Explain why Simmias and Cebes are so afraid of death in the phaedo, Essay

Explain why Simmias and Cebes are so afraid of death in the phaedo, whereas Socrates is not. Does Socrates' explanation convince you, or are you, like simmias a - Essay Example Socrates unequivocally asserts that any true philosopher â€Å"will be willing to die† (6). He is convinced that a better life awaits him. Death, as the harbinger of â€Å"the greatest good† (8), is something the true philosopher desires and pursues. Death may be defined as â€Å"the separation of the soul and body† (8). The philosopher is a seeker of truth and lover of wisdom, who pursues the essence of the knowledge of existence. In this pursuit, the body, with its’ lusts, sensual pleasures and physical needs, is â€Å"only a disturbing element, hindering the soul from the acquisition of knowledge† (10). Therefore, the philosopher desires death, which will release â€Å"the soul from the chains of the body† (11) and free the soul to attain the truth. His desire for the truth will be satisfied only by the separation of the soul from the body – that is, by death – which is the purification of the soul. Death is the philosopherâ €™s means to gain wisdom, while the body is his â€Å"enemy† (11). Socrates fearlessly and eagerly anticipates death and is ready â€Å"to depart with joy† (11) from this world. Cebes and Simmias acknowledge the truth of Socrates’ word, but continue to fear death, as they are afraid that the soul â€Å"may be destroyed and perish† (12) when she leaves the body, â€Å"vanishing into nothingness† after death. Socrates allays their fears by convincing them of the immortality of the soul. The accepted belief that â€Å"the living spring from the dead† (15) presupposes the prior existence of the soul, in another world, before it assumes human form. As recollection is an essential part of knowledge, this recollection is obviously gained by the intelligent souls’ existence in another place. The rebirth of the soul is proof of the souls’ immortality, as â€Å"everything living is born of the dead† (19). Once it is accepted that the soul is invisible,

Consumer Mathmatics and Statistics Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Consumer Mathmatics and Statistics - Assignment Example On the first look, we may say that the claim would be true and we are more likely to believe on it. But, we should also consider that the researcher is implying a connection between Vitamin E being an antioxidant and that it may help fight cancer and heart disease. That is a faulty connection. Noticeably, the use of the word â€Å"might† reduces the ability of the claim to be a 100% true. For we know, using words such as â€Å"may† or â€Å"might†, does not guarantee or assure us that a result will always follow. The researcher has not established a correction connection, thus, used the statistics incorrectly, specifically implied connection mistake was committed (Statistics, nd). To address the problem, the researcher must avoid using words that would suggest a doubt to the readers. Another misuse of statistics is called suspect samples. To illustrate this, let us consider a statement made by an author in a recent article, claiming that 71% of adults do not use sunscreen. Determining the correct sample size and correct sampling method is one of the crucial parts of doing statistics. The previous statement is quite misleading since the sample used was not declared or where did the sample has came from was not stated. If these 71% of the adults are from the North Pole, which there is no enough sunlight for nearly four months, then that would be true. However, the conclusion would not be correct since those adults do not represent the whole number of adults in the US or in the world. Or, if the samples were from countries like Saudi Arabia, the Middle East or regions experiencing a hot climate and direct sunlight, the results would have been different. That is, we can conclude that most adults are using sunscreen. In eliminating the mistake, the researcher should present a data or report that the readers can conclude that the samples are really representative of the population being studied, or indicate a reliable source of the information

Engine Failure Of Flight 191 Engineering Essay

Engine Failure Of Flight 191 Engineering Essay The loss of the engine by itself should not have been enough to cause the accident.[12] Flight 191 would have been perfectly capable of returning to the airport using its remaining two engines, as the DC-10 is capable of staying airborne with any single engine out of operation. However, several other factors combined to cause a catastrophic loss of control. The engine separation had severed the hydraulic lines that controlled the aircrafts leading-edge wing slats (retractable devices that decrease a wings stall speed during takeoff and landing). The damage to the lines caused a loss of hydraulic pressure, which in turn led to uncommanded retraction of the outboard slats in the left wing.[1] Unlike other aircraft designs, the DC-10 did not include a separate mechanism to lock the slats in place.