Three Branches Of Government Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Three Branches Of Government - Essay Example The leaders are elected by the parties in both the Senate and the house of the representatives. The leader of the party controlling the house is called a majority leader while minority leader is the leader of the minority group. The executive branch makes official laws and is headed by the president who is elected for a term of four years by the entire nation. The laws passed by the legislative branch have to be approved and carried out by the president. The vice-president and other cabinet members are also a part of this branch. Other duties of the president include appointing or removing cabinet members, negotiating treaties as well as acting as the commander-in-chief and the head of state. The cabinet also gives advice to the president on important issues and is made up of heads of 15 major departments of the government such as the secretary of labor, education, defense, state etc. (Three branches of government, Web). The third branch of the government is the judicial branch which is responsible for administrating the court system of the country. The head of the judicial branch is the Supreme Court which is responsible for explaining the constitution and the laws passed by the Congress. The Supreme Court is made of one chief justice, eight associate judges and nine justices. The nominations of the judges are made by the president but have to be approved by the Senate. Decisions made by the Supreme Court are final and no one can deny these decisions. (Three branches of government, Web).

Answer the history eassy questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4500 words

Answer the history eassy questions - Essay Example The human civilizations on the banks of the great rivers suffered from seasonal variations of flood and dryness and so their early wall defences and storage systems helped to even out the extremes. Also, by introducing irrigation systems they were able to extend the reach of their agriculture, making wider and wider margins of cultivable fields. The more crops they had, the more people they could sustain, and the more armies they could form, which had the disadvantage of facilitating wars. There was also competition for the water resource which caused tensions between different groups. Sometimes irrigation disturbed the water flow further downstream and this caused conflict and hardship when water was in short supply. The Egyptians had the most effective and long lasting leadership and this may have something to do with the way that the leaders were absolutely tied in with religious beliefs. The people regarded them with awe, and worshipped them as gods. The rulers also amassed considerable wealth through trade and the capturing of a great many slave workers, and they consolidated their power through strategic marriages and excellent diplomacy. Government and religion were merged together in a system called Theocracy which means that the gods are in charge in Egypt, Mesopotamia and China. Kings and priests worked together and there is evidence of this in the Pyramids, which are the burial places for the priest/king rulers known as Pharaohs. Their mummies and tombs show pictures of how they ruled. Chines rulers founded dynasties, passing power on from one generation to the next. There are relics such as books and vessels which show Chinese civilization was very advanced. The â€Å"Mandate of Heaven† is assumed to last for a certain period with each dynasty, until people rebel, and a new dynasty takes over. The rulers created stability so that the population could produce good crops and develop societies. Different

Solar Energy Essay Example for Free

Solar Energy Essay Solar Energy is one of the many renewable sources that is produced by the sun in the form of light and heat. It is one of the most important non-conventional sources of energy due to the fact that its free and we have plenty of it. Humans have been using it since ancient times. Solar energy can be use two ways, we can convert it into heat energy or it can converted into electricity. It has had a rapid growth in recent years, accounting for less than one percent of electricity used in the United States today. The market exceeds sales of 29 billion dollars and 1. billion of that money goes to the United States alone with California leading the way. Solar panels give off no pollution, the only pollution produced as a result is the goods and devices needed to make the panels. Some renewable fuels can be noisy like wind turbines, solar energy makes electricity quietly. Installing solar panels in remote locations is usually more cost effective than laying high voltage wires. It can be very efficient in large areas, and with technologies improving everyday, it allows for more efficient energy production on overcast and dull days. Another great example is that panels can be installed on top of rooftops which allows for more space. The use of solar energy to make electricity allows the user to become less dependent on the worlds fossil fuel supplies. This is very good for the environment. Just like everything good, solar energy has its cons. The cost it takes to make the cells for the solar panels can be very expensive and some houses may need more than one. Another example is that some panels required the sun all day, so that means that in the nighttime, the panels are not producing energy. Also weather can affect the efficiency of solar cells. Even with all the cons, the pros still outweigh the cons when it comes to solar energy. Take china for example, it has become the top country in green energy especially in solar power. It accounted for half the world’s production last year and the top three companies in China all said that the numbers are rising. Since they have become successful, more countries are looking towards solar energy. Shell has predicted that by 2040 more than 50 percent of the world’s energy will come from renewable sources. In the end, the future of solar energy promises to play a larger role thanks to the developments that could result in lower cost. As a matter of fact, the solar PV industry plans to provide half of all the United States electricity generation by the year 2025. That means that in the next few years it is expected that millions of households in the world will be using solar energy. More and more people especially architects are becoming aware and are recognizing the value of solar panels and learning how to incorporated into the building designs. This will be better for the environment and overall for the people. Who wouldn’t want lower electricity bills and greener world.

Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving

Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving Can Groups and Teams be seen as the silver bullet to solve organisational problems? Reflect critically on this issue drawing on theory and research. Introduction In recent years, the implementation of groups and teams has become more commonplace in firms: 78% of US workplaces use teams (Allen and Hecht, 2004) and 72% of UK organizations involve their core employees in formal teams (Kersley et al., 2013). However, scholars have generally been divided about the effectiveness of teams in solving challenges in the workplace, with varying empirical results and evidence. Despite their popularity, are groups and teams always beneficial to workplaces? In observing the drawbacks of implementing teams, it is suggested that alternative factors are equally important in solving organizational problems. This essay attempts to show that teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations by critiquing populist theories on benefits of teams, discussing additional problems that may arise from teams and lastly, by questioning the assumptions of this essay. Although Katzenbach and Smith (1993a, p.45) defined team as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable and working group as a small number of people working in a collaborative style with individual input and accountability, I will use groups and teams interchangeably and not draw a distinction between the two terms for the most part of this essay. This is in line with many writers (e.g. Allen and Hecht, 2004), who regarded them as the same and that teams are two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal. Section 1: Critiquing popular theories on benefits of teams Historical view of teams: Sociotechnical systems theory (STS) The term STS was originally coined by Emery and Trist (1960) to describe systems which involve a complex interaction between people, machines, and the organizations external environment; it was about utilizing the human and technical aspects to make an organization more effective. STS was the basic foundation for the empowerment of teams, arguing that as workers gain more autonomy over their jobs, team members can make greater use of their skills and judgment to better tackle organizational problems (Cohen et al., 1996). Groups were suggested as an alternative to routine Tayloristic and Fordist frameworks by reducing boredom and by allowing workers to be more involved and interested in their tasks. This works in theory, but teams may not be that autonomous or beneficial in practice. Murakami (1997) studied the introduction of teams in fourteen car plants worldwide and although teams were given some autonomy about work distribution and internal leadership, he found that managerial power in the most important areas of car production remained unchallenged. Barker (1993) argued that while teams may appear to give workers more autonomy over their jobs, groups may represent a more subtle and intensive form of control as team members can control each others actions through surveillance or social pressures. Besides that, research has indicated that in becoming group members, individuals often lose their problem-solving facilities, become emotionally segregated and blame others for their failure (Wells, 1980 cited in Sinclair, 1992, p.616). In line with that, Naquin and Tynan (2003) agreed that teams receive joint credit for successes but often blame team failure on an individual member , leading to conflict within the group. Dunphy and Bryant (1996) argued that the implementation of self-managed teams shifts the burden of problem-solving from managers to employees, leading to intensification of work and heightened stress levels. This is in line with Rothschild and Whitt (1986) who revealed that groups can often be a source of stress rather than satisfaction and have a negative effect on employees well-being. Nevertheless, even if some workers enjoy their job more through teams, there is no evidence that this will always lead to improved performance. Some researchers have suggested that job performance leads to job satisfaction but not the reverse (Bagozzi, 1980). And even if it does improve individual performance, it may not necessarily lead to organizational effectiveness in solving problems (Sinclair, 1992). Belbins Team Roles Another theory which popularized team effectiveness was Belbins model of team roles. Belbin identified nine team roles/ contributions that are seen to be crucial for organizational effectiveness (Belbin, 1993). Each team role is considered important because it helps to provide a good balance for achieving tasks. The essential contributions are solving problems, exploring resources, coordinating tasks, imparting drive, evaluating information, developing team members, implementing ideas, perfecting details, and providing knowledge. Some modern workplaces form teams on the basis of Belbins team profiles as they supposedly allow organizations to recognize and use others strengths to best advantage (Belbin, 2014). To a certain extent, Belbins model of teams and team roles may appear to solve certain organizational problems. For example, problems at organizations may occur due to ambiguity and role conflict. When there is role ambiguity, workers are uncertain which responsibilities they should tackle, leading to anxiety. This may also lead to conflict if one worker believes that another is impinging on their role, putting newcomers in a difficult position as they are apprehensive of taking on tasks (Slaughter and Zicker, 2006). By clearly defining team roles using Belbins model, organizations may be able to avoid some of these problems. However, Belbins model has been re-examined with mixed results. For example, Fisher (1996) argued that Belbin team roles have little psychometric support and that it is unreliable to use it as the basis for team roles. Another criticism is that Belbin insinuated that there are only a limited number of ways in which people can usefully contribute to teams when in practice, roles are complex and varied. Imposing team roles onto people and expecting them to contribute to workplaces in a certain way may lead to stereotyping. For example, an individual who is actually more efficient working alone may be accused of being a bad employee just because they are not a team player (Sewell, 2001). Apart from that, Belbins original research mainly focused on upper-management level executives in Britain in the 1970s, consisting mostly of middle-class white men. This does not mean that Belbins theory of teams and team roles cannot be applied to other cultures, but it could be biased as the research was based on a specific demographic. Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of Teams Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) argued that teams will always outperform individuals when teams are properly understood and supported. They suggested that the mutual accountability, commitment, and skills of team members will encourage open discussions and critical problem-solving. The better teams will move beyond individual responsibilities and pursue team performance goals like increasing work quality or responding to customers faster, reducing inefficiency problems. Storey (2007) argued that this theory adopts a unitarist view of management where employees and managers are constantly in pursuit of higher productivity, which may not always be true in practice. The main critique is that Katzenbach and Smith wrote from their personal work experiences (Wilson, 2013). Their research had no solid empirical evidence and while they claimed to collect information through interviews, they did not divulge how they analyzed the data. They were also inclined to ignore public service sector or third sector examples, which could make their findings biased. Additionally, this theory played down the intrinsic qualities of organizational problems such as job satisfaction or workers feelings and personal motivations. Metcalf and Linstead (2003) argued that this approach is masculinist as it adopted a view that only emphasized better performance, with the soft components such as sensitivities and feelings of members being marginalized. However, to successfully solve organizational problems, we should consider both masculinist and soft aspects as organizational problems can be related to both. Hence, this theory fails to explain why teams would be the solutio n to all challenges. Section 2: Problems that arise from implementing teams Social loafing Secondly, teams should not be seen as a panacea because they may cause even more organizational problems. One of the problems that arise from teams is social loafing, colloquially known as free riding or laziness. Simply stated, it refers to a situation in which certain members of a group exert less effort than the others (Clegg at al., 2016). Primarily, people exert less effort in groups as they feel less accountable when they know other members will compensate by exerting additional effort on their behalf (Harkins and Szymanski, 1989). Ezzamel and Wilmott (1998) observed workplace social loafing in a company they dubbed StichCo. When teams were introduced to StitchCo, the younger and more inexperienced workers with no responsibilities were less pressured to increase their wages through bonuses. They were seen to reap the advantages of a shared team bonus, working below the minimum level of efficiency while older workers overcompensated for their lack of efforts. This created resentment and conflict among those workers who were working harder. Although challenges occur when implementing team roles as discussed earlier, one way of countering social loafing is by ensuring that team members have clear responsibilities and accountability. Theoretically, one would assume that social loafing would be much less likely to exist in work teams because team pressures can be a powerful source of conformance. Sewell (1998) pointed out that non-performing team members may be pressured to perform or leave through immense social pressures. Hence in some ways, conformance and cohesion can cancel out social loafing. Groupthink Nevertheless, cohesion in groups are not always beneficial to organizations as it may cause another problem: Groupthink. Janis (1982) coined the term Groupthink when he studied historical situations where teams with prestigious and well-educated members make disastrous decisions, such as the Bay of Pigs incident. One key characteristic of Groupthink is when members choose to stand by decisions that the group has committed itself to, despite evidence that these decisions are bad or disturbing the conscience of its members. Janis argued that the more cohesive the group, the more likely it is for each member to avoid creating disunity. It is not so much that the members are afraid of revealing their objections, but that they will readily accept the majority decision without scrutinizing its pros and cons. Groupthink also brings about risk shift, an illusion of invulnerability and enthusiasm for a decision that polarizes the group towards higher risk. For example, in May 2015, six banks were fined a total of $5.7 billion for manipulating foreign exchange markets. The traders appeared to reinforce each others belief that they were not going to be arrested, allowing them to knowingly break the law (King and Lawley, 2016). The concept of groupthink therefore undermines one of the main argued benefits of teams: workers sharing multiple perspectives to examine potential risks and to better solve problems. However, Janis argued that this does not mean all cohesive groups suffer from groupthink and that mild Groupthink may not necessarily influence the quality of a groups decision. Furthermore, there are ways to avoid Groupthink: the team might encourage people to voice their opinions by establishing that any critique of the teams decision is encouraged or some members may be assigned to analyze all decisions in a critical way. Alternatively, the organization may set up several independent groups working on the same problem and compare the decisions reached. Section 3: Questioning the assumptions of this essay Groups vs Teams We will now discuss if it is possible for teams to be the silver bullet when they are defined correctly or implemented in the right settings. One of the main assumptions of this essay is that groups and teams are the same. However, Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that while many workplaces claimed to use teams, in practice, teams are uncommon as most workers are in what they called working groups. Working group members mostly work independently and focus on individual performance whereas high performance team members focus everything on the team. Since team members rely on each other and focus on team outcome rather than individual needs, they can exploit each others strengths to better tackle challenges. So perhaps, the failure of teams found by researchers such as Hackman (1998) were due to people using the term team too loosely in the workplace, when they were in fact, the failure of working groups. Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that it is important to distinct working groups and teams so that managers can make better decisions about whether, when, or how to encourage and use teams. By properly defining teams, we can learn when they should be seen as a solution to organizational problems. Size of teams and organizational context This essay also used Allen and Hechts definition of a team: two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal (2004). This definition is quite vague, when in workplaces, the size of a team is very important and should be defined according to the task. For example, larger teams may be inefficient for routine tasks due to overcrowding, but they are good for complex tasks as smaller teams will not have enough resources or abilities (Clegg at al., 2016). Nevertheless, Laughlin (2011) found that high ability individuals can outperform groups composed of two, three, four or five low ability members. So while team size definitely has an effect on team performance, more research needs to be done to fully understand how different factors mediate the effect of team size on effectiveness. This brings us to the next assumption of this essay: groups and teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations. However, teams can be very effective if they are used in the suitable organizational context. Wright Cordery (1999) proposed conditions for teams to succeed and fail in outperforming other organizational frameworks and there is evidence that system-wide changes are better at solving organizational problems than individual changes (Bacon Blyton, 2000). Thus, it is critical to recognize that effective problem-solving does not magically occur simply by introducing teams; time, high-level resources, and revamped support structures need to be in place to create a high performance team-based organization. Only then, perhaps teams can be perceived as a silver bullet to organizational problems, although creating the perfect setting for every task would be nearly impossible. Conclusion In a nutshell, this essay argued that teams are not the panacea by examining opposing views and limitations of popular theories such as STS, Belbins team roles, and Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of teams. It also discussed additional problems that may arise and questioned the assumptions of this essay to demonstrate the pros and cons of teams in different situations. Due to the word limit, this essay did not discuss all the challenges which would prevent teams from working effectively (e.g. resistance to teams, leadership of teams). Nevertheless, the original essay question remains important as teams can be effective or destructive depending on how and where they are implemented, so they should not be used sweepingly across organizations. Instead, future research on teams should be done in various industrial settings to properly define teams and to examine other factors which would affect their effectiveness in problem-solving. References Allen, N.J. and Hecht, T.D., 2004. The romance of teams: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), pp.439-461. Bacon, N. and Blyton, P., 2000. High road and low road teamworking: Perceptions of management rationales and organizational and human resource outcomes. Human relations, 53(11), pp.1425-1458. Bagozzi, R.P., 1980. Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. The Journal of Marketing, pp.65-77. Barker, J.R., 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative science quarterly, pp.408-437. Belbin, R.M., 1993. Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Belbin UK, 2014. How toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Use Belbin to Increase Employee Engagement. [pdf] Cambridge: Belbin. Available at: http://www.belbin.com/media/1173/belbin-howtousebelbintoincreaseemployeeengagement-oct2014.pdf> [Accessed 23 December 2016] Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. Pitsis, T., 2016. Managing Organizations. Fourth edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M., 1996. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human relations, 49(5), pp.643-676. Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B., 1996. Teams: panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance?. Human relations, 49(5), pp.677-699. Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L.,1960. Socio-technical Systems. In C.W. Churchman M. Verhurst (Eds), Management Science, Models and Techniques, Vol. 2, pp.83-97. London: Pergamon Press. Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H., 1998. Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.358-396. Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Sharp, G., 1996. Further evidence concerning the Belbin team role self-perception inventory. Personnel review, 25(2), pp.61-67. Hackman, J.R. and Tindale, R.S., 1998. Why teams dont work. Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press Harkins, S.G. and Szymanski, K., 1989. Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(6), pp.934-941. Janis, I.L., 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (Vol. 349). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993a. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993b. The discipline of teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S., 2013. Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge. King, D. and Lawley, S., 2016. Organizational behaviour. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laughlin, P.R., 2011. Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Metcalf, B. and Linstead, A., 2003. Gendering Teamwork: Reà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Writing the Feminine. Gender, Work Organization, 10(1), pp.94-119. Murakami, T., 1997. The autonomy of teams in the car industry a cross national comparison. Work, Employment Society, 11(4), pp.749-758. Naquin, C.E. and Tynan, R.O., 2003. The team halo effect: why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp.332-340. Rothschild, J. and Whitt, J.A., 1989. The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organisational democracy and participation. CUP Archive. Sewell, G., 1998. The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative science quarterly, pp.397-428. Sewell, G., 2001. What Goes Around, Comes Around Inventing a Mythology of Teamwork and Empowerment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), pp.70-89. Sinclair, A., 1992. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization studies, 13(4), pp.611-626. Slaughter, J.E. and Zickar, M.J., 2006. A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group Organization Management, 31(2), pp.264-290. Storey, J.W. (2007) Human resources management: A critical text. Third edition. London: Cengage Delmar Learning. Wilson, F.M., 2013. Organizational behaviour and work: a critical introduction. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, B.M. and Cordery, J.L., 1999. Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), pp.456-463.

