Comparing the Mesopotamia and Egypt River Valleys Essay Example for Free

Comparing the Mesopotamia and Egypt River Valleys Essay Though Egypt and Mesopotamia were both river valleys they have a lot of differences, but some similarities. Such as they have very different social and political views while the two river valleys had a quite a bit of similarities when it came to religion. The difference between the two valleys social views were that in Egypt women were treated with respect and as equals where in Mesopotamia women were treated like property and didn’t have the same privileges as men. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia based their social culture through religion, but the Mesopotamians believed that the gods punished them for their wrong doings and that’s why the river flooded unpredictably giving them a pessimistic view of the gods and eternal life. The people of Egypt didn’t fear the gods because the world was always good to them by the river always flooding at the same time of year helping the soil be good for their agriculture which gave them a more cheerful and hopeful outlook of the world and the gods they worshiped. The main difference between the two valleys socially were that in Egypt it was more of a positive and well being environment, while in Mesopotamia the atmosphere was very unequal between genders and they were never happy because the gods were never happy with them. Egypt and Mesopotamia had different ways of politics since Mesopotamia was a democracy it had a king who claimed to be patron deity and who controlled the affairs of the walled city and surrounding rural area. In Egypt they had a centralized government which means the pharaoh was treated like a king, but everyone below him was fairly equal (even the women, though they were still slightly below the men). The main difference between the two valleys politically is that Mesopotamia had a king that made the rules and was the one in charge of everything while in Egypt the Pharaoh was like a king except the people below him had a voice and were treated more equally. Religion is very similar in Mesopotamia and Egypt by both being polytheistic and the fact that the king/Pharaoh was supposively the closest to god in the valley, the king/Pharaoh would have many sacrifices when something bad happened. They also had animism and used carvings, drawings, and statues to show their beliefs towards the gods. And though their gods were not the same the views of the afterlife and beliefs were very similar. The main similarities between the two valleys religion was they’re both polytheistic and that their beliefs were very similar towards the gods and the afterlife. In conclusion the two main differences were social and political views when it came to gender equality, classes (rank), and the way the gods treated the people. The main similarity was religion in the way they showed their beliefs in gods and what would happen when they do wrong things and when they die.

PRACTICAL REPORT ON THE ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF CODEINE AND PARACETAMOL Essay Example for Free

PRACTICAL REPORT ON THE ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF CODEINE AND PARACETAMOL Essay Codeine or methyl morphine, an alkaloid, was first isolated in 1832 from raw opium. It concentration ranges from 0.2% to 0.8%. Mostly used for its analgesic, anti-tussive and anti-diarrheal capabilities (Tremlett, Anderson and Wolf, 2010). Paracetamol also known as acetaminophen (n-acetyl-p-aminophenol, APAP) on the other hand, is a useful non- steroidal anti- inflammatory drug (NSAID). It is commonly used in the management of pain and fever in a variety of patients (Kamberi, et al., 2004). Fig 1: Codeine[NCBI, 2009] Fig 2: Acetaminophen[NCBI, 2009] One of the technique involved in the extraction of codeine and paracetamol from its matrix, is the solvent extraction otherwise known as liquid – liquid extraction. This process entails the use of two immiscible liquids usually chloroform and water; in dissolving the sample for two distinctive layers to form after the mixture had been thoroughly shaken together (Rubinson and Rubinson, 1998). Separating the components of the extract, is done through the use of Thin Layer Chromatography. It is one of the standard procedures used in many forensic laboratory when analysizing unknown drugs or mixtures (Howlett and Steiner, 2011). Separation of the mixtures occur based on the pH, polarity of its components, solvent and the thin layer stationary phase (Howlett and Steiner, 2011). METHODS: The finely divided sample was dissolved in 20ml of distilled water. This was then basified with NaOH solution to pH 12 using litmus paper. The resulting solution was later filtered. 