[1] Investigators examined the flight data recorder (FDR) and conducted wind tunnel tests and flight simulator tests to understand the trajectory of flight 191 after the engine detached and the slats retracted. These tests established that the damage to the wing leading edge and retraction of the slats increased the stall speed of the left wing from 124kt to 159kt.[1] Comparison of the FDR data and the simulator tests showed that the pilots of flight 191 had followed the procedure for engine failure at take-off. This procedure called for the captain to go to VHYPERLINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_Speeds#Other_reference_speeds2 (standard safety takeoff speed) which for flight 191 was 153kt, 6kt below the stall speed.[1] At the time the engine fell off the aircraft, flight 191 was already travelling at 165kt, safely above the stall speed. Thus, by slowing the aircraft to 153kt in accordance with the emergency procedure, the pilots inadvertently induced the stall which proved fatal. Following this accident, McDonnell Douglas revised the procedure, advising that if the aircraft was already flying faster than V2 plus 10kt the pilots should maintain a margin of 10kt above V2.[1] The DC-10 incorporates two warning devices which might have alerted the pilots to the impending stall: the slat disagreement warning light which should have illuminated after the uncommanded retraction of the slats, and the stall warning system (stick-shaker) which activates close to the stall speed. Unfortunately, both of these warning devices were powered by an electric generator driven by the no. 1 engine; following the loss of that engine, they both became inoperative.[1] [edit] Engine separation An FAA diagram of the DC-10 engine and pylon assembly indicating the failed aft pylon attach fitting. From an examinaton of the detached engine, the NTSB concluded that the pylon attachment had been damaged before the crash.[1] Investigators looked at the planes maintenance history and found that its most recent service was eight weeks before the crash, in which engine number one had been removed from the aircraft, however the pylon, the rigging holding the engine onto the wing, had been damaged during the procedure. The original procedure called for removal of the engine prior to the removal of the engine pylon, but American Airlines had begun to use a procedure that saved approximately 200 man-hours per aircraft and more importantly from a safety standpoint, it would reduce the number of disconnects (i.e., hydraulic and fuel lines, electrical cables, and wiring) from 72 to 27.[1] The new procedure involved mechanics removing the engine with the pylon as one unit, rather than the engine, and then the pylon. A large forklift was used to support the engine while it was being detached from the wing a procedure that was found to be extremelly difficult to execute successfully, due to difficulties with holding the engine assembly straight while it was being removed. The field service representative from the manufacturer, McDonnell-Douglas, said it would not encourage this procedure due to the element of risk and had so advised American. However, McDonnell-Douglas does not have the authority to either approve or disapprove the maintenance procedures of its customers.[1] The accident investigation also concluded that the design of the pylon and adjacent surfaces made the parts difficult to service and prone to damage by maintenance crews. The NTSB reported that there were two different approaches to the one-step procedure: using an overhead hoist or using a forklift. United Airlines used a hoist; American and Continental Airlines used a forklift. According to the NTSB, all the cases wherein impact damage was sustained and cracks found involved the use of the forklift.[1] Under the procedure American used, if the forklift was in the wrong position, the engine would rock like a see-saw and jam against the pylon attachment points. The forklift operator was guided by hand and voice signals; the position had to be spot-on or could cause damage. Management was aware of this. The modification to the aircraft involved in Flight 191 did not go smoothly. Engineers started to disconnect the engine and pylon, but changed shift halfway through. When work continued, the pylon was jammed on the wing and the forklift had to be repositioned. This was important evidence because, in order to disconnect the pylon from the wing, a bolt had to be removed so that the flange could strike the clevis. The procedure used caused an indentation that damaged the clevis pin assembly and created an indentation in the housing of the self-aligning bearing, which in turn weakened the structure sufficiently to cause a small stress fracture. The fracture went unnoticed for several fligh ts, getting worse with each flight. During Flight 191s takeoff, enough force was generated to finally cause the pylon to fail. At the point of rotation, the engine detached and was flipped over the top of the wing. [edit] Conclusion The findings of the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were