Profile of Leader Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Profile of Leader - Essay Example It cannot also go without a mention how Sheikh Zayed devoted his life to serving his people and making the world such a better place to live in. As the story is told, Sheikh Zayed was born in 1918 as the youngest of the four sons of Sheik Sultan bin Zayed, who also ruled between 1922 and 1926, somewhere in Abu Dhabi. During his time of birth, it is reported that Emirates was very poor and lacked development. Its economy was majorly based on fishing and pearl diving. There were also few practices of simple agriculture on the scattered oasis. Sheikh Zayed is one leader who led by example. We get to know about this when he established a clear vision of what he wanted to accomplish for his people of Al Ain in the late 1940s and the early 1950s (Eesa, 2001). Progress finally dawned to Al Ain even with the few government revenues that were collected at that time. A basic administration was established with the help of the Sheikh and he even personally sponsored the establishment of the first modern school. He also mobilized and encouraged friends and relatives to contribute funds that could go to the development of small-scale. Through his help, Sheikh Zayed ensured that the local water ownership was revised to allow a more equitable distribution. Through this, Agriculture was promoted, and the Oasis were re-established as the major market centers. It is his efforts in city planning in Al Ain that ensured the city became one of the greenest cities in Arabia. According to Hamza Hanson Yusuf who is a renowned American preacher and scholar, Sheikh Zayed is a very rare figure that was seen to be very inspiring through his leadership style and way of life (UAEInteract, 2013). He also described Sheikh Zayed as a leader whose words were full of wisdom. Sheik Zayed was also recognized as a leader who had great respect and love for the environment. This is well shown by the way he initiated falconry that became a lifelong passion for many (CPC, 2013). His love

Ordering System Essay Example for Free

Ordering System Essay Introduction In recent years, technology is evolving rapidly. The use of computers is mostly needed for business day-to-day operations, evidently in most institutions like grocery stores. Grocery stores are familiar to most people and located throughout the country, although their sizes and range of goods and services often vary. Stores in the grocery store industry primarily sell a range of food items, but may also sell some nonfood goods. Most grocery store employees work in a clean, well-lighted, and climate-controlled environment. However, work at times can become hectic, and dealing with customers can be stressful with the use of manual process. In this study, we want to develop a new system for Jewel and Nickel Grocery Store Order System that will help them to minimize the time in taking the orders of their costumers, minimize the time in computing the total amount of each transactions, and to lessen the errors and problems in taking the costumers order for more efficient and time effective process. JEWEL AND NICKEL GROCERY STORE starts in 1990 with a capital of one thousand pesos only. The owner starts their grocery store on their own. The name of the store comes from the owner`s siblings Jewel their son and Nickel their daughter. Jewel and Nickel Store is located at PritilBinangonan Rizal and they are open at eight in the morning until six in the evening. After 22 years of selling quality goods, their store is now much bigger and now they have their own passenger boat and a lotto outlet. MISSION †¢To sell quality goods and to earn at least 3% profit. VISSION †¢To satisfy their costumer and to make sure that our goods are all in good quality.

National Waste Law

National Waste Law â€Å"It is unfortunate that the difficulties of interpreting the pronouncements from the EC are compounded by the failure of the national authorities to agree a common approach to the definition of waste.† Critically assess whether case law shows a â€Å"common approach† to the definition of waste. Introduction In OSS Group Ltd v Environment Agency, an appeal case concerning the question of when lubricating oil ceased to be waste, it was apparent that the Environment Agency (the Agency) and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) held different views about the definition of waste and, specifically, when a waste ceased to be a waste. The Agencys view was that if the intended use of the material was combustion, the material remained a waste until the material had been burned, irrespective of whether the waste material was similar to a raw material. DEFRAs view was that while the combustion of waste lubricating oil was a recovery operation and therefore the waste oil would remain waste until combustion was completed, material burned as fuel that was recovered from waste lubricating oil was not being discarded, and therefore was not a waste, where the material had the same characteristics as a virgin material. The judge in the original case, Burton J, concluded that t he Agencys view was correct, and that even where a waste ceased to be waste after processing, it would revert to being a waste when burned. While the differences between the Agency and DEFRAs views may not have seemed particularly significant, in practice they resulted in a situation where a recovered substance could be both a non-waste and a waste depending upon the proposed end-use of the product. This was the situation faced by Solvent Resource Management (SRM), who produced, for onward sale, product grade distillates (PGD) from recovered solvents. As a saleable product, PGD was a non-waste; however, when the material was used as a fuel in SRMs plant, it reverted to being a waste even though there was no intention by, or requirement for, SRM to discard the material. Carnwath LJ provided some clarity in the appeal by OSS, where he concluded that the Agencys view was too narrow, and OSSs products could be burnt other than as fuel. Carnwath LJ considered that a â€Å"practical common sense† approach was required that was consistent with the aims of the WFD. He went on to conclude that: â€Å"†¦in the light of this judgment, it may be possible for [the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] and the [Environment Agency] to join forces in providing practical guidance for those affected. It is unfortunate that the difficulties of interpreting the pronouncements from Luxembourg are compounded by the failure of the national authorities to agree a common approach.