ECDIS Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

ECDIS - Essay Example MMSI: Maritime Mobile Service Identity NAVTEX: Navigational Information Telex SOLAS: International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea Transas: Transport Safety Systems UAIS: Universal Automatic Identification System ECDIS ___________________________________________________________________ Abstract Although ECDIS is popularly defined as a standard for the elimination of paper charts, the mentioned definition hardly encompasses the capabilities and potentials of this tool. Indeed, the functionality of ECDIS systems have extended beyond the mere elimination of paper charts to the provision of an Integrated Bridge whose primary function is the interconnection of all of a vessel's sources of information. This paper shall review and evaluate an ECDIS implementation paradigm forwarded by Transas Marine (TRANsport SAfety Systems). The primary criterion for evaluation is compliance with the IMO standard. Following that, additional implementation features shall be critically analysed. The paper will conclude with a set of recommendations for improvement based upon the researcher's own evaluation of Navi Sailor ECDIS. 1.0 Research Approach 1.1 Aim The primary aim of the present research is the evaluation of an ECDIS system against manufacturer claims, for the determination of whether or not the system satisfies its supposed purposes and executes its defined functions. 1.2 Research Question Can the selected ECDIS system act as a replacement for a chart navigation system 1.3 Methodology As a strategy for responding to the selected researched question and satisfying the research's articulated aim, an in-depth investigative exploration of the chosen ECDIS system's features shall be undertaken. The results...The paper will conclude with a set of recommendations for improvement based upon the researcher's own evaluation of Navi Sailor ECDIS. The primary aim of the present research is the evaluation of an ECDIS system against manufacturer claims, for the determination of whether or not the system satisfies its supposed purposes and executes its defined functions. As a strategy for responding to the selected researched question and satisfying the research's articulated aim, an in-depth investigative exploration of the chosen ECDIS system's features shall be undertaken. The results of he investigation shall determine whether or not the examined ECDIS system can, indeed, function as a replacement for a chart navigation system. An Electronic Chart Distribution Information System (ECDIS) is specifically designed to replace nautical charts with electronic navigation charts. It must be stressed, however, that the purposes of ECDIS exceed the stated insofar as the system's functionalities include the systemic collection, storage, processing and presentation of navigation-related and route-planning information.

The Pit and the Pendulum by Edgar Allan Poe Essay -- Pit and the Pendu

In Edgar Allan Poe’s short story â€Å"The Pit and the Pendulum,† written 1843, and â€Å"using the anguish of imminent death as the means of causing the nerves to quiver† (Edgar Allan Poe, 2015), he takes the reader into the mind of a man who is tortured by various means by some unknown person or persons for reasons that are not given. The themes of death and time are portrayed strongly in this story and produce a sense of anxiety and uncertainty. â€Å"The first- person narration, in which the ‘I’ remains unnamed, causes the reader to identify with the protagonist† (Myers 1922). I feel that the narrator remains unnamed for the reason of not giving information that would further distract the reader from the details and emotions of the pit itself, and not to be biased in any way. Most of the story takes place inside a type of prison cell that the narrator, who is the only prisoner, was placed in after some kind of trial. Because the amou nt of consciousness that the narrator has comes and goes, his seemingly dreamlike state hinders his ability to make accurate judgements, comprehend his situation, and decide how to best get out of his ever-changing torturous environment. Through the narrator’s almost hopeless states of madness and his shimmering rays of hope and decision making, the reader feels compelled to understand how the narrator got into this pit and how he would ever be able to be free given that his tormentors are ever vigilant and always prepared to bring a new device to try to end the narrator’s life. When the â€Å"narrator discusses how the unconscious mind provides a glimpse into the gulf beyond,† this shows how Poe can try to explain how the imagination can work, and how it can interact with rational thought processes of... ... reader much to fill in thus helping to create great suspense and harboring many questions about the Inquisition and the darkness within the minds of man. Works Cited Bloom, Harold, ed. Bloom’s Major Short Story Writers. Broomall , PA : Chealsea House Publishers, 1999. Edgar Allan Poe. Wikipedia Web. 15 May 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe Poe, Edgar Allan, â€Å"The Pit and the Pendulum.† Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe. New York . Random House, Inc. Sep. 1975. 246-57 Hoffman, Daniel. â€Å"Edgar Allan Poe: the artist of the beautiful.† The American Poetry Review v. 24. Nov./Dec. 1995. Web. 15 May 2015. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/literary-criticism/9511301401/edgar-allan-poe-artist-beautiful Myers, Eunice. The Pit and the Pendulum. Ed. Frank N. Magill . Vol 4. Pasadena , CA : Salem Press, 1986. 6 vols.