A History Of The British Labour Party Politics Essay

A History Of The British Labour Party Politics Essay The Labour Party is a political party in Great Britain that is just about 110 years old. The party was formed in 1900 as an outgrowth of the trade union movement and to change Parliaments interests. The reason the Labour Party wanted Parliament changed was because the people who formed the party felt that Parliament was not representing the interests of everybody in Britain. The people who felt neglected by Parliament were hard working people, socialists, and unionists. During the early stages, the Labour party struggled to make an immediate impact in Britains political system and the partys leaders had to do something about their struggle. The Labours leaders worked with Liberal Governments during 1906-1914 to help themselves gain some form of political ground. The Liberal parties eventually split in 1916 and the Labour Party saw this as a perfect opportunity to obtain power. The 1918 election proved a pivotal point for the Labour Party and even though they did not win the general e lection, they came away with one-quarter of the vote. The reason the 1918 election was so successful for the Labours was because of World War I coming to an end and the growth of womens suffrage. On December 6, 1923, the Labour Party won the general election and finally reached the major political office for the first time in its partys history. The party only held office for a few months under Ramsay MacDonald, and failed to get reelected for a second term. A main reason for the party not getting reelected was because of the Zinoviev letter. The letter was published in British press stating that there were connections between Russian Communists and the Labour Party. Due to anti-communism in Great Britain, the Labours lost the 1924 election as well as 40 seats in the House of Commons. The Zinoviev letter later turned out to be forgery, but the damage was already done to the Labour Party. The Labour Party would rebound later in 1929, but the major election they won came in 1945. The crucial election followed after the Second World War. When the war ended in May 1945, Winston Churchill called for a general election a few months later in July. The Labour Party was running under the slogan of Let Us Face the Future, and its message was that Britain cannot return to poverty and unemployment like the 1930s. The Labour Party also promised to remove disease, want, squalor, ignorance, and unemployment. The Labours ended up winning in a landslide and this presented the party with the opportunity of making significant changes for Great Britain. After the crucial election in 1945, the Labour Party once again was elected in 1950 and this marked the first time in the Partys history where they won consecutive elections. Following the 1950 election, the Labour Party would only be in office for around 14 years till 1997. The Conservative Party dominated the general elections, winning three consecutive terms in 1951-1959 and four consecutive terms in 1979-1992. This was a result of internal fighting of the Labour Party and as a consequence, people detached from the party to form the Social Democratic Party in 1981. All of these effects left the Labour Party out of dominance for nearly three decades and would not come back to power until Labour Party candidate Tony Blair was up for election. Blair had become the party leader in 1994 and won the 1997 general election in a landslide. Blairs term was also called the New Labour because it was seen as a separation from the old Labour for having different policies such as one known as the Third Way. The New Labour term was proven to be the right fit for Blair because he won the next two elections and this became the Labour Partys first time winning three cons ecutive elections. Blair did not become very popular with Great Britain and its citizens because of his stance on the Iraq War. Blair ended up resigning on June 27, 2007 and Gordon Brown was handed the Prime Minister position after Blairs resignation. Gordon Brow was the Chancellor of the Exchequer during Blairs term as Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Cabinet position responsible for all economic and financial matters. The economy was one of the main concerns for both Blair and Brown, but Blair had to overcome Thatcherism and implement a new strategy for fixing the economy. There were many ideological platforms that Blair ran during the 10 years of being Prime Minister, but one of the main ones was reworking the economy. The way Blair

