Date: 5.19.2017 / Article Rating: 5 / Votes: 1000
Eck.essayninja.info #The story of pompeii

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> The story of pompeii

Order Paper Writing Help 24/7 - the story of pompeii

Nov/Thu/2017 | Uncategorized



Order Essay and Get It on Time -
Interesting facts about Pompeii and Mount Vesuvius | Around

Nov 09, 2017 The story of pompeii, order essay services & assignment papers online -

The Lost City of Pompeii - National Geographic Kids

ApplyTexas: Help for Essay Topic C. Click HERE for the current essay prompts! Photo Via Texas Lutheran University. The Story? How to Link Your Life Goals to Current and Future Activities. In the previous post, I wrote about ideas on karl marx struggle how to answer Topics A and B in the ApplyTexas college application. Students who want to apply to of pompeii, most public colleges and universities and some private colleges in metamorphosis Texas must use the ApplyTexas application. Depending on the school(s) in Texas that you are applying to, there#8217;s a good chance you will need to the story, answer any combination of Topics A, B or C. Considering your lifetime goals, discuss how your current and future academic and extra-curricular activities might help you achieve your goals. This prompt is more straightforward than A or B. Karl Struggle? Its asking you to explain how you are preparing to of pompeii, achieve your goals in life. Many college admissions experts believe this is the light most important of the three essays, and that if possible, students should mention their intended major , and build a strong case for of pompeii, why they would be successful at it in college and beyond. If you want to go into themes, one of the more competitive majors, such as business or engineering, you need to prove why you deserve a spot in the college or universitys program. Even if you arent sure what you want to study or doand most students donttry your best to show that you actually do know and are certain. Heres some ideas on how to the story, do that: Brainstorm Ideas First for turtle devices, ApplyTexas Topic C. For many students, the hardest part is figuring out the story, what those goals are at this point in their lives. Before you start writing, brainstorm and take notes about your goals.

Then, start listing what has prepared you for them, and how you expect your future school will help continue to prepare you for them. Turtle? If you can find a major that lines up with those goals, mention it in your essay, and why you are already poised to succeed at of pompeii, it. To write this essay, you need to be able to state your goal or goals in a sentence or two. This can be hard if you arent sure of them. My advice is just be honest.

If you are the west conference type of student who has set specific goals for yourself, good for the story of pompeii, you. This part can be easier. You want to be a doctor. You want to be a lawyer. You want to be an artist. (Find the major that would prepare you for that field. For instance, many doctors start with undergraduate majors in biology or chemistry.) If you are the type of student who has no real clue what you want to do as a profession, it can be trickier. Class Struggle? But not impossible. You might need to the story of pompeii, explain your goals on a more abstract or personal level. You want to find a way to serve disadvantaged youth.

You want to discover new sources of karl class, renewable energy. You want to learn about finance and business and possible start your own company some day. You can even state directly that you are unsure of exactly what you want to do as a career or major, but then share some of the possibilities. At this point, I dont have a specific career in the story mind, but my interest in math and passion for computer science could lead to a career in programming Write down these goals in a few sentences. Even if you truly have no idea about your future, you need to have something in berlin africa mind to write a decent essay. Use your best guess. Then state it as fact. Of Pompeii? Remember, no one is marx class, going to come back at you in a couple years and call you out for not following whatever goals you write about now.

Identify a Personal Quality and of pompeii Skills. A great way to focus this essay is to determine what personal quality or qualities you have developed that will make you effective at reaching your goal(s), and then collect some of the experiences or activities in school and out where this has happened. Say you want to be a nurse. What personal quality have you developed that will make you not only a nurse, but an excluder devices awesome one? Did you learn empathy while volunteering with seniors at a nursing home? Or patience? Then, think of experiences and activities in school and out where you learned specific skills that could help you meet your goals. The Story Of Pompeii? If you want to be a nurse, did you have a grandmother or relative who was sick who you helped care for?

Did you take a first-aid course at summer camp? Did you find your anatomy class of special interest? Did you volunteer in a hospital and learned something by shadowing a doctor or nurses? After sharing what you did in africa conference high school that helped prepare you for you goal(s), now investigate what your target colleges offer to the story of pompeii, continue to prepare you. This part can be harder to come up with. Check out the web sites of your target schools. See what specific majors , programs, courses, internships, etc. they offer that could help prepare you for metamorphosis, your area of of pompeii, interest and life goals. Turtle Excluder? Once you have collected notes on your life goal(s), and a list of the story, what has prepared you so far to meet them, and The Adventure of Joanne Rowling what you anticipate will further prepare you in college, its time to write. Go back to the sample outline I shared at the beginning of this post, and of pompeii start to craft your ideas into chunks or paragraphs in an order that makes sense.

Usually, starting from the earliest activities and describing them from there in chronological order works the jay gatsby best. The main challenge of this essay is to answer the prompt, but also make what you have to say interesting. What you dont want is to start with: My life goal is to be a nurse. To prepare for that, I volunteered at a hospital.. Instead, start by sharing some simple real-life moment from the story of pompeii, your past where you first realized you enjoyed helping people (or got your first taste of it), especially those who were ill or somehow impaired. In Responsibility: “The Things Essay? The first day I spent in the hospital, I was nervous to go inside the rooms. Many of the patients in the story of pompeii the intensive care were old, and some were moaning or crying. The doctor I was supposed to be helping almost ignored me. But then one day, I sat by an old man while the “The Carried” O’Brien doctor changed his dressings. He asked me to hold his hand.

From that moment, I knew I had found my calling. Then go into the story of pompeii, how you want to be a nurse, and about Rowling why, and go into of pompeii, the various activities that have prepared you so far. 1. Start by describing a moment or incident that inspired your interest in that major, or life goal. (This will make your essay interesting at the start, and make it personal and meaningful.) 2. In Responsibility: “The Things They Carried” By Tim O’Brien? State what your goal(s) is, and when you embraced it and consciously started to the story of pompeii, pursue it. 3. Explain what has prepared you (mainly in high school) so far for meeting this goal. Include both qualities and skills that you developed through experiences and activities in school and other places , such as clubs, hobbies, sports, volunteering, travel, etc. 4. Explain what you expect will further prepare you (in college and after) for meeting this goal. Include both qualities and skills that you intend to continue to Things They by Tim, develop in college and after through academic experiences (specific course, majors, internships, study abroad, speciality programs, notable professors, etc.) in college, and other activities (clubs, hobbies, travel, etc.) 5. Conclude by talking about how you envision yourself meeting your goals in the future, and why it will matter (to you and the world.) Good luck with Apply Texas!

As a professional writing coach, I help students, parents, counselors, teachers and others from around the world on these dreaded essays! Learn about my in-person and online tutoring, editing, workshops, books, and online courses, . The Story? READ MORE. They Essay? . Learn to Write Your Essay in of pompeii One Hour! My on-demand, fast-and-easy online e-course: How to Essay of Joanne Rowling, Write a College App Essay (Click lightbulb for details.) Perfect for the story, The Common App, UCs, grad school, transfer and A Lesson Things They by Tim O’Brien Essay scholarship essays! Click book image to learn about all four of my popular writing guides!

Pompeii - Ancient History - HISTORY com

The story of pompeii

Buy Essay Online Cheap -
Pompeii - Ancient History Encyclopedia

Nov 09, 2017 The story of pompeii, pay for exclusive essay -

The Lost City of Pompeii - YouTube

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA and LOCAL 1943, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, FEDERAL DISTRICT NO.1, IAMAW, AFL-CIO. United States of America. BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL. In the Matter of. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT. LOCAL 1943, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, FEDERAL DISTRICT. NO.1, IAMAW, AFL-CIO. Case No. 99 FSIP 160. DECISION AND ORDER. Local 1943, National Federation of Federal Employees, Federal District No. 1, IAMAW, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a request for assistance with the of pompeii, Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under the Rowling, Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Department of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), Jacksonville, Florida (Employer). Following investigation of the of pompeii, request for assistance, concerning 27 issues which arose during the parties’ negotiations over the relocation of employees, the Panel asserted jurisdiction and directed the green, parties to resume negotiations, on a concentrated 2-day bargaining schedule, with Federal Mediation and the story of pompeii Conciliation Service Commissioner John Lee. Panel Representative (Staff Attorney) Donna M. DiTullio also attended the meeting.

During the session, the turtle, parties were able to reach agreement on 17 issues; thereafter, during two teleconferences with Ms. DiTullio, the of pompeii, parties further reduced the number of issues in Essay The Adventure of Joanne Rowling dispute to the story, two. The Panel then directed the parties to submit their final offers and written statements of position, with supporting argument and evidence. About The Adventure Of Joanne Rowling! After considering the of pompeii, entire record, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the karl marx class, impasse, including the issuance of a binding decision. Written submissions, including rebuttal statements, were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.

The Employer provides direct engineering support to the Navy Fleet and indirect support to production. The Union represents approximately 390 professional bargaining-unit employees who work primarily as engineers, chemists, and accountants, at the story, grades GS-11 through GS-14. The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), which was to have expired in 1993, has been renewed annually. The dispute involves approximately 200 employees, mostly engineers, who work on systems design for turtle devices, the T-45 and F-14 aircraft. Typically, employees work in of pompeii teams headed by a team leader who is also a bargaining-unit employee. The dispute arose during bargaining over the relocation of karl, employees from facilities at the Naval Air Station, Jacksonville (NAS JAX), to refurbished office space and the story of pompeii laboratories at Cecil Field, several miles away. The parties disagree over: (1) whether contractor personnel should be co-located with bargaining-unit employees at the Cecil Field facilities; and (2) the of Joanne Rowling, implementation of compressed work schedules (CWS). POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. a. The Story Of Pompeii! The Union’s Position. Essentially, the in Responsibility: by Tim O’Brien Essay, Union proposes that contractor personnel not be stationed within Government leased and/or controlled space in Buildings 338, 832, and 1821 at Cecil Field.

The current situation, where contractor personnel are co-located with bargaining-unit employees in those buildings, adversely affects working conditions because it reduces their space. The Story Of Pompeii! Allowing contractor personnel free use of Government space and equipment increases the cost of doing business and adds to of Joanne Rowling, the Government’s overhead which makes labor rates for unit employees artificially high; this could become a factor should the Employer determine to contract out work that they now perform. Furthermore, co-location tends to encourage certain interactions between unit employees and contractor personnel which are prohibited by the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Government Rules of Ethics, and applicable agency rules and regulations. Under the Department of of pompeii, Defense Standards of Conduct (SOC), contractors ordinarily are required to west africa, furnish all property necessary to perform Government contracts; here, the Government is the story, providing office/work space to contractors, potentially in violation of the jay gatsby green, SOC. Over the years, the Union has complained to the Employer regarding problems with contractors; the move to Cecil Field may be an opportune time for the story of pompeii, the Employer to rectify the situation and comply with governing laws, rules, regulations and instructions concerning contractor personnel. Contractors also are performing work which is outside the scope of their statement of excluder devices, work, a prohibited practice under agency and Government-wide rules and regulations. If contractors were not co-located with Government employees, there likely would be less opportunity for of pompeii, contractors to cross the line.

The Employer’s efforts to segregate contractor from Government personnel have been ineffective, if not nonexistent; therefore, a physical relocation of contractor personnel is needed so that contractors are more likely to perform only contract support services and not personal services for the Employer. Finally, the Employer is not complying with restrictions on contracting contained in the parties’ CBA and, contrary to jay gatsby green, the Employer’s contentions, its proposal is the story of pompeii, negotiable under 5 U.S.C. Essay About Of Joanne Rowling! § 7106(b)(1)-(3). b. The Employer’s Position. The Panel should decline to retain jurisdiction over this issue for a number of reasons. The Union’s proposal may interfere with the Employer’s reserved management right under 5 U.S.C. The Story Of Pompeii! § 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute to make determinations with respect to contracting out work; arguably, included within the scope of this right, management is devices, entitled to make decisions to allow contractors to use Government- leased space. Moreover, since the move to Cecil Field does not represent a change concerning the Employer’s relationship with its contractor employees, there may not be any change subject to negotiations.

Alternatively, in the event that the the story of pompeii, Panel determines to retain jurisdiction on this issue, it should resolve the dispute on the merits by permitting the Employer to continue to berlin west africa conference, use contractor personnel to provide support services, or other contract requirements, within its facilities at Cecil Field. Reasonable efforts would be made by management to segregate, where practicable, Government employees from contractor personnel, develop contractor badge requirements, telephone procedures, and sign-in-and-out rules to reduce the the story, likelihood of conflicts of interest. It is necessary for contractor personnel to continue to work within the Employer’s facilities to jay gatsby green, ensure efficient operational support for the Employer’s primary customer, the the story of pompeii, U.S. Navy Fleet. Steps would be taken, however, to control the actions of contractors within the Employer’s space in order to reduce the likelihood of conflicts of Things They O’Brien, interest and ensure that contractors do not perform personal services for the Employer. Having carefully reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we are persuaded that the Employer’s proposal provides the better basis for resolving their impasse. (1) In our view, the Union has not refuted the Employer’s contention that co-location of contractor personnel with bargaining-unit employees is necessary to the story of pompeii, ensure efficient operational support for the U.S. Navy Fleet. Moreover, the marx, Union has failed to provide convincing evidence that the utilization of space by contractor personnel in Buildings 338, 832, and 1821 adversely affects the working conditions of bargaining-unit employees. Of Pompeii! Nor is there evidence in the record to support the Union’s allegations that co-location of contractor personnel and employees has given rise to conflicts of interest and breaches of standards of conduct. (2) The implementation of the of Joanne Rowling, procedures proposed by the Employer, on the story of pompeii, the other hand, is likely to A Lesson Carried” O’Brien Essay, deter conflicts of interest and other potentially inappropriate conduct by contractor personnel while they are co-located in the story the workplace with Government employees.

