My Ambition to Be a Software Engineer Essay Example for Free

My Ambition to Be a Software Engineer Essay He stares at me. Look at these sentences, Farmers plough the paddy field. Farmers plough in the paddy field. She speaks English. She speaks in English. This is the way; we form plural verbs into singular. 1. Most of the plural verbs form their singular by adding S to the plural verbs. Ex. Speak – Speaks Come – comes Love loves www. eduLanka. com 1 eduLanka Online English education 2. If a plural, verb ends in [ss,ch,sh,x,o] we form the singular by adding es to the plural. Ex. Catch – catches Wash – washes 3. If a plural verb ends in a Y following a component to the form the singular Y changes into I and add ES. Ex. Study – studies Fly flies But sometimes Play – plays Say says Verb has basically three forms. Some verbs can give below: Base Form Bet burst Cost Cut Let Split Beat Bring Bleed Come Dig Creep Catch Dream Get Light Lose Meet Pay Keep Have Past Tense bet burst cost cut let split beat brought bled came dug crept caught dreamt got lit lost met paid kept had Past Participle bet burst cost cut let split beaten brought bled came dug crept caught dreamt got lit lost met paid kept had ww. eduLanka. com 2 eduLanka Online English education Make Find Leave Mean Run Say Send Sell Be Give Go made found left meant ran said sent sold was gave went made found left meant run said sent sold been given gone Online education lessons From: www. edulanka. com www. eduLanka. com 3 eduLanka Online English education

Interpersonal Communication Problems Essay -- Communication Communicat

Interpersonal Communication Problems Over the telephone my boss gives me an instruction. I hear it, give my recognition, hang up then realize that I am not clear on exactly what it is that I am to do. Something about the proper way to add up my hours is the basic message, but the way she has explained it is not clear to me. Yet. As far as she is concerned, every word she spoke, that is, the way she described her instructions, was perfectly spelled out. She sits in her office confident that her explanation is clear, while I sit behind my desk like some detective trying to solve this great mystery. Although I understood every word she spoke, what she spoke does not register. No eureka bells are setting off. I have trouble decoding her words. I cannot apply the words she's "transmitted." I am experiencing communication problems. This happens all the time. As in the case just described, somewhere between her message and my reception of it, the meaning got lost. To the best of her knowledge, she has gone over a procedure that I have successfully grasped. But it remains unclear to me because I do not understand the way in which she is presenting it. To my boss, it is of course direct and sound, as it is from her mind that the words and thoughts are being emitted. However, as soon as they collided with my own thinking processes they lost complete lucidity. My faculties tell me she is talking but saying nothing sensible. Her faculties tell her her circular sentences are making sense. I periodically acknowledge what she is relaying. She keeps relaying. We are communicating. But are we really? Given this situation, one is led to consider whether it is possible that, that is, can it be that, true communication is impossible? After a... ...y did her presentation of the information pose a problem? Considering we should have understood each other by the virtue of the fact that we speak the same language, this should not have been the case. As a matter of fact, this case shows that even though we were using the same language I could not decipher her meaning. Her mind works in ways that mine does not. And if it is through our minds that we formulate information, then how can it be that what we are communicating will be received in its true form? No two minds work alike nor are their two beings which feel alike. Therefore, how can anyone know exactly what is being communicated? Each of us has a one-of-a-kind make-up. And though, yes, we do understand the use of words and their semantic properties, the fact that we even have to use words to effectively communicate alone makes true communication questionable.