1.0ml of chloroform was pipetted into the filtrate. After shaken and combined, two distinctive layers was observed. The bottom layer was extracted thrice using a micro- pipette. On a thin chromatography plate, five spots were placed ( as shown in table 2) and the  plate was developed using chloroform/methanol. This was later visualized with dragendorff’s reagent under the UV light. All separated components were observed, identified and recorded. RESULTS: Table of observed pH SOLUTIONInitial pHFinal pH Basified sample1012 TABLE 1 Table of Retention factor (RF value) Rf = Distance travelled by the substance (cm) Distance travelled by the solvent (cm) SUBSTANCEDistance travelled by substance (cm)Distance travelled by Solvent (cm)Retention factor value (Rf) Chloroform extract3.04.00.75 Codeine positive control3.04.00.75 Paracetamol positive control4.04.01.00 Chloroform (negative control) 3.54.00.86 Diluted sample4.04.01.00 TABLE 2 DIAGRAM: Fig 3: The Developed Chromatographic Plate. DISCUSSION: Running the chloroform extracts and diluted sample together with two positive controls and a negative control on a single chromatographic plate simultaneously, the retention factor(Rf) of five different samples were determined. The RF value of the chloroform extract(0.75) tallied with that of the codeine positive control and that of diluted sample(1.00) with the paracetamol positive control. This tentatively shows that, codeine and paracetamol were present in the sample. The solvent front(i.e distance travelled by the mixed solvents) is 4cm, this is quite close to the distances covered by all separated components(between 3 – 3.5cm), which makes the retention factors, not a true representative of their actual values. It was later discovered that, this is due to not allowing the  chromatographic plate to develop for a longer period of time in the solvent tank. The solvent front also dried up quickly when the plate is taken out., making drawing a line at that point quite diffic ult. Fortunately, this was overcome by the use of visualizing spray and UV lamp. Solvent extraction(liquid-liquid), involved selective movement of components of a substance in microgram to gram quantities between two immiscible liquid phase; its separation and selectivity is based on solubility differences and pH control respectively (Fifield and Kealey, 1995). This was observed when chloroform was added to the basified filtrate. After vigorous shaking and settling down, chloroform being more dense, composed the bottom layer, with the aqueous phase up. Liquid-liquid extraction often involved high volume of organic solvents and poor resolution of mixtures of organic materials (Fifield and Kealey, 1995). Thin Layer Chromatography is usually employed in the qualitative analysis of mixtures of non-volatile compounds like pharmaceuticals (Skoog, et al., 2000). TLC can also be used to confirm the identity of an unknown sample ( Lewis and Evans, 2011). Dissolution of the codeine and paracetamol tablet in distilled water without weighing, shows that, TLC was never designed for semi- quantitative analysis. This is due to difficulties in reproducibly applying aliquots of the mixture to the plate and then recovering all of the separated components from the plate (Skoog, et al., 2000). CONCLUSION: Using the Rf values obtained in the table 2 above and t he visual indicator reaction with the substances under the UV light, codeine was extracted to a high degree during the solvent extraction, tentatively identified by TLC (due to its positive control having the same Rf values with the chloroform extract(0.75) and both were the only one that were seen under the UV light) while paracetamol was extracted to a low degree (due to its positive control having the same Rf with the diluted sample). Multiple compounds can share the same retention factor(Rf) or produce similar chromophores when sprayed with detection reagents (Howlett and Steiner, 2011). The study by Lewis and Evans( 2011) shows that if a spot from an unknown substance is developed on a TLC plate together with a spot from a substance that is suspected to be the unknown, and the two substance are found to have the same Rf value, they are probably the same substance. FUTURE SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to the limitation that is associated with using TLC to exactly identify a given sample, minimum standards for drug testing and reporting in the forensic community are recommended by the Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of seized drugs (SWGDRUG) (Howlett and Steiner, 2011). In order for a drug identification to be confirmed to SWGDRUG specification, additional tests must includes, Infrared spectroscopy and GC-MS (Howlett and Steiner, 2011). REFERENCES: Fifield, F. W. and Kealey, D. 1995. Principles and Practice of Analytical chemistry. (4th ed) Glasgow, Blackie Academic and professional. Howlett, S. E. and Steiner, R. R. 2011. Validation of Thin Layer Chromatography with AccuTOF-DARTâ„ ¢ Detection for Forensic Drug Analysis*. Forensic Sciences [e-journal] 56 (5), pp. 12611267. Available through: Anglia Ruskin University Library website http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk [Accessed on 11 March 2014]. Kamberi, M., Riley, C. M., Huang, C. C. and Xiaoyan, M, 2004. A validated, sensitive HPLC method for the determination of trace impurities in acetaminophen drug substance. Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis [e-journal] 34 (1), pp. 123128. Available through: Anglia Ruskin University Library website http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk [Accessed on 18 March 2014]. Lewis, R. and Evans, W. 2011. Chemistry. 4th ed. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. NCBI, 2009. National Library of Medicine. [online] Available at : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pccompound [Acc essed 7 April, 2014]. Rubinson, J. F. and Rubinson, K. A. 1998. Contemporary chemical analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. Skoog, D., West, D., Holler, F. and Crouch, S. 2000. Analytical Chemistry- An introduction. (7th ed). Boca raton, Thomson Learning Inc. Tremlett, M., Anderson, B. J. and Wolf, A. 2010. Procon debate: is codeine a drug that still has a useful role in pediatric practice? Pediatric Anesthesia [e-journal] 20 (2), pp. 183194. Available through: Anglia Ruskin University website http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk [Accessed on 29 March 2014].

Reality Television and Audience Interaction

Reality Television and Audience Interaction RESEARCH PROPOSAL How viewers interact and engage with reality shows through voting Research aim and significance This study examines voting – a feature of interaction and engagement of audience with reality television. The study aims to investigate which factors influencing on television viewers’ decision to vote and also provide an exploration on their psychological side which may be vital for understanding their interactive behaviors. In the context of greater interaction between the programs and its audiences has been stimulating by television producers, it is significant to research this interactive form of reality television that encourages deeper audience participation. The findings of this study offer view on multiple sides involving opportunies and challenges for broadcast media companies and digital platform partners to exploit audience participation for the purposes of profit and the strategic expansion to multi-platform formats. Literature Review and Theory Since the very first reality show launching in 1990, the reality genre has rapidly developed to become the most popular experience of television nowadays. A plethora of research has been undertaking in recent years to identify the origin of reality shows’ appeal which concentrated mainly on the psychological side such as the theory of human motivations called ‘16 basic desires’ which linking the most fundamental purposes of human life to aspirations with their attention to media conducted by Reiss and Wiltz (2004) or the element of mastery sense named ‘schadenfreude’ introduced by Hall (2006). More recent studies in the last decade have focused on the power relation between the media and their publics as a key factor contributing to the growth of the reality television around the world, based on the concept of ‘audience activity’ which illustrates the level of selection when people use media and the level of involvement with the content (Rubin, 1993). Unlike many traditional television programs that only focus on the content without paying attention on audience interaction, reality program really provide the audience a participatory mode in which they are invited to influence the program’s story (Godlewski Perse, 2010; Enli Ihlebà ¦k, 2011). In its most famous form (in such series as Big Brother, The X Factor, Idol and The Voice), reality television has been transformed into interactive cross-platform media experience, soliciting direct audience participation, by telephone and the use of interactive functions of digital technology (Charles, 2012). Gr iffen-Foley (2004) argued that all of these media outlets have sought to attend their consumers as ‘textual actors’ which boosted the perception of engagement and generate a ‘loyal community’ of audience. Among them, voting is assigned as a prominent and lucrative option of viewer feedback, particularly in talent-based reality shows (Enli Ihlebà ¦k, 2011). Godlewski and Perse (2010) developed the theory of audience activity to scrutinize the relationship between viewing motivations, recognition of the participants, ‘cognitive and emotional involvement’ before, during and after exposure to media content. The scholars discovered that, instead of according with the levels of cognitive and emotional involvement during exposure, reality television provides to the audiences new kinds of post-exposure activity and also opportunities for finding previously unavailable ‘additional gratifications’ through voting to affect the program’s result. Such