidents have had to reconcile security and human rights concerns with corporations desires for expanded economic relations between the two countries. While the U.S. regularly objects to Chinas human rights violations, the Chinese government counters with complaints that the American concerns represent unwarranted American intrusion into its internal affairs. In 1989 the Tiananmen Square massacre drew public attention to the inconsistent character of U.S. -China policy. A wave of public indignation with Chinas repressive practices forced the Bush administration to adopt a sterner posture toward human rights violations and to impose sanctions, including restrictions on bilateral and multilateral aid. But these measures have not satisfied some critics of Chinas human rights practices, who contend that the U.S. should apply even more rigid trade restrictions against China. Specifically, some critics insist that the U. S. government not give China permanent normal trade relations status, which would free Chinas government from an annual review of its human rights record by Congress. Many critics say PNTR standing should be linked to improvements in Chinas human and labor rights practices a policy that has been rejected by the Clinton administration. Rather than denying China normal trading status because of human rights violations, the Clinton administration has opted for a policy of comprehensive engagement, which holds that long-term U.S. goals such as human rights improvement are more likely to be achieved through sustained contact and open trading than by further isolating China. Yet Chinese human rights practices, including respect for political and labor rights, continue to fall well below internationally accepted standards. In perhaps the stickiest issue, the White House warned last week that there was little chance of PNTR for China without legislation setting up a watchdog commission to monitor Beijings human rights practices. China, however opposes any plans by the U.S. to monitor human rights as a condition to granting PNTR. American businesses should not be coddled at the expense of human rights. Despite expressions of concern for human rights conditions, the U.S. government has allowed narrow economic interests, particularly those of corporate investors, to guide its China policy. So far, the U.S. government has been unwilling to jeopardize U. S. economic relations by adopting stricter human rights conditions on aid and trade. Chinas trade status is currently reviewed annually by Congress. By establishing permanent normal trade relations and doing away with the annual vote, the U.S. will give up its leverage over Chinas human rights policies. Permanent normal relations should not be granted until long-term progress is made on human rights in China. The United States government has no authority to sit in judgment on the human rights records of other governments, especially given the U.S. governments own complicity in some human rights violations in foreign lands. You dont have to embrace a government or its policies to engage in trade. If trade were a beauty contest, wed trade only with a small group of nations that mirror our own society, and would be in a virtual cold war with the rest. Furthermore, U.S. imposed trade barriers are unlikely to change the policies of Chinas communist leaders. The most powerful force for labor, human rights, and the environment is economic liberalization and global market forces. Growth and rising income give workers the chance to improve their lives. In 1994 President Clinton officially delinked trade and human rights in China. .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 , .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .postImageUrl , .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 , .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:hover , .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:visited , .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:active { border:0!important; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:active , .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1 .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ud66f99b9ec1545630b177794368ffac1:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: A Day to Rejoice Essay According to Human Rights Watch, every year since delinkage, human rights conditions in China have gotten worse. According to Amnesty Internationals 1999 China Report: Hundreds, possibly thousands, of activists and suspected opponents of the government were detained during the year. Thousands of political prisoners jailed in previous years remained imprisoned. Some had been sentenced after unfair trials, others were still held without charge or trial. .. .Torture and ill-treatment remained endemic, in some cases resulting in death. According to the U.S. State Departments 1998 China Human Rights Report: The Government continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms. . .Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, and mistreatment of .