released on December 21, 1979:[1] The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the asymmetrical stall and the ensuing roll of the aircraft because of the uncommanded retraction of the left wing outboard leading edge slats and the loss of stall warning and slat disagreement indication systems resulting from maintenance-induced damage leading to the separation of the No. 1 engine and pylon assembly at a critical point during takeoff. The separation resulted from damage by improper maintenance procedures which led to failure of the pylon structure. Contributing to the-cause of the accident were the vulnerability of the design of the pylon attach points to maintenance damage; the vulnerability of the design of the leading edge slat system to the damage which produced asymmetry; deficiencies in Federal Aviation Administration surveillance and reporting systems which failed to detect and prevent the use of improper maintenance procedures; deficiencies in the practices and communications among the operators, the manufacturer, and the FAA which failed to determine and disseminate the particulars regarding previous maintenance damage incidents; and the intolerance of prescribed operational procedures to this unique emergency. The NTSB determined that the damage to the left wing engine pylon had occurred during an earlier engine change at the American Airlines aircraft maintenance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma on March 29 and 30, 1979.[1] The evidence came from the flange, a critical part of the pylon assembly. [edit] Aftermath First responders survey the Flight 191 crash site in Des Plaines, Illinois. Problems with DC-10s were discovered as a cause of the accident, including deficiencies in both design specifications and maintenance procedures which made damage very likely. In response to this incident, American Airlines was fined by the United States government $500,000 for improper maintenance procedures[12]. Two weeks after the accident, on June 6, the FAA ordered all DC-10s to be grounded until all problems were solved. The ban was lifted on July 13.[13] The crash of another DC-10 in November 1979, Air New Zealand Flight 901, would only add to the DC-10s negative reputation at the time however, Flight 901 was caused by several human and environmental factors not related to the airworthiness of the DC-10, and the aircraft was later completely exonerated in that accident. Although McDonnell Douglas employees participated in an Im proud of the DC-10 campaign, the companys shares fell more than 20% following the crash of Flight 191. In 1997, the McDonnell Douglas company was taken over by its rival, Boeing. Despite the safety concerns, the DC-10 went on to outsell its closest competitor, the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, by nearly 2 to 1. This was due to the L-1011s launch being delayed, the introduction of the DC-10-30 long range model without a competing TriStar variant, and the DC-10 having a greater choice of engines (the L-1011 was only available with Rolls-Royce engines, while the DC-10 could be ordered with General Electric or Pratt HYPERLINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt__WhitneyHYPERLINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt__Whitney Whitney engines). The DC-10 program also benefited from obtaining a U.S. Air Force contract to develop a long-range refueller, which culminated in the KC-10 Extender. Lockheed had no such support for the TriStar, and halted production in 1982. NTSB investigation The crash of flight 191 brought fierce criticism from the media because it was the fourth fatal accident involving a DC-10 at the time. Six hundred and twenty-two people had died in DC-10 accidents, including flight 191. As the weather was perfect for flying and there was no indication that a flock of birds or another plane caused the crash, the remains of engine #1 raised serious concerns of the safety of the DC-10. The separated engine was not the only concern, as the public wanted to know whether the detached engine was the only cause of the crash. Investigators wondered if a fire was possibly the cause, as this was backed up by testimony from air traffic controller Ed Rucker who said he saw a flash from the wing. This raised concerns that 191 was the result of a terrorist attack. Sixty witnesses who saw the plane on the runway ruled out a bomb, as they all saw engine #1 swing forward then flip up and over the top of the wing, which pointed to structural failure as the cause. The findings of the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were released on December 21, 1979. It revealed the probable cause to be attributable to damage to the left wing engine pylon that occurred during an earlier engine change at American Airliness aircraft maintenance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma on March 29 and 30, 1979. cite web |url=http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR79-17.pdf |title=NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) Report] Evidence came from the flange, a critical