† Evidently, Carnwath LJ considered that a common approach to the definition of waste was not being taken. Through a consideration of the European and national case law relating to the definition of waste, it is intended that this paper will demonstrate that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) takes a consistent approach to the definition of waste, that being that any material or substance can be waste within the meaning of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), while Member States and national authorities (including national Courts) do not take a consistent approach to the definition of waste. Article 1(a) of the WFD defines ‘waste as: â€Å"†¦any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard†. The categories set out in Annex I cover items that would typically be considered waste and would therefore require discarding, such as out of date or off-specification products, materials spilled or contaminated, unusable parts, and various production residues. However, the WFD ensures that the definition is wide by specifying an additional category, which refers to: â€Å"any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the above categories†. Additional information on the materials and substances that are waste is provided in the European Waste List. However, the introductory notes to the list state that â€Å"the inclusion of a material in the list does not mean that the material is a waste in all circumstances. Materials are considered to be a waste only where the definition of waste in Article 1(a)†¦is met.† Determining whether a substance or object is indeed a waste will therefore depend wholly on the waste holders intention or requirement to ‘discard the material. Varying approaches have been taken to determining whether something has been discarded, or whether the holder intends or is required to discard it. The Advocate General in his opinion in Tombesi considered that if a material was consigned to a recovery operation, it was an indication that it had been discarded and it was therefore a waste. He stated that: â€Å"Under the Directive the sole question is whether the substance in issue is subject to a disposal or recovery operation within the meaning of Annex IIA or B† The need to identify whether something had been discarded had effectively been bypassed by considering that all materials consigned to a recovery or disposal operation were waste. If it was identified that a material had been subject to an Annex IIA or B operation, it could be concluded that the material was discarded and was therefore waste. This approach was not supported in the judgment from the ECJ, however. The Advocate Generals approach in Tombesi was followed in other subsequent cases, for example Inter-Environnment Wallonie v Regione Wallone, where it was concluded that substances that were subject to a recovery process would normally be waste, and in Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency, where the UK court held, on the basis of Tombesi, that scrap metal that was to be reused without being subject to a recovery process was not a waste. The so-called ‘Tombesi-bypass presented problems, however, since a number of the specified recovery processes could also be normal industrial processes using ordinary raw materials that would not be classified as wastes (e.g. coal (fuel) combusted in a power station to generate electricity would not be classified as a recovery process). In ARCO Chemie Netherland Ltd vMinister von Volkshuivesting, the Advocate Generals opinion in Tombesi was not followed. It was considered that a substance consigned to a recovery operation listed in Annex IIB of the WFD was not necessarily to be considered as a waste, and it was first considered necessary to establish whether the material in question constituted waste (i.e. whether or not it had been discarded). The approach taken in ARCO and subsequent cases was different to that of the previous cases, and the need to establish a holders intention or requirement to discard a material became the determining factor when identifying whether a mate rial or substance was waste. The underlying concept of the ECJs approach to the definition of waste was stated in ARCO as follows: â€Å"Whether [a material or substance] is waste must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, by comparison with the definition set out in article 1(a) of the Directive, that is to say the discarding of the substance in question or the intention or requirement to discard it, regard being had to the aim of the Directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined.† Essentially, the definition of waste therefore turned on the term ‘discard. In his judgment in OSS, Carnwath LJ defined ‘discard, as he had done previously in Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency, as follows: â€Å"The term ‘discard is used in a broad sense equivalent to ‘get rid of; but it is coloured by the examples of waste given in Annex I and the waste catalogue, which indicate that it is concerned generally with materials which have ceased to be required for their original purpose, normally because they are unsuitable, unwanted or surplus to requirements †¦Ã¢â‚¬  He noted, however, that it was clear that this was â€Å"only part of the story†, and referred to a number of cases subsequent to ARCO where the ECJ had attempted to provide objective criteria that could be used as evidence that a holder of a substance or material intended to discard that material and, therefore, the material should be considered as waste. Some of these criteria were summarised by Lord Reed in the conclusion to his judgment in Scottish Power Generation Ltd v Scottish Environmental Protection Agency: â€Å"[F]or example, whether the material is produced intentionally; whether further processing is required before the material can be used; and whether the material is certain to be used[;]†¦whether the material is commonly regarded as waste; and whether, if it is used as fuel, its use as fuel is a common method of recovering waste. Since the status of a material has to be assessed on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the particular case, it follows that none of the factors mentioned is conclusive in itself. The fact†¦that a material is produced intentionally, requires no further processing before it can be used, and is certain to be used, cannot be taken in isolation as determinative of its status.