Tutankhamen As A Teacher Essays - Egyptian Mythology,

Tutankhamen As A Teacher Tutankhamen as a Teacher What does the tomb of Tutankhamen and its contents show about the Egyptian concern for the afterlife? Tutakhamen's tomb, and the artifacts inside are an indication of the concern the Ancient Egyptians held for the after-life of their king. On the 26th of Nov. 1922, the English archaeologist Howard Carter opened the virtually intact tomb of a largely unknown pharaoh, Tutankhamen. This was the first, and the finest royal tomb found in the history of Egyptology. It took almost a decade of meticulous and painstaking work to empty the tomb of Tutankhamen. Around 3500 individual items were recovered. When the Burial Chamber of Tutankhamen was officially opened, on 17 February 1923, the Antechamber had been emptied. It had taken near fifty days to empty the Antechamber; the time required to dismantle and restore the contents of the Burial Chamber including the gilded wooden and the sarcophagus was to be greater, and the work was not completed until November 1930, eight years after the original discovery. One must examine both the tomb itself, and its contents, to see the connection between the tombs and burial rituals and the doctrine of eternal life. The royal tombs were not merely homes in the hereafter for the kings, as are the private tombs of commoners and nobility. Instead the tombs are cosmological vehicles of rebirth and deification as much as houses of eternity. As the king is supposed to become Osiris in a far more intimate way than co mmoners, he is equipped with his very own Underworld. And as the king is supposed to become R? in a way entirely unavailable to commoners, he is equipped with his very own passage of the sun, whether this is thought of as the way through the underworld or through the heavens. Tutankhamon's tomb, hurriedly prepared for the premature death of the king at the age of only about 18, is, as Romer says, a hole in the ground, compared to a proper royal tomb. The theme of fours is conspicuous in Egyptian religious practice. Tutankhamon's tomb contains four chambers. The burial chamber, with a ritual if not an actual orientation towards the West, is the chamber of departure towards the funeral destinies. The internment of the body certainly is the beginning of the sojourn of the dead, and the Egyptians saw the dead as departing into the West. The room called the Treasury is then interpreted to have a ritual orientation towards the North as the chamber of reconstitution of the body. Since the most conspicuous object in the Treasury was a great gilt sledge holding the shrine containing the canopic chest, which holds the king's, viscera, this could well suggest the problem of reassembling the king's living body. That task, indeed, has a very important place in Egyptian mythology. After the goddess Isis had retrieved her husband Osiris's murdered body from Byblos, their common brother, Seth, the original murderer, stole the body, cut it into pieces, and tossed them in the Nile. Isis then had to retrieve the parts of the body before Osiris could be restored to life. Her search through the Delta, which is in the North of Egypt, seems to parallel the sacred pilgrimage to cities of the Delta that Desroches-Noblecourt relates as one of ritual acts of the funeral, as many of the other objects in the Treasury seem to be accessories for that pilgrimage. For the sovereign to be reborn it was necessary that a symbolic pilgrimage be made to the holy cities of the delta. The principal halts of the journey corresponded almost exactly to the four cardinal points of the delta where these cities were situated. Sais, to the west, represented the necropolis where the body was buried; Buto to the north, with its famous canal, was an essential stage of the transformations within the aquatic world of the primordial abyss, evoking the water surrounding the unborn child; and Mendes to the east whose name could be written with the two pillars of Osiris, the djed pillars, evoking the concept of air. There, said the old texts, the gods Shu and Tefenet were reunited, or again, according to the 17th chapter of The

The Google Story †How Google was Started.

The Google Story – How Google was Started. Free Online Research Papers Google is a company that was conceptualized in a dorm room by two Stanford University college students in 1996 (Arnold, 2005, p. 1) and has morphed into one of the greatest technological powerhouses in operation today. What began as merely a means to analyze and categorize Web sites according to their relevance has developed into a vast library of widely utilized resources, including email servicing, calendaring, instant messaging and photo editing, just to reference a few. Recent statistics collected by SearchEngineWatch.com reflects that of the 10 billion searches performed within the United States during the month of February, 2008, an impressive 5.9 billion of them were executed by Google (Burns, 2008). Rated as Fortune Magazine’s top American company to work for in both 2007 (â€Å"100 Best†, 2007)and 2008 (â€Å"100 Best†, 2008), Google obviously has curbed the market on fair and friendly treatment of its employees. But how does it measure up when one c onsiders the ethics in relation to its business practices? The purpose of this paper is to identify and evaluate the ethical concerns specific to privacy faced by this herculean computing company and to determine the effectiveness of their treatment of these issues. Google opens their corporate code of ethics with a simple