Time Devices :: essays research papers

Definition of "'Time"': Term used to describe how long it takes to an event to occur. Time is used to classify events to "Events that happened" and "Events that will happen". It seems that time passes in the same pattern, and that time is equal to all but the "Theory of Relativity" proves otherwise. "Time is a relative thing" according to Einstein, which came out with the theory of Relativity. History of time: Records of time keeping are found 25,000 years ago, but of course, they weren't as accurate as now a days. Man used nature to indicate time e.g. Full Moons. It is widely suggested today that time was kept in a "Calendar"' way. This means that they divided the time into big units and could only tell the time in specific occasions. e.g. a normal person, 20,000 years ago couldn't tell his partner the time at any given period. He had to wait that the moon would go full, or the sun will dawn, or by looking at the stars, etc. They almost couldn't describe when in the future, a thing is to happen. They would say something like "In 2 full moons and a high sun we'll go hunting". He couldn't tell exactly in how many hours or minutes things will happen because as I said before Nature was his time keeper + The term "Seconds", "'Minutes, "Hours", etc, didn't exist back then. As mankind evolved, better ways to keep track of time were found. Man invented more and more devices as he evolved, and some of these devices are listed in the next section: Clocks: A time device used to keep track of the passing time. A clock must have 2 basic components: 1. Power Source 2. A "Release Power" source. Up till the beginning of the 1800's, sun clocks were the leading time devices worldwide. During the 14th century, the Italian Donadi family were the first to draw numbers on those sun clocks. The invention of the spring for clocks during the 16th century and the pendulum in 1671 were the first steps toward the replacement of the sun clocks with mechanical clocks. The hand clock (watch) was invented by A French Company named Berege back at 1810. During the 1800's a drastic advancement has occurred in mechanical clocks with the invention of the naval time keeper which is used up till today by sailors to find their position in an area.

Analysis of Joy Williams Save the Whales, Screw the Shrimp Essay

Analysis of Joy Williams' Save the Whales, Screw the Shrimp Save the Whales, Screw the Shrimp is an essay written by Joy Williams, about the overwhelming complacency that todays culture shows towards nature.Williams argues in a very satirical way, that todays culture has all but completely lost touch with what nature really is, and that unless we as a nation change our morals regarding the role that nature plays in human existence, we may very well be witnessing the dawn of our own destruction. An Evaluation of: Save the Whales, Screw the Shrimp Williams is very satirical in the presentation of her topic, and the way that she addresses the reader from the very first paragraph is very interesting inasmuch as she is almost offensive with her gestures. This served it's purpose well as an attention getter or hook, but it was a little over done to the point of being unecessarily redundant. If the author's intention was to seem obsessively passionate about her topic then she did a wonderful job, but if her aim was to provide helpful information regarding the seriousness of her percieved problem, then she may have offended some of the readers that would have benefited most from understanding her point of view. Also the reader gets the impression from the authors voice that she is very pessimistic about the future, almost as if she has given up and is simply lashing out in anger at the percieved harbingers of this atrocity. She starts by bringing a pessimistic view to photographs of nature, by describing what may or may not lie just outside the boundaries of the picture. Mockingly she leads the reader to assume that there are no real nature photos left in the world, but rather only digitaly enhanced photos of nature wit... ...ral issue that many humans contemplate seriously while changing the disposable diaper on their baby?s bottom, without having to be thankful for the technology that supplies it, or wonder what it must have been like without them. I personally agree with Williams, and because I stand on her side with regards to human culture and our disrespect for nature, I was moved by her sarcasim and how eloquently it was directed towards those who ceaselessly overindulge and waste the few precious natural resources that we have left. Mine is a position of turmoil, as I stand rapt in awe at how wonderfully creative our race is, but at the same time how horribly destructive. The wonders that we have created in my short lifetime, the technological advances that we have made as a race are a testament to the power we possess. But so is the trail of damage we have left in our wake.