Research Paper PII Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Research Paper PII - Essay Example Cyber criminals use numerous technologies in forcing entrance into personal accounts thus obtaining valuable personal information most of which have financial value. It thus becomes prudent for users to understand the technologies effectively thus employing appropriate technology and measures to curb the spread of such costly vises. In order to cushion themselves from such risks, users must ensure to keep their personal information secure in both online and offline platforms. Online platforms refer to the platforms found on the internet. People often store their personal information on the cyber space on such media as emails, social media among other types of online accounts (Fafinski, 2009). Offline platforms on the other hand refer to the use of digital technology in storing data without necessarily connecting to the internet. Such media as smart phones, computers and media players have digital storage spaces. Storing data on such platforms do not require any internet connection but the information stored therein face eminent risk of destruction and unauthorized access features that require effective management in order to prevent. Disclosing personal information online is often the main cause of such loses. This implies that users of such technologies must use the technologies cautiously. Among the scenarios that often require disclosure of such information, include online shopping, online games, online competitions and subscribing to the numerous online services. Using such services therefor3e require extreme caution. In order to prevent the loss of personal information while taking part in such important online activities, users must always investigate the authenticity of both the services and the service providers. Users must take care and engage only the legitimate companies. Engaging legitimate companies and understanding their terms and conditions are important since it becomes possible to investigate cases of loss of personal information.

Georg Philipp Telemann Sonata in F Minor Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4750 words

Georg Philipp Telemann Sonata in F Minor - Essay Example His musical prowess, which he has painstakingly nurtured amidst the resistance of his family especially his mother, makes him the most prominent composer during his period, even greater than the currently renowned Bach (Georg Phillip Telemann 2007). Telemann has been born in a family which most of the members is involved in church activities but is not directly musical. Only his great-grandfather who served as Cantor at Halberstadt is known to have been directly involved in musical activities. He lost his father at an early age, leaving him at the sole care of his mother who opted that he build a career in fields other than music. Yet, his musical genius is discovered early in his life, with Telemann writing his first opera at the age of twelve. Fearing that he will pursue a career in music, his mother confiscates all his instruments and sends to a school in Zellerfield. However, the approval of the superintendent of the institution discovered and approved of his talent giving him the opportunity to learn to play various instruments including recorder, viola, organ, viola da gamba, flute, oboe, chalumeau, double bass, and bass trombone (Baroque Composers and Musicians n.d.) With his mother's insistence, he studies law at Leipzig where he is commissioned to write music for two of the city's main churches. At the same time, he also founds the Collegium Musicum which gives performance of his music. Because of his growing prominence, Telemann is given the main position as the musical director of five churches in Hamburg, a position which he holds for the rest of his life. He is also noted for his regularly publication of his works (Georg Philipp Telemann 2007). Historical Information A. The Baroque Period Telemann's Sonata in Fminor is composed during the Baroque period which is an era in the European classical music which flourished between 1600 and 1750. Baroque music becomes a major component of the classical music canon which is widely performed, studied, and listened to. The general musical style which best characterized Baroque music are "more elaborate musical ornamentation, as well as changes in musical notation and advances in the way instruments were played" (Baroque Music 2007). Others include "unity of emotion, ornamentation, and a contrasting rhythm with improvisation melodies usually had a continuous line moving, terrace dynamics and extensions (Baroque Music 2007)." B. Sonata Form During the Baroque period, sonata refers to a variety of works including works for solo instrument such as keyboard of violin or groups of instruments. Sonata is a composition for one or more instruments always with continuo (Sonata 2007). Sonata form is "a way of organizing the musical ideas in a movement on the basis of key." Generally, it follows the following outline or standard form: 1. Introduction. "The introduction section is optional, or may be reduced to a minimum. If it is extended, it is generally slower than the main section, and focuses on the dominant key. It may or may not contain material which is later stated in the exposition (Sonata Form 2007)." 2. Exposition. "The primary thematic material