sentence â€Å"Don’t be evil† (Google Code of Conduct,  ¶1). This statement is consistent with the theory of virtue ethics, placing emphasis on the importance of developing to the highest potential. They may not necessarily be considered evil, but Google does engage in practices that are certainly vague and could be considered disreputable. Google’s questionable corporate policies in relation to privacy have long been a subject of contention amongst consumer privacy groups and computing organizations. Google’s privacy policy relies strongly on the impression that everything they do is for the sole purpose of improving service. Multiple references are made to their goal of improved service throughout the policy, including statements such as â€Å"we use this information to improve the quality of our search technology†, â€Å"we use cookies to improve the quality of our service†, and â€Å"in order to provide our full range of services† (Google Privacy Policy,  ¶6). While these statements may technically be true, one must also consider that these practices are followed in an effort to better the company and not solely for the improvement of service to their users as is often implied. The policy also addresses the possibility of future changes, stating that all amendments to the policy will be immediately reflected in the on-line documentation and that if changes made are â€Å"significant† they will provide â€Å"a more prominent notice† (Google Privacy Policy,  ¶29). The determination of what constitutes a â€Å"significant† change is left to Google to determine, requiring existing users to routinely verify the terms of the policy to ensure that no changes have been established that might impose on their assumed privacy rights. The terms of service statement provided by Google that relates to all of its provided products is concerning. It reads â€Å"by submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through the Services† (Google Terms of Service, Section 11.1). A user’s agreement to this statement gives Google full rights to use the content posted through their services in any way that they see fit. Considering the fact that this single document is in essence a blanket statement that applies to every service operated by Google, the effects of this statement are enormous. Essentially, Google is given open license to use any video posted on YouTube, any comments written on Blogger, and any photographs uploaded to Picasa, all entities controlled by Googl e, Inc. Things that users might consider to be personal instantly become the property of Google at the click of the mouse. Even though the images or comments are posted to the publicly accessible Internet, most do not consider the reality that the use of those images or comments, meant to be shared with family or friends, are out of their control when the upload is complete. An inherent privacy issue related to Google’s practices is associated with its most basic function – the search. The first time a computer is used to access Google’s website, a cookie is placed on the system’s hard drive which serves as a unique identifier, allowing Google to monitor the search history from that machine. These cookies, according to Google, grant them the ability to store user preferences while tracking trends (i.e. – how people search) (Google Privacy Policy,  ¶6). Collected information is stored on server logs and includes such data as IP address, date and time of the search, browser type and browser language (Google Privacy Policy,  ¶7). They can also track which links a user selects on a given page and the path that they follow. Google is forthcoming with their placement of cookies (Google Privacy Policy,  ¶ 6), but is very unclear about the expiration date of the cookie or how long log files are retained. The significance of installing a cookie that assigns a unique identifier to each system is that Google is given the ability to read, identify and record every action a users takes when using Google products. The data collected by these cookies, combined with data acquired by content extraction (discussed further within this paper), allows Google to create user profiles based on the subjects they search (Google Search, Google Scholar, Book Search, Blog Search, Image Search, Custom Search), their purchasing habits (Google Checkout), the statements they make within personal communications (Gmail, Google Talk), the activities they participate in (Google Calendar), and the data they store on their computers (Google Desktop). Google’s release of its Gmail service in April, 2004 caused an immediate backlash of complaints by watch groups who voiced concerns regarding Google’s plan to use content extraction, a process of scanning the text of all incoming and outgoing messages for the purpose of placing paid advertisements on the page (Dixon and Givens, 2004). The Gmail privacy policy does state that content will be used to provide relevant advertisements, but the statement disguises this practice of ad placement as a â€Å"service† (Gmail Privacy Policy,  ¶ 6) to the user, not as an annoyance as many would perceive it. Users who subscribe for the free Gmail service agree to the extraction of content within their messages at the time of registration, but those non-subscribers who engage in messaging with Gmail users do not. This is where the contention lies. Without the consent of both parties involved in an email exchange, is it ethically acceptable for Google to extract data from these messages? Personal and private information could be contained within a message sent by a