interactivity creates involving experiences via the active control of the media. In addition, there is a higher level of psychological engagement relating to thinking about and spending attentiveness of viewers who vote to whom they chose to vote for. Interestingly, Nightingale and Dwyer (2006) took the form on a larger scope that examined wider cultural significance and the translation into national format. This means that in multicultural nations, the audience is more likely to compose members of various dispersive communities with different degrees of loyalty. As a result, while votes are asked for supporters, the result always represents on a national scale. Audiences pay money to protect and attract the focus on their local contestants and even on their hometowns and regions. This study does not merely to understand why audience lodging vote in reality television but also explore what portrays them in regards to motivations and interactive behaviors such as the differences between age, gender, culture, socio-economic background and psychological aspect for example the level of activeness. Through this program producers could understand the desires of audience for interacting with the content via voting. Methodology Based on similar case studies involving audience activity (Godlewski Perse 2010), I will conduct one-hour interviews with five people of various age, gender and socio-economic backgrounds who are reality shows’ audience and regularly vote for their favorite shows or contestants. These interviews allow participants to elaborate on given open-ended qualitative questions and to explore from their personal experience of interaction and engagement. Before the interview, a copy of the plain language statement will be given to the participants for reading and keeping. They will be also asked to sign and return the consent form to the researchers. The interview will be recorded and transcribed for the purposes of the research paper. In the first part of the interview, participants will be asked to mention the kind of reality genre they are more likely to watch and their voting frequency. In the remaining part, participants will be invited to show how they interact with their most-liked reality shows through voting, for example explaining why they vote and determining which factors affect their decision. The information gathered will be compared and contrasted, using arguments discussed above in order to provide an insight into television producers targeted at the capitalization of audience fancy to maximize the shows’ outcome in terms of both revenue and viewer loyalty. The plain language statement, consent form and interview questions are provided below in the appendix. [918 words] Bibliography Charles, A 2012, Interactivity: New Media, Politics and Society, Peter Lang Oxford, Oxford. Enli, GS Ihlebà ¦k, KA 2011, ‘Dancing with the audience: Administrating vote-ins in public and commercial broadcasting’, Media, Culture Society, 33(6), pp. 953-962. Godlewski, LR Perse, EM 2010, ‘Audience activity and reality television: Identification, Online Activity, and Satisfaction’, Communication Quarterly, May, pp. 148-169. Griffen-Foley, B 2004, ‘From Tit-Bits to Big Brother: A Century of Audience Participation in the Media’, Media Culture Society, vol. 26, no. 4, July, pp. 533-548. Hall, A 2006, ‘Viewers Perceptions of Reality Programs’, Communication Quarterly, vol. 54, issue 2, May, pp. 191-211. Hill, A 2007 , Reslyting Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Reality Genres, Taylor Francis, New York. Holmes, S 2004, ‘Reality Goes Pop!: Reality TV, Popular Music, and Narratives of Stardom in Pop Idol’, Television New Media, vol. 5, no.2, May, pp. 147-172. Holmes, S 2004, ‘‘But this time you choose!’: Approaching the ‘interactive’ audience in reality TV’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 213-231. Kajus, Y 2009, ‘Idolizing and Monetizing the Public: The Production of Celebrities and Fans, Representatives and Citizens in Reality TV’, International Journal of Communication, pp. 277-300. Nightingale, V Dwyer, T 2006 ‘The audience politics of ‘enhanced’ television formats’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, vol. 2, no.1, pp. 25-42 Papacharissi, Z Mendelson, AL 2007, ‘An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and Gratifications of reality TV shows’, Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, vol. 51, issue 2, June, pp. 355-370. Reiss, S Wiltz, J 2004, ‘Why people watch Reality TV’, Media Psychology, vol. 6, issue 4, November, pp.363-378. Roscoe, J 2010, ‘Multi-Platform Event Television: Reconceptualizing our Relationship with Television’, The Communication Review, vol. 7, issue. 4, pp. 363-369. Ytreberg, Y 2009, ‘Extended liveness and eventfulness in multi-platform reality formats’, New Media Society, vol. 11, issue 4, pp. 1-19. Interview questions 1. What kinds of reality television do you often interact with through voting? + How many times do you vote for your favorite reality programs on average? 