Understanding The Context Of Securitization Theory Philosophy Essay

Understanding The Context Of Securitization Theory Philosophy Essay Over the last decade, contemporary security studies witnessed a fundamental attempt by various social constructivist approaches to re-conceptualize the traditional notion of security as a perception of objective threat, and redefine the theoretical agenda of security studies. One of the most influential and eminent analytical frameworks among these approaches, the securitization theory, developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and their associates from what came to be later known as the Copenhagen School, based the meaning of security upon the socially constructed practice among actors. The core hypothesis of the Copenhagen School rests with the designation of securitization as a discoursive process through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object, and to enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat.  [1]   Thus, successful securitization encompasses three inextricable components existential threats, emergency action, and effects on inter-unit relations by breaking free of rules.  [2]  This, however, leads to an epistemological dilemma of whether the main purpose of securitization theory is to focus on the speech act as a creative force of security or to relate the establishment of security articulations to the context in which an interplay of the securitizing actor and a relevant audience takes its place. In other words, the enduring problem in the analytical framework of the securitization theory is what or who decisively invokes the move beyond the sphere of normal politics the speech act itself or the context in which relevant actors interacts. Consequently, this theoretical problem triggered two distinct interpretations of securitization theory. The first interpretation adhered to a rather internalist reading of securitization claiming that the security can be understood as a self-referential activity,  [3]  while the second standpoint, labeled externalist, correctly pointed out that the Copenhagen School generally put aside the contextual aspects in the analytical framework of the securitization theory, and in contrast proposed a conception of security as an intersubjective process  [4]  . The internalist point of view, narrowly based on the poststructuralist reading of securitization, is focused on the speech act event, and is anchored in the notion of a performativity, i.e. a result of the securitization is determined by the power of the act itself. In contrast, the externalist perspective rests with a more complex understanding of the securitization as a process of interactions between the audience and the secu ritizing actor through which a meaning of security is brought to existence. In particular, the former assert that the determinant power inherent in the discourse creates an exceptionality modus, whereas the latter link the effects of securitization to the context in which an interplay between the securitizing actor and a relevant audience occurs. The internalist understanding of the securitization theory rests with Waevers interpretation in Securitization and Desecuritization where it is, by drawing on John L. Austins concept of performative utterances,  [5]  claimed that the mere utterance of security is more than just saying or portraying an event, but performing an action that moves an issue beyond normal politics.  [6]  Whether this utterance of security is related to a particular context in which a stimulus triggers a response is irrelevant for the internalists. Contrary to the externalist argument that the communication between the agency and a respective audience enables the endowment of extraordinary measures, the internalists downplay the role of the context to the performative force of the speech act to impose an extraordinary situation and create a security. In particular, by referring to Derridas claim that there is nothing outside the text, the internalist understanding of the securitization concludes tha t the indeterminate nature of a speech act itself has a power to create new circumstances in a broader social framework. More specifically, it is not the sender-responder relation that bears authority in imposing the exceptional conditions, as the externalists suggest, but rather it is about the very nature of the performative speech act that constitutes not only new meaning, but also the social actors and reality.  [7]   However, this particular perspective on the determinacy of the situation by merely uttering the speech act has two shortcomings. Firstly, given the nature of the performative act which is in the internalist notion solely regarded as the language-discoursive framework, one can argue that this is only one means through which the meaning of security is constructed. More specifically, the speech act of securitization cannot be reducible to verbal phrases or rhetoric, because what portrays something or someone as an existential threat is a broader performative act composed of different contextual and symbolic patterns that increase the overall effectiveness of an appeal for emergency measures. As Michael Williams shrewdly notes, the television images of 9/11 destruction, casualties and human suffering have considerably contributed to the dominant perceptions of security and to a construction of a necessary response to an existential threat.  [8]  Secondly, it is not the utterance of p erformative act that creates a meaning of security, but rather the routinized practices of the bureaucratic machinery and professional managers of unease applied to various issue areas that allow the act to urge an embracement of extraordinary measures.  [9]  In particular, surveillance practice, the control of borders or immigration policy is an ultimate aim behind the use of language by networks of security professionals that generate specific meaning of (in) security. Related to the second shortcoming, the externalist reading of securitization contributes to the debate by adding a social and political context in which the practice is exercised by relevant structures. In general, by referring to the concepts of the audience and the facilitating conditions suggested by Buzan et al. (1998) in Security: A New Framework for Analysis, the externalist understanding transfers the creation of the meaning from the speech act to the intersubjective level of analysis. Thus, rather than reducing the securitization to a discoursive event, the externalist understanding draws on a broader conception-a dynamics between the securitizing actor initiating the speech act, and a relevant audience accepting or refusing it.  [10]  The interpretation and depiction of the existential threat are, in other words, negotiated between the actor and a respective audience. Nevertheless, although the speech act is enacted and introduced by the authoritative actor, it is the au dience in this relationship that decides whether the discourse will be accepted as an appropriate narrative.  [11]  In addition, following the concept of facilitating conditions the exceptionalist logic infers that the possibility of a successful securitization act will depend on whether the audience recognizes the conventional procedures within the performative act, and whether the securitizing actor holds a position of authority.  [12]   Nevertheless, both concepts (the audience and the facilitating conditions) are theoretically underdeveloped leaving many epistemological gaps in the analytical framework of the securitization. Firstly, even if one identifies a relevant audience, the question remains why and how the receivers will react to the utterance of the act. Although coercion or brute force may in general be effective, in order to maintain credibility the securitizing actor will particularly need to identify his/her move beyond normal politics with the audiences values, norms, interests and feelings. Thus the content of the performative message would need to be contingent upon the moral justification corresponding to what is generally perceived as legitimate by the audience, and upon the approval of the legal authority.  [13]  Yet, it still remains unclear what constitutes the broader socio-political basis for the securitizing actor to claim authority to impose measures and for the audience to conform to th e language of the act. However, the concept of facilitating conditions is a rather objectivist, to the extent that it posits the discoursive process inside the exogenously given actor-audience structure and at the same time it is static, in terms of reducing a securitization to a mere event dependent on the stimulus-response pattern. To comprehensively grasp the essence of the securitization, one therefore needs to move beyond both internalist and externalist understanding and analyze the audiences expectations, the actors authority and a meaning of the speech act as embedded in social relations of meaning and power that constitutes both actors and speech acts.  [14]   The seemingly unavoidable gap between the two understandings may be bridged through the internalist-externalist distinction developed by Holger Stritzel who seeks to establish a context in which the actor, an audience and the speech act are embedded as mutually constitutive and non-separable relations. The context in this view is constituted of two dimensions: social-linguistic, referring to the networks of constitutive rules and narratives that surround a single linguistic act and socio-political, i.e. structures from which the power to influence the process of constructing meaning is derived  [15]  . Consequently, the power connectedness of the three elements of securitization is interlinked with the two dimensions through the constitution of three forces of securitization: the performative force of the speech act (internalist), its embeddedness in the existing discourse (externalist) and the positional power of actors who shape the meaning (internalist-externalist).  [16]  What Stritzel effectively achieves with his analytical framework is three-fold: firstly, the moving from the given meaning of the threat to the meaning generated by the dynamic social interactions; secondly, the interrelatedness between the text of the speech act and the discoursive practices add a missing part to the internalist notion of the speech act as an utterance itself; finally, the power position of the actor that underpins his/her authority departs from both the inclusive nature of the linguistic concept of power outlined by the internalist reading, and the exogenously defined relationship between the actor and the audience proposed by the externalist understanding of securitization. In conclusion, the epistemological division between the internalist and the externalist view, as shrewdly suggested by Stritzel, may be bypassed through the establishment of interconnectidness between the language act and actors/audience within the mutually constitutive social context. Nevertheless, the dilemma about which element decisively constitutes the security persists within the securitization theory. As McDonald effectively put it, the incoherence within the existing analytical framework of securitization theory will lead to the downplay of either the performative effects of the speech act or the inter-subjective nature of security.  [17]  Therefore, a closer focus on different empirical cases may provide useful insights into the problematic of the speech act-actor-audience triangle, and moreover contribute to the analytical framework of securitization theory.