party unaffiliated with the Gmail service. Were they aware of Google’s extraction policy, they might be leery of doing so. Groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) believe that Google’s practice of monitoring private communications can be construed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Their policy could set a bad legal precedent, in that a court might â€Å"consider the service as evidence of a lack of a reasonable expectation in e-mail† (EPIC, 2004), giving other service providers, employers and government agencies a legal means for monitoring communications amongst its users. As stated by George Reynolds, author of Ethics in Information Technology, â€Å"without a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no privacy right to protect† (2007, p. 108). Google released their Checkout service in June, 2006. The service allows customers to perform a one-time registration with Google during which time they provide personally identifiable data, such as name, billing and shipping address and credit card information. Checkout then processes registrant’s purchases through participating vendors without the need for the customer to provide the information again. The release initially appeared to be an attempt at competition with the widely utilized PayPal service, but further analysis leads one to believe that Checkout is in reality yet another method for Google to collect information about its users in order to improve their ad placement practices. Intimate knowledge of their user’s actual shopping practices provides Google with valuable data that allows for personalized ad placement based on individual purchasing trends. These personalized ads are much more likely to incite user response, made important by the fact that every click of a sponsored link earns revenue for Google. The privacy policy specific to Google’s Checkout service is very precise and provides clear and concise explanations of the processes that are followed, including the placement of the cookie that is installed that, again, uniquely identifies the user’s browser. But again, an explanation of the length of time the cookie will reside on the user’s computer is unclear. Google Calendar allows registered users to record meetings, appointments, birthdays and personal reminders using their on-line tool. By default a user’s calendar is set to â€Å"private†, meaning that only they can view the data recorded within their personal database. An optional feature allows the user to share their schedule with a public group so that others can view their schedule for availability and so that meeting invitations can be sent and received from others. This requires the registrant to change their setting to â€Å"public†. The privacy policy specific to Google Calendar states that â€Å"in order to manage your invitations, when you invite other people to Calendar events, we collect and maintain information associated with those invitations, including email addresses, dates and times of the event, and any responses from guests† (Google Calendar Privacy Notice,  ¶ 5). As with Gmail, participants who are not registered users of Google calendar are unaware that their private personal information is collected and stored by Google, creating a clear invasion of assumed privacy. Google Desktop was originally developed and released as a means for a simplified and faster search of a user’s personal computer. The tool, which requires installation on the user’s computer, allowed the user to perform two consecutive queries one which was sent to Google to perform a Web search while the other searched the user’s personal index housed on their computer. The results page would then feature two separate sets of findings – one public and one private. The language of Google’s privacy statement in regards to the original release of Desktop stated that â€Å"these combined results can be seen only from your own computer; your computer’s content is never sent to Google† (Arrington, 2006). The release of an updated version of Desktop (version 3.0) in February, 2006 brought about substantial changes in the way the application functions. The new Desktop boasts a feature called â€Å"Search Across Computers† that allows users to search for personal files from multiple systems. Google has edited the statement reflected in their original Desktop privacy policy, no longer claiming that content is never sent to Google, but I was unable to discern in my research whether Google considered this change to be â€Å"significant† enough to constitute a more direct notification to existing users. Now, the user’s hard drive index is copied to Google’s servers and stored there â€Å"temporarily†. Google states that the application â€Å"indexes and stores versions of your files and other computer activity† but fails to address the expected timeline for data retention (Google Desktop Privacy Policy,  ¶ 2). The policy also implies that you r data is never accessible by anyone doing a standard Google search, but the fact remains that indexes are transferred and housed at a location other than the user’s personal hard drive. One of Google’s most blatant violations of privacy rights is the introduction of Google Maps Street View, a sub-service of Google Maps. Released in May of 2007, Street View displays high-resolution photographs taken from the street level of many major metropolitan cities throughout the country. It provides the user with a virtual tour of these cities and allows them to zoom in with the ability to view close up shots of landmarks, buildings, and any other