Accordingly, we shall order the adoption of the Employer’s proposal. 2. Compressed Work Schedules. a. The Union’s Position. In essence, the Union proposes that employees who were relocated to Cecil Field, and all full-time employees affected by the relocations at metamorphosis themes, the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Building in downtown Jacksonville, the Lake Gray facility, and of pompeii Buildings 2, 168 and 101UA at the NAS JAX, be given the option of karl struggle, working a standard schedule 8-hour-a-day schedule, a 5-4/9, (3) or a 4/10 CWS. (4) Employees who work under a CWS would be permitted to select fixed starting times between 6 and 8:30 a.m. The 4/10 CWS would be subject to a 12-month test period, during which the Employer would be prevented from making unilateral changes to of pompeii, the schedule, or review it, prior to its conclusion. The criteria for evaluating the 4/10 CWS would be developed mutually by karl class struggle, the parties and, at the end of the test period, the schedule would remain in the story of pompeii effect, unless both parties agree to its discontinuance.

Only Fridays could be taken as the CWS day off, with no more than 65 percent of the eligible workforce scheduled off on themes, either Friday in a bi-weekly pay period. Of Pompeii! Team consensus would determine which Friday during the excluder, pay period an employee would have off, and disputes among team members typically would be resolved on the basis of seniority status. Disputes between the parties over work schedules would be resolved through partnership discussions between the Department site manager and the Union’s representative; however, an employee who is dissatisfied with the outcome may file a grievance. Department and Division managers, in partnership with the Union, would have the responsibility of the story of pompeii, reviewing and approving employee requests for jay gatsby green, work schedule exceptions based upon personal hardship. Branch managers would be responsible for coordinating appropriate work schedules, as determined by team consensus; time keeping; maintaining leave and attendance records; and providing new personnel with forms and copies of the negotiated instruction on workhours.

Employees who work beyond their scheduled number of hours in a duty day would be compensated, at the employee’s election, with either overtime pay or compensatory time. The proposed work schedule options should be extended not only to employees relocated to of pompeii, Cecil Field, but to all employees who were affected by Essay about The Adventure, moves at the Employer’s facilities. (5) No test period for a 5-4/9 CWS is needed because employees at NADEP in Jacksonville had CWS for of pompeii, many years and there is no evidence that it resulted in an adverse impact upon agency operations. Furthermore, the Employer has no hard evidence that either CWS would result in an adverse agency impact; rather, it relies only on speculation that implementing both a 4/10 and 5-4/9 CWS would adversely affect office coverage, customer service, and prevent employees from working together as a team. In this regard, under its proposal, supervisors would retain the ability to limit the use of either alternative work schedule if office coverage becomes a concern. Adding a 5-4/9 and 4/10 CWS to west conference, employee work schedule options would promote a family-friendly work environment. Moreover, compressed schedules may serve to reduce the amount of annual and the story sick leave used by employees, and a longer workday may reduce the amount of compensatory time and overtime authorized by the Employer. Since Federal employees do not earn the salaries of their private sector counterparts, they should be given the jay gatsby, benefit of greater flexibility in their work schedules. A Union survey shows significant employee interest in of pompeii being able to work under a 5-4/9 or 4/10 CWS. These schedules, which extend the duty day, would allow employees to better support the Employer’s customers in the Midwest and on africa conference, the West Coast. Since engineering positions are more than one deep, appropriate job skills would be maintained even on days off, thereby ensuring coverage for work. Finally, employee efficiency and effectiveness is the story, not likely to deteriorate under a CWS because employees would still receive the same level of supervision from the Employer and A Lesson Things Carried” employees would continue to work in teams under the leadership of the story, team leaders who are bargaining-unit members.

b. The Employer’s Position. In addition to an 8-hour day, 5 day-a-week schedule, the Employer basically proposes that bargaining-unit employees at Cecil Field be given the option of working under a 5-4/9 CWS for a test period of metamorphosis themes, 9 months. Under its CWS option, employees would have fixed work schedules, and would not have a flextour start time. Only Friday would be the day off under a 5-4/9 CWS, with no more than 60 percent of the of pompeii, eligible workforce to be scheduled off on any given Friday. The Employer would retain authority to approve schedules. Carried” By Tim! When a Federal holiday falls within a pay period, the employee’s 8-hour day under a 5-4/9 CWS would be the of pompeii, holiday, thereby requiring the berlin west africa, Employer to pay only the story of pompeii 8 hours of A Lesson in Responsibility: “The Things O’Brien, holiday pay instead of 9. Assuming that the 5-4/9 CWS continues after the 9-month test period, the the story, Employer would be able to review the work schedule annually to determine whether it should be terminated due to adverse agency impact; the Essay about of Joanne, Employer would follow the requirements of the of pompeii, Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act (Act), 5 U.S.C. § 6131, should it seek to terminate the CWS. Any test of the 5-4/9 CWS should be limited to employees relocated to Cecil Field because other employees who moved from the downtown JEA Building to NAS JAX did not experience a change but simply moved back to NAS JAX as originally planned. The Union’s request for Panel assistance did not include a proposal to extend CWS to NAS JAX employees; rather, it only referenced bargaining with respect to the move to Cecil Field. Essay About Of Joanne Rowling! Moreover, the parties have not bargained or had mediation assistance over the story of pompeii, the issue as it concerns employees stationed anywhere but Cecil Field.

The Union’s opportunity to extend CWS to the entire bargaining unit should be addressed during term negotiations and not during impact-and-implementation bargaining over a relocation of only some members of the unit to Cecil Field. The Employer’s proposal places reasonable controls on the implementation of a CWS which are consistent with management’s strong interest in ensuring that there is collaboration among employees so that predicted work is covered. Furthermore, the proposed schedule balances employee interest in a family-friendly work environment with the metamorphosis themes, Employer’s need to assure that operations are carried out efficiently and effectively. Essentially, the schedule would offer the maximum flexibility allowable to employees without adversely affecting the necessary level of employee interaction on work teams. Employee fatigue from working a longer day, and commensurate loss of productivity, would be less severe under a 9-hour-day schedule than under the the story of pompeii, Union’s proposed 10-hour workday. Finally, the 20-percent increase in hours of supervision under a 5-4/9 CWS would not be as burdensome on management as the projected 34-percent increase in supervisory coverage which would be required under a 4/10 CWS. Having considered the evidence and arguments offered by the parties, we conclude that the dispute over work schedules should be resolved on the basis of a modified version of the Employer’s proposal.

Preliminarily, there is no basis in the record for extending the 5-4/9 CWS option to employees who were relocated to facilities other than Cecil Field. In this regard, the Union’s request for Panel assistance was limited to bargaining over the move to Cecil Field, and there is no evidence that the parties bargained or had mediation assistance with respect to CWS for NAS JAX employees. (6) Turning to the main issue, the parties have not had any recent experience with the implementation of themes, a compressed schedule, nor is there any evidence, other than speculation, as to why a prior 5-4/9 CWS was discontinued. The Story! Under these circumstances, we believe it is about The Adventure of Joanne Rowling, appropriate for the parties to test the feasibility of a 5-4/9 CWS to determine whether it is of pompeii, workable on class, a long-term basis. Moreover, testing two new compressed schedules at the same time, as the Union proposes, may prove to be administratively unwieldy, and jeopardize the parties’ ability to evaluate either schedule fairly. While favoring the Employer’s proposal to test a single CWS, we are nevertheless persuaded that there are some areas where it is in need of modification. Of Pompeii! For one thing, the parties shall be directed to continue the africa conference, 5-4/9 CWS during any reopener negotiations that may occur. (7) In addition, we shall remove the portion of the proposal which would require employees’ 8-hour days to coincide with Federal holidays [Section 11.b.(2)]. Such wording appears to be inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 610.406, as well as the the story, legislative history of the Act. (8) The Employer’s proposal shall also be modified to allow an employee who elects to exercise the 5-4/9 CWS option to begin work at Essay about of Joanne Rowling, a fixed time each day at any 15-minute increment between the hours of 6 and 8 a.m.

An employee’s starting time would be determined with supervisory concurrence, and remain the the story of pompeii, same throughout the trial period unless supervisory approval is obtained for a deviation. In our view, designating a morning flexband, and giving employees some choice as to their starting times, should promote a more family-friendly work environment without adversely affecting the Employer’s ability to meet mission requirements. (9) As to the Union’s proposal, it appears to provide the Employer with virtually no control over Essay Rowling, the work schedules selected by employees, which could lead to difficulties in providing timely customer service, as well as employee supervision. Furthermore, that portion of the Union’s proposal which would give employees the option of receiving overtime pay or compensatory time for work beyond their scheduled duty day may be contrary to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that certain employees, depending upon whether they are non-exempt by virtue of their grade level, must receive overtime compensation for work performed beyond their duty day. Finally, the the story of pompeii, requirements under the Union’s proposal that certain management officials and supervisors perform various duties relating to the administration of the parties’ agreement on metamorphosis themes, work schedules may be contrary to management’s right to assign work under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B). The Story Of Pompeii! For all of the above-stated reasons, we shall order the adoption of the Employer’s proposal as modified herein. 1. Location of Contractor Personnel.

The parties shall adopt the excluder devices, Employer’s proposal. 2. Compressed Work Schedules. The parties shall adopt the Employer’s proposal, modified to exclude Section 11.b.(2), and to include the of pompeii, following provisions: An employee who works under a 5-4/9 CWS shall begin work at a fixed time each day at any 15-minute increment between the hours of berlin africa conference, 6 and 8 a.m. The employee’s starting time is to of pompeii, be determined with supervisory concurrence and shall remain the same throughout the 9-month trial period unless supervisory approval is obtained for a deviation. The 5-4/9 CWS shall remain in west africa conference place in the event that the parties reopen their negotiations to determine whether the it should continue to be implemented as tested, modified or terminated.

By direction of the Panel. H. Joseph Schimansky. 1.Having adopted the Employer’s proposal on the merits, it is unnecessary for the Panel to the story of pompeii, address the Employer’s allegations that the Essay The Adventure, Union’s proposal is outside the duty to bargain. 2.To the extent the Union believes that the Employer’s current practices violate applicable laws and regulations or the the story of pompeii, terms of the parties’ CBA, such claims are more properly addressed in other forums. 3.During a biweekly pay period, employees who have a 5-4/9 CWS work 9 hours for 8 days, 8 hours for 1 day, and turtle have 1 day off.

4.For employees under a 4/10 CWS, each week they would work 10 hours a day for the story, 4 days, and have 1 day off. 5.The Union contends that, in addition to employees relocated to light, Cecil Field, others experienced a change in working conditions when they were moved from the downtown JEA building to NAS JAX. The Story! The Union bargained over that relocation, as well as others, since the Employer insisted upon green light bargaining over all of the moves at one time rather than piecemeal. 6.The Union’s opportunity to expand CWS to the story of pompeii, the entire bargaining unit is a matter which is more appropriately addressed during the Essay, parties’ term negotiations. 7.The procedures for terminating alternative work schedules (AWS) are set forth in § 6131 of the Act. For additional information on the statutory requirements for terminating alternative work schedules, the parties are directed to the Panel’s decision in Department of the Army, Fort Carson, Evans Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, Colorado and Local 1345, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO , Case No. 96 FSIP 53 (June 27, 1996), Panel Release No.

388.

Best Custom Academic Essay Writing Help & Writing Services UK Online -
Mount Vesuvius & Pompeii: Facts & History - Live Science

Nov 09, 2017 The story of pompeii, order essay paper online anytime -

The Lost City of Pompeii: Pictures of an Alien World, Frozen in Time - io9

Analyse, Explain, Evaluate#8230; 22 essay question words and how to answer them. Now, we may be experts in essay writing, but were also the first to admit that tackling essay questions can be, well, a bit of a challenge. Essays first require copious amounts of background reading and research so you can include accurate facts in of pompeii, your writing. You then have to berlin west figure out how to present those facts in a convincing and systematic argument. No mean feat. But the silver lining here is that presenting your argument doesnt have to be stressful.

This goes even if youre a new student without much experience and ability. To write a coherent and well-structured essay, you just have to really understand the requirements of the the story question. And to understand the requirements of the question, you need to have a good hold on berlin west africa, all the of pompeii different question words. For example, 'justify', 'examine', and karl class struggle 'discuss', to name a few. Lacking this understanding is a pitfall many students tumble into. But our guide on essay question words below should keep you firmly above on safe, essay-acing ground. The Story Of Pompeii? No matter their nature, question words are key and must always be adhered to. And yet, many students often overlook them and therefore answer their essay questions incorrectly.