2. Are you member of a fanclub of any reality show’ or reality show’ contestant? + Do you mobilize your family/ relatives/ friends/ community to vote for your favorite contestants? 3. Which factors do you think will affect your decision for vote? + Are the contestants’ performance and the estimations of the judges important to you? + If your favorite contestant is facing elimination, do you try your best to keep he/she staying in the competion? 4. Do you think that voting is a symbol of audience democracy? + To what extent do you believe that audience can control the result of a reality show by voting? + Do you think the results reflect properly the audience desire? 5. How do you feel if the contestant that you voted for lose? + Do you often compare between your local contestants and contestants from other regions? 6. Do you think voting is the best way to interact and engage with your favorite reality shows? + Which other kinds of interction and engagement do you like? GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS Project Title: Reality television and audience interaction – How viewers interact and engage with reality shows through voting Name of participant: Name of researcher: Truc Tuong Thi Lam 1.I consent to participate in this project, the details of which have been explained to me, and I have been provided with a written plain language statement to keep. 2. I understand that after I sign and return this consent form it will be retained by the researcher. 3.I understand that my participation will involve an interview and observation and I agree that the researcher may use the results as described in the plain language statement. 4.I acknowledge that: (a) the possible effects of participating in the interview and observation have been explained to my satisfaction; (b) I have been informed that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data I have provided; (c) the project is for the purpose of research; (d) I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements; (e) I have been informed that with my consent the interview will be audio-taped and I understand that audio-tapes will be stored at University of Melbourne and will be destroyed after five years; (f) my name will be referred to by a pseudonym in any publications arising from the research; (g) I have been informed that a copy of the research findings will be forwarded to me, should I agree to this. I consent to this interview being audio-taped à ¢- ¡ yes à ¢- ¡ no (please tick) I wish to receive a copy of the summary project report on research finding à ¢- ¡ yes à ¢- ¡ no (please tick) Participant signature:Date: GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT Project Title: Reality television and audience interaction – How viewers interact and engage with reality shows through voting Name of student: Truc Tuong Thi Lam Telephone: 0426 998 078 Email: [emailprotected] Name of lecturer: Dr. Esther Chin Telephone: (03) 8344 3411 Email: [emailprotected] Dear participant, I am a Master of Global Media Communication student at the University of Melbourne currently enrolled in the subject MECM40003 Researching Audiences and Reception. A major component of the subject assessment requires students to carry our research on media audiences such as yourself to understand reception and consumption patterns and to determine how audiences interpret and interact with media types. I will be carrying out open-ended interviews with participants approximately 45 minutes in length. Your honest responses are extremely important in giving validity to this study. With your permission, I will audiotape your responses for transcription and inclusion in my study. Interview responses will be analysed and included in a research report for submission at the end of the current semester. Date will be destroyed after being kept securely at the University of Melbourne for five years. Your responses and identity will be given a pseudonym in the research report and every effort will be made to ensure your confidentiality. As soon as the research report is returned after examination a copy will be made available to you upon request. This research project is being carried out with approval from the University of Melbourne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). If you have any concerns or further questions you may contact my lecturer (as above) and/or the Human Research Ethics Office: Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, University of Melbourne VIC 3010 Telephone: (03) 8344 2073. If you would like to participate in this research please read and sign the accompanying consent form. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Truc Tuong Thi Lam

Jesus - Effeminate Liberal or Right Wing Republican? :: Argumentative Persuasive Argument Essays