object present at the moment of capture, including people. Screen captures taken from Street View cameras have included images of women sunbathing in bikinis and men walking into strip clubs (Schroeder, 2007). A glaring example of privacy invasion is a recent case uncovered by The Smoking Gun (â€Å"Warning†, 2008) in which Google’s Street View cameras crossed property boundaries and captures images of a Pittsburgh homeowners driveway, garage and backyard (including such detailed views as their childrenâ€⠄¢s trampoline) after driving on to the home’s private driveway with the cameras capturing constant screen shots – an unmistakable invasion of presumed privacy. As of this writing, it is unknown whether or not the homeowners in this case have made contact with Google regarding the issue of trespassing and if so, what Google’s response might have been. As reported by MSNBC, â€Å"potentially embarrassing or compromising scenes like these are raising questions about whether the Internet’s leading search engine has gone too far in its attempt to make the world a more accessible place† (Liedtke). Google states that the images captured by their cameras are taken from a moving vehicle and could have been observed by any person walking or driving on that same street at the same moment. The difference is that the images are posted and maintained on a publicly-accessible website without the consent of the captured individuals. Users that discover images of themselves or images that they consider inappropriate and would like to have them removed can do so simply by contacting Google via a provided link. The obvious argument is that a person would first need to become aware of the existence of said image in order to request its removal. By the time it is discovered, the alleged invasion of privacy has already occurred. In terestingly, an Austrailian newspaper covering Google’s plan to launch Street View in their country recently contacted the company to inquire as to plans to include images of the homes of Google executives on the site (Klan, 2008). Google spokesman Rob Shilkin is quotes in the article as saying â€Å"providing those details would be completely inappropriate† (Klan, 2008). It would be a nice addition to Google’s privacy policy to allow common users to opt-out of having images of their own homes displayed by Google in advance, as is apparently the policy for Google’s key personnel. In an environment when the use of nearly any on-line service requires the user to agree to a set of terms, it is evident that most do not take the time to read and fully understand the impact that those policies may have in regards to their personal information. Even one of the creators of Google, Sergey Brin, acknowledged in a statement to reporters that he thinks â€Å"it’s interesting that the expectations of people with respect to what happens to their data seems to be different than what is actually happening† (Bridis, 2006). The question remains whether or not Google is responsible for their user’s inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend their policies and relate them to possible consequences associated when using one or all of Google’s products. Google is not a non-profit organization, offering its products strictly for the benefit of society. It is a business which requires profits to continue its operations; therefore its ultimate concern is that its shareholders are pleased with their earnings as a direct result of Google products. Google has become a leader in its field by developing unique and superior products and partnering those products with clever marketing and plain talk language that puts an unskilled user at ease with regards to Google’s services. The absence of any legislation that closely regulates electronic content has provided Google the ability to set their own standards without the threat of accountability when privacy breaches are recognized, aided by the fact that Google has successfully dominated their market space. Are Google’s policies clear as they relate to user privacy? The answer is both yes and no. Google is truthful in regards to their data collection policies, but appear to operate under different assumptions of privacy than most. But in the age of Internet communications, what kind of privacy can one truly expect, especially when the topic of personally identifiable information is introduced. Google has developed a certain level of assumed trust with their user base that may not be completely well deserved. What began as a simple means to search the resources of the World Wide Web has been transformed into a technological mega-corporation that has utilized their initial popularity to lure users to employ more and more of their clever innovations, all the while building upon their empire. The familiarity of Google has eliminated user caution. Given the current and future growth of the World Wide Web, there appears to be no end to the debate over acceptable expectations of privacy. A corporation as recognizable and influential as Google, though, has a responsibility to set the bar high for other businesses that exist within the competitive and lucrative industry of computing. Google’s existing policies are a disappointing example of the direction being taken by corporations in regard to basic user rights. Hopefully, they will closely consider the concerns of experts in the field as well as their customers when reviewing, modifying and creating new products and policies in the years to come and heed their own advice – â€Å"Don’t be evil!