Comparing the Characters of The Stranger (The Outsider) and The Trial :: comparison compare contrast essays

Characters of  Camus’ The Stranger (The Outsider) and  Kafka’s The Trial    The characters of the chaplain, in Albert Camus’ The Outsider, and the priest, in Franz Kafka’s The Trial, are quite similar, and are pivotal to the development of the novel. These characters serve essentially to bring the question of God and religion to probe the existentialist aspects of it, in novels completely devoid of religious context. The main idea visible about these two characters is that they are both the last ones seen by the protagonists, Mearsault and K., both non-believers in the word of the lord. Whereas the chaplain in The Outsider tries to make Mearsault believe in the existence of god, the priest tries to warn and explain to K. what will happen to him. The reason the chaplain is the last one to see Mearsault is becasue it’s his job to let the prisioners have a final shot at redemption before they are executed. The reason that K. meets with the priest is out of advice given to him by someone, and he is the last character that he shows K. interac ting with (although it might be true that K. meets and interacts with other people after the meeting, but they are neither mentioned nor visible later on). The priest doesn’t try and make K. confess or anything of the sort, he is mainly there to converse with the character, his religious position is almost put to no use. The existentialist view of religion is that humans have been alienated from god, from each other, and so forth. In the novel Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, the christian idea of salvation through suffering is omnipresent throughout the novel. What is visible with The Trial and The Outsider is that they don’t touch on the aspect of religion much throughout the story (The Outsider has bits and pieces of it appearing in his cross examinations but they are used more to mock than in an analitical sense). The presence of these two characters at the end of the novel serves to cover all the existentialist areas known to existemtialists (although i t is doubtful whether the authors consciously attempted to make the character’s present because of any existentialist rules they had to follow). The characters are required to structure the novels, beside the obvious existentialist areas.

