Apple Computers essays

Apple Computers essays One of the most innovative and exciting fields in our current society is the PC industry. In the last thirty years, the computer industry has developed at an astounding rate-nearly two out of three people over the age of 18 in the US either own or have access to a computer on a regular basis. This incredible invention, however, is the result of inauspicious beginnings and inept primary marketing by one of the most successful manufacturers of personal computers-Apple. Despite disastrous losses in the 80s and 90s to their main competitor, IBM, Apple recently re-vamped the entire company-focusing on marketing and product developmentand introduced the iMac in 1998-the most successful personal computer launch ever. Despite this success, the rapid rate of development within the computer industry indicates that Apple must analyze their previous marketing techniques in order to maintain the high level of success achieved in the late twentieth century. The PC was invented on April Fools Day in 1976. The two inventors, Steven Jobs and Stephan Wozniak, were working out of a garage and possessed very little knowledge of the importance of marketing in successful product production and distribution. They were primarily interested in their products-showing little concern for its markets. The introduction of IBM in 1981, however, was a strong wakeup call for the unprofessional company-forcing them into competition against strong and well-managed opponents. For several years after IBM launched its first PC, it dominated the market-focusing on a synergistic relationship with Microsoft. After hearing the dire predictions regarding the probability of Apple surviving IBM domination, Steven Jobs realized that professional marketing help was vital. John Scully, a professional in marketing, concluded that Apple desperately needed a keen update on its marketing-product strategies. The resulting solution consisted of diffe...