You may be a font of karl marx struggle all knowledge in your subject area, but if you misinterpret the question words in your essay title, your essay writing could be completely irrelevant and the story of pompeii score poorly. For example, if you are asked to compare the French and west africa conference British upper houses of parliament, you wont get many points by simply highlighting the differences between the two parliamentary systems. So, what should you do? We advise you start by reading this guide weve divided the question words either by critical or descriptive depending on their nature, which should help you identify the type of the story of pompeii response your essay requires. Jay Gatsby Green Light? These are the question words we will cover in this blog: Question words that require a critical approach. Once you have done this, its also important that you critically (more on this word later) examine each part.

You need to use important debates and the story evidence to look in depth at the arguments for and against, as well as how the parts interconnect. What does the evidence suggest? Use it to adopt a stance in your essay, ensuring you dont simply give a narration on the key debates in the literature. Make your position known and tie this to the literature. It is essential to provide information on both sides of the debate using evidence from a wide range of academic sources. Then you must state your position basing your arguments on the evidence that informed you in arriving at your position. Also, you may want to consider arguments that are contrary to your position before stating a conclusion to your arguments. This will help present a balanced argument and demonstrate wide knowledge of the class struggle literature.

Here, a critical approach becomes crucial. You need to the story explain why other possible arguments are unsatisfactory as well as why your own particular argument is preferable. The key to jay gatsby green tackling these question words is providing ample evidence to the story of pompeii support your claims. Ensure that your analysis is balanced by shedding light on, and presenting a critique of, alternative perspectives. It is also important that you present extensive evidence taken from a varying range of green light sources. The Story Of Pompeii? State your conclusion clearly and state the reasons for this conclusion, drawing on of Joanne, factors and evidence that informed your perspective. Also try to justify your position in order to present a convincing argument to the reader. Put another way, review questions entail offering your opinion on the validity of the essay question. For example, you may be asked to review the literature on electoral reform in Great Britain. You'll need to give an overview of the literature. and any major arguments or issues that arose from it. You then need to comment logically and analytically on this material.

What do you agree or disagree with? What have other scholars said about the subject? Are there any views that contrast with yours? What evidence are you using to the story support your assessment? Dont forget to state your position clearly. Review answers should not be purely descriptive; they must demonstrate a high level of analytical skill. The aim is not simply to regurgitate the works of other scholars, but rather to metamorphosis critically analyse these works. However, when assessing a particular argument or topic, it is important that your thoughts on its significance are made clear. This must be supported by evidence, and secondary sources in the literature are a great start.

Essentially, you need to the story of pompeii convince the turtle devices reader about the strength of your argument, using research to of pompeii back up your assessment of the topic is essential. Karl Struggle? Highlight any limitations to of pompeii your argument and remember to mention any counterarguments to your position. Give a detailed examination of the topic by about The Adventure of Joanne, including knowledge of the various perspectives put forward by other scholars in relation to it. What are your thoughts on the subject based on the general debates in the literature? Remember to clearly state your position based on all the evidence you present. You should also try to provide some context on why the issues and facts that you have closely examined are important.

Have these issues and facts been examined differently by the story, other scholars? If so, make a note of this. How did they differ in They Carried” by Tim, their approach and of pompeii what are the factors that account for these alternative approaches? Examine questions are less exploratory and karl discursive than some other types of question. Of Pompeii? They focus instead on asking you to critically examine particular pieces of Essay Rowling evidence or facts to inform your analysis. Such questions require that you display the extent of your knowledge on a given subject and that you also adopt an analytical style in stating your position. This means that you must consider both sides of the argument, by present contrasting pieces of evidence. Of Pompeii? But ultimately, you must show why a particular set of turtle evidence, or piece of information, is more valid for supporting your answer. Question words that require a descriptive response. It is the story of pompeii important that you provide more than one meaning if there are several of them as it shows that you are very familiar with the literature. Themes? Make sure you assert your position with these types of the story questions. It's even more important that you support your arguments with valid evidence in order to in Responsibility: “The Things Carried” by Tim establish a strong case. Describe question words focus less on of pompeii, the basic meaning of something, therefore, and berlin west more on its particular characteristics.

These characteristics should form the building blocks of your answer. In addition, always remember to back any claims with academic research. Of Pompeii? In explanatory answers it is berlin conference important that you demonstrate a clear understanding of a research topic or argument. This comes across most convincingly if you present a clear interpretation of the subject or argument to the reader. Keep in mind any what, how and why questions as this will help you to structure a clear and logically coherent response. Coherence is extremely important in providing explanatory answers. A somewhat detached, dispassionate tone can be particularly effective, in contrast to the more assertive, argumentative tone you might adopt for other types of essay question. Just remember that the key objective here is to give a nuanced account of a research topic or argument by examining its composite parts.

Such questions require you to shed light on the story of pompeii, a topic or, in some instances, break down a complex subject into simple parts. Coherence is very important for acing such questions, remembering to present your answer in a systematic manner. Furthermore, you may also want to emphasise any differences, although the marx focus of your essay should be on of pompeii, establishing similarities. Here are a few more handy tips to bear in mind when addressing your essay questions: When you first get your essay question, always try to understand exactly what the question means and what it is asking you to do. Look at the question word(s) and think about their meaning before you launch into planning what to metamorphosis write. Hopefully, our guide has shown you how to do this expertly.

Remember to read the question several times and the story of pompeii consider any underlying assumptions behind the question. Berlin? Highlight the key words and the story if possible, make a very basic draft outline of your response. This outline does not have to be detailed. But if you follow it as you write, it will help keep your response coherent and systematic. Finally, remember to read through your essay at the end to check for any inconsistencies and grammatical or spelling errors.

How to write a First-class essay and ace your degree. Metamorphosis? Everything you need to know about exam resits. A simple way to do better at of pompeii, university: drink more water for increased concentration. 2017 The Oxbridge Research Group Ltd. We also offer Personal Statements and berlin africa Oxbridge Editing services. Company Registration No.

06381412. VAT Registration No. 924038244. 73 Chalton Street, London NW1 1HY, United Kingdom.

Essay Writer for All Kinds of Papers -
Interesting facts about Pompeii and Mount Vesuvius | Around

Nov 09, 2017 The story of pompeii, order essay writing from our custom essay writing service -

The Lost City of Pompeii - YouTube

essay on being rude This essay originally appeared in Steven J. Bartlett and Peter Suber (eds.), Self-Reference: Reflections on Reflexivity , Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987, pp. 41-66. Copyright 1987, Peter Suber. The Story Of Pompeii! In March 2000, and again in January 2002, I corrected a small number of typographical errors. Consider the marx class, following exchanges: 1. Gerda: So you believe that all belief is the product of of pompeii, custom and circumstance (or: childhood buffets, class struggle. Marx! ). Isn't that position self-limiting? Mustn't you see yourself as reflecting only a single complex of circumstances?

Grobian: Your objection is inapplicable, for it is merely the product of blind forces. Moreover, your childhood buffets were pernicious and regrettable, for they have set you against this truth. 2. Gerda: So you believe that all knowledge comes from God in the story of pompeii, proportion to our virtue or worth, and that all ignorance, error, and uncertainty come from the Devil in proportion to our vices. May I ask what evidence you have for this remarkable thesis? Grobian: I pity you infinitely for your sins. 3. Gerda: Doctor Grobian, I am not crazy! I stole the bread because my children were hungry. Why do you assume that every crime is caused by illness? Grobian: Why do you deny it? Gerda: I am not playing a game. I really want an answer to my question.

Grobian: Obviously your ego cannot cope with the truth and A Lesson “The Things They by Tim O’Brien, you display this inadequacy in hostility to your doctor. I will not recommend your release. Grobian: It's a mystery. If I could understand it, I wouldn't believe it. I can't help it if it's the truth. One day perhaps you'll see the light too. In each of these cases something has gone wrong with the the story of pompeii, process of debate. Essay About The Adventure! In his self-insulating replies Grobian has raised the ire of more open and more dogged inquirers. We are put off, perhaps indignant or angry.

What's more, we feel justified in taking offense. We may concede for the sake of argument that Grobian's positions are strong candidates for truth on their merits, and that he has only good faith to motivate his use and defense of them. Yet we feel that strength on the merits and the story of pompeii, good faith do not justify his responses. We wish he would, like us, concede the Essay of Joanne, strength and good faith of his opponents, if only for of pompeii, the sake of argument. But must he do this to be called rational, or merely to be called polite? Does our sense of justified indignation derive from principles that we are willing to “The Carried”, defend in the open? Or are we merely offended by seeing our side lose an exchange? Has Grobian committed any sort of fallacy that might be generalized and generally proscribed? Or does his offense lie simply in hurting our feelings? Or in the story, his maneuvering to escape criticism or disagreement?

Can we complain if a theory can evade refutation? Is that a sign or truth, or merely a source of friction? May we say that a theory that authorizes its proponents to use such arguments in self-defense is A Lesson “The They O’Brien Essay, therefore false? Inadequately defended? Undebatable? If Grobian has violated norms of debate, might it be because debate is of pompeii, one game and he has chosen to jay gatsby green, play another? I will call Grobian's offense logical rudeness. Specifying its nature will not be as difficult as explaining why it is objectionable and discovering whether it is the story of pompeii, unavoidable.

I deliberately use the alogical term rudeness to avoid prejudicing the question of its logical status. Logical rudeness may not be fallacious. But at least it is excluder devices, offensive. The Story Of Pompeii! Rudeness captures this sense of impropriety. Marx Class! The word derives from the same root as erudite, which literally means not rude in the original sense, not rudimentary or rough-hewn. The question of this essay is whether erudition can always be achieved, or rudeness avoided, by honest, logical, good faith inquirers for truth.

The informality of the the story of pompeii, term should not hide the fact that the topic is the Essay The Adventure, ethics of argument. In the of pompeii, final section I ask what our disdain for rudeness reveals about the karl marx, activities we cherish under the of pompeii, names of berlin west africa, reasoned inquiry and debate. 2. Preliminary Description of of pompeii, Rudeness. Logical rudeness resembles a bald petitio principii , but the resemblance is imperfect. Rude replies presuppose the class struggle, truth of the of pompeii, theory being rudely defended, like a petitio . Karl Marx! But rudeness is usually a defensive weapon only. It is a form of self-defense that turns away all objections, or at least all objections of a certain kind. Of Pompeii! Unlike a petitio , it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief ; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio , in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.

It is self-justification for the human proponent of the conclusion, who finds a license, authority, or justification in his theory itself for refusing to answer objections. Its success at insulating the believer and the belief of which it is turtle excluder devices, a part seems independent of the merits or truth-value of the theory. That is one of the rudest jolts. It strikes us that theories that are false or implausible could use a rude defense as well as true or plausible theories. The Story Of Pompeii! For this reason we suspect that the excluder, license to brush off objections is not a sign of truth or even a supporting argument. It is a gimmick, a piece of of pompeii, insolence that civilized and reasonable people will not stoop to use. A related reflexivity is the Essay about The Adventure of Joanne, self-licensing of debating behavior by the theory being debated. The Story! Rudeness highlights the sense in metamorphosis, which beliefs authorize believers to act in certain ways, solely by virtue of the content of the beliefs and the mechanics of good faith and loyalty. If I believe that fast talkers are usually liars, then that belief will guide my responses to a fast-talking critic. But this is merely a psychological or descriptive observation.

Normatively, we tend to want it this way. We want people to have freedom of of pompeii, inquiry and belief; and when people come to light, conclusions, we want them to the story of pompeii, be free (within limits) to act accordingly. Such a free society is a society of self-licensed actors. If we respect freedom of africa, conscience in of pompeii, our laws and in our own minds, then these self-licensed actors are genuinely licensed; what good faith belief authorizes, we believe, is authorized #151;at least until it conflicts with a higher rule. In cases of logical rudeness, belief in certain theories authorizes believers to be incredibly smug. Is this a price, or an abuse, of freedom? If the consequences of a bad belief are intolerable to public order, we may deal with it through the Essay about The Adventure, criminal law, as when we prohibit polygamous marriages while permitting, indeed protecting, the freedom of Mormons to the story of pompeii, advocate the A Lesson Carried” O’Brien, religious obligation to marry polygamously. But if the consequences of a rude belief are inimical only to conversation or reasoned persuasion with the believer, then how shall we deal with it? We cannot revoke or refute the believer's license to be rude, say, by converting him from his iniquitous faith, for a barrier of rudeness prevents our arguments from having any effect. As inquirers we may deal with the rude believer's belief without dealing with the rude believer; but we admit that this is to abandon a valuable practice that is the story, valued for its contribution to inquiry #151;debate.

The most common form of rude theory is karl marx struggle, that which contains an explanation of error that fits certain kinds #151;perhaps all kinds#151; of the story, critics and dissenters. The theory is especially rude, but also especially implausible, if it directly equates error and disagreement (more on turtle excluder, this in Section 4). But it may more plausibly equate error with certain states of mind or symptoms of belief, when it (not accidentally) happens that these states characterize the doubters and the story, disbelievers. In the about The Adventure of Joanne, second example in Section 1 above, which may be called the demon theory of error, Grobian easily applies his theory of error to Gerda. In that case it seems that he could as easily have refrained, and offered any evidence he possessed. But suppose he did offer evidence and it failed to persuade Gerda (which is the likely result). Then is it as apparent that he could refrain from his rude explanation of Gerda's failure to agree? A faithful believer of the demon theory of error must apply it to Gerda sooner or later, silently or aloud. A recurring reflexive feature of logical rudeness is the application of a theory to the context of its own defense. This is unobjectionable if the theory's subject matter includes truth and falsehood, validity and invalidity, meaning and nonsense, or other parameters of debate or demonstration.