part of the pylon assembly. It was revealed to be damaged before the crash, and investigators looked at the planes maintenance history and found it was serviced eight weeks before the crash. The pylon was damaged due to an ill-thought-out engine removal procedure. The original procedure called for removal of the engine prior to the removal of the engine pylon. To save time and costs, American Airlines, without the approval of McDonnell Douglas, had begun to use a faste r procedure. They instructed their mechanics to remove the engine with the pylon all together as one unit. A large forklift was used to support the engine while it was being detached from the wing. This procedure was extremely difficult to execute successfully, due to difficulties with holding the engine assembly straight while it was being removed. This method of engine-pylon removal was used to save man hours and was encouraged despite differences with the manufacturers specifications on how the procedure was supposed to be performed. The accident investigation also concluded that the design of the pylon and adjacent surfaces made the parts difficult to service and prone to damage by maintenance crews. According to the History Channel,cite video title = The Crash of Flight 191 url = http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71451 publisher = The History Channel publisherid = AAE-71451 medium = DVD] United Airlines and Continental Airlines were also using a one-step procedure. After the accident, cracks were found in the bulkheads of DC-10s in both fleets. The procedure used for maintenance did not proceed smoothly. If the forklift was in the wrong position, the engine would rock like a see-saw and jam against the pylon attachment points. The forklift operator was guided by hand and voice signals; the position had to be spot-on or could cause damage, but management was unaware of this. The modification to the aircraft involved in flight 191 did not go smoothly; engineers started to disconnect the engine and pylon but changed shift halfway through; when work continued, the pylon was jammed on the wing and the forklift had to be re-positioned. This was important evidence because, in order to disconnect the pylon from the wing, a bolt had to be removed so that the flange could strike the clevis. The procedure used caused an indentation that damaged the clevis pin assembly and created an indentation in the housing of the self-aligning bearing, which in turn weakened the structure sufficiently to cause a small stress fracture. The fracture went unnoticed for several flights, getting worse with each flight that the plane had taken. During flight 191s takeoff, enough force was generated to finally cause the pylon to fail. At the point of rotation, the engine detached and was flipped over the top of the wing. The loss of the engine by itself should not have been enough to cause the accident. During an interview on Seconds From Disaster, Former NTSB investigator Michael Marx mentioned there were other incidents where the engine fell off, yet they landed without incident. Flight 191 would have been perfectly capable of returning to the airport using its remaining two engines, as the DC-10 is capable of staying airborne with any single engine out of operation. Unfortunately, several other factors combined to cause a catastrophic loss of control. The separation of the engine severed electrical wiring and hydraulic lines which were routed through the leading edge of the wing. The damage to the lines caused a loss of hydraulic pressure, which in turn led to uncommanded retraction of the outboard slats in the port wing. The DC-10 design included a back-up hydraulic system which should have been enough to keep the slats in place; however, both lines are too close together, a design also used on the DC-9. There should have been enough fluid to keep the slats extended, so investigators wanted to know why they were never re-extended by the pilot. The answer came from the end of the recording on the CVR. The number 1 engine powered both the recorder and the slat warning system, which left the pilot and co-pilot with no way of knowing about the position of the slats. Investigators examined the FDR to see what occurred after the engine detached. The procedure called for the captain to go to V2 which he did perfectly, but investigators found that it said nothing about incidents where the speed was already above V2, as it was in this case. Therefore, the pilot had to reduce speed. Simulator tests were done to see if this made a difference; 13 pilots followed the procedure 70 times and not one was able to recover. The NTSB concluded that reducing speed when the slats are back may actually have made it more difficult for the pilot to recover control of the aircraft. When a DC-10 is about to stall it gives two warnings: The first is the stick-shaker which causes the yoke to vibrate, and the second is a warning light that flashes. These combined warnings should have alerted the pilots to increase speed immediately. American Airlines had chosen to have the stick-shaker on the