Animal Rights Final Research Paper

Animal Rights Final Research Paper Franco Pacheco ENGL-135 Prof. Gurin DeVry University December 13, 2012 Animal rights The idea of animal rights is not new. Through the 18th and 19th Century philosophers like Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, and Schopenhauer have produced different arguments in favor of the treatment of animals.Animal rights is the idea that nonhuman animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that they should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. All animals are equal in the sense that they all can sense pain and suffering however as far as treating them like humans, I do not think so. Humans have been eating meat for as long as we have been on this earth and there is nothing wrong with that. That does not mean people enjoy killing them for pleasure, their lives are taking for our survival.Eating meat is not wrong as long as we are conscious of their contribution to humankind over the years, providing us with transpo rtation, food, clothing, and companionship. Torturing and killing animals for pleasure is wrong, however, eating their meat moderately for survival is not. By the beginning of the 18th century, writers began to discuss animal feelings of pain and suffering, vivisection, and the cruel treatment of animals raised and slaughtered for food.All animals have the same capacity for suffering, but how we see them differs and that determines what we will tolerate happening to them. Most people are not capable of killing what they eat with their own hands but if is cooked and served; there are no thoughts of how or where it came from. Over 9 billion chickens, pigs, cattle, turkeys, sheep, goats, ducks, and geese are bred, raised, and killed for food annually in America.Today, the breeding of farm animals is dominated by industrialized facilities that maximize profits by treating them as production units and forgetting that they can also feel pain as human do. The abuse of farm animals in facto ry farms, for example, did not see an influx until the early 19th century, when small family farms and traditional ranching of livestock started to cave under the pressure of larger institutional farming practices. As factory farms became the norm, so, unfortunately did the systematic and prolonged abuse of animals raised for human consumption.Most animals in these facilities are forced to endure physical and psychological abuse for months if not years on end, deprived of the ability to perform behaviors inherent to their species, and housed in overcrowded facilities with insufficient food, water, and natural light. Most are given steroids to enhance growth, and antibiotics to fend off illnesses that are likely to occur in such unsanitary conditions. Their eventual slaughter is often performed in a manner as inhumane as the condition in which they are forced to exist until that day.There are many people working for the improvement of the ways in which animals that are raised for foo d are handled and slaughtered; most notable is Temple Grandin. She is one of the leading authorities on the design of animal handling facilities, specializing in the humane handling of animals at the point of slaughter in the meat industry. She is credited with having â€Å"done more to improve welfare for animals at the point of slaughter than any human alive. † According to data extrapolated from U. S. Department of Agriculture reports that nearly 10. billion land animals were raised and killed for food in the United States in 2010. This is a 1. 7% rise from the 2009 totals, larger than the 0. 9% increase in US population, meaning that animals killed per-capita increased slightly. Based on January-August 2011 USDA slaughter numbers, it is projected that the number of land animals killed in 2011 will increase an additional 1% from 2010 numbers, rising to approximately 10,266 million animals. Fortunately, due to increased feed prices and sinking domestic demand, Bloomberg. om is speculating that there may be a 5% drop in animals raised for food in 2012! While the number of aquatic animals killed each year is not reported, meticulous calculations by researcher Noam Mohr estimate the number of finfishes killed each year for US consumption to be 13,027 million, and the number of shellfishes to be 40,455 million, resulting in a combined 53,481 million (over 53 billion) aquatic animals who died for American consumption in 2010. Becoming a vegetarian overnight will not stop the purposeful harm done to animals at the hands of human beings.Consequently, I agree that there is a lot that has gone very wrong with most of our meat production, but we are omnivores, and arguing that we are not is not going to get us anywhere. It may be possible to live without meat, but considering that all animals will eventually die, will be a sin not to eat them before other animals do. We feel bad of the killing of the animals we eat, but not bad enough to stop eating them comple tely. People have their own reasons for becoming vegan and not everyone is concern about the animal’s welfare.Becoming vegan will not stop animal abuse; people are still going to do what they want to do, especially if it involves animal cruelty. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) can do all they can, but you cannot right all the wrongs in the world. The most prominent of the abolitionists is Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. He argues that focusing on animal welfare may actually worsen the position of animals, because it entrenches the view of them as property, and makes the public more comfortable about using them.I actually hate the way animals are treated and could not find a better way of killing them without making it go through torture. However, I am not switching to become vegan, just because a group of people considers it cruelty. I still love meat, but I treat animals with respect and morality because the y are providing the protein my body needs for survival. It is not admissible to cause animal’s unnecessary pain and suffering. I do not believe in the unethical treatment of animals, however I do believe in the ethical use of them.Confinement production of livestock and poultry has generated a major conflict between the meats, dairy, poultry industries, and reformist welfare and abolitionists animal rights group. They condemn and oppose factory farming because they view intensive production as inhumane, being carried out under unnatural conditions and causing suffering for the animal and poultry. Over the past 50 years, animal agriculture has increased from small family farms to large corporate factory farming systems.In these factory-farming systems, their main concern is increasing the profits margins at all costs and the process has devastating consequences for the animals. Farmed animals lead a life of misery from the moment they are born to when they are slaughtered. Eve ry day, everywhere across the globe, millions of these animals are mishandled, kept in confinement, mutilated as part of routine husbandry practices, and deprived of their basic physical and behavioral needs. In September of 1994, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) designated the National Farm Animals Awareness Week (Guither, pg. 1). They criticized the cruelty of the confinement housing of such animals and they asked consumers to â€Å"shop with compassion. † Bernard E. Rollin an American philosopher and currently a professor of philosophy, animal sciences, and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University urges the food animal producers and animal industry â€Å"not to resist and combat the new ethic for animals , for they will not win, but rather to appropriate it into their production systems with the help of research that acknowledges and respects the patent truth that animals can both suffer and be happy†(Guither, pg. 9). In the last two decades hu ndreds of thousands Americans have fight animal rights as part of a new, powerful and controversial social movement. All animal liberationists believe that the individual interests of non-human animals deserve recognition and protection, but the movement can be split into two broad camps. Animal rights advocates, or rights liberationists, believe that these basic interests confer moral rights of some kind on the animals, and/or ought to confer legal rights on them; for example, the work of Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer.They do not believe that animals possess moral rights, but argue, on utilitarian grounds (Utilitarianism in its simplest form advocating that we base moral decisions on the greatest happiness of the greatest number) that, because animals have the ability to suffer, their suffering must be taken into account in any moral philosophy (Isacat, 2008). Dr. David Nibert is a Professor of Sociology at the Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio. He teaches Animal s & Society, Global Change, Social Stratification, Minority Groups, and Law and Society.He is the author of Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Rowman/Littlefield). He conducted a survey among residents of Clark County, Ohio and found that support for animal rights is significantly related to seven of the eleven variables, suggesting the existence of an important link between one's disposition toward human and nonhuman animals. Five hundred and one residents of Clark County, Ohio, aged eighteen and older, responded to a telephone survey conducted April 16-18, 1993. This survey was designed to examine respondent’s opinions on several social issues.One of the questions was, â€Å"Some people say that animals have rights that people should respect. Would you agree or disagree? † They were also asked eleven questions adapted from the General Social Survey (Wood, 1990). Here are the results of the Nibert’s survey: â€Å"Of the 501 respondents, 246 (49. 