In this way, rudeness hangs in the air most around theories about theorizing or meta-theories about meta-theorizing. But when the application of the the story of pompeii, theory to the context of metamorphosis themes, its own defense justifies the theory's proponent in ignoring critics, then something objectionable has entered the picture. For example, a certain sort of disciple of Wittgenstein might put forth the of pompeii, theory that there is no such thing as mind as traditionally conceived, although there is a word mind that is used in certain ways. The theorist might also claim, more radically, that all questions of existence are meaningless or reducible to questions of word usage. A critic might begin by asserting that both of them have minds, and offer reasons or evidence. The proponent might deflect such criticism by saying, yes, the themes, word mind is properly used as the critic has used it. Of Pompeii! All further criticism could be deflected in a similar way.

The theorist clearly is applying her theory to its own proper subject matter, and is striving to karl marx class struggle, preserve her theory's consistency and of pompeii, her own good faith as a believer in its truth. Yet these virtues add up to the vice of treating the critic rudely and disserving inquiry by leaving the critic unanswered. If a philosopher had a nervous tick that was triggered every time inquiry threatened to jay gatsby light, interfere with belief, and if he (not coincidentally) held the the story, theory that inquiry creates nervous anxiety, then we could not engage that philosopher on the merits of the anxiety theory of inquiry without causing him anxiety. This whimsical case is an easy way to raise a serious question: in berlin west conference, the name of cooperative truth-seeking, can we expect believers to the story of pompeii, put aside their beliefs or compromise their loyalty? Some theories do not obviously apply to the context of Essay about, their debate. Grobian may believe p and add that all error is caused by the confusion brought about by pain. Gerda may object that pain-free inquirers may commit errors, and that pained inquirers may speak the truth. If Grobian is satisfied that Gerda is not suffering physical pain as she speaks, he will be obliged (by logical courtesy or erudition) to answer the objection as best he can.

Logical rudeness is closed to him unless he can believe the objection is raised under the duress of pain; but in that case he is licensed by his beliefs to explain the objection away rather than answer it. The Story Of Pompeii! When the devices, theory on the defensive may or may not apply to the story, the context of excluder, its own debate, further inquiry or bald presumptions are required before the proponent can defend it rudely. The point of the examples so far is that rudeness follows from unobjectionable, even praiseworthy, features of the story of pompeii, believers and karl marx struggle, their beliefs. True as well as false theories, if believed true with good faith, will be applied to all relevant contexts and will not be compromised to salve the feelings of dissenters or to serve their ideas of inquiry. Even if the of pompeii, tenacious good faith that leads to this result is not praiseworthy (explored in Section 5), it might be found in a believer of a true theory.

Because even true theories might be believed in this way, and perhaps ought to be, we cannot automatically infer falsehood from rudeness. But if rudeness does not imply falsehood, how do we evaluate theories that are rudely defended? It seems that they cannot be debated, at least with their proponents. If we abandon debate and examine such theories in metamorphosis, silence or apart from their proponents, we feel that we have abandoned a valuable practice, perhaps a practice indispensable to reliable inquiry. Moreover, we may feel that a negative judgment not tested in debate with the defendants will be rude in its own way. Of Pompeii! Finally, even in the isolated inquiry at our desks we may fail to get around the theory's rudeness if our method requires us to imagine and anser the jay gatsby green light, likely responses of the of pompeii, good faith believer. Essay The Adventure! Then we replicate in drama what we were spared in the story, history.

Rudeness will be possible, as noted, for any theory that properly applies to virtually any aspect of debate or demonstration, such as the truth or knowability of theories, the validity of arguments, the meaning of statements, the sincerity of believers, or the methods of inquiry. This is disturbing because it shows that most philosophical theories will be capable of rudeness in this way. And note that this rudeness is legitimate in the sense that it is permitted by the content of the turtle excluder devices, theory being defended and the good faith of the believer. It is not like telling critics to shut up, even though this too is always possible. More generally as well as more precisely, a theory may be rude if it treats any sub-activity of theorizing or debating and identifies any sort of the story, flaw, fallacy, foible, or fault that could justify a theorist in dismissing an objection as false, flawed, fallacious, irrelevant, or inapplicable. Call any such theory a theory of justified dismissal.

Examples are theories of error, illogic, or nonsense. To explain and evaluate rudeness we need not reach the question when dismissal is really justified. Turtle Excluder! If a theory permits dismissal of competing theories when they are consistent with the writings of Karl Marx, or might lead to disrespect for law if generally affirmed, or are unintelligible to five year old children, then that theory can be rude whenever a critic's contending theory fits the fatal mold. Any attempt to judge the theory of justified dismissal could be deflected as just another attempt to the story, pierce the shield of about The Adventure of Joanne, rudeness. Judging the theory of justified dismissal may be done, of course, but not in debate.

If a believer dismisses theories that are consistent with Marxism, then an objection to that theory will probably be dismissed as consistent with Marxism. The Story! This kind of A Lesson in Responsibility: “The Things Carried” Essay, self-applicability arises not from praiseworthy good faith and consistency alone, but also from belief in a theory of of pompeii, justified dismissal. But holding a theory of A Lesson “The by Tim O’Brien, justified dismissal also seems harmless. In fact, in philosophy it is almost obligatory. Our problem as civilized inquirers is that we want philosophies complete enough to the story, explain error, illogic, nonsense, and other grounds of justified dismissal; we expect believers to apply their beliefs with consistency and good faith to all the karl struggle, relevant contexts of life; and yet we do not want them to apply their grounds of the story, justified dismissal to the critics and dissenters in the realm of debate who help us decide the theory's truth. Are we asking too much?

Are we demanding inconsistent tasks of our opponents? Is debate a privileged process in which beliefs can be examined without the distortions introduced by believing, or (from the believer's standpoint) is it a damnable realm in which one is karl marx class, expected to give up one's faith to defend it? (Note that I use belief and faith in a weak sense. Any claims to truth will be called beliefs or faith, even if the of pompeii, proponent also considers them to constitute knowledge.) A theory may explain away the criticism or disagreement of critics descriptively or normatively. Metamorphosis! The first example in Section 1 above is descriptive, the second normative. If the critic's disagreement is put down to an unfortunate series of childhood buffets or to any other source independent of the merits or truth-value of the theory he criticized, then he is rudely treated.

He is not answered, but reduced to ineffectual squealing from the standpoint of the proponent. Once stigmatized as suffering from the defect ascribed to him, a defect well-explained by the theory, the critic is put out of the story of pompeii, court. The well of discourse is poisoned. Nothing he says afterward can affect the Essay of Joanne, theory, at least in the judgment of the proponent. Of Pompeii! If the critic's disagreement is put down to vice, sin, or a normative weakness, then he is equally not answered and relegated to limbo #151;a limbo either of well-explained incompetency or of well-explained ineligibility for our attention and answers. Descriptive rudeness imputes a foible, prescriptive rudeness a fault, to critics or dissenters. The authority to be rude consists in heeding the terms of the theory that describe the foible or fault and that describe who deserves to berlin west africa, be branded with it. The terms of the theory may be false or implausible, but it is futile to hope to of pompeii, persuade the rude proponent that that is so when our attempts only feed self-righteousness. Rudeness of this type makes debate much like an unnamed childhood game I recall with pleasure and frustration. One player asks yes-or-no questions, and the other answers yes or no according to a secret algorithm. The object of the game is to turtle excluder, guess the algorithm.

It might be, answer 'yes' whenever the question begins with a vowel or ends with a two-syllable word; otherwise answer 'no'. (One must always anser yes and capitulate when the correct algorithm is proposed.) In such a game the words yes and no are not used with their ordinary meanings. Hence the questioner will be seriously misled if she asks, does the algorithm concern syllabification? and takes the yes or no answer in its ordinary sense. In the game, which I will call Noyes for convenience (for the pun on no-yes and the homonym of the story of pompeii, noise), yes and no are tokens of exchange, not signs of affirmation and negation. The questioner cannot begin to play meta -Noyes by asking, seriously , is syllabification involved? The questioner cannot get traditional yes and no answers as long as the oracle maintains his role and themes, plays the game. The analogy to logical rudeness is that the critic cannot get the believer to give up his good faith for the purposes of debate, and perhaps should not want to. It is equivalent to asking the Noyes oracle to give up his algorithm for the sake of play. Of Pompeii! Because the believer is jay gatsby green, ruled by his beliefs in selecting responses in debate, as the Noyes oracle is ruled by his algorithm, the questioner is apt to find her questions and objections translated from the genre of criticism to the genre of noise, and of pompeii, dealt with as input to an unknown algorithm. The difference of course is that Noyes is plainly a game, and the refusal of the turtle excluder, oracle to play meta-Noyes is part of the story of pompeii, his role in playing Noyes.

Is debate equally a game, and are some believers equally bound to refuse to play meta-debate? Noyes makes play out of what can be a serious problem. Consider the case of a rapist who believes that no means yes and that struggle indicates pleasure. Recent law in England has allowed rape defendants to argue good faith (that is, sincere) belief in the no-yes equation, and Essay, a few rapists have won acquittal with that defense. The effect is to equate a woman's consent with a man's belief in the story of pompeii, a woman's consent. The result is nothing short of evil in practice, though it rests on themes, the slender theoretical reed that people are ruled, not by what is the story, real, but by their belief about what is Essay about of Joanne, real. This is one case in the story, which the authority one receives from good faith belief leads to intolerable consequences and green, should be barred by the criminal law. The Anglo-American criminal law occasionally (but rarely) excuses conduct or mitigates punishment for crimes performed in the story of pompeii, good faith error of the facts. Berlin Conference! But to prevent good faith rape and of pompeii, similar abuses, usually an objectivity requirement is A Lesson in Responsibility: “The, added that the belief be reasonable.

The peculiarity of the English law is the story, that good faith belief, no matter how unreasonable under the circumstances, suffices to acquit. (This astonishing doctrine was first asserted in berlin africa, Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan et al. , 61 Crim. Of Pompeii! App. Reports 136 (1975).) Some political regimes may be Noyes games writ large. Suppose one is in a despotic state where the officials act according to rules which ordinary citizens are not allowed to know or to criticize. These meta-rules about criticism are sometimes enforced against critics with imprisonment and other forms of violence, but for most people most of the time they are enforced by social pressure. If one engages one's neighbor in conversation on the wisdom of such policies, one will be surprised that one's very desire to examine the wisdom of the policies is considered suspect and criminal.

If the topic of conversation shifts (it is not much of a shift) to the desirability of open discussion of every question, one will be more surprised to excluder devices, hear one diagnosed as bourgeois or reactionary or (from the the story of pompeii, other end of the ideological spectrum) as anarchical. One may be aware of theories of government according to which free discussion is inimical to good order, revolutionary initiatives, or reeducation; but one would at least like to debate the merits of such theories of government. The loyal proponents of such positions, however, like most loyal proponents, apply their beliefs to the context of their debate, as they apply their beliefs to all the contexts of history. From their own point of view this is only good faith and consistency. One cannot get such proponents to jump out of the system for the time and labor of karl marx class, a joint inquiry into the merits of their beliefs; and one should not expect to be able to. Much like the questioner in a game of Noyes or the victim of a rapist who believes that no means yes, one's criticism of a rude state policy will be interpreted in that state as something other than a criticism to be answered as criticism. In this case it will be interpreted as a violation, and one's attempt to reach a meta-level at which one could discuss the propriety of such an the story interpretation will be interpreted as another violation. Like the critic of the demon theory of error, or the hapless victim of the tarbaby, one's struggles to turtle devices, escape the verdict of one's opponent only confirm his confidence in one's miserable fate. The rude regime raises important issues of political theory, particularly the question whether commitments to principles or results should supersede commitments to method or process.

This and related issues of procedural democracy will be explored to some extent in Section 5. The Noyes regime and the story, rapist suggest a closely related species of rudeness: the tactic of the proponent in disregarding the logical or illative dimension of the critic's words and treating them solely as behavior to be explained by berlin africa conference, his theory. The same effect is achieved when criticism is interpreted as a symptom of historical, economic, or psychological forces, or as ideology. In many ways this is merely a different perspective on the same species of rudeness considered above. If the proponent's theory contains an explanation of behavior (which we also expect a good philosophy or social science to have), then the critic may find herself unable to escape the object-language of the theory she is attacking and reach its meta-language. All criticism and disagreement may be seen as behavior, and to that extent fall into of pompeii, the arena of the subject-matter of the about of Joanne, theory. Like birdsong or ritualistic dancing, they are colorful bits of the explanandum, logically subordinate to the explanation and incapable of refuting it except as counter-examples or anomalies. The difference between disagreement as behavior to be explained and as criticism to be answered is at least partly a matter of perspective within the discretion of the proponent. Again we encounter the question whether his choice is ever fixed by the content of the beliefs he is defending and his general commitments to consistency and the story, good faith. And again, we are reluctant to close off any option by normative force. Just as explanations of error are desirable, so are explanations of behavior.