Operation Cobra in World War II

Operation Cobra in World War II Operation Cobra was conducted from July 25 to 31, 1944, during World War II (1939-1945). After the Allied landings in Normandy, commanders began to formulate a plan to push out from the beachhead. Initial efforts were hampered by the need to take the city of Caen in the east and the dense hedgerow country in the west. Seeking to launch a major breakout, General Omar Bradley sought to focus the Allies efforts on a narrow front west of St. Là ´. Moving forward on July 25 after the area had been heavy bombed, American troops achieved a breakthrough. By the third day, most organized German resistance had been overcome and the speed of the advance increased. Coupled with assaults by British and Canadian forces, Operation Cobra led to the collapse of the German position in Normandy. Background Landing in Normandy on D-Day (June 6, 1944), Allied forces quickly consolidated their foothold in France. Pushing inland, American forces in the west encountered difficulty negotiating the bocage of Normandy. Hampered by this vast network of hedgerows, their advance was slow. As June passed, their greatest successes came on the Cotentin Peninsula where troops secured the key port of Cherbourg. To the east, British and Canadian forces fared little better as they sought to capture the city of Caen. Grappling with the Germans, the Allied efforts around the city succeeded drawing the bulk of the enemy armor to that sector (Map). Eager to break the deadlock and begin mobile warfare, Allied leaders began planning for a breakout from the Normandy beachhead. On July 10, following the capture of the northern part of Caen, the commander of the 21st Army Group, Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery, met with General Omar Bradley, commander of the US First Army, and Lieutenant General Sir Miles Dempsey, commander of the British Second Army, to discuss their options. Admitting progress was slow on his front, Bradley put forward a breakout plan dubbed Operation Cobra which he hoped to launch on July 18. Lt. Gen. Omar Bradley (center) with Lt. General George S. Patton (left) and General Sir Bernard Montgomery (right) at 21st Army Group HQ, Normandy, 7 July 1944. Public Domain Planning Calling for a massive offensive to the west of Saint-Là ´, Operation Cobra was approved by Montgomery who also directed Dempsey to keep pressing around Caen to hold the German armor in place. To create the breakthrough, Bradley intended to focus the advance on a 7,000 yard stretch of the front south of the Saint-Là ´Ã¢â‚¬â€œPeriers Road. Prior to the attack an area measuring 6,000 Ãâ€" 2,200 yards would be subjected to heavy aerial bombardment. With the conclusion of the air strikes, the 9th and 30th Infantry Divisions from Major General J. Lawton Collins VII Corps would move forward opening a breach in the German lines. These units would then hold the flanks while the 1st Infantry and 2nd Armored Divisions drove through the gap. They were to be followed by a five or six division exploitation force. If successful, Operation Cobra would allow American forces to escape the bocage and cut off the Brittany peninsula. To support Operation Cobra, Dempsey commenced Operations Goodwood and Atlantic on July 18. Though these took substantial casualties, they succeeded in capturing the remainder of Caen and forced the Germans to retain seven of the nine panzer divisions in Normandy opposite the British. Armies Commanders Allies Field Marshal Bernard MontgomeryGeneral Omar Bradley11 divisions Germans Field Marshal Gunther von KlugeColonel General Paul Hausser8 divisions Moving Forward Though the British operations commenced on July 18, Bradley elected to delay several days due to poor weather over the battlefield. On July 24, Allied aircraft began striking the target area despite questionable weather. As a result, they accidentally inflicted around 150 friendly fire casualties. Operation Cobra finally moved forward the next morning with over 3,000 aircraft striking the front. Friendly fire continued to be an issue as the attacks inflicted a further 600 friendly fire casualties as well as killed Lieutenant General Leslie McNair (Map). Advancing around 11:00 AM, Lawtons men were slowed by surprisingly stiff German resistance and numerous strong points. Though they gained only 2,200 yards on July 25, the mood in the Allied high command remained optimistic and the 2nd Armored and 1st Infantry Divisions joined the assault the next day. They were further supported by VIII Corps which began attacking German positions to the west. Fighting remained heavy on the 26th but began to wane on the 27th as German forces began retreating in the face of the Allied advance (Map). Breaking Out Driving south, German resistance was scattered and American troops captured Coutances on July 28 though they endured heavy fighting east of the town. Seeking to stabilize the situation, the German commander, Field Marshal Gunther von Kluge, began directing reinforcements west. These were intercepted by XIX Corps which had begun advancing on VII Corps left. Encountering the 2nd and 116th Panzer Divisions, XIX Corps became embroiled in heavy combat, but succeeded in shielding the American advance to the west. German efforts were repeatedly frustrated by Allied fighter bombers which swarmed over the area. U.S. tanks pass through a wrecked street in Coutances, Normandy in their drive to the sea beyond the town. National Archives and Records Admininstration With the Americans advancing along the coast, Montgomery directed Dempsey to begin Operation Bluecoat which called for an advance from Caumont towards Vire. With this he sought to hold German armor in the east while protecting Cobras flank. As British forces rolled forward, American troops captured the key town of Avranches which opened the way into Brittany. The next day, XIX Corps succeeded in turning back the last German counterattacks against the American advance. Pressing south, Bradleys men finally succeeded in escaping the bocage and began to drive the Germans before them. Aftermath As Allied troops were enjoying success, changes took place in command structure. With the activation of Lieutenant General George S. Pattons Third Army, Bradley ascended to take over the newly-formed 12th Army Group. Lieutenant General Courtney Hodges assumed command of First Army. Entering combat, Third Army poured into Brittany as the Germans attempted to regroup. Though the German command saw no other sensible course than to withdraw behind the Seine, they were ordered to conduct a large counterattack at Mortain by Adolf Hitler. Dubbed Operation Luttich, the attack began on August 7 and was largely defeated within twenty-four hours (Map). Sweeping east, American troops captured Le Mans on August 8. With his position in Normandy collapsing rapidly, Kluges Seventh and Fifth Panzer Armies risked being trapped near Falaise. Beginning on August 14, Allied forces sought to close the Falaise Pocket and destroy the German Army in France. Though nearly 100,000 Germans escaped the pocket before it was closed on August 22, around 50,000 were captured and 10,000 killed. In addition, 344 tanks and armored vehicles, 2,447 trucks/vehicles, and 252 artillery pieces were captured or destroyed. Having won the Battle of Normandy, Allied forces advanced freely to the Seine River reaching it on August 25.