1 %) were male and 255 (50. 9%) were female. 81 1 (20. 8%) were less than 30 years of age, 208 (41. 6%) were between 30 and 49 years old, and 184 (36. 8%) were over 50. 76 (15. 2%) had not graduated from high school, 277 (55. 3%) were high school graduates and 143 (29. %) were college graduates. The sample was predominantly white (461 or 92%) and married (334 or 66. 7%). In response to the animal rights question, 373 respondents (74. 5%) agreed, 84 (16. 8%) disagreed, 37 (7. 4%) were undecided and 7 (1. 4%) refused. For purposes of convenience, the respondents who agreed that animals have rights will be referred to as â€Å"animal rights supporters. † Examination of demographic variables reveals that age, sex, place of residence and religion were significantly related to support for animal rights.Younger people were more likely to support animal rights than older people, women more than men, and city residents more than those living in more rural areas of the county (Nibert 1994). † To summarize, Animal rights are a matter of personal choice. Every individual has a right to decide how he or she wants to treat others, including other species. Animals have been around on the earth for as long as humans have, if not longer. They play an important role in today's society whether or not we choose to admit it. To say that animals have rights is only to end the discussion before it starts.Animals will be animals and they will eat one another for the need of survival: that is a natural phenomenon. We can reduce some suffering by eliminating certain practices in certain areas, but this will not solve the problem. As explained above, we cannot humanely raise nine billion animals. Going vegan is the only solution. Also, keep in mind that some meat, eggs and dairy products are misleadingly marketed as â€Å"humane† but offer only marginal improvements over traditional factory farming. These animals are not raised humanely if they are in larger cages, or are taken out of cages only to live in overcrowded barns.And â€Å"humane slaughter† is an oxymoron. References Cavalieri, Paola. (2001) the animal question, why nonhuman animals deserve human rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Grillo, Alexander, (August 15, 2012), Five Reasons Why Meat-Eating Cannot Be Considered a ‘Personal Choice’ Free from Harm, Food and Psychology http://freefromharm. org/food-and-psychology/five-reasons-why-meat-eating-cannot-be-considered-a-personal-choice/ Guither, Harold D. (1998) Animal rights, History and scope of a radical social movement. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University PressIssitt, Micah & Newton, Heather (2011), p2-2, 1p – Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans. http://search. ebscohost. com. proxy. devry. edu/login. aspx? direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26608510&site=pov-live Rich, Alex & Wagner Geraldine (2011), p1-1, 1p Points of View: Animal Rights: An Overview. http://search. eb scohost. com. proxy. devry. edu/login. aspx? direct=true&db=pwh&AN=22827052&site=pov-live Thompson, Michael (2012) Why We Have Ethical Obligations to Animals: Animal Welfare and the Common Good more http://wpunj. academia. du/MichaelThompson/Papers/392701/Why_We_Have_Ethical_Obligations_to_Animals_Animal_Welfare_and_the_Common_Good April 12, 2011. American Humane Association hails ‘yes’ vote on humane standards for poultry in Washington http://www. americanhumane. org/animals/animal-welfare-news/american-humane-association-hails-yes-vote. html Report: Number of Animals Killed In US Increases in 2010 http://farmusa. org/statistics11. html Animal Rights and Human Social Issues David A. Nibert, Wittenberg University (1994) http://www. animalsandsociety. org/assets/library/283_s222. pdf

TIMEs Person of the Year Winners (1927-2017)