Philosophy – Design Argument (with Plan)

(b) The world appears designed, so God exists. Discuss. (30 marks) Plan: * DO NOT GO INTO ONE ABOUT GOD’S EXISTENCE!!! * Purpose and design appears to exist in nature * Mathematical formulas in nature * Gases in atmosphere * Evolution * If we were made in the image of god, then why are we such a new species and how come we didn’t exist from the beginning of time * Furthermore, why are we the only known humans on this planet and why if god was the creator has he made it so we are not suited for other planets?Let us assume that it is true to say that there is a clear existence of purpose and design in nature, the question is whether or not the existence of purpose and design implies the existence of God. The design that is apparent in the world can certainly be shown not to be the work of God, or at least God as an omnipotent (he can do anything), omniscient (he knows everything), omnipresent (He is everywhere) being. It seems that everything around us is some small cog i n a large piece of clockwork that has been intricately designed for all aspects of the planet to coincide and work with each other.The main strengths of the teleological argument are that the conditions of the world are so perfect for us to live in that it must have been designed. Evidence is everywhere. One can use the William Paley's watchmaker theory in support. Which states that: if you're walking along the beach and find a watch you don't assume it’s there by accident. You know someone must have made it due to how intricate the interior and it showing evidence of design; this is the same with the world.One of the most obvious forms of design is the Fibonacci sequence which appears in nature repeatedly; the mathematical pattern can be seen in snail shells and petals of a plant. It seems like this formula was the template for the production of nature, it surely cannot be coincidence that it appears in so many different aspects? Yet maybe it is man that has just made this t heory up and is in fact finding patterns where they do not exist, it does seem likely due to man’s attempt at rationalising everything. Hersh/Davies illustration of mathematizing the world; insert here) This is just like the Parable of the Gardener an idea where two people go on holiday and leave their garden. When they come back one of them thinks the garden has gotten overgrown and has been neglected, whereas the other sees evidence that a gardener must have been tending to it. It is an example of how people can look at the same evidence yet come to different conclusions. The parable of the gardener shows how two people can view the same thing but interpret it in completely different ways.This can be seen by contrasting the way a theist views the world and the way an evolutionary scientist views the world. The theist sees evidence of design, whereas the scientist sees evidence of evolution. It has long been demonstrated how natural selection can simulate the appearance of d esign; in short, you do not require a designer, design can be the result of a process. If we consider products such as an iPhone, we notice that the product has evolved technologically over time. Yet it most certainly had a designer.Therefore, we can see that evolution is not necessarily at odds with creation. It could be the case that the world was designed, by a designer, but has been â€Å"upgrading† through a process of evolution and natural selection ever since. The problem with this view for the theist is that the theist wants to assert that God is omni-omni-omni, and therefore would have got it right first time and would not have created an imperfect world that needs to improve itself through evolution. Yet for the agnostics this is a difficult point to comprehend as there is no proof of a god or designer.Yet as far back as the 13th century Thomas Aquinas argued that articles of faith can't be scientifically proven and that it's a mistake to try. It seems that the argu ment of the existence of god is the creation of man himself. There are some serious discrepancies between the bible and version of events known to all and the empirical evidence. According to biblical sources, man was made in god’s image on the sixth day of creation. Yet science and empirically backed sources make it clear that the existence of the human race is relatively new and was certainly not ‘formed’ at the time of the earth’s creation.The theists can argue that the bible is not meant to be taken literally, but that God still created the world, only not in six days in the way described in the biblical story. Furthermore, if humans are the ‘divine’ race then surely their existence would be found on other planets, which currently there is no evidence of whatsoever. Michael Behe came up with the Irreducible Complexity, an argument designed to counter evolution. He argues that there are things in the world (such as bacterial flagellum and t he human eye) that are so complex, they couldn’t have just arisen by chance: they must have been designed for the purpose they fulfil.Yet, the human eye is not, actually, that well designed. It is back to front for one thing! So perhaps arguments such as these are not well supported when the subject in favour is greatly flawed. Perhaps then, the Fibonacci sequence is a mere act of chance that has been evolved through natural selection as the best form of survival. However, this is too vague and does not quite explain how such a complex form of maths just ‘evolved’ repeatedly within nature.Again this is a clear indication of design and must prove that there has been planning within the planet, and on a larger scale within the universe. After all, there are solar systems which survive due to the most fragile balance of gravity, these could easily have not worked and it is of such small chances that it has. Hume often compared the universe to a vegetable, something that grows of its own accord if the environment is right; there have been examples of ‘failed’ planets just as there are sometimes failed crops.This leads onto the delicate mix of gases within earth’s atmosphere that sustain life. If any one of these gases was to change its ratio, the consequences would be catastrophic, causing the likely extinction of life within the planet. Many marvel at the slim chances that our planet is the way it is, yet they seem to forget that there have been periods of millions of years where there has been no such life due to the mix of gases being wrong, or temperatures being too extreme.However, having said this there must be design. Perhaps not in the universe as we know so little about it, but at least within the planet. It is not necessarily true that the designer is perfect, as of course there are flaws yet the sheer detail of every item in nature is so intricate that it makes one question its design and if something had a role i n creating it. Conclusion: there was a designer, but that designer was not (an omni-omni-omni) God