Utilizing Assessment Rubrics to Evaluate Learning Assignment

Utilizing Assessment Rubrics to Evaluate Learning - Assignment Example Using a rubric, students develop a clear sense of what is required of them on a given assignment. A rubric outlines details such as the length of the assignment, the content, which is important in directing students on what would be relevant or irrelevant if covered (Helvoort 2010, p.27). The rubric is also gives instructions on the referencing requirements. Perhaps the most important use of the rubric is its use as an instrument that defines the standards in every assignment (Hauser and Bowen, 2009). This is such that, by going through the rubric, the student is made aware of what they need to do to garner scores within the highest score brackets. The rubric outlines the way one has to arrange their thoughts in order come up with a paper that attracts good grades, the proper way to reference their work and the grammatical demands (Hauser and Bowen, 2009). In this, tutors are able to aid their students to grasp the standards of the profession (Oakleaf, 2008 p.245) in a concise manner. In addition, students can understand their grades by going through the rubric to discover costly omissions and commissions that marred their ability to score the grades they were aiming for. An effective rubric applies the use of the following three domains. The first, the affective domain, addresses the intersect between the values and beliefs of patients and nurses, and how these apply to the treatment regimen. Secondly is the cognitive domain, addressing the extent of knowledge of nurses. This domain has to do with analysis and application of what is known to the nurse. Finally is the psychomotor domain, addressing the technical skills at the nurse’s disposal (Cecilia, 2013). These domains have to be incorporated into the rubric as demonstrated. A good rubric, according to Oakleaf (2008, p.254) is in synchrony with the learning objectives of the course. This tests the retention and application abilities of the students, that is the cognitive skills of learners. In

Research proposal What is the effectiveness of adopting Surgical Time

What is the effectiveness of adopting Surgical Time Out policy in improving patient safety in the Operating Room '' - Research Proposal Example UP-14). In general, a surgical time-out policy is all about identifying the right patient, the right site where surgical procedure will be performed, observing the right body positioning, signing the consent form which strongly suggest that the patient has agreed to receive the said surgical procedure, and to ensure that special arrangements are made to get hold of a particular equipment needed to perform the surgery (Fry, 2008, p. UP-14). Often times, it is the registered nurse who is in-charge and is accountable for performing the surgical count of surgical items like cotton swabs, sponges, gauze, needles, blades, and scalpels among others (Hamlin, Richardson-Tench and Davies, 2009, p. 88). Miscommunication can happen among a group of healthcare professionals who are working within the operating room (Halverson et al., 2011). In line with this, several studies acknowledges that the process of using a â€Å"surgical safety checklist† as suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO) is effective in terms of preventing the risks of mortality caused by human errors (Kasatpibal et al., 2012; van Klei et al., 2012; Conley et al., 2011). However, despite the process of continuously educating the healthcare professionals on how to accurately perform surgical time-out process, there are still some cases wherein the surgical team may fail to comply with the surgical time-out procedures (Gillespie et al., 2010). It is part of the duty and responsibility of healthcare professionals to continuously improve patient safety within the operating room. In line with this, the surgical team is normally composed of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and registered nurses. For this reason, the proposed research study aims to determine how well the surgical team in Hong Kong are able to adopt with the local hospitals’ surgical time-out policy. Specifically the main research objective is to test the