Even behavior with a logical or illative dimension is worth studying merely as behavior to such disciplines as anthropology, the in Responsibility: They by Tim Essay, sociology of knowledge, psycho-history, and the descriptive parts of of pompeii, comparative jurisprudence. Excluder! But we want to discourage the sort of of pompeii, rudeness that studies critics as specimens to the exclusion of (rather than in addition to) hearing their criticism. Religious belief has been studied as a psychological condition and social phenomenon. Some schools of linguistics study verbal behavior. There is no epistemological or scientific reason why a social science could not study argumentative or critical behavior. The theories of such a social science would be fraught with great potential, from birth, to license their proponents to treat their critics rudely. Such a science might use the term refutationary behavior to refer to arguments, refutations, criticisms, and polemics intended to turtle excluder, demonstrate falsehood. Refutationary behavior is fascinating. People thrust and parry, advance and retreat, concede small points and lay traps on large ones, take disagreement personally, get angry, resort to ad hominem attacks, decoy the opponent with false camaraderie or uncertainty, sting in the story of pompeii, the heel with irony, trip up with sophisms and paradoxes, fall back on definitions, and refuse to class struggle, fall back on of pompeii, definitions. In our large universe, any theory of refutationary behavior, like theories of themes, other kinds, will encounter disagreement. If a sociologist of the story of pompeii, polemics proposes that refutationary behavior is motivated by in Responsibility: Things They O’Brien Essay, class interests, then a critic may be as erudite as can be, but the proponent can study the the story of pompeii, proffered criticism as another example of refutationary behavior, perhaps as one that confirms the theory.

Rudeness that views arguments only as a special class of behavior for empirical study highlights a feature of all rudeness, which is that the themes, rude believer is not summoned or elicited to of pompeii, be rude until criticism is expounded or uttered or made into behavior. A theory may be refuted in abstracto , in silence, in thought, in ideality, or in private at one's desk, but this kind of refutation does not put the rude proponent on the defensive or call on him to use his rude defenses. The necessity of themes, expounded criticism to trigger logical rudeness in turn highlights another feature of all rudeness, which is the story of pompeii, that the theory may really be refuted while the proponent is justifiably unconverted. Rudeness insulates believers, not beliefs. Rudeness suggests the presence of logical perspective : even sound refutations, those that might work at one's desk or in “The Carried” O’Brien Essay, the journals, might fail to convert the proponent, and the proponent may have a sufficient warrant from of pompeii, this theory for his theory for this intractability. If good faith belief in a theory suffices to Essay about, warrant the believer to act under its terms (a political, not a logical, principle), then the believer is really justified in disregarding the sound refutation. Rudeness drives a wedge in of pompeii, between logical argument and rhetorical persuasion, preventing the power of the former from aiding the power of the about Rowling, latter. The rude, insulated believer need not be illogical to be protected by the mantle of rudeness; he must believe a theory of a certain kind, with the sort of good faith devotion that seeks to preserve the theory's consistency and to apply it to all explananda within its domain. This also disturbing, for it suggests that generally praiseworthy traits of inquirers may make argumentation, on its logical side (as opposed to its personal or political side), nugatory. We might be tempted to say that it is always rude to interpret criticism as unwitting confirmation of one's theory.

A good example is the theory that the subtlest, and therefore most likely, action of the devil would be to the story, deny his own existence and cause others to deny it. Opponents who doubt the existence of devils are hopelessly trapped; no objection can fail to confirm the karl class, believer in his belief. When this tactic is rude, it is like the empirical study of refutationary behavior in refusing to see a meta-level in the critic's criticism. We should be careful here, however. Some criticism does confirm the the story, theory being criticized, in which case a response by Essay about Rowling, retortion is appropriate.

Critics may resent this sort of intellectual judo, but we may not call it logically rude unless the critic is deprived of a response on the merits, or cannot have his criticism taken as criticism, although perhaps it is also taken as symptom, behavior, or confirming instance. Suppose a disciple of David Hume adapted Grobian's buffet theory of belief (example 1 in Section 1), and claimed that all belief was based on local custom and habit. This theory might have met comparatively warm approval in late eighteenth century Britain. But contemporaneous Germans would have denied it in unison. The Humean could interpret the German choir as simple corroboration: their consensus and the story of pompeii, their Teutonism would explain one another. Like the student of jay gatsby green, refutationary behavior, such a Humean would be guilty of little more than applying her theory to its subject matter, which happens to the story of pompeii, include the context of its own debate.

And that, by itself, is not blameworthy. They By Tim! But in each case we feel that such application is hasty. Before the the story, critic is used against himself, he should be told why he is wrong. But while the student of refutationary behavior is clearly failing to explain the errors of his critics, the Humean is not. The former merely says, That's about what I'd expect from a middle-class white male, while the Humean has found a putative cause of the opponents' error in Germanic national character. Rudeness which twists objections into confirmations highlights a feature of all rudeness, which is that the proponent of a theory must struggle to avoid perceiving criticism as applicable to him or his theories, qua criticism.

The proponent must see criticism as false, non-cognitive, meaningless, irrelevant, unwitting confirmation, undebatable, unknowable, self-contradictory, or generally inapplicable, ripe for justified dismissal. Both the of Joanne, proponent of the class theory of the story of pompeii, refutationary behavior and the proponent of the custom theory of belief have traced the beliefs of their opponents to “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien Essay, their supposed sources. The difference is that the proponent of the class theory of the story of pompeii, refutationary behavior does not (necessarily) believe that such a genealogy is equivalent to a refutation, while the Humean does. The former is constantly, even professionally, tracing refutationary behavior to its source. One may pursue such a course and still believe that the truth-value of ideas is not affected by their origin. No empirical study is per se guilty of the genetic fallacy.

But the Humean relativizes any belief that she succeeds in tracing to its source; if the belief is not already self-consciously relativistic (as eighteenth century German philosophy typically was not), then it is subjected to about Rowling, a supposed refutation. A rude slap has been added to the initial reductionism. But is not the Humean's own claim about the story of pompeii, custom relativized by itself? The Humean may evade this consequence by turtle excluder devices, making the custom theory of belief an exception to its own tenets; the exception may be hard to the story of pompeii, justify, but at least to claim it avoids paradox. Initially she would resemble Arcesilas, Carneades, and the other skeptics of the new Academy who claimed that all was uncertain. They were urged by Antipater to make an exception for their very claim that all (else) was uncertain; but in fear of implausibility or in pursuit of mischief they refused.

This paradox and its avoidance raise an important point. Some kinds of rudeness are fallacious, and the inference of themes, falsehood or inconsistency is justified. For example, the verificationist theory of meaning is meaningless by its own criterion. However, any objection along these lines is also meaningless by of pompeii, that criterion. Hence, the proponent of the theory may seem able to marx, sit smugly on his criterion and refuse to allow any objection to enter his realm of debate.

But that would commit a fallacy. The weapon raised by the verification theorist to slay his opponent slays himself. The Story Of Pompeii! This is not always so with rude defenses, but it is so here and for the Humean proponent of the custom theory of belief, as well as for Grobian's buffet theory of belief in karl class, Section 1 (example 1). The verificationist apparently has two choices in the face of the charge of self-referential inconsistency: He may make his theory an exception to its own tenets, which would be odd and implausible but consistent, or he may try to fend off the objection by classifying it meaningless ab initio , which his theory apparently entitles him to do. But the latter choice is not really open, or it does not really preserve the theory's consistency in the face of the objection.

If the of pompeii, theory is light, not excepted from its own standards, then it must suffer the very fate contemplated for the opponent. We may generalize. Normally one may not infer falsehood from the story, rudeness. But one may do so with rude theories whose grounds of Essay The Adventure of Joanne Rowling, justified dismissal properly apply to the theories themselves. Of Pompeii! One may at least infer the presence of a fallacious defense, beyond a merely rude one, and the presence of self-referential inconsistency. The proponent of the custom theory of belief is rude; if she does not make her theory an exception to Essay about, itself, then she will be fallaciously rude. Her condition should be distinguished from that of another kind of debater who likes to trace criticism to the story, its source. If a religious fundamentalist objects to about The Adventure of Joanne, the theory of evolution, a biologist may say, Ah, that is because he believes in the account in Genesis, and the story of pompeii, takes it literally. This would be rude only if the imputation of the cause of the objection is considered an elliptical refutation, shorthand for the claim that is false because it derives from a system of superstition long disproved.

But it need not be rude in in Responsibility: “The Things, this sense; it may be shorthand a more complex evasion. The Story! The biologist may believe that the origin of ideas is irrelevant to their truth-value; she is jay gatsby, not rude if her statement is merely an of pompeii elliptical way of postponing or deferring an answer on Essay The Adventure of Joanne, the merits. Discovering that an objection to one's theories originated in a religious belief, or from any source other than the objectionable character of one's theories, is of pompeii, not a refutation; if it is not used as a refutation, then it is not rude to point out the discovery. A Lesson They O’Brien! For example, objections to certain theories of astronomy from the story, astrology are often tossed aside because of their origin. This may or may not be rude. It is not rude if the The Adventure of Joanne, astronomer is saying, Astrology has been answered before; if I don't take this astrologer seriously it is only because the reasons are shared by all the members of my profession, and even if those reasons are inadequate, obsolete, or subject to the story, the criticism before me now, they can go without saying. To subsume an berlin west objection under the larger faith that gave rise to it, however accurately, does not help a bit in answering or disarming the objection. It is pure postponement.

It serves communication, not refutation. In context it usually informs all interested parties of one's position, and even the source of one's counter-evidence and counter-arguments. But it does not actually answer the the story, criticism or refute the body of turtle excluder devices, beliefs that gave rise to it. Even when it is shorthand for a definitive refutation, it does not recapitulate the reasons against the position, but only alludes to of pompeii, them, and only indirectly, by jay gatsby green, alluding to the faith which is presumed to be long refuted. Logical courtesy (erudition) demands that the objection be answered on its merits, although no logics themselves demand it. To allude to a supposed definitive refutation without restating it is on the face of it nothing more than a weak display of disagreement.

But to the story of pompeii, subsume a belief under a larger system as if that constituted refutation begs the question, and worse. It is like any other reductio ad absurdum in which the absurdum is not a contradiction but simply unacceptable or unheard of. One is not acting with the courage of conviction, which believes that truth is demonstrable, but only with the jay gatsby light, complacency of conviction, which believes that dissenters are pitifully benighted. This discussion brings us back to the beginning. For a theory of justified dismissal may focus on a fault or foible of the the story of pompeii, believer, or on the body of beliefs which gave rise to the objectionable theory. Both can be rude; but the second can also be mere postponement. Both involve the explanation of the objection . Essay Rowling! If we explain the criticism of the story of pompeii, critics in a way that justified dismissal, then we have treated the critic rudely.

But if we explain the objection as originating in a possible flaw in our own theories, then we are as polite as can be. We are then granting for the sake of argument that our beliefs might be objectionable or false. Another type of rudeness arises when a proponent feels authorized in holding a theory independent of the authority that comes from correctness. Many government officials are guilty of this kind of conference, rudeness, and seem to the story of pompeii, believe that their ideas are sufficiently authorized by the election results and thereafter need not be defended or debated. When critics or reporters ask why a course of action was not taken (requesting a reason), many officials will answer, We decided it would not be appropriate at this time. This could be translated as, I don't have to explain or defend myself as long as the people let me stay in office. Grobian's fourth response in Section 1 is of this type: he felt authorized in his faith, not by shareable evidence and reasons, but by a private inner light. There are certainly many other kinds of logical rudeness. I do not mean to give an exhaustive taxonomy. One final type, similar to the government official's, may be mentioned. Suppose someone believes that (1) ESP exists, (2) only some people possess it, (3) it may be acquired but that doubt is an obstacle to its acquisition, and (4) it cannot be displayed in the presence of hostile or unbelieving witnesses.

This theory is rude in two novel ways. First, it is unfalsifiable. All negative results from experiments may be answered with the all-purpose subterfuge, The researchers must have doubted. Any unfalsifiable theory may be called rude in about The Adventure, a weak or attenuated sense. The Story Of Pompeii! Critics are teased, because they may disagree all they want, but no applicable or decisive refutation may be found. Africa Conference! For ordinary empirical theories, amassing contrary evidence is never a conclusive refutation, but at least the strength of a negative inference mounts; amassing contrary evidence to such an ESP theory would not even strengthen a negative inference in the judgment of the proponent.

A stronger sense of rudeness derives from the first. A critic who denies that ESP exists can be told, I guess you just don't have it. This reply makes the ESP theory a case of a more general type. Max Scheler's theory of value and value-blindness is another case. Probably the most infuriating case may be called the blessing theory of truth #151;the theory that knowledge is a gift from a god, that only of pompeii some receive it, and that those receiving it know it when they see it by Essay The Adventure of Joanne Rowling, unmistakable internal signs. I suppose it is optional for of pompeii, a proponent of a blessing theory of truth to turtle, claim that the blessing theory itself is knowable only as part of such a gift. The general feature shared by rude theories of this type is the belief that some valued capacity, relevant to truth-seeking or knowing, is either present or absent in one, and that possessors know they are possessors and of pompeii, nonpossessors do not (or sometimes cannot) know that the race divides into karl marx, possessors and nonpossessors. This general type of theory takes two equally rude forms: (1) the born loser theories, according to which nonpossessors of the gift are doomed to remain nonpossessors, and therefore ignorant, and (2) the one path or trust me theories, according to which nonpossessors may become possessors only by of pompeii, following a regimen set for them by themes, self-proclaimed possessors. The regimen may include a code of conduct as well as of the story, faith, all of which must be taken on faith or without evidence in the beginning.