† He went on to consider the criteria that could be used to assess when a substance ceased to be waste: â€Å"The danger which is typical of waste is a danger of harm to human health or the environment caused by the manner of its disposal. The [WFD] seeks to address that danger by making waste subject to supervision designed to ensure that it is recovered or disposed of in a manner which is controlled so as to protect human health and the environment. Once a material has been classified as waste, it therefore remains subject to that supervision at least until that objective has been achieved. It is only then that the material may cease to be waste†¦When it is claimed that what was waste has ceased to be waste†¦it is accordingly necessary to assess whether that claim is well founded. That assessment requires consideration not only of whether the material in question can and will be used without further processing in the same way as a non-waste material, but also of whether the material can be used under the same conditions of environmental protection as the non-waste material with which it is otherwise comparable, without any greater danger of harm to human health or the environment. Other factors†¦may also be relevant in considering whether waste has been subjected to a recovery operation or merely to pre-treatment†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The general approach taken by the ECJ to the definition of waste, that is that any material or substance may be waste where it has been or is required or intended to be discarded, is therefore considered to be consistent throughout the case law reviewed. However, as demonstrated in the remainder of this paper, the insistence of the ECJ that whether or not a material is waste, or ceases to be waste, must be determined on the basis of whether or not its holder intended or was required to discard it, even where this has no practical relevance, results in varying approaches being taken by Member States and national authorities to the definition of waste. In 2007, the Commission of the European Communities published a document intended to be used by Member States in interpreting the judgments from the ECJ. In Annex 1 to the document, a number of examples of wastes and non-wastes are given; however, the examples are introduced as follows: â€Å"†¦There are many other examples that could have been used, and even the examples here may vary across the EU in some circumstances, notably if there is no certainty of use for a given by-product, or on the contrary, if use is certain for a material in a region or Member State, where this is not the case across the whole EU.† Clearly, the position of the Commission in considering that a material might be waste in one Member State but not in another would appear to be wholly inconsistent with the aims of the WFD, and therefore inconsistent with the approach taken by the ECJ to the definition of waste. The seventh recital of the WDF is particularly noted in this regard: â€Å"Moreover, discrepancies between Member States legislation with regard to waste disposal and recovery may affect the quality of the environment and the smooth operation of the internal market†¦Ã¢â‚¬  While the ECJ may be consistent in its approach, the Commission of the European Communities does not appear to be adopting an approach consistent with the aims of the WFD. Varying approaches to the definition of waste can also be seen to be taken by the Member States. In the case law this is apparent in relation to Member States failure to fully implement aspects of the WFD, and in submissions made by Member States on these and other European and national cases. In relation to Member States implementation of the WFD, the following examples highlight well the varying approaches adopted. Germany historically excluded certain categories of recyclable waste from the scope of its domestic waste legislation, while the United Kingdom excluded agricultural waste from its definition of waste. Similarly, and more recently, Italy was found to have failed to fulfill its obligations under the WFD by excluding from its national legislation materials such as excavated earth and rock, food scraps and leftovers, and substances intended for recovery. Italian legislation historically also excluded substances or objects that were considered to be capable of economic reuse. It distinguished between ‘waste and ‘residues, and provided for simplified procedures for the collection, transport, treatment and reuse of residues. Moreover, certain materials with specific commodity characteristics were excluded from the relevant legislation altogether. In Tombesi, ARCO, Castle Cement, Palin Granit Oy, Mayer Parry, Saetti, and Thames Water v Bromley Magistrates Courtsubmissions to the Court were made by various Member States governments. Their submissions highlight the differing approaches adopted by the Member States, and as an example, a brief discussion of the submissions made in Tombesi is provided. The Danish government considered that the concept of waste included all residual products, defining residual products as those that are not the primary goal sought by the production process, do not have a constant economic value, and their use depends on the markets available for them. The French government agreed that waste included residues, and considered that waste continued to be waste until it was recovered. The Italian government argued that the definition of waste in the WFD placed