pilots side only, but the stick-shaker did not operate because it was powered by the missing left engine. In the event of an engine failure, it is possible for the flight engineer to switch the pilots controls to a backup power supply. However, inv estigators determined that in order for him to access the necessary switch, the engineer would have had to unfasten his seat belt, stand up, and turn around. The DC-10 hit the ground with a bank of 112ÂÂ °, and at a nose-down attitude of 21ÂÂ °. The NTSB concluded that given the circumstances of the situation, the pilots could not be reasonably blamed for the resulting accident. In his book Blind Trust, [cite book | title = Blind Trust | last=Nance | first=John J. | authorlink=John J. Nance | publisher = William Morrow Co | isbn = 0-688-05360-2 | year = 1987] John J. Nance argues that the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act caused havoc and induced cost-cutting in the industry, producing a serious erosion of the margin of safety for passengers. Nance argues that the industry reverted from an industry under partial surveillance to an industry running on the honor system. Aftermath Problems with DC-10s were discovered as a cause of the accident, including deficiencies in both design specifications and maintenance procedures which made damage very likely. Since the crash happened just before a Western Airlines DC-10 crashed in Mexico City and five years after a Turkish Airlines DC-10 crashed near Paris, the FAA quickly ordered all DC-10s to be grounded until all problems were solved. The result of the problem-solving was an arguably more efficient and safe DC-10. The US government fined American Airlines $500,000 for improper maintenance procedures, but the insurance settlement for the replacement of the aircraft gave American Airlines $25,000,000 beyond the amount of the fine.Fact|date=June 2007 Although the companys employees participated in an Im proud of the DC-10 campaign, McDonnell Douglas shares fell more than 20% following the crash of Flight 191. The DC-10 itself had a bad reputation, but ironically it was often caused by poor maintenance procedures, and not design flaw. In 1997 the McDonnell Douglas company was taken over by its rival, Boeing, which moved its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Despite the safety concerns, the DC-10 went on to outsell its closest competitor, the Lockheed L-1011, by nearly 2 to 1. This was due to the L-1011s launch being delayed and the DC-10 having a greater choice of engines (the L-1011 was only available with Rolls-Royce engines, while the DC-10 could be ordered with General Electric or Pratt Whitney engines).

The Life Of Walt Disney & The Grimm Brothers Essay -- essays research

Walt Disney and Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm Walt Disney and the Grimm Brothers used their talents, and, with help, became some of the most famous children’s literature writers and business owners of all time. Many children have read Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales and watched Walt Disney’s films and cartoons. The creators have used their tales, films, and cartoons not only during their lives, but even now. Walter Elias Disney was born on December 5, 1901 to a German-Irish-Canadian-American family who lived in Chicago, Illinois. He had three brothers and one sister. His mother was a German-American woman named Flora Call Disney. His father was an Irish-Canadian man named Elias Disney (Encarta Encyclopedia 2). After a few years, Elias Disney moved his family to a farm near Marceline, Missouri. This was when Walt started taking an interest in drawing and developed a love for animals. He sold his first sketches to some of his neighbors when he was seven years old (Encarta Encyclopedia 2). Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm in Hanau, Germany. Jacob was born on January 4, 1785 and Wilhelm on February 24, 1786. Their parents were Philipp Wilhelm Grimm and Dorothea Grimm. Philipp and Dorothea had nine children together. In 1971, the Grimm family moved to Steinau. Five years later, in 1976, Philipp Wilhelm Grimm died at the age of 44. At this time, Jacob was eleven years old and Wilhelm was about to be ten (Grimm Brothers’ Home Page 1). In 1910, the Disney family moved to Kansas City. Walt helped his father’s newspaper distribution business by delivering newspapers. â€Å"Walt attended Benton School, and occasionally surprised his teachers with his talent for drawing and acting. (Disney A to Z, 143)† The family moved back to Chicago where Disney would attend McKinley High School for one year. During this time, he worked on the school newspaper doing drawing and photography. He also attended the Academy of Fine Arts at night (Disney A to Z 143). The Grimm Brothers’ first school was called Lyceum Fridericianum in Cassel, Germany. The school had seven different classes and was used to prepare people for college. â€Å"The four upper served to prepare for the university while pupils of the three lower ones did not aim at further academic studies. Unfortunately, Preceptor Zinckhan’s