Proof comes only to those who take the path to the end. In Responsibility: “The Things They! A cross between the the story of pompeii, born-loser and metamorphosis, the one-path theories may hold that the gift falls on possessors gratuitously. The general type may be called boon theories. Of Pompeii! We are all familiar with boon theories of knowledge, wisdom, virtue, and west africa, salvation. The first ESP example was a one-path boon theory. Max Scheler's view that some people see values rightly and others are value-blind is a one-path boon theory. A social Darwinist theory that held that males and whites deserve their privileged positions simply because they have acquired them is of pompeii, a born-loser boon theory. Note that in boon theories in karl marx class, which the boon is not gratuitous, nonpossession is a stigma. The Story Of Pompeii! Hence the critic is not only excluded from grace and karl struggle, ignorant, but is blameworthy. The smugness of rude proponents and the rude immunity to conversion are thereby justified all the more. 3. What Sort of Delict is Logical Rudeness?

Let me summarize the species of rudeness sketched in the story, Section 2. The primary type is probably the application of a theory of justified dismissal, such as a theory of error or insanity, to critics and dissenters. Turtle Excluder Devices! Another major type is the interpretation of criticism as behavior to be explained rather than answered. This is closely connected to the type that refuses to see a meta-level in the critic's criticism, and the story, will not allow critics to escape the object-language of the Essay about The Adventure Rowling, theory. A rude theory may reinterpret criticism as a special kind of noise, or as unwitting corroboration. A theory may evade criticism without rudeness by postponing as answer or referring the critic to the answer of another. The Story! The abuse of postponement may be rude, however, as when the motions of karl marx, postponement are made shorthand for dismissal, or when the subsumption of an the story of pompeii objection under a larger system of belief is made shorthand for refutation. A rude theory may be held for reasons other than its correctness, such as the support for the believer shown by africa conference, voters or grant-giving agencies. A weak sort of rudeness lies in any unfalsifiable theory, and a strong sort lies in of pompeii, boon theories which identify critics as nonpossessors of karl class struggle, a special boon. The theories of justified dismissal and the boon theories tell critics that they are disqualified from knowing truth or even deserving answers because of some well-explained foible or fault in the story, themselves. All the karl marx class, types have in the story of pompeii, common an evasion of class struggle, a responsibility to answer criticism on the merits, when that evasion is of pompeii, authorized by the theory criticized.

All types are triggered only by expounded criticism, and turtle devices, only insulate the the story of pompeii, proponent from conversion or capitulation, not the theory from refutation. Only one type was found fallacious, the dismissal of an objection on grounds that would suffice to dismiss the theory itself. Such dismissal is self-referentially inconsistent unless the theory is made an exception to about Rowling, its own tenets, a move which usually cures inconsistency at the price of the story, implausibility. The kinds of rudeness seen here may apparently be used with true beliefs as well as false, unless one is jay gatsby green, already a partisan of theories which would make any rude theory false. Of Pompeii! If we admit the adaptability of rudeness to true and karl class struggle, false theories, then we must find another avenue of the story, complaint. What is wrong with it? The only obvious delict of non-fallacious rude defenses is that they separate the believer from the belief in such a way that the belief may be criticized or refuted and the believer left smug and Essay The Adventure of Joanne Rowling, unswayed.

This would not be a serious objection if rudeness did not, for the same reason, cripple debate. A rude defense terminates all debate with the rude theorist. Critics see that they can make no progress against rude believers, and turn to fellow travelers and journals. But again, the crippling of debate would not fully capture the depth of our discomfort unless we thought, for the same reasons, that rudeness crippled inquiry. Does rudeness cripple inquiry? Does the of pompeii, crippling of debate cripple inquiry? Is rudeness an epistemic sin or just plain impolite?

With these questions in class, the background I would like to start off on an apparent digression with the the story of pompeii, aim of returning to them shortly. Rudeness insulates the believer from expounded criticism. The rude believer need not answer criticism, but may deflect or explain it away. In legal terms, the rude believer's refusal to berlin africa, answer his opponent is a refusal to recognize a burden of going forward created by the critic's criticism. Anglo-American law distinguishes the burden of proof from the burden of going forward . The Story! The burden of proof is a tie-breaker rule; when the Things They Carried”, evidence and arguments on the story of pompeii, each side seem balanced, then the party with the green, burden of proof loses. The burden of going forward is the obligation to respond after the opponent has made a preliminary case. The Story Of Pompeii! When a philosophical inquirer puts forth a theory, and of Joanne Rowling, when critics publish their disagreement along with erudite arsenals of evidence and the story, arguments, then can we say that the turtle excluder devices, burden of going forward has shifted to of pompeii, the theorist?

Do those who publish theories, in print or orally, have a duty to respond to excluder, critics who make a minimally plausible case that they are wrong? What we have called rude defenses seem reducible to the story, different ways of shirking a supposed burden of going forward. Is there such a burden in philosophy? We should remember that the use of burdens in law furthers certain policies. When one party in court has made a case for herself, the judge turns to the other, in effect, and says, Your turn! I have to Essay The Adventure, decide this case and cannot wait forever. I want to be fair. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Of Pompeii! This boils down to, Your turn or you lose! Parties that fail to meet their burden, either of berlin west africa conference, proof or of of pompeii, going forward, will normally lose the case, either by judgment or by default. The theory is that by using burdens in this way we are promoting fair and efficient adjudication.

First, judges must decide the jay gatsby, cases before them. They cannot defer judgment forever or indefinitely as philosophers can. Second, the judge must decide within a comparatively short period of time, unlike philosophers who may take as long as their scruples require. Third, the judge may (and usually does) have to the story of pompeii, decide on imperfect information, when some facts are missing or contested or both. Fourth, the judge wants her judgment to be informed by the merits of each side as they are perceived by green, each side. The Story! All these policies are served by compelling one party to speak or suffer default when the other has spoken. But philosophical debate does not operate under the same constraints as legal debate. Nobody has to decide philosophical questions at africa conference all, let alone soon or on imperfect information. At least the sense in which people must answer philosophical questions (such as, when pregnant, the morality of abortion, or when terminally ill, the morality of the story, suicide) does not give rise to prudential, procedural rules for allocating burdens of proof and going forward in the same way as in law.

Moreover, there is no adversarial process in jay gatsby green, the same sense. Hence, there appears to be no comparable reason why philosophers must speak up after their opponents have made a preliminary or even a formidable case against them. Is this equivalent to of pompeii, saying that there is no logical reason why we must answer our critics? There may be rhetorical and social reasons, especially as inquiry is partly social and not wholly epistemic. We do not exclusively strive for true knowledge in inquiry, but also for social integration, the cooperation of different inquirers, the communication and application of results, the preservation of a milieu in which inquiry is free and fruitful, and the satisfaction of the human purposes in having knowledge or ideas at devices all. Logical rudeness is the story of pompeii, certainly not prohibited by excluder, logic; it is prohibited, I maintain, only by the story, social norms. It is objectionable, but not in the manner of illogic or hypocrisy. It is objectionable more in the manner of refusing to speak to one's spouse, putting urgent callers on hold, or meeting student questions with sardonic laughter. Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the west africa conference, silent or rude theorist has no answer on the story, the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is turtle, very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.

The limits of the applicability of legal procedures to philosophical argument may lead us to rethink this presumption. The Story! At the moment, however, the presumption looks like a theory of justified dismissal: theorists who resort to rude defenses may be dismissed; their theories may be true, but we must await another proponent to find out how that position responds to certain questions and objections before we can judge it fairly on the merits. Courteous or erudite philosophers tend to use the concept of burden. Indeed, the concept of a burden of going forward is an karl struggle element of the positive system of logical etiquette that defines rudeness. It is the story, not a part of logic itself, but part of the practical implementation of logical courtesy and social norms in debate. It furthers social policies and A Lesson in Responsibility: Things They Carried” O’Brien Essay, inquiry, but its absence would also serve inquiry, though to a different degree. The truth-value of a rude theory is not affected by the silence or rudeness of the story of pompeii, its proponents in the face of disagreement. Turtle Devices! In short, philosophical inquiry may be crippled by logical rudeness, but the the story, legalistic remedy of a burden of going forward would cripple philosophical inquiry even more. Rudeness cripples inquiry by obstructing cooperation, not by silencing contenders for truth or by berlin west africa conference, deceiving inquirers. Rudeness, like a boulder in a stream, makes inquiry pass around it. If inquiry proceeds without debate, something is lost.

But because falsehood cannot be inferred from rudeness, much more would be lost if we dismissed rude proponents, as if in error, for violating some imported rules of procedure. Legal inquiry is successful when it is both fair and probative. Philosophical inquiry may be successful if it is only probative, that is, if it only brings us closer to the story of pompeii, truth. Respect for the parties is devices, secondary; to put it higher is to put persons on the story of pompeii, a par with truth, which may be proper for every purpose except inquiry for truth. 4. Devices! Must Some Theories Be Rude? It may seem that the imputation of the story, a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the exclusivity clause of the theory. Karl Marx Class Struggle! Any theory may have an the story exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content.

The clause merely states that the set of tenets comprising the Essay The Adventure of Joanne, theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the the story, theory are false. West Africa Conference! It may be tacit and the story, understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of jay gatsby green light, debate, and cajoled into the story, seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of civilized debate #151;that any contender might be speaking the truth and of Joanne Rowling, debate is one way to tell who#151; is not shared by all the contenders.

For this reason it is the story of pompeii, disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause. Even more disturbing is the in Responsibility: They O’Brien, case of philosophical systems. The Story Of Pompeii! The paradigm of jay gatsby green, good philosophy for several western traditions #151;the complete, consistent system#151; is impelled to be rude. This is not news to Kierkegaard, who felt rudely subsumed by of pompeii, Hegel's system, and was told by contemporary Hegelians that he was logically incapable of by Tim O’Brien Essay, attaining a perspective outside the system sufficient to attack it. If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system's explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is of pompeii, error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic's error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs.

Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. In Responsibility: Things They By Tim Essay! They must defend their beliefs either by the story of pompeii, appeal to berlin west conference, premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by of pompeii, appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite just for the sake of jay gatsby, argument is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels. It is this feature in political systems which allows the equation of dissent and mental illness, dissent and crime, and dissent and error, and the feature which led modern philosophers like Kierkegaard and the story, Nietzsche to metamorphosis, abjure the pursuit of philosophical systems per se . There may be more than rudeness to turn one from systems, but one should note that rudeness should not suffice, for falsehood cannot be inferred from mere rudeness. On the other hand, if systems are still attractive, this analysis indicates at the story of pompeii least that the logic of defending systems is peculiar, and green light, that if we still cherish both the pursuit of systems and the classical forms of debate, then we will have to of pompeii, forgive some question-begging and rudeness. Excluder Devices! Moreover, if this is the story, so, we should expect a true system to take these peculiarities into account and present a logic in which some circular arguments and rude defenses are permissible. Hegel's system fulfills this expectation more than others, and perhaps the reason is that it is more self-conscious of the logic of systematicity than others. Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is metamorphosis themes, well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon.

Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of the story, indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic. Rudeness thwarts cooperation, which in turn thwarts inquiry, at metamorphosis least under some concepts of inquiry. Rudeness prevents inquiry from of pompeii, being optimally fruitful. But logic does not tell us to make inquiry optimally fruitful; human interests do.

Rudeness therefore is in Responsibility: “The Things They Essay, not so much a fallacy as a violation of human community. The rub is the story, that we want to permit all possible truths to africa, be propounded and debated: some of the candidate-truths will deny any role to cooperation in inquiry and others will license rude defenses. Opening the the story, realm of debate this much will therefore permit logical rudeness to enter, which in turn will make inquiry sub-optimal, at karl marx class struggle least under some concepts of inquiry. The tensions within the concepts of debate and inquiry between openness and fruitfulness can be seen from a wider perspective. The epistemic principle violated by rudeness is not merely that inquiry must go on. If we are told, in effect, that we do not deserve to of pompeii, be answered on the merits, or are disqualified from knowing truth, on account of a foible or fault in ourselves, then we are being excluded from the universe of possible knowers in which we thought we had enlisted by inquiring and debating. Rowling! If the truth is the story, not (yet) known, but is subject to inquiry and Rowling, debate, then we cannot (yet) exclude any person from the universe of possible knowers. That is, we cannot do so a priori , although once we know truth we may be able to do so a posteriori #151;when we learn, for example about color-blindness and the diversity of mental illness. Logical rudeness violates what might be called the principle of epistemic democracy: the principle that all persons have an equal entitlement to know the truth. Of Pompeii! This might well be reclassified as a norm of logical etiquette, and denied the name of an epistemic principle, for it is a mere presumption.

If we stated it more completely, it would say: all persons should be presumed to have an equal entitlement to know the truth, until and unless we discover some truth to the contrary. As long as we are confessedly ignorant, it is a methodological assumption which results in fair and courteous treatment to our co-workers. The problem is that the rude proponent believes he does possess some true knowledge which justifies the cancellation of the presumption. His rudeness from this angle derives equally from (1) the content of his belief, that it disqualifies some people from knowledge, people who turn out to be his critics, and (2) his unshakeable faith that he is right to believe it. The latter dimension will be explored more fully toward the end of this section. First I would like to examine the former dimension. The principle of epistemic democracy is normative, not descriptive.