Jesus - Effeminate Liberal or Right Wing Republican? In recent years, a popular slogan in the Christian world has been "WWJD?" or "What Would Jesus Do?" This poses a deep, probing question to all believers as we live to daily pattern our lives after the example of the Master. In every situation, Jesus always reflected His Father's perfect wisdom, mercy and justice. In this election year, we have an opportunity to look at this from some unique angles. A new question could be posed: "HWJV?" or "How Would Jesus Vote?" In today's world, it is very easy to allow our perception of Jesus to be skewed by our ideology, attempting to define Him in light of our preconceived views. As a Christian whose political views generally lean to the conservative side, I still must recognize that both conservativism and liberalism are man-made philosophies, both having their respective limitations in regards to biblical truth. As Christian sociologist Tony Campolo astutely points out: Republicans may dress Jesus in a Brooks Brothers suit while Democrats put Him in the denim work clothes of union workers...There is no better way for a political party to establish the legitimacy of its political point of view than to declare that Jesus is one of its members. This remaking of Jesus is not just some kind of harmless campaign technique...The Bible calls it idolatry! (see Romans 1:22-23, 25) (1) I sincerely hope my intentions in writing this message will not be misunderstood. Jesus was not a political figure, and I am not attempting to present Him in that manner. Nonetheless, the Bible does tell us that civil government is to be an instrument of God in bringing order to society (see Romans 13), and in order for it to accomplish this, it is important that it be modeled after the message and example of Jesus. Obviously, the political climate in which Jesus lived was vastly different from our own. To apply modern labels such as "conservative" or "liberal" to a person who lived on earth 2000 years ago is spurious to say the least. In fact, there were numerous political parties and factions in Jesus' day, yet there is no evidence that He ever joined any of them. Modern Christianity is sometimes criticized for attempting to tie the Gospel to a right wing political ideology. Unfortunately, some of this criticism is justifiable. As we will see, having a consistently Biblical world view will not always fit neatly into "left wing" or "right wing" categories.

Common Themes of The Client, Dragon, and Beowulf :: comparison compare contrast essays

Common Themes of The Client, Dragon, and Beowulf A woman her late thirties bellowed "My Baby! My Baby!", as her baby carriage rolled towards the bottom of the great hill. Off in a distance, a man of around early thirties heard these desperate calls for help. The man dashed out from his house and immediately followed pursuit of the blue baby carriage. Within one minutes, he safely reclaimed the carriage and the baby girl was safely returned to her mother without harm. This is an example of how the young man is showing traits of heroism, the traits being courage, intelligence, and strength. He was courageous to help return to the young woman the baby carriage, intelligent to act quickly and actually catch up to it, and his strength is shown by his ability to outrun a racing carriage down a deep hill. Different books use different characters to display heroism within their characters. Mark Sway of The Client is a story of a young boy's heroic battle against the Mafia and the FBI. The story of Dirk Pitt of Dragon is a story of how a older man of the nineteen- hundredths can overcome evil. Beowulf of the story Beowulf is an example of how even hundreds of years ago, heroes used the same traits as today. Heroes of every culture of all ages share courage, intelligence and strength. Courage is a prominent feature of all heroes. Within these three books, each character, Mark Sway, Dirk Pitt and Beowulf, display signs of Courage. Mark Sway was a courageous boy at his age of 9 years old. Mark would never quit from continuing with an idea of his if it was for good: "`We can't let them take the body, Reggie. Think about it. If they get away with it, it'll never be found.'"1 What this phrase points out, is that Mark did not want to leave the Mafia men to retrieve the body of the Senator Boyette, for if they got the body, his efforts to keep quiet about the whole situation would seem fruitless. Dirk Pitt used courage in order that he can continue perusing the enemies. Dirk never gives up exposing a plot of death and trickery of another person. Beowulf displays courage by fighting off the Troll, the Troll's mother, and the Dragon. Beowulf would not forfeit a fight with one of those people despite their gruesome

USS Arizona, A Great Ship :: American History Pearl Harbor World War II WWII