lessons had not been enough for Jacob and Wilhelm. Jacob was admitted to the lowest form only while... ... company when Frank Wells died. (Encarta Encyclopedia 4) The Grimm Brothers’ folktales are still read by little children today. And without some help from Walt Disney, some tales may have never been heard of. Some of their most famous tales are Snow White, Cinderella, Rumpelstiltskin, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, and many other tales. Walt Disney’s has had and still is having a large effect on television and writing today. He has made very memorable films. Many people will remember this 20th century folk hero and legend for many years to come. Both the Grimm Brothers’ and Walt Disney were very talented. They both have given people many different stories and have taught many lessons in their stories. They will always be remembered in history. Works Cited Ashliman, D.L. Grimm Brothers’ Home Page. 28 Jan. 2001 http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm.html Grant, John Walt Disney’s Animated Characters Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited Michaelis-Jena, Ruth The Brothers Grimm New York Washington: Praegar Publishers, 1970 Smith, Dave Disney A to Z New York: Hyperion 1998 â€Å"Walt Disney Company, The† Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. 2000 ed. Redmond: Microsoft, 2000

Cyber Bullying Essay

I watched a close friend of mine in high school become the victim of cyber bullying. She slowly started drifting from her friends, her family and other people close to her. She changed the way she looked at herself, other people, and the overall world. Depression is one of the largest known symptoms or effects of bullying in general. Some other effects could be the idea of low self-esteem, along with self-worth. The idea of having no trust in other people, or the world is another common symptom. Many people say that there are not immediate or long term effects to cyber bullying, but I argue that cyber bullying has immediate effects which some can be long term, and in extreme cases life altering. One person could end up changing someone else’s life forever due to say one text message, tweet, or Facebook post. The real question is, were the kids of the days of face to face bullying better off than the kids of our age, the age of cyber bullying? Depression, takes a toll on everyo ne’s life in all different aspects. Depression affects your mental health. The thoughts are always putting you down, which will in turn affect your self-worth. When people are always putting you down, saying you’re not good enough for other people, or yourself. Depression may be one of the most severe effects of cyber bullying; it can turn into something much more serious, such as suicide. People don’t always realize how much they can hurt another person with just actions or words. Cyber bullying, in my opinion could be much worse than just face-to-face bullying. At least, when bullying could only occur face to face, you were safe in your own home, away from your personal bully. Now within the age of cyber bullying, someone could continue to harass you even once you’re away from them. Which I feel adds to the victim of the cyber bullying’s affects. Your self-worth is very important to a person, and when you’re being talked down to, on a daily basis, you become a â€Å"self-fulfilling prophecy†. When this happens, you begin to believe all the things people are telling you, you become the person they were telling you are, even when you truly aren’t. The idea of not trusting being able to trust other people, along with people you’re close to in life, is a sad idea. You should be able to trust people in your life, people you’re with every day. When you’re unable to trust the people in your life, you begin to revert into yourself. Reverting into yourself is the idea of not being able to tell anyone else the way you’re feeling or your thoughts. Along with this idea comes a sense  of being overwhelmed to a breaking point. Being this overwhelmed in life is unhealthy, for your social health. Your social heath may not seem like an important aspect of health, but it tends to be, although it isn’t as important to some people as it is to others. Some people need to be very social, and need to be around other people. Other people don’t n eed that constant sense of company. For the person who needs that constant self of company, this is a lot more dangerous because if their social health becomes damaged enough, their mental health will also become damaged, which in an extreme case could lead to depression. Also, not being able to trust anyone around you, could turn into a question of self-trust, because you being to question your own judgment with who you choose to give your trust to. One example of cyber bullying and its effects is an ABC Family Original Movie, Cyberbully. Taylor (Emily Osment) is a high school student who finds herself as a target of cyber bullying surprisingly, by her fellow students on a popular social networking website, Cliquesters. After Taylor’s little brother hacks her account and