As long as we are confessedly ignorant, we just do not know whether all of us have equal right to the truth. We think we ought to act as if our entitlements were equal, because that is a demand of fairness or courtesy. The rude proponent who denies this principle by his ad hominem methods, therefore, seems to us to deny an Carried” by Tim Essay important normative rule; he is not just rude, then, but also unfair. The principle of epistemic democracy conflicts with another principle which we hold dear: it might be called the no holds barred principle of debate. It states that philosophers may (should be permitted to) ask any question, propose any answer as true, challenge any theory as false or unproved, make any argument, and of pompeii, generally debate any theory on the merits.

The conflict between the no-holds-barred principle and A Lesson Things Carried” O’Brien, the principle of epistemic democracy is simply that, under the former, the of pompeii, latter (like any other principle) may be challenged and denied. The no-holds-barred principle conflicts with itself in the same way that it conflicts with the principle of epistemic democracy: under its terms, it may itself be challenged and denied. In this the metamorphosis themes, no-holds-barred principle is like the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. The principle of freedom or toleration embodied in of pompeii, the First Amendment may be challenged in public speech. The Amendment has been interpreted to protect even those who oppose its values. But what is our rationale for this super-toleration? It could be that only in this way can we preserve the First Amendment (or no-holds-barred principle), since to prohibit opposition to it in any degree would compromise the principle itself. In this it would resemble the Humean custom theorist or the Academic skeptic: the principle could be made an exception to itself. But we might well feel that that would destroy the value we cherish in the principle itself. The alternative is to allow challenges and denials (and advocacy of repeal) and to turtle, accept the outcomes of the story of pompeii, fair procedures, even if they sky should fall.

That is, we might use the First Amendment to protect a movement to repeal the First Amendment, and trust the amendment process and public intelligence to do the best thing. We might use the no-holds-barred principle to protect a philosophical school which denied its value or truth, and trust to the realm of debate (or the marketplace of ideas) to deal with the berlin africa conference, proposal justly. Note that both the latter scenarios presuppose independent norms of just procedure. These would have to be something like norms of logical courtesy. In this sense, the principles of logical etiquette cannot be debated properly or fairly except in a realm of debate already constituted by them or their cognates. Both the principle of epistemic democracy and the story, the no-holds-barred principle seem to be principles of logical courtesy. In fact, violating them creates paradigmatic types of rudeness.

Violating the in Responsibility: They Carried” Essay, principle of epistemic democracy allows the the story, proponent to believe her critics are disqualified from knowing truth or deserving answers, and violating the no-holds-barred principle allows the proponent to deny that the marx, critic's criticism is a permissible move in the game she is playing. Their conflict, therefore, suggests that perfect courtesy, or simultaneous compliance with all ruling principles of etiquette, is impossible. We may consider the the story, conflict between the two principles a reflection of jay gatsby green light, a broader conflict between equality and freedom. Of Pompeii! The conflict may be avoided by ranking the principles so that one always takes priority in cases of conflict. But no such strategem can eliminate the conflict of the freedom principle with itself. Moreover, ranking either above the other would allow just those infringements of the inferior principle that the superior principle authorized. Class! These would be rude infringements. For example, to rank the equality principle higher would justify limiting the freedom of inquirers to challenge the equality principle.

To rank the freedom principle higher would justify an a priori dismissal of the story of pompeii, theorists who proceeded in denial of the freedom principle. Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to berlin west africa, know the of pompeii, truth, or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. Jay Gatsby! There is of pompeii, something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and devices, consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. There are other ways in which rudeness may be inevitable, as seen in Section 4. Some theories must be defended rudely to the story of pompeii, preserve their own consistency and karl, their proponent's good faith.

Some are caught in the dilemma of systematic self-defense. Under the of pompeii, no-holds-barred principle we want proponents to be free to propound and defend these and west conference, all other theories. This is another say of seeing our general conclusion that rudeness per se does not imply falsehood. We want to allow inquirers to propose the demon theory of the story, error and the buffet theory of belief. The alternative is rudely to berlin africa, impose a code of of pompeii, debate on debaters, compromising the no-holds-barred principle, and presumptuously presupposing an exclusive vision of truth prior to debate. We may keep the hope alive that this may be done later, when we know more, i.e., that toleration is just a makeshift until truth is known to be known. But like the task of set theorists selecting axioms that eliminate paradox and preserve good mathematics, this cannot be done without controversy. The no-holds-barred principle says we are better off hearing this controversy.

Toleration should not disappear with the advent of knowledge unless inquiry is also to disappear. The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of karl class struggle, petulance #151;in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to of pompeii, other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. We may now consider the second element of a rude defense, the turtle excluder devices, firmness of the proponent's faith that the first element, the content of the belief, authorizes a rude defense. Can there be any theories which are inconsistent with the polite concession of their corrigibility or possible falsehood? If some theories have exclusivity clauses and if no theory with such a clause is consistent with the concession of its corrigibility, then the demands of consistency would subvert the the story of pompeii, demands of courtesy. Then the system of logical etiquette would be as reactionary as foot-kissing for conference, demanding courtesy at the expense of consistency. This is especially embarrassing if most or all theories contain tacit exclusivity clauses, or if corrigibility per se contradicts the claim of of pompeii, truth. Rather than introduce the “The Things Carried”, modal complexities of possible falsehood , I will ask the question from a slightly different angle: not whether a theory can be consistent with its possible falsehood, but whether a theorist can retain her good faith while sincerely conceding the corrigibility of her theory and herself. Shifting the question this way is legitimate because, for the purposes of logical etiquette, good faith is equivalent to truth.

To the proponent of the story, a theory, the truth of the theory alone justifies rude treatment of critics; but all inquirers outside the warmth of the jay gatsby green, proponent's faith can see that it is his good faith that the the story, theory is true, and metamorphosis, not its truth, which grounds this justification. The obligation to be rude is not conditional upon the truth of the theory; it arises as much from faith, and could not arise even in a true theory without good faith. As we have seen, rudeness insulates believers, not beliefs, or theorists, not theories. In Section 2 we saw that a kind of tenacious good faith can require that a theorist apply her theory to all the explananda within its scope, which frequently includes the context of its own debate. I will call the kind of tenacious good faith which cannot bend to concede the corrigibility of its object fixed belief, after Charles Peirce. The Story Of Pompeii! A less tenacious kind of good faith #151;one in which sincerity coexists with the concession of corrigibility#151; may be called critical belief. Clearly it is attainable. What is not clear is whether it is attainable for all our beliefs, or ought to be attained. Insofar as fixed belief justifies rudeness to the believer, a canon of Essay about The Adventure of Joanne Rowling, logical courtesy prefers critical belief to fixed belief.

This is consonant with the of pompeii, civilized demand that no inquirer be a fanatic, or that all should hold their beliefs with detachment, and be prepared to defend them with evidence and reason and to of Joanne, give them up in the story of pompeii, the face of superior evidence and reason. The epistemology implicit in this civilized demand is not merely that some faith is karl marx, blind, but that fixed belief blinds. Once critical detachment is lost in fixation, ignorance is invincible. Those who will not concede the the story of pompeii, corrigibility of their beliefs must directly equate disagreement and error, and fit their explanation of metamorphosis themes, error on the heads of all critics and dissenters. Fixed belief per of pompeii, se authorizes rudeness to its possessors.

This rude dimension of turtle excluder, immovable complacency or confidence explains the pejorative overtones of the of pompeii, (originally neutral) term dogmatism. While this is the demand of courtesy we recognize from the western tradition, particularly from the Enlightenment, it by berlin west, no means follows that it conforms to the ethics or epistemology of the late twentieth century. The traditional etiquette includes an aging concept of debate that may be summarized roughly as follows. Debate serves inquiry; its values are epistemic; it is neutral in that the truth (whatever it may turn out to be) may be approached by debate; debate is joint inquiry; debate is the marketplace of ideas in which the epistemic worth of ideas is tested and evaluated and reevaluated; success in debate may occasionally go to the unworthy, and true ideas may lay unpersuasive for generations, but in the long run debate will reward all good ideas and punish all bad ones; it is a self-correcting method; it is a method without presupposition or principle; it works best when proponents of theories state their position publicly for all to examine, offer all evidence and reasoning for the story of pompeii, public examination, answer all questions, reply to all criticisms on the merits, and interact with those of differing opinions by propounding their own questions and criticisms; it works best when the participants and spectators allow their assent to follow the evidence and reasons exchanged in themes, debate, and the story of pompeii, do not enter with prejudice or simply for sport. It is turtle excluder devices, according to such a concept of debate that the examples at the top of Section 1 were said to betray something wrong. Note that the the story of pompeii, activity outlined by these principles in ineliminably that of a cooperative enterprise. Do these norms of metamorphosis, logical etiquette reflect a pattern of social interaction, or even of reason and inquiry, which died in the Enlightenment, and of pompeii, which is impossible and reactionary to berlin west africa conference, wish back to life? Doubts of this order have forced me to put civilized and well-mannered in quotation marks throughout the essay. Our distaste for the story, rudeness is certainly not the A Lesson in Responsibility: Things O’Brien Essay, same as the aristocratic distaste for commerce and trade. Nor is our distaste for rudeness reducible to bad sportsmanship.

But is it similar to the wistful sighs of aristocracy in that, its epistemological merit notwithstanding, it is inseparable from a certain nostalgic longing for the days when the logic of self-insulation was not freely practiced by every ignoramus and the story of pompeii, heretic, the days when the elegant tools of logic were not made to serve the boorishness of every comer? Have we romanticized the classical forms of debate, idealizing the tradition from the Athens of Socrates to the London of Joseph Addison? In our code of logical etiquette have we legislated a form of argumentative geniality that never existed? Or one that ought to jay gatsby green light, exist no longer? Or one that distorts our enterprise to pretend that we practice? The danger of legislating a style of thinking in the story, order to secure a form of cooperation is real. So I take these questions seriously, whether I am in a mood to favor good epistemology and hope that good ethics will follow, or vice versa . But answering these questions is beyond the present topic.

Here it is enough to point out the debate has norms other than the norms and rules of any shared logic, and that these norms may be leftovers of bygone social structures. If they have merit, it is not that of logics, but of west africa, manners. My authority in saying just what logical courtesy demands is simply that of a native of the realm whose customs and ideals are being described. It is that of mere acquaintance, and of pompeii, may be corrected by others of metamorphosis, wider acquaintance or more acute perception. It is not like saying what a formal logic demands. Hence, we should be careful that we do not allow descriptive inquiries into the story, the normative domain of metamorphosis, logical etiquette to be swayed by normative disagreements among debaters as to correct style, cooperative harmony, and civilized behavior. We should not legislate in the name of description.

My purposes here have not been wholly descriptive, of course. In our descriptive inquiries we should try to resist the temptation to describe as rude (and therefore to stigmatize) practices whose only vice is their endorsement by the beliefs and theories of of pompeii, our opponents. That would be rude. Karl Class! But in dealing with the challenges of the descriptive inquiry, we should not overlook the normative. For the canons of logical etiquette we use without reflection, those we urge falsely in the name of logic itself, and of pompeii, those that we tolerate in our comrades and resent in our critics, create the ethics of argument which governs discussion.

Order Essay from Experienced Writers with Ease -
Pompeii - Ancient History Encyclopedia

Nov 09, 2017 The story of pompeii, write my essay : 100% original content -

BBC - History - Pompeii: Portents of Disaster

Essay, Research Paper: Rocket Engines. One of the most amazing endeavors man has ever undertaken is the exploration of. space. The Story Of Pompeii? A big part of the amazement is the complexity. Space exploration is. complicated because there are so many interesting problems to solve and. obstacles to overcome. You have things like: The vacuum of space Heat management.

problems The difficulty of re-entry Orbital mechanics Micrometeorites and green, space. debris Cosmic and solar radiation Restroom facilities in a weightless. environment And so on. But the biggest problem of the story of pompeii, all is harnessing enough. energy simply to get a spaceship off the ground. That is where rocket engines. come in. Berlin West? Rocket engines are on the one hand so simple that you can build and fly. your own model rockets very inexpensively (see the links at the bottom of the. page for details).

On the other hand, rocket engines (and their fuel systems) are so complicated that only two countries have actually ever put people in. orbit. In this edition of How Stuff Works we will look at the story, rocket engines to. understand how they work, as well as to understand some of the complexity. Light? The. Basics When most people think about motors or engines, they think about. rotation. For example, a reciprocating gasoline engine in a car produces. rotational energy to drive the wheels. The Story Of Pompeii? An electric motor produces rotational.

energy to drive a fan or spin a disk. Metamorphosis? A steam engine is used to do the same. thing, as is a steam turbine and most gas turbines. Rocket engines are. fundamentally different. Rocket engines are reaction engines. The Story? The basic. principle driving a rocket engine is the famous Newtonian principle that. to every action there is an equal and opposite They Essay, reaction. The Story Of Pompeii? A rocket. engine is throwing mass in class one direction and benefiting from the reaction that.

occurs in the other direction as a result. This concept of throwing mass. and benefiting from the reaction can be hard to grasp at first, because. that does not seem to be what is happening. Rocket engines seem to be about.

flames and noise and pressure, not throwing things. So let's look at. a few examples to get a better picture of reality: If you have ever shot a. shotgun, especially a big 12 guage shot gun, then you know that it has a lot of. kick.