On December 7th, 1941 tragedy struck when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Many ships were sunk during the attack, but one of the most recognizable was the battleship the U.S.S. Arizona. This was one of the ships that was in line in the infamous battleship row. Because of where the U.S.S. Arizona was located it was a sitting duck to dive bombers and torpedo bombers of the Japanese. Once the ship was hit it went down in nine minutes. The sinking of the U.S.S. Arizona caused 1,177 service men to die while on board. The U.S.S. Arizona should also be known for all of its accomplishments during its tenure as a battleship. The Arizona had a very long and prestigious career before it was sunk. During the U.S.S. Arizona's life is served many important functions, from patrolling waters to escorting important people. The loss of the U.S.S. Arizona will forever be remembered as a tragic loss for the United States and its armed forces. The U.S.S. Arizona was in the United States Navy for a very long time before it was sunk. The reason why the U.S.S. Arizona was built was because it was part of America's pre-World War 1 modernization of the Navy. It was built in the Brooklyn Naval Yard with the other Pennsylvania class battleship. The builders of the U.S.S. Arizona started the layouts on March 16, 1914. It took a few years before the Arizona would finally be launched. The U.S.S. Arizona was put into commission on October 17, 1917. When it was built it was a very expensive ship. After all the construction was done the grand total for the ship was 12,993,579.23 dollars. When the Arizona was built it was considered to be a Pennsylvania class battle ship. This meant that it was an upgrade over the Nevada class battleship, which was the types they built before the Pennsylvania class. The main upgrades that they made was that they ships of the Pennsylvania class had two more main battery guns, a greater length and wate r displacement, and it had four propellers for a higher maximum speed. They also upgraded the size of the secondary battery guns. Because of this the U.S.S. Arizona carried a punch that no one would like to deal with. This consisted of four triple turrets for the main battery, and 22 single turret secondary battery. The Arizona also had many anti-aircraft guns for protection.

Psychology of Guido Orifice in “Life Is Beautiful” Essay

Guido Orefice, the main character from ‘La Vita E Bella,’ is a very optimistic person. He works for his uncle in a hotel in Italy. He keeps bumping into a lady, whom he considers to be his princess, Principessa Dora. Guido does many things and takes many risks just to see Dora. So they fall in love with each other and get married. They have a boy name Joshua. Their life is very great until the Nazis come and take them all away to a concentration camp. On that very same day it is Joshua’s 7th birthday. Guido says that he has planned a birthday surprise and that they are going to a fun place to play fun games. Guido tells his son that he needs to be quiet and do what the guards say while the adults go and play games. He also said that every game they win and for every time they do something correctly they get a certain number of points. The first person to win 1,000 points gets a real tank. Joshua really wants it so he does what he is told to. So while Joshua is hiding all the other kids are being gassed and killed. Also Guido is working very hard so he does not get killed and can make his son happy. He gives up his food and other basic needs to have his son think they are playing a game. By the end of the war, Guido says they have 940 points; the Nazis are mercilessly killing the Jews. Guido tell Joshua to hide in a little box, and not to come out until he comes back or until it is totally quiet, and that this will get him to 1,000 points and he will him the game. Guido then dresses up as a girl and goes looking for his wife. A Nazi comes and takes him into an alley and shoots him. Soon the gunshots die down and everyone leaves. Then Joshua comes out of his box and looks around. He sees a large tank coming towards him and is excited because he won the game and got his tank. In the end, Joshua is a grown man and you hear him say, â€Å"This is my story. This was the sacrifice my father made. This was his gift to me.† Erik Erikson identified eight psychosocial stages during which an individual’s primary goal is to satisfy desires associated with inborn social needs. He hypothesized that from infancy through adulthood, we proceeds through these stages, each of which is related to a different problem that needs to be resolved. If the potential problem is dealt with  successfully it will result in a positive personality trait. If not dealt with properly he or she may become anxious, worried, or troubled and develop social and personality problems. Guido has gone through every stage with a successful result. He has trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, identity and intimacy. Generativity versus stagnation is the Stage 7 problem. So far, Guido