writes an abusive status that gets her classmates to start posting insulting comments, calling her a â€Å"slut† and a â€Å"whore. After Taylor finds out what her classmates think of her, she doesn’t want to go to school anymore from the very beginning of her cyber bullying. As the rumors and bullying get worse, Taylor’s friends turn against her. Now, Taylor is without any friends; feels alone and worthless. At this point, she wants to commit suicide, an d continues to make an attempt. Once Taylor posts the suicide video, her best friend comes to be by her side and help her. Once her best friend gets there, Taylor was struggling to open the pill bottle. Realizing her best friend came to be by her side, she noticed she isn’t alone. After taking anti-depressants and having one on ones with her doctor, along some of her treatments, her doctor recommends Taylor to attend a teen therapy support group. Surprisingly, the recommended support group truly does help her. After the support groups, she felt somewhat better but she will never completely heal from cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is always there and will never completely go away. As in the movie, cyber bullying isn’t only lasting during the incidents; it’s a life-long issue. The victim will always live with the effects of their in a sense, torture. Most people assume bullying is a once in a life time experience, that it’s only lasting while the person is living through it,  this isn’t true. Especially with cyber bullying, it stays on the internet forever. Regardless, if someone deletes the pictures, the comments, the posts, it stays there forever, in the history of the internet. It’s always in the back of the person’s mind that these things are out there, for everyone to see. I personally believe that the â€Å"old days† of bullying were less psychologically damaging. Of course, every person who is a victim of any sense of bullying will always suffer from their experience. The old face-to-face bullying isn’t out there to be viewed day to day for the rest of the existence of the internet like the new online bullying. Once your face-to-face bullying incident is over, and you leave your attacker, it’s over with for that day. There won’t be any reliving this exact experience once you’re in the safety of your own home. Whereas, with cyber bullying, even though the person may not want to, they will tend to look back at the posts, comments and pictures, to see how many people have viewed this specific incident over and over again. With every view, like, and extra comment this specific thing digs deeper and deeper into the victim, it’s not becoming more public, more and more by the second. Which do you think is worse, experiencing it face to face, or your embarrassment being public to every person who has access to the internet? According to the New York Times, an innocent twelve year old took her life due to cyber bullying a long with physical abuse. Due to social networking, such as Kik Messenger and ask.fm caused Rebecca Sedwick to lose her self-esteem and most importantly, she lost herself. She was told to â€Å"drink some bleach and die† and â€Å"go kill yourself†. One of her bullies turned all of her friends against her so she had no one to either lean on, cry to nor talk to; this is what made her realize she was all alone and she started to hate herself (www.nytimes.com). Rebecca isn’t the only girl who this has happened to. Some statistics show that over twenty five percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through their cell phones or the Internet and over half of young people do not tell their parents when cyber bullying transpires (www.bullyingstatistics .org). Rebecca was somewhat smart, she told her parents what was going on online and through text messaging but her parents help, wasn’t good enough. Cyber bullying is definitely worse than regular bullying. When someone gets  bullied, the victim can run to their home or to a safe place; in cyber space, that safe place doesn’t exist. In England, a survey was taken with children of ages between eleven and nineteen, statistics show that twenty three percent of girls and fifteen percent of boys have been a victim of cyber bullying while six percent of girls and eight percent of boys have admitted that they cyber bullied others. Thirty one percent of girls and twenty percent of boys have witnessed cyber bullying but did nothing about it. Fifty four percent of girls and thirty percent of boys admitted they have known someone who has been a victim while thirty three percent of girls and fifteen percent of boys also admitted they knew someone who has cyber bullied. Shockingly, thirty percent of girls and forty eight percent of boys have never experienced cyber bullying (O’Brien, 6). This survey was taken in 2006; you can only imagine how much the numbers could have possibly changed to 2013. Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be cyber bullied? I always wondered what it would feel like to not have a safe place to be until the middle of my freshman year; I became a victim of cyber bullying. It was the worst experience of my life and I’m still scared to post things on social media. Nothing is worse than feeling alone and empty. When I was a freshman in high school, a website called formspring.me became popular. Formspring.me is a website where anyone with an account can ask people questions anonymously. Most people on this website can be extremely personal, abusive, and cruel. While surprisingly, others can be helpful. I know I’ve made mistakes in my life, everyone has, but I was viciously attacked online to where I would cry every night. I was told to â€Å"go die, no one would actually care† or â€Å"please kill yourself†. Most of my messages were mostly the same and I was so unsure as to what to do with myself. I was bullied in school and online and I had no place to feel safe. I figured no one wanted me to be around, and everyone else’s life wouldn’t be any different if I wasn’t around. I felt this way until my cousin came to my house to talk to me. She made me feel like I was loved and not alone; she later brought in my entire family where I started to feel I used to before I was a victim. My family made me feel that I have a purpose in life and I was brought into this world for a reason. I am definitely not the same person I was. Even though cyber bullying is a vicious form of mental abuse, I believe it has made me a better person, stronger. Many people claim that cyber bullying isn’t as bad of an issue as old fashioned face to face bullying, that there are no long lasting effects, that the person doesn’t suffer as much. That’s wrong, cyber bullying is in reality worse than old fashioned face to face bullying. The person, (victim) can’t get away, they’re harassment is always there, always lurking waiting for the computer to be turned on, or social media to be checked on the smart phone. Cyber bullying doesn’t end, it stays on the internet forever, it’s there for other people to always see. Victims of cyber bullying tend to commit more suicide, suffer from long term depression, and socially isolate themselves more frequently than the victims of physical (face to face) bullying do. In conclusion, cyber bullying affects a person much more detrimentally than physical bullying will. With cyber bullying the harsh words of the person are always there to be viewed, not only by the person being put down. Anyone with access to the internet has access to the downgrading things being said to this person. The suicide thoughts and reminders of the degradement are always there for the person to look back on, which in turn, makes the person agree with what’s being said about them. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and the person now feels that that’s the way they feel, they become what is being said about them. The effects of bullying only last as long as the reminders, and with cyber bullying, they never go away. Works Cited Alvarez, Lizette. â€Å"Felony Counts for 2 in Suicide of Bullied 12-Year-Old.† New York Times. N.p., 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. . â€Å"Cyber Bullying Statistics.† Bullying Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. . O’Brien, Niamh, and Tina Moules. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development. London:

Acc349 Reflection Summary

Weekly Summary Love accounting! Another great week with lots of much needed information to grasp. One advantage of Activity-Based Costing system is it has more accurate overhead cost allocation because there are more cost pools, the costs in each pool are more similar, and allocation is based on activities that cause overhead costs. It is more effective overhead cost control by focusing on processes or activities and focuses on relevant factors by assigning costs to any cost object that is of interest to management.Lastly, it allows better management of activities by helping managers identify the causes of costs and the activities driving them. The disadvantages of Activity-Based Costing are its cost to implement and maintain ABC requires management commitment and financial resources and its uncertainty with decisions remain and management must interpret ABC data with caution in making managerial decisions.Cost drivers are selected based on the casual relation, benefits received and reasonableness or fairness. Most of the cost drivers are related either to the volume of production or to the complexity of the production or marketing process. An overhead rate is calculated for each cost pool using the following formula: Costs in activity cost pool/base. The base is, of course, the cost driver. Overhead costs are then allocated to each product according to how much of each base the product uses.Activity-based costing allocates overhead to multiple activity cost pools and assigns the activity cost pools to products and services by means of cost drivers. In ABC, an activity is any event, action, transaction, or work sequence that causes the incurrence of cost in producing a product or providing a service. A cost driver is any factor or activity that has a direct cause-effect relationship with the resources consumed.