† Reference 100 Best Companies to Work For, Fortune Magazine (2007, February). CNNMoney.com, Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/full_list/ 100 Best Companies to Work For, Fortune Magazine (2008, February). CNNMoney.com, Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/full_list/index.html Arnold, S.E., (2005). The Google Legacy; How Google’s Internet Search is Transforming Applications Software. London, England: Infonortics Ltd. Arrington, M., (2006). Google Desktop 3.0: Privacy is Dead(er). TechCrunch. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://techcrunch.com/2006/02/08/google-desktop-new-version-tonight/ Bridis, T., Google acknowledges China compromise, (2006, June 6), MSNBC.com, Retrieved April 10, 2008, from msnbc.msn.com/id/13172409/print/1/displaymode/1098/ Burns, E., (2008). U.S. Core Search Rankings, February, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3628837 Dixon, P. Givens, B. Thirty-One Privacy and Civil Liberties Organizations Urge Google to Suspend Gmail (2004, April 6) Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm Electronic Privacy Information Center, Gmail Privacy Page (2004, August 18), Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html Freedman, D.H., Internet: Why Privacy Will No Longer Matter (2007), MSNBC.com, Retrieved April 10, 2008, from msnbc.msn.com/id/12017579/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ Google, Inc., Gmail Privacy Notice (2005, October 14), Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://gmail.google.com/mail/help/privacy.html Google, Inc., Google Calendar Privacy Notice (unknown date), Retrieved April 10, 2008, from google.com/googlecalendar/privacy_policy.html Google, Inc., Google Code of Conduct (2008, February), Retrieved April 8, 2008, from http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google, Inc., Google Desktop Privacy Policy (2007, September 21), Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://desktop.google.com/privacypolicy.html Google, Inc., Google Privacy Policy (2005, October), Retrieved March 15, 2008, from google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html Google, Inc., Google Terms of Service (2007, April), Retrieved March 15, 2008, from google.com/accounts/TOS?loc=US Klan, A., Google execs out of sight (2008, April 12), The Austrailian, Retrieved April 12, 2008, from theaustrailian.news.com/au/story/0,25197,23526150-7582,00.html Liedtke, M., Google hits streets, raises privacy concerns, MSNBC.com, Retrieved April 19, 2008, from msnbc.msn.com/id/18987058/print/1/displaymode/1098/ Reynolds, G., (2007). Ethics in Information Technology, Second Edition. Boston: Thomson. Schroeder, M., (2007). Top 15 Google Street View Sightings (2007, May 31), Mashable Social Networking News. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/ Warning: Google Is In Your Driveway! (2008, April 7), The Smoking Gun, Retrieved from thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0407081google1.html Research Papers on The Google Story - How Google was Started.Unreasonable Searches and SeizuresAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into AsiaResearch Process Part OneOpen Architechture a white paperMoral and Ethical Issues in Hiring New EmployeesNever Been Kicked Out of a Place This NicePETSTEL analysis of IndiaThe Project Managment Office SystemDefinition of Export QuotasTwilight of the UAW

Materials homework assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Materials homework - Assignment Example Moreover, HMAC technology permits asphalt concrete to the range of 50 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit cooler compared to the PCC resulting to the reduction in terms of the temperature, which substantially decreases energy utilization at the mixing plant and consequently lessen greenhouse gas emissions during production. HMAC production concrete drastically decrease the quantity volatile organic compound emissions thus eradicating the smoke and odor related to the PCC, bricks, gravel and stabilized earth. HMAC production lowers production temperature that normally results to oxidation of the asphalt mix during the traditional hot-mix asphalt production process. This leaves efficient asphalt within the mix by aiding in the reduction of the aging impact of the asphalt. Aging impact results to brittleness and cracking. Moreover, HMAC possesses the potential for increased compaction over the PCC, bricks, gravel and stabilized earth, which aids in reducing potential damage to the streets due to the recurrent loading over period. Engineering wood is the best for building two stories house within the Oregon coast having sustainability goal. Oregon coast has higher humidity levels and the engineering wood is more suitable since it is more resistant to relatively higher moisture and steady. Engineering wood is also not susceptible to swelling due to alteration in temperature thus adding attractions within the basements or within the regions possessing relatively higher humidity levels. The wood also works efficiently under the floor heating systems due to its stability. Engineering wood normally has a thickness of 15mm hence offers greater stability and long-term usage. Natural finish of the building will consists of very board of multiple layers of the timber that bonded together. The underlying outermost of 4mm of engineering hardwood will act as an option to the solid