Stages of Developing a Psychiatric Treatment Care Plan

Stages of Developing a Psychiatric Treatment Care Plan A patient had been admitted to an A E unit after committing ‘deliberate self-harm’. He had attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on some headache tablets. When that hadn’t worked he slashed himself in several places using a kitchen knife. He arrived at the A E unit in an extremely distressed state. Why the psychologist was called in Although the patient clearly had very severe physical injuries a comprehensive psychosocial assessment revealed he was suffering from severe psychological problems. His symptoms seemed to suggest clinical depression that was so deep-rooted and severe it necessitated intensive and sustained psychotherapy. Thus, it was decided to immediately refer him to a clinical psychologist. This is consistent with professional guidelines, which recommend that self-harm patients are referred for psychological intervention if an initial psychosocial assessment reveals an underlying psychological problem (NICE, 2004, p.32). A clinical psychologist is formally trained to deal with various forms of psychopathology, including clinical depression, based on psychological theories and research (Davey, 2004, pp.713-714). In addition to carrying out in-depth psychological evaluations, to identify underlying psychopathology (using a wide variety of personality and neuropsychological tests, and clinical observ ation), the psychologist is trained to make a formal diagnosis, using set criteria. Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have very similar training. However a clinical psychologist rather than psychiatrist was called in to deal with this case because the latter are primarily medical doctors, and hence typically use the ‘medical model’ for dealing with psychological disorders. Psychosocial assessment suggested that this patient primarily required intensive psychotherapy rather than medication. Theoretical concepts The clinical psychologist relied upon Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory in formulating a treatment plan (McMillan, 2001, pp.599-600). Freud’s conceptualisations have had a massive impact on popular culture, and psychology and psychiatry in particular. Psychoanalytic theory posits that unconscious conflict, often emanating from childhood, and involving forbidden sexual and aggressive desires causes psychopathology. A distinction is made between the conscious (awareness), preconscious (memories that are readily accessible), and unconscious (repressed memories of which a person may not even be aware). Superimposed against these levels of consciousness are three components of human personality: the id (basic biological drives), the ego (restrictions imposed by external reality), and superego (conscience). The id operates at the subconscious level, while the ego and superego function at the preconscious and conscious levels. Perpetual and intense conflicts between the id and the other two components can generate considerable anxiety and, if unresolved, mental health problems. Psychoanalysis places considerable emphasis on the sex drive, or ‘libido’. Humans are thought to progress through several stages of psychosexual development. Fixation at any one stage results in various emotional problems. What the psychologist did During the initial session with the patient the clinical psychologist immediately set up a good rapport with the patient. The priority was to assess the patients’ problem, and develop a comprehensive treatment plan with clear goals for recovery. After an initial session the patient underwent numerous sessions involving free association, a therapeutic form of psychoanalysis (McMillan, 2001, pp.167-168). During this procedure, the psychologist encouraged the patient to verbalise whatever came to mind. Free association is considered to yield clues about the subconscious roots of a patients’ problem. The patient spoke a lot about his childhood. From time to time the therapist probed with searching questions encouraging the patient to elaborate on particular statements made. During each session the psychotherapist maintained an empathic and non-judgemental demeanour, in order to facilitate a high degree of trust between himself and the patient. The patient attended weekly se ssions over a six-month period. During the final month of therapy the clinician engaged in dream analysis, whereby the patient was asked to describe recent dreams in as much detail and with as much accuracy as possible. How the psychologists’ input was assessed By the end of therapy it had gradually become clear that the patient had been experiencing intense homosexual desires ever since puberty. These urges had been repressed for years, in order to conform to social norms and his parents’ wishes for him to get married and have children. The patient wasn’t conscious of these forbidden desires. The realisation made him feel much better, going a long way to explain why he had been feeling pathologically depressed, even suicidal. The impact of psychoanalytic therapy on this patient was assessed using a pre- and post-test experimental analysis (Coolican, 1994, pp.82-88). During his initial assessment of the patient the psychologist obtained baseline measures of psychiatric symptoms using the SCL-90-R (Derogatis, 1983), social functioning using the Social Adjustment Scale (Weissman, 1975), general adjustment in life, using the Global Assessment Scale (Endicott et al, 1976), and episodes of self-harm, using the Suicide and Self-Harm Inventory (Sansone et al, 1998) during the previous six months. At the end of therapy the therapist administered the same battery of tests to gauge any improvements in the patients’ mental health. Statistical analysis comparing pre- and post-test data, using a t-tested for repeated measures (Coolican, 1994, pp.281-286) showed significant improvements on all criteria: psychiatric functioning, and social/global adjustment, and frequency of self-harm. Bibliography Coolican, H. (1994) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, London, Hodder Davey, G. (ed) (2004) Complete Psychology . London: Hodder and Stoughton Derogatis, L.R. (1983) SCL-90-R: Administration, Scoring, and Procedures Manual,  II. Towson, Md, Clinical Psychometric Research. Endicott, J., Spitzer, R.L., Fleiss, J.L. Cohen, J. (1976) The Global Assessment  Scale: a procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance.  Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, pp.766–771. NICE (2004) Self-Harm: The Short-Term Physical and Psychological Management  and Secondary Prevention of Self-Harm in Primary and Secondary Care:  Clinical Guideline 16. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence. McMillan, M. (2001) The reliability and validity of Freud’s methods of free  association and interpretation. Psychological Inquiry, 3, pp. 167-175. Sansone, R.A., Wiederman, M.W. Sansone, L.A. (1998) The Self-Harm Inventory  (SHI): development of a scale for identifying self-destructive behaviors and  borderline personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, pp.973-983. Weissman, M.M. (1975) The assessment of social adjustment. Archives of General  Psychiatry, 32, pp.357–365.