Public Display of Affection

Nursing Care Plan Student Name/Date: __Nicole Reinke/ Week 5_____________ | Nursing Diagnosis |Expected Outcomes |Nursing Interventions/Rationale |Outcome Evaluation | |(Dx, related to, & as evidenced by) |(Short term (8-48 hr. ) reasonable expectations |List all interventions for each nsg. dx (include patient/family |(Patient outcome noted as met or unmet/responses | | |stated in measurable, behavioral terms, i. . , |teaching) |described) | | |action verbs) | | | |Risk for injury r/t seizures amb gait and balance |Client will remain free from falls while in the |Nurse will make sure that the call light is always in reach so |This outcome of remaining fall free was met while | |disorders. hospital. |that the client does not have to be concerned about not knowing |I was at the hospital. Everytime I went into the | | | |where the call light is when needing help. |room I made sure the call light was on her table | | | |Nure will place a â€Å"High Risk for Falls† sign above client’s bed so|and the walker was next to the bed.Client also | | | |that any person that comes into the room to help assist is aware |reported no falls. | | | |of the safety measures that need to be taken. | | | |Nurse will determine risk for falls using the evaluation tool | | | | |which includes client history of atrial fibrillation. | | | | | | | | |Nurse will place the walker near the bed to remind client to use | | | | |walker when getting up to go to the bathroom. | | | | |Nurse will explain how to use the walker, by moving walker first | | | | |and then move body to make sure client knows how to use the | | | | |walker. | | | |Nurse will also teach the client the importance of using the | | | | |walker when walking through the halls in order to prevent future |This outcome of using the walker was partially | | |Client will use a walker while in the hospital to|falls, this will also help promote activity and will give the |met. When reminded the clien t would use the | | |get to the bathroom in order to maintain safety. client something else to do instead of laying in bed all day. |walker but admitted not using it all the time. | | | | |After teaching her the importance of using the | | | | |walker and what could happen if she fell she said | | | | |she would try to make it a habit. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Nursing Diagnosis |Expected Outcomes |Nursing Interventions/Rationale |Outcome Evaluation | |(Dx, related to, & as evidenced by) |(Short term (8-48 hr. ) reasonable expectations |List all interventions for each nsg. dx (include patient/family|(Patient outcome noted as met or unmet/responses | | |stated in measurable, behavioral terms, i. e. |teaching) |described) | | |action verbs) | | | | |3. Client will be educated on how to reduce | Nurse will assess for additonal factors leading to risk for |This outcome was not fully met. I asked about | | |risk of falls at home. |falls because sometimes medications can increase risk for |her house and the hazards that were there for | | | |falls. |falls but I wasn’t able to talk about using | | | |2.Nurse will teach the client the benefit of using nonskid |nonskid rugs or bathroom devices. But she | | | |rugs and safety devices in the bathroom. This is important to |understands the importance and will ask her | | | |teach so that the client can recognize clutter and slippery |daughter and physican when she is discharged. | | | |floors. | | | |3. Nurse will instruct client and daughter how to correct | | | | |identified hazards to make sure everything that could cause a | | | | |fall is prevented. | |

Difference of Drama and Prose fiction

Often times, drama has been confused with prose fiction by several people. As a student of literature, I have seen so many people confuse the two together. Sometimes they say; â€Å"it’s all the same†. The question is this true? If not, what are the differences between them? These are the question that I will attempt to answer in this essay. For the purpose of clarity and precision, It will suffice to make an overview at what literature itself is.Literature can be seen as the collection of written works of a specific language, at a particular time, in a given culture which might be imaginative or creative in nature and is usually of specific artistic worth. Every society has its own literature but they are in different levels. Some are advanced while some are not. The basic genres of literature are drama, poetry, prose but in this essay, restriction will be on drama and prose fiction. Drama as a genre of literature is the detailed style of fiction characterized by acts. The etymology is from a Greek work which means â€Å"action† or â€Å"to do†.On the other hand, prose fiction is also a genre of literature that deals with writings that differ in meter and rhyme to poetry. It is a form of writing that has a lot of similarity to our everyday speech. The question here is what differentiates these two genres of literature? How can we separate both when we see them? The answers to these questions are enumerated below in the following paragraphs. The first difference between drama and literature likes in the fact that drama is meant for a live performance which is directed at a live audience.This is better portrayed in some words associated with drama such as words like play and show. On the other hand, a prose fiction is directed by the author to a single person at a time- the person reading the work. Another difference is that drama communicates in the present while prose does not. Also, in drama, the personality of the playwright is mo stly hidden in the sense that there are several characters in the work while in the case of prose fiction, the author selects the character and therefore, this personality might reflect in his work.Furthermore, in drama the actor impersonates a role while in prose fiction the character imitates the person. In the case of drama, the entire thing the playwright has in presenting the story is the dialogue while in prose fiction the dialogue is imitated language that does not carry the plot forward. Another difference in drama and prose fiction lies in the fact that in drama, in order to make the audience understand the play better, gestures are used. On the other hand, in the case of prose fiction, what the author manipulates the text in order for the reader to better understand the work.In addition, in drama, the audience decides what mode they will be although the dramatists have an influence over the mode but they can not alter the mode. In prose fiction, the author decides the mode , setting, the character and what he wants the reader to know. Summarily, it should be noted that although these two genres of literature have sharp differences, they both come from the same family and they both serve as means of entertainment and means of communication.