Stem Cell Research Legislation Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Stem Cell Legislation - Research Paper Example It is hoped that such cells can be developed to replace dysfunctional cells in conditions like spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and various other medical conditions. A look into the American stem cell research legislations proves that the country needs to make such laws regarding patents and intellectual rights to ensure that the government and the federally funded researchers have access to stem cells. In addition, there should be clear government guidelines regarding the agreement between patent holders and researchers. The advancements in research were not free from ethical issues and legal disputes. As reported by National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1999) this is mainly so because the sources for stem cells are one week old embryos called blastocysts which are usually created through in vitro fertilization to treat infertility, five to nine week old embryos of fetuses obtained through elective abortion, embryos created through in vitro fer tilization for research purposes, embryos created through cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, and finally, adult tissues like umbilical cord blood and marrow. The controversy almost entirely surrounds taking stem cells from human embryos and fetuses because the process destroys them. Admittedly, the American administration has always been open to the ethical concerns surrounding embryo research. Throughout history, the government did not provide any funding to support researches on stem cells from human embryos. So, the federal law rightly prohibited the HHS from funding any such research. In the year 1994, President Bill Clinton issued an executive directive to the NIH that it should not allocate funds to develop human embryos for research purposes. Two years later, in 1996, there was a legislative ban on NIH’s spending on stem cell research from human embryos. Thereafter, every year, the government passed such a ban. As Wertz (2002, p. 674-678) points out, according t o the ban, federal funds could not be used for the development of human embryos for research purposes where human embryo is destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death. However, as the Wisconsin scientists successfully grew embryonic stem cells into specialized cells, there arose increased demand from NIH to again look into the governmental ban on stem cell research from embryos and fetus. The opinion of the HHS’ General Counsel was that the existing law that only prohibited the use of HHS funds for human embryo research would not ban research on stem cells because stem cells are not within the legal definition of human embryo. According to the definition provided, embryo is an organism that is capable of developing into a full human being when implanted in the uterus. It is claimed that the pluripotent stem cells are not able to grow into a human being. Thus, the opinion reached was that HHS could fund such stem cell researches that manage to get the stem cells from embryos using private means. The restriction only applied to those researches that want to derive stem cells from embryos using federal funds. Though there was congressional opposition, NIH made it clear that it would support stem cell research once it managed to issue guidelines and to establish an oversight committee. Thus, the NIH guidelines appeared in August 2000 that made it clear that researches using pluripotent stem cells from human embryos can be conducted using NIH funds. However the condition was that the stem

Individual Write-Up Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Individual Write-Up - Essay Example e going to visit Africa and more particularly Kenya, s as to go and watch the wild beast migration, based on what I have heard regarding Africa I prepared myself for the Stone Age life. Two days before our departure I had already parked all the things that I thought was necessary. I carried some of the most essential things, such as toothpaste, soap, spotlights, and camp knifes. My dad informed me of certain things like soap that could be bought when we got to Africa, but I could not dare leave my â€Å"Essential package† as I was not sure even if there were shops there. The day finally came, and we left for Africa, the fight took about 12 hours, as we had to make a stopover in Amsterdam. All through the flight, my mind was on the types of houses that I was going not just to see but live in. when the pilot announced the plane’s arrival in an hour, I was very excited because I was going to experience Africa for the very first time. The plane reached the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and t my surprise there were no animals anywhere in sight all I could see were tall, beautiful houses like the ones back in Canada. Sensing my dismay my dad told me â€Å"I told you†, the animal park that we were supposed to go and see the wild beast migration was known as the Tsavo National Park, which was quite a long distance from Nairobi. I had found out from the internet about the wild beast migration, and I was looking forward to seeing the animals leap into the river and cross to the other side. I tried to anticipate how many animals would make it safely to the other side. To make the experience a unforgettable, my dad had arranged that we travel by train to the park. There are no electric trains in Kenya we had t use the old locomotives, which run on diesel apparently these trains were left by the colonial government decades ago. The trip t the park was full of adventure, the train tracks went through beautiful open country where we were able t see some wild animals