Since 1927, TIME Magazine has chosen a man, woman, or idea that for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year. Although TIMEs list is not an academic or objective study of the past, the list gives a contemporary view of what was important during each year. In 2018, TIME issued four separate covers, memorializing journalists who lost their lives in 2018. They are Jamal Khashoggi, Washington Post columnist;  staff members of the Capital Gazette newspaper; Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo; and Maria Ressa, journalist and founder of Rappler. TIMEs Person of the Year Winners 1927 Charles Augustus Lindbergh 1928 Walter P. Chrysler 1929 Owen D. Young 1930 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 1931 Pierre Laval 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1933 Hugh Samuel Johnson 1934 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1935 Haile Selassie 1936 Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson 1937 Generalissimo Mme Chiang Kai-Shek 1938 Adolf Hitler 1939 Joseph Stalin 1940 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill 1941 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1942 Joseph Stalin 1943 George Catlett Marshall 1944 Dwight David Eisenhower 1945 Harry Truman 1946 James F. Byrnes 1947 George Catlett Marshall 1948 Harry Truman 1949 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill 1950 American Fighting-Man 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh 1952 Elizabeth II 1953 Konrad Adenauer 1954 John Foster Dulles 1955 Harlow Herbert Curtice 1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter 1957 Nikita Krushchev 1958 Charles De Gaulle 1959 Dwight David Eisenhower 1960 U.S. Scientists 1961 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1962 Pope John XXIII 1963 Martin Luther King Jr. 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 1965 General William Childs Westmoreland 1966 Twenty-Five and Under 1967 Lyndon B. Johnson 1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell 1969 The Middle Americans 1970 Willy Brandt 1971 Richard Milhous Nixon 1972 Nixon and Kissinger 1973 John J. Sirica 1974 King Faisal 1975 American Women 1976 Jimmy Carter 1977 Anwar Sadat 1978 Teng Hsiao-P'ing 1979 Ayatullah Khomeini 1980 Ronald Reagan 1981 Lech Walesa 1982 The Computer 1983 Ronald Reagan Yuri Andropov 1984 Peter Ueberroth 1985 Deng Xiaoping 1986 Corazon Aquino 1987 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev 1988 Endangered Earth 1989 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev 1990 The Two George Bushes 1991 Ted Turner 1992 Bill Clinton 1993 The Peacemakers 1994 Pope John Paul II 1995 Newt Gingrich 1996 Dr. David Ho 1997 Andy Grove 1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr 1999 Jeff Bezos 2000 George W. Bush 2001 Rudolph Giuliani 2002 The Whistleblowers 2003 The American Soldier 2004 George W. Bush 2005 Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, Bono 2006 You 2007 Vladimir Putin 2008 Barack Obama 2009 Ben Bernanke 2010 Mark Zuckerberg 2011 The Protester 2012 Barack Obama 2013 Pope Francis 2014 Ebola Fighters 2015 Angela Merkel 2016 Donald Trump 2017 The Silence Breakers 2018 The Guardians and the War on Truth Person of the Year Fast Facts Charles Lindbergh  (1927) was the first and youngest person to receive the distinction at 25 years old.Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson, the woman whom English  King Edward VIII abdicated  in order to marry, was the first woman to receive the honor (1936).Although a number of people have received the honor twice,  U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt  is the only person to have been named three times: 1932, 1934, and 1941.Adolf Hitler, the murderous leader of Nazi Germany, received the honor in 1938—before he started  World War II. Hitlers  TIME  cover, however, shows him with dead bodies hanging above him.Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who was a U.S. ally during World War II, but who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of approximately 20 to 60 million of his own people, was awarded the honor twice.A whole generation was named in 1966: Twenty-five and Under.In 1982, the computer became the first object ever to receive the distinction.There are several year s where large groups of people were nominated: the American Fighting-Man (1950), the Hungarian Freedom Fighter (1956), U.S. Scientists (1960), Twenty-Five and Under (1966), the Middle Americans (1968), and American Women (1975).The winner in 2006 was even more unusual. The winner was you. This choice was meant to draw attention to the impact of the world wide web, which had made each of our contributions both relevant and important.