Critically discuss the stop and search powers of the Police - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2594 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Critical essay Level High school Did you like this example? The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the powers of the police in England and Wales to stop and search citizens under s1 of the police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There are some issues still remaining that needs to be changed or altered in order to make this section of the law more compliable with the ECHR. I will also discuss these. The duty of the police is to tell the person they are searching, what they have been stopped for, what the police is searching the person for, what station they work for and their name. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Critically discuss the stop and search powers of the Police" essay for you Create order However, in some cases e.g. Mustapha Osman v Southwark, it was acceptable that the police didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t have a chance to introduce himself to the person as he was assaulted by the defendant. The police said that he would have introduced himself if he had the chance.[1] The police should also inform people about what they are trying to find e.g. a stolen material. There are some reasons why the person may be searched; one example is that the person may seem suspicious i.e. you seem like you are trying to hide something from the police. The person may also be asked to remove clothing e.g. asking you take your jacket, hat or coat. If taking other clothing off is necessary, the person is taken somewhere out of public e.g. police van with a police officer that is the same sex as them. This is also applied in religious situations where the person may be asked to take a turban out. [2] The powers given to police are legislated by the public; we elect to make those laws. However, they are granted some amount of their own decision and perceptions in enforcing those laws. Although these laws are limited and regulated by policy, they can still affect their powers being used disproportionately. A relevant example of this issue is the powers used against specific types of social groups.[3] à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“In England and Wales, black people are searched seven times as often as whiteà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[4] The stop and search powers of the police are only suitable where the police has à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ to be suspicious about a person carrying a weapon, a stolen property, something that could be used to cause a crime or illegal drugs. However, you can also expected to be stopped and searched if a senior police officer has given permission for the police to do so. This can take place where serious violence is about to happen, if youà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢re in a specific location or area or if youà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢re carrying a weapon or have used it. [5] The act states that powers to stop and search should only be used where a police has à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ for suspecting. Although, reasonable suspecting is not defined by the Act, there are some guidance specified in the Code of Practice A which states that reasonable grounds for suspicion must be based objectively. For example, if a person is holding an item that has been stolen from somebody, recently in the area, then this would be a suspicion in à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ and objective. [6] The powers of the police in stop and search are necessary to satisfy the needs of the citizens. They have been given these powers to stop and search to stop crime and prevent it from happening in order for us to live comfortably. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s their duty to keep the public safe and keep it away from anti-social behaviour which will also prevent acts of terrorism and will decrease the amount of crime happening.[7] The Powers given to police on stop and search must be used fairly and the police should show respect for the victims that are being searchedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ it should be done without discrimination in order for the act to be within the lawful boundaries because The Equality Act 2010 shows that if police officers discriminate, harass or victimise under the act is then unlawful. It is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“unlawful for police officers to discriminate against, harass or victimise any person on the grounds of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"protected characteristicsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ of age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity and their physical appearance when using their powers.