No Link Between Autism and Vaccination

According to the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association, autism is a developmental disability, manifesting itself before the age of three, and resulting from a disorder of the central nervous system.   The developmental disability is diagnosed with the use of specific criteria for impairments in the areas of communication, basic social interaction, the interests of affected individuals, and their imagination as well as activities.   Autistic children are known to be slow at basic processes like language acquisition that healthy children are known to learn quickly (â€Å"Autism†). The causes of autism are controversial, which is why it is possible for people to formulate a host of theories on the causes of this developmental disability (â€Å"Autism†).   A British study published in February 1998 was misinterpreted by countless people who believed that the data provided proof that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was responsible for autism in children.   The study was conducted by a team of thirteen scientists with Dr. Andrew Wakefield of Oxford University as the team leader. After it was discovered that parents had begun to fear the MMR vaccine because a debate had been waged with regards to the data presented in their study, ten of the thirteen authors of the study report made the following statement which was published on the BBC website: â€Å"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient† (Jackson). The demand for vaccination fell in the United Kingdom after the data in the above mentioned study had been misunderstood, and the misinterpreted information had been publicized.   This meant that children could no longer be protected from measles, mumps, and rubella.   In point of  fact, it was found that a significant number of families had entirely given up on the idea of vaccination for their children. Some parents had opted for single vaccines rather than the MMR at the time, but health organizations and the UK government warned that even single vaccines put children at risk (Burke).   What is more, even some doctors in the United States had begun to believe that the MMR vaccination was responsible for autism.   Globalization had spread the rumor overseas.   According to Dr. Mary Megson from Virginia, The segment of children with â€Å"regressive autism,† the form where children develop normally for a period of time then lose skills and sink into autism, most commonly at 18-24 months of age, is increasing at a phenomenal rate.   I am seeing several children in the same family affected, including in the last week four cases of â€Å"autistic regression† developing in four-year-old children after their MMR and DPT vaccination.   In the past, this was unheard of. The doctor from Virginia advised that the implementation of safe vaccine policies should become a first priority, seeing that vaccination cannot be kept away from children (Megson).   The doctor had believed that there was definitely a link between autism and vaccination.   As a matter of fact, many doctors believed what Dr. Megson had believed.   This is because the link between MMR vaccination and autism was that of â€Å"coincidental-timing.†Ã‚   In other words, the symptoms of autism began to occur around the same time as the vaccination. Hence, parents began to falsely believe that the vaccine was indeed responsible for autism.   Dr. Ken Haller, who works as a primary care pediatrician with the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital explained  the false belief thus: â€Å"When something terrible happens to a child, everyone wants a reason for it†¦Ã‚   As a physician, it's very difficult for me, when I see a kid who's diagnosed with autism or a seizure disorder, to say we have no idea why this happened.   But people want to grasp onto something; that's human nature. (Jackson)† The â€Å"insufficient† data in the study conducted by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues could not find a link between autism and vaccination.   So, two different groups of investigators in the United States attempted to find out whether there was truly a link between autism and vaccination.   Dr. James A. Kaye and his colleagues at the Boston University used the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database to find out whether 254 boys suffering from autism in their study were actually suffering because of MMR vaccination. Dr. Loring Dales and her colleagues at the California Department of Health Services in Berkeley performed a similar study during the same time.   Both of these studies eventually showed that there is no link whatsoever between autism and vaccination.   