That is, when you shoot the gun it kicks your. shoulder back with a great deal of force. That kick is a reaction. A shotgun is. shooting about an ounce of metal in one direction at about 700 miles per of pompeii, hour. Therefore your shoulder gets hit with the reaction. If you were wearing roller. skates or standing on a skate board when you shot the gun, then the gun would be. acting like a rocket engine and A Lesson Things Essay, you would react by the story of pompeii rolling in jay gatsby green light the opposite.

direction. The Story Of Pompeii? If you have ever seen a big fire hose spraying water, you may have. noticed that it takes a lot of strength to hold the hose (sometimes you will see. two or three firemen holding the hose). The hose is acting like a rocket engine. The hose is throwing water in one direction, and the firemen are using their.

strength and jay gatsby green, weight to counteract the reaction. If they were to let go of the. hose, it would thrash around with tremendous force. If the firemen were all. standing on skateboards, the hose would propel them backwards at the story of pompeii, great speed! When you blow up a balloon and let it go so it flies all over the room before. running out of A Lesson in Responsibility: “The Carried” O’Brien, air, you have created a rocket engine. The Story? In this case, what is.

being thrown is the air molecules inside the balloon. Many people believe that. air molecules don't weigh anything, but they do (see the page on A Lesson “The Things by Tim O’Brien Essay helium to get a. better picture of the weight of air). When you throw them out the nozzle of a. balloon the rest of the balloon reacts in the opposite the story of pompeii, direction.

Imagine the. following situation. Let's say that you are wearing a space suit and you are. floating in space beside the A Lesson in Responsibility: “The O’Brien Essay, space shuttle. You happen to have in your hand a. baseball. If you throw the of pompeii, baseball, your body will react by moving away in the.

opposite direction. The thing that controls the excluder devices, speed at which your body moves. away is the weight of the baseball that you throw and the amount of acceleration. that you apply to it. Mass multiplied by acceleration is force (f = m * a). Whatever force you apply to the baseball will be equalized by an identical.

reaction force applied to your body (m * a = m * a). So let's say that the. baseball weighs 1 pound and your body plus the space suit weighs 100 pounds. You. throw the baseball away at the story of pompeii, a speed of 32 feet per second (21 MPH). That is to. say, you accelerate the baseball with your arm so that it obtains a velocity of. 21 MPH. What you had to do is karl marx accelerate the one pound baseball to 21 MPH.

Your. body reacts, but it weights 100 times more than the baseball. Therefore it moves. away at the story, 1/100th the themes, velocity, or 0.32 feet per the story, second (0.21 MPH). If you want to.

generate more thrust from your baseball, you have two options. Jay Gatsby? You can either. throw a heavier baseball (increase the mass), or you can throw the baseball. faster (increasing the acceleration on it), or you can throw a number of. baseballs one after another (which is of pompeii just another way of increasing the mass). But that is all that you can do.

A rocket engine is generally throwing mass in. the form of jay gatsby, a high-pressure gas. The engine throws the of pompeii, mass of gas out in one. direction in order to get a reaction in the opposite Essay about The Adventure of Joanne, direction. The mass comes. from the weight of the fuel that the rocket engine burns. The burning process.

accelerates the mass of the story, fuel so that it comes out metamorphosis, of the of pompeii, rocket nozzle at high. speed. The fact that the africa, fuel turns from a solid or liquid into the story of pompeii, a gas when it. burns does not change its mass. If you burn a pound of rocket fuel, a pound of. exhaust comes out the nozzle in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity. gas. The form changes, but the mass does not. The burning process accelerates. the mass. The strength of a rocket engine is turtle devices called its thrust.

Thrust is measured in pounds of the story of pompeii, thrust in themes the U.S. The Story? and in newtons. under the metric system (4.45 newtons of thrust equals 1 pound of thrust). A. pound of thrust is the amount of thrust it would take to keep a one pound object. stationary against the force of gravity on earth. So on earth the acceleration. of gravity is green light 32 feet per second per second (21 MPH per of pompeii, second). So if you were. floating in space with a bag of baseballs and you threw 1 baseball per second. away from you at 21 MPH, your baseballs would be generating the equivalent of 1. pound of thrust.

If you were to throw the baseballs instead at 42 MPH, then you. would be generating 2 pounds of thrust. If you throw them at 2,100 MPH (perhaps. by shooting them out of some sort of A Lesson “The Carried” by Tim O’Brien, baseball gun), then you are generating 100. pounds of thrust, and so on. One of the funny problems rockets have is that the. objects that the engine wants to throw actually weigh something, and of pompeii, the rocket. has to carry that weight around.

So let's say that you want to generate 100. pounds of thrust for an hour by throwing 1 baseball every second at a speed of. 2,100 MPH. That means that you have to start with 3,600 one pound baseballs. (there are 3,600 seconds in an hour), or 3,600 pounds of baseballs. Since you.

only weigh 100 pounds in your spacesuit, you can see that the weight of your. fuel dwarfs the weight of the payload (you). In fact, the fuel. weights 36 times more than the payload. And that is very common. That is why you. have to have a huge rocket to get a tiny person into space right now - you have. to carry a lot of fuel. You can see this weight equation very clearly on the. Space Shuttle.

If you have ever seen the Space Shuttle launch, you know that. there are three parts: the shuttle itself the big external tank the two solid. rocket boosters (SRBs). The shuttle weighs 165,000 pounds empty. The external. tank weighs 78,100 pounds empty. The two solid rocket boosters weigh 185,000. pounds empty each. But then you have to load in the fuel.

Each SRB holds 1.1. million pounds of fuel. The external tank holds 143,000 gallons of in Responsibility: They by Tim Essay, liquid oxygen. (1,359,000 pounds) and 383,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen (226,000 pounds). The. whole vehicle - shuttle, external tank, solid rocket booster casings and the story of pompeii, all the. fuel - has a total weight of Things They by Tim O’Brien, 4.4 million pounds at launch. 4.4 million pounds to.

get 165,000 pounds in orbit is a pretty big difference! To be fair, the shuttle. can also carry a 65,000 pound payload (up to 15 x 60 feet in of pompeii size), but it is. still a big difference. The fuel weighs almost 20 times more than the Things They Carried” by Tim Essay, Shuttle. [Reference: The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual] All of that fuel is being. thrown out the back of the the story, Space Shuttle at Essay The Adventure Rowling, a speed of perhaps 6,000 MPH. (typical rocket exhaust velocities for chemical rockets range between 5,000 and. 10,000 MPH).

The SRBs burn for about 2 minutes and generate about the story, 3.3 million. pounds of berlin west conference, thrust each at launch (2.65 million pounds average over the burn). The. 3 main engines (which use the fuel in the external tank) burn for about 8. minutes, generating 375,000 pounds of thrust each during the burn. The Story Of Pompeii? Solid-fuel.

Rocket Engines Solid-fuel rocket engines were the first engines created by man. They were invented hundreds of years ago in China and have been used widely. since then. The line about the rocket's red glare in jay gatsby green the National. Anthem (written in the early 1800's) is talking about small military solid-fuel. rockets used to deliver bombs or incendiary devices.

So you can see that rockets. have been in use quite awhile. The idea behind a simple solid-fuel rocket is. straightforward. What you want to do is create something that burns very quickly. but does not explode. As you are probably aware, gunpowder explodes.

Gunpowder. is made up 75% nitrate, 15% carbon and 10% sulfur. In a rocket engine you don't. want an explosion - you would like the power released more evenly over of pompeii a period. of time. Therefore you might change the mix to 72% nitrate, 24% carbon and 4% sulfur. In this case, instead of gunpowder, you get a simple rocket fuel. This. sort of mix will burn very rapidly, but it does not explode if loaded properly.

Here's a typical cross section: A solid-fuel rocket immediately before and light, after. ignition On the left you see the rocket before ignition. The solid fuel is shown. in green. Of Pompeii? It is cylindrical, with a tube drilled down the middle. When you light. the fuel, it burns along the wall of the tube.

As it burns, it burns outward. toward the casing until all the fuel has burned. In a small model rocket engine. or in a tiny bottle rocket the burn might last a second or less. In a Space. Shuttle SRB containing over A Lesson in Responsibility: Things Carried” Essay a million pounds of fuel, the burn lasts about 2.

minutes. The Story Of Pompeii? When you read about turtle, advanced solid-fuel rockets like the Shuttle's. Solid Rocket Boosters, you often read things like: The propellant mixture in. each SRB motor consists of an ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6 percent by. weight), aluminum (fuel, 16 percent), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4 percent), a. polymer (a binder that holds the of pompeii, mixture together, 12.04 percent), and an epoxy. curing agent (1.96 percent). The propellant is an 11-point star-shaped. perforation in the forward motor segment and jay gatsby green, a double- truncated- cone.

perforation in each of the aft segments and aft closure. This configuration. provides high thrust at ignition and of pompeii, then reduces the thrust by approximately a. third 50 seconds after lift-off to prevent overstressing the metamorphosis themes, vehicle during. maximum dynamic pressure. This paragraph discusses not only the the story, fuel mixture but. also the configuration of the channel drilled in the center of the A Lesson Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien, fuel. Of Pompeii? An. 11-point star-shaped perforation might look like this: The idea is.

to increase the surface area of the channel, thereby increasing the burn area. and therefore the thrust. As the fuel burns the shape evens out into a circle. In the case of the SRBs, it gives the engine high initial thrust and metamorphosis, lower. thrust in the story of pompeii the middle of the flight. Solid-fuel rocket engines have three. important advantages: Simplicity Low cost Safety They also have two. disadvantages: Thrust cannot be controlled Once ignited, the engine cannot be. stopped or restarted The disadvantages mean that solid-fuel rockets are useful. for short-lifetime tasks (like missiles), or for booster systems.

When you need. to be able to control the engine, you must use a liquid propellant system. Liquid Propellant Rockets In 1926, Robert Goddard tested the first liquid. propellant rocket engine. His engine used gasoline and liquid oxygen. He also. worked on and solved a number of fundamental problems in rocket engine design,

including pumping mechanisms, cooling strategies and steering arrangements. These problems are what make liquid propellant rockets so complicated. The basic. idea is simple. In most liquid propellant rocket engines, a fuel and an oxidizer.

(for example, gasoline and liquid oxygen) are pumped into a combustion chamber. There they burn to create a high-pressure and high-velocity stream of hot gases. These gases flow through a nozzle which accelerates them further (5,000 to. 10,000 MPH exit velocities being typical), and then leave the engine. The. following highly simplified diagram shows you the basic components. This diagram. does not show the actual complexities of a typical engine (see some of the links. at the bottom of the page for good images and descriptions of real engines). For. example, it is normal for excluder devices, either the fuel of the oxidizer to be a cold liquefied.

gas like liquid hydrogen or liquid oxygen. One of the big problems in a liquid. propellant rocket engine is cooling the of pompeii, combustion chamber and nozzle, so the. cryogenic liquids are first circulated around the themes, super-heated parts to the story cool. them. The pumps have to generate extremely high pressures in order to overcome. the pressure that the burning fuel creates in the combustion chamber. The main. engines in the Space Shuttle actually use two pumping stages and burn fuel to.

drive the karl marx, second stage pumps. All of the story, this pumping and cooling makes a typical. liquid propellant engine look more like a plumbing project gone haywire than. anything else - look at in Responsibility: Things They Carried”, the engines on the story this page to see what I mean. All kinds. of fuel combinations get used in karl marx liquid propellant rocket engines. The Story? For example:

Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen - used in the Space Shuttle main engines. Gasoline and liquid oxygen - used in Goddard's early rockets Kerosene and liquid. oxygen - used on the first stage of the large Saturn V boosters in metamorphosis the Apollo. program Alcohol and Liquid Oxygen - used in the German V2 rockets Nitrogen. tetroxide (NTO)/monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) - used in the story the Cassini engines Other. Possibilities We are accustomed to seeing chemical rocket engines that burn. their fuel to generate thrust.

There are many other ways to generate thrust. however. Any system that throws mass would do. If you could figure out a way to. accelerate baseballs to extremely high speeds, you would have a viable rocket. engine. The only jay gatsby green problem with such an approach would be the baseball.

exhaust (high-speed baseballs at that. ) left streaming through. space. This small problem causes rocket engine designers to favor gases for the story of pompeii, the. exhaust product. Many rocket engines are very small. For example, attitude. thrusters on africa satellites don't need to produce much thrust. One common engine. design found on satellites uses no fuel at all - pressurized.

nitrogen thrusters simply blow nitrogen gas from a tank through a nozzle. Thrusters like these kept Skylab in of pompeii orbit, and are also used on the shuttle's. manned maneuvering system. Essay The Adventure? New engine designs are trying to find ways to. accelerate ions or atomic particles to extremely high speeds to create thrust. more efficiently. The Story Of Pompeii? NASA's Deep Space-1 spacecraft will be the in Responsibility: “The Things Carried” by Tim O’Brien Essay, first to use ion. engines for propulsion. See this page for additional discussion of plasma and. ion engines.

This article discusses a number of other alternatives. Help other users to find the good and worthy free term papers and trash the bad ones. Free papers will not meet the guidelines of your specific project. Of Pompeii? If you need a custom essay on Physics: , we can write you a high quality authentic essay. While free essays can be traced by Turnitin (plagiarism detection program), our custom written papers will pass any plagiarism test, guaranteed.

Our writing service will save you time and Essay about, grade.