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  The police also has the responsibility to stop unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation I order to build good relations with the public and be fair. Although the Section 1 of PACE already states that all stop and search must be done with a reasonable suspicion, the police seems to fail this duty. Stop and search should be accomplished by à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“reasonable suspicionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  because ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s not fair for the particular residents that are being picked on. Police shouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t base their suspicions on their own generalisations that are not proven. This will also make the system of stop and search less effective, if people are stopped and searched depending on objective reasons, then the system will improve and the amount of people being stopped and searched will decrease leading to a more public friendly view of the police. The stop and search should be objective for it to be a reasonable suspicion. However, an unreasonable suspicion would be where the police has suspected people basing their reasoning on peopleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal factors which is not objective. E.g. a personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s age, race, colour or anything similar that has got to do with their appearance. Stereotyped thoughts about images shouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t be used as a reasonable suspicion by saying a particular type/group of people is much more likely to be involved in a criminal activity. [8] The police provide no explanation or reasoning that is reasonable to the problem of arresting people depending on their appearance. In most cases, police explains that a higher amount of black residents are involved in crime which is not supported with any evidence that is strong or acceptable.[9] Police should not be able to see this reason as acceptable because this is a generalised belief/stereotype about a certain group of people. No evidence shows that a personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s appearance could d emonstrate that they are guilty and seeing certain groups as criminals, will diminish the amount of crime happening.[10] In January 2012, two men were convicted for murdering a black teenager Stephen Lawrence. This led to a further review of the use of police stop search powers to prevent their disproportionate because the tow murderers were racially motivated.[11] Article 5 of the ECHR is in charge of protecting human rights. Nonetheless, the stop and search does not comply with it. Despite that, Lord Binghamà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s explanation, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"in the absence of special circumstancesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ show that some stops and searches may drop within the scope of article 5. According to that, a long lasting stop and search, lasting unreasonably long, could equal to a lack of liberty which invokes the protection of Article 5.[12] Ian Tomlinson was only an innocent passenger who collapsed and died because of a police who shoved him into the ground with a baton using his power excessively leading to an unlawful death of Tomlinson. [13] If similar acts happen and keep happening, it will certainly be published into media, reaching out to citizens which will make public feel uncomfortable and lead to public not trusting the police. The problem is that the police is still acting depending on their own perceptions of suspiciousness to guess who the victim could be. Even if the police acts within the rules, the attitude and beliefs which lie in their suspicions will influence the way stop and search is being done. They still judge victims depending on their past convictions. However, it may be argued that in very few cases police is not wrong in finding someone suspicious when acting upon their instincts but this is very rare and this could be why some people may think this is a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonableà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ conduct. This is not appropriately effective in terms of privacy as privacy is essential for stop and search. However, using à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ without own perceptions is much more effective and this is presumably the best option in order to increase the efficiency of stop and search. Although the police powers in stop and search should be diminished, it should be diminished to a point where ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s proportional to create a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the society. To diminish the amount of power used by police on the citizens in this area, the Equality Act come into force. One of the element of this act is to prohibit victimisation. [14] However, the act of the police breaches the Equality Act; it prohibits victimisation and what police are doing are simply going against that. SECTIONS 44 45 OF THE TERRORISM ACT 2000 The power given to police in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is being used to discriminate people from other backgrounds specifically on black men and young Muslims. Also photographers and peaceful protestors are seen as victims which is another variety of victims being included in the violation. This is because the act states that police can stop and search anyone in a selected area without needing to prove a reasonable suspicion which is a violation of the Article 8 of the ECHR.[15] The stop and search powers given to police IN England and Wales are excessively overused as only 9 percent of the 1 million victims every year result in an arrest which indicate that the powers given to police are used ineffectively or are simply used in a wrong manner. However, this does not mean that the police is not using reasonable grounds to stop and search someone as reasonable grounds can also include the personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s behaviour or for example, stopping someone because they match the description of the person. Also for example, it would be reasonable to stop someone if there was a high number of burglaries happening in that area. [16] In the ECtHR, the decision clearly stated that continuing to use the s44 stop and search powers would be unlawful. Therefore, the Government introduced a Review of Counter-terrorism and Security Powers which is a review that discusses some concerns including the need for terrorism stop and search powers necessitating to comply with the ECHR. The two options recommended were either a whole repeal or a more definite and specific power that is tighter and clearer. The repeal option was rejected due to the reason that there was an on-going need for stop and search powers concerning terrorism that didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t involve the presence of a reasonable suspicion. Due to this reason, the review concluded that the power to stop and search people and vehicles without à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable suspicionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ was à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"operationally justifiedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ the recommendations were given effect by Terrorism act 2000 (Remedial) 2011.