The results of both of these studies actually showed that while the use of vaccination remained constant over time, the cases of autism increased dramatically among children without vaccination being responsible for the increase (Kubetin). Although it had already been clearly proven that there is definitely no link between autism and vaccination, the developed world where the debate on autism and vaccination had been waged was seeking a truly comprehensive study to show whether there really is a link between autism and vaccination, or not.   K. Madsen, A. Hvii, and M. Vestergaard report on exactly the kind of study that was being sought and finally conducted on Danish children: This is the most direct evaluation of whether MMR causes autism published to date. Though all epidemiological studies conducted in recent years have found no association between the MMR vaccine and onset of autism, design limitations have left some doubt about this issue.   This historical cohort included all Danish children born between 1991 and 1998 when prevalence rates for autism and autistic spectrum disorders were increasing.   Because of the thoroughness of the Danish system of registration, ascertainment of vaccination status and health problems was remarkably accurate and complete.   Since the cohort was composed of the entire population, both vaccinated and unvaccinated children had the same risk of autism prior to exposure to the vaccine.   Nearly all children were accounted for at the end of the study period.   Specialists using the same diagnostic classification system made the diagnosis of autism in a uniform manner. No doubt, this was the comprehensive study with ‘sufficient data’ that parents were seeking the results of.   The design of the study was virtually immaculate.   Most importantly, the study showed once again that there was no difference in the risk of autism in the children that were vaccinated verses those that were not vaccinated.   Moreover, the cases considered as part of the study were not clustered at any point after the immunization.   Madsen et al. report that the registry data that was used did not contain information on children that were suffering from developmental regression.   Hence, the issue that there might be children who show vulnerability to vaccination, could not be ruled out.   If there is a group of such children, the risk for vaccinated  children would be greater than 1.   However, the opposite turned out to be true – that is, there is definitely no risk of autism in children especially because of vaccination. Because the size of the sample of children studied was extraordinarily large, and there was no evidence to show that there is a link between autism and vaccination, Madsen et al. concluded that parents should fearlessly continue to vaccinate their children in order to avoid future outbreaks of disease.   Given that parents had previously only trusted false interpretations of the British study that had seemed to show a link between autism and vaccination, it is now time to give up the false belief entirely.   Science is based on real facts, which is why we all trust scientific information. We have been shown through several studies that there is certainly no link between autism and vaccination.   There have been more studies of the same kind with the same results that we have not discussed.   Future studies may similarly show that there is no link between autism and vaccination.   Even so, parents cannot keep their children from immunization waiting for future studies of the same kind, churning out the same results.   The future of children is at stake without vaccination.   The scientific evidence that has been found thus far is sufficient. Works Cited â€Å"Autism.† (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism. (4 April 2007). Burke, Maria. â€Å"Every parent's choice? Autism and vaccination — the jury's out.† Chemistry and Industry (2002, February 18). Jackson, Harry Jr. â€Å"Debate on autism and vaccination started after British medical study.† St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2004, May 28). Kubetin, Sally Koch. â€Å"MMR Vaccination Not Tied to Rise in Autism Rate.† Clinical Psychiatry News (2001, July 1). Madson, K., A. Hvii, and M. Vestergaard. â€Å"There is little evidence that combined vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella is associated with autism.† Evidence-Based Mental Health (2003, May 1). Megson, Mary. â€Å"Autism and Vaccinations.† The Weston A. Price Foundation (2004, March 16). Retrieved from http://www.westonaprice.org/children/index.html. (3 April 2007).         

When to Use Uppercase or Capital Letters