is leaning towards generativity, but it could change. If Guido had remained alive till Stage 8, he would have integrity instead of despair. Sigmund Freud hypothesized five psychosexual stages during which a child’s primary goal is to satisfy desires associated with innate biological needs. Freud believed that the interactions between parent and child greatly influenced the child’s social development and future social interactions. Guido is currently in the genital stage, the last stage that lasts from puberty through adulthood. It is the time when an individual has renewed sexual desires that he or she seeks to fulfill through relationships. Guido must have had a problem during the oral stage so therefore he had an oral fixation. Guido loves to talk and make people laugh, that is how we figure that out. Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory to explain moral development. His theory had some similar features to the other analysts. He classified moral reasoning into 3 levels, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. The three levels are each divided into two stages. Also, he suggested that everyone progresses through the levels in order, from lowest to highest. Not many people make it to the higher stages of moral development. Guido is considered to be in Stage 3 because his wife and his son guide his moral decisions. Guido can understand the actions and talk of Stage 4 where moral reasoning is determined most by confirming laws of society. Abraham Maslow was interested in human motivations, especially in how humans go about choosing which biological or social needs to satisfy. He proposed the hierarchy of needs. It is an ascending order with biological needs at the bottom and social needs at top. This shows that we first satisfy our biological needs before social ones. Before the Nazis came and took Guido  and his family away, Guido was on the highest level, the level of Self-Actualization. It involves developing and reaching our full potential as a unique human being. When he was in the concentration camp, his whole hierarchy of needs started all over again and he was back at level one. When he was shot he was still at level one because he had no protection and harm. Carl Rogers had a personality theory that was often called the self-theory because of his emphasis on the ‘self.’ Our society also leads us astray with conditions of worth. As we grow up, our parents, teachers, peers, the media, and others, only give us what we need when we show we are â€Å"worthy,† rather than just because we need it. We get a drink when we finish our class, we get something sweet when we finish our vegetables, and most importantly, we get love and affection if and only if we behave. These actions of only getting positive regard on condition are called conditional positive regard. Because we do indeed need positive regard, these conditions are very powerful, and we bend ourselves into a shape determined by a society that may or may not truly have our best interests at heart. A good little boy or girl may not be a healthy or happy boy or girl. Over time, this â€Å"conditioning† leads us to have conditional positive self-regard as well. We begin to like ourselves only if we meet up with the standards others have applied to us, rather than if we are truly actualizing our potentials. And since these standards were created without keeping each individual in mind, more often than not we find ourselves unable to meet them, and therefore unable to maintain any sense of self-esteem. Guido had unconditional positive regard and unconditional positive self-regard. This is the opposite of what is above. Guido was loved no matter what happened and he loved himself because of that. He did not keep and high goals and was always happy and had a high self-esteem. The last, and probably the most detailed analysis of Guido’s personality would be Myers-Briggs. According to the Myers-Briggs test, Guido is an ENFP. This stands for Extrovert, Intuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving. ENFPs want to both help and be liked and admired by other people, on an individual and a humanitarian level. They have a large amount of passionate charm. They are outgoing, fun, and genuinely like people. They are warm, affectionate, and  disconcertingly spontaneous. However, their attention span can be short. ENFPs are easily intrigued and distracted by new friends and acquaintances, forgetting about the older ones. ENFPs are pleasant, easygoing, and usually fun to work with. They come up with great ideas, and are a major asset in brainstorming sessions. Follow-through tends to be a problem because they get bored quickly, especially if a newer, more interesting project comes along. They also tend to be procrastinators, both about meeting hard deadlines and about p erforming any small, uninteresting tasks that they’ve been assigned. Guido meets almost all of the traits of an ENFP.