[17],[18] In conclusion, I believe that the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ should be defined and a very open and clear meaning should be built for it. [19] Another relevant point I want to raise is that the police are thinking too subjectively when stopping and searching. This should be changed by educating the police thoroughly about what the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ to stop and search are. The police thinking subjectively about stop and search is wrong and this can be changed and lead to a better suspicion of crimes if police are educated about objective thinking. [20] Promoting freedom is violated in the community level as some groups may suffer the fear of being stopped-searched in public. This could be classed as a violation of the personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s freedom which could be improved. Continuing to use the s44 to stop and search would be unlawful. Therefore, the stop and search powers need to be tightened up in order for it to be more effective. This means that the police can use their powers where ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s been suspected reasonably that terrorism will occur. For that reason, the law needs to provide specific and a clear meaning of a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable suspicionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ to force the police to know their rights. This will be an official statutory meaning which means that police will think psychologically that if they breach the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable suspicionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ they know that they are going against the law. However, as there is no clear meaning to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable suspicionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ the police are thinking that they not breaching the Article 5 or breaching the Article because they havenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t got enough knowledge about it. Therefore, by creating a definite meaning of a reasonable suspi cion, the police will think that ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s necessary rather than only expedient for the act of terrorism occurring. [21] Relaxing the limits might just encourage the police to exceed their powers even more. Then this may lead to the police basing their general suspicions by taking part in more random stops. Due to this, general suspicion could become the main reason for non-stops and this will probably worsen the situation. On the other hand, tightening up of the law may not be effectively possible. For instance, the police talking to people with the persons consent should never be prevented as the police is experienced and they know what they are doing and asking the person, which could lead to the police gaining clues.[22] To change the attitude of police by education and training is a good way of avoiding unreasonable suspecting of citizens and therefore, lead to a more effective policing system. Bibliography David Mery à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Halting section 44 stop and search powers https://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php/expert-opinion-mainmenu-127/812-halting-section-44-stop-and-search-powers https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson#cite_note-Starmerreview-7 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/1 https://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/osman.htm https://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm#h_stop_and_search 1 [1] . Mustapha Osman v Southwark Judgment of the Court CO/2318/98; (1999) The Times, 1 July, Queens Bench [2]: Police powers: stop and search https://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm#h_stop_and_search accessed 13 January 2014. [3] Section 3 [4] Ben Ferguson and Guy Grandjean à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Stop and Search; on the streets with the Policeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. The Guardian, 20 Oct. 2013. www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct20/stop-and-search-streets-police accessed 25 December 2013. [5] Police powers to stop and search: your rights https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights accessed on 11 January 2014. [6] Parpworth, Neil.Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, p. 454 2012 [7] Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. [8] Parpworth, Neil.Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, p. 454 2012 [9] Stop and think A critical review of the use of sto p and search powers in England and Wales, March 2010 [10] Hammond Mark https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/november/new-research-shows-slow-improvement-in-police-use-of-stop-and-search/ 11 November 2013. [11] Taylor Chris, Constitutuional and Administrative Law, 3rd ed, 2013. [12] Gillan and Quinton v UK, 2010, para 18 [13] Statement from Keir Starmer, The Guardian, 24 May 2011 [14] Equality Act 2007 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" Section 27 [15] David Mery à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Halting section 44 stop and search powers https://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php/expert-opinion-mainmenu-127/812-halting-section-44-stop-and-search-powers [16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23228019 bbc 9 July 2013 [17] Theresa May MP, Review of counter-terrorism and security Powers, Cm 8004, 18-19, 2011. [18] Parpworth, Neil.Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, p. 39 2012 [19] Stop and Search The Way Forward Conference Report Lewisham Community Police Co nsultative Group https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/StopAndSearchPart2.pdf [20] Stop and Search The Way Forward Conference Report Lewisham Community Police Consultative Group https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/StopAndSearchPart2.pdf [21] Parpworth, Neil.Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, p. 39 2012 [22] Sanders Andrew, Young Richard and Burton Mandy, Criminal Justice, 4th ed. Oxford UP, 1994.