too much importance on the subjective element of the intentions of the waste holder, and that it was legitimate to employ the possibility of use a s a basic criterion and exclude from the notion of wastes substances that have recognized properties and are normally traded on markets. The Netherlands and UK governments took an intermediate view, with the Netherlands highlighting that secondary raw materials would not be waste, while the UK government argued that something was a waste when it left the normal commercial cycle or chain of utility and was consigned to a recovery operation. The Member States approach to the definition of waste clearly varies significantly. As a final example of the approach taken to the definition of waste, it is useful to return to the OSS case and contrast this with other similar cases that have been concerned with a material derived from waste that was subsequently used as fuel. Such cases include ARCO, Castle Cement v Environment Agency, Scottish Power Generation Ltd v Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Saetti v Frediani,and Lcopower BV v Secretary of State. On the facts of each case, materials in the first three cases were considered likely to be wastes despite the ‘recovery processes that the materials had been subjected to, while the materials in the remaining two were not considered to be wastes. The OSS case followed the general approach taken in ARCO, where it was statedthat â€Å"[t]he operations to which a substance is subsequently submitted are not of crucial importance to its classification as waste†. However, in Castle Cement, which concerned a material recovered from waste solvents and liquids derived from waste sources by Solvent Resource Management, the fact that the material was burned as fuel was an important consideration in determining that the material remained waste. This was in spite of the fact that it had been produced to a specification specifically for use as fuel. This can be contrasted against Saetti, where petroleum coke, which was produced to a specification although was considered to be waste by its producer, was held not to be waste. In Scottish Power, the waste-derived fuel was again made to a specification; however, here it was considered that since the material could not be used as fuel in the same conditions of environmental protection as the raw material it was replacing, it must be considered waste. In relation to the materials characteristics, however, in Castle Cement, Stanley Burnton J considered that: â€Å"Whether material is ‘waste cannot depend on whether any particular holder of it stores and uses it in an environmentally and otherwise safe manner. Its categorisation should depend on its qualities, not on the qualities of its storage or use.† This view can itself be contrasted with the ECJs approach to the definition of waste, which depends not on the quality of the material but on the intention or requirement of the holder to discard that material. In conclusion, while it appears from the case law that the ECJ has, on balance, taken a consistent approach to the definition of waste, its insistence on relying on the holders intention or requirement to discard the material has resulted in Member States and national authorities (including the national Courts) taking, unsurprisingly, an inconsistent approach to the definition of waste. The self-proclaimed ‘clarification document published by the Commission of the European Communities collates and prioritises the judgments from the ECJ, but it is questionable whether the approach taken is consistent with the overall aim of the WFD. Stanley Burnton J confessed to finding parts of the ECJs judgments ‘Delphic and, while apparently consistent throughout the relevant cases, I would tend to agree. The third recital of the WFD states the following: â€Å"Common terminology and a definition of waste are needed in order to improve the efficiency of waste management in the Community.† Perhaps it should read â€Å"†¦and a workable, comprehendible definition of waste†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ? References ARCO Chemie Netherland Ltd vMinister von Volkshuivesting and EOPN [2003] Env LR 40 (Case C-418/97) 15 June 2000 Bell, S. and McGillivray, D., Environmental Law (Oxford: OUP, Sixth Edition, 2006 Castle Cement v Environment Agency [2001] EWHC Admin 224 Commission Decision 2000/532 of 3 May 2000 ( [2000] O.J. L226/3 ) replacing Decision 94/3 ( [1994] O.J. L5/15 ) establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442 ( [1975] O.J. L194/39 ) on waste and Council Decision 94/904 ( [1994] O.J. L356/14 ) establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689 ( [1991] O.J. L377/20 ) on hazardous waste, as amended by Council Decision 2001/573 ( [2001] O.J. L203/18 ) of 23 July 232001 amending Decision 2000/532 as regards the list of wastes Commission of the European Communities v Italy (Cases C-194/05, C-195/05, and C-263/05) 18 December 2007 reported in EU Focus 2008, 225, 15-17 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom [2004] All ER (D) 279 (Case C-62/03) 16 December 2004 Commission of the European Communities, 2007. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Interpretative Communication on waste and by-products. Brussels, 21 February 2007, COM(2007) 59 final Commission of the Eurpoean Communities v Germany [1996] 1 CMLR 383 (Case C-422/92) 10 May 1995 Council Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste Criminal Proceedings against Niselli (Case C-457/02) Criminal Proceedings against E. Zanetti and Others [1990] I ECR 1509 (Case C-359/88) 28 March 1990 Euro Tombesi and Others [1997] 3 CMLR 673 (Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94, C-224/95) 25 June 1997 Icopower BV v Secretary of State (Unreported May 14, 2003) cited in OSS Group Ltd v Environment Agency [2008] Env LR 8 Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Regione Wallonne [1998] All ER 155 (Case C-129/96) 18 December 1997 Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency [1999] 1 CMLR 963 OSS Group Ltd v Environment Agency [2007] Env LR 19 OSS Group Ltd v Environment Agency [2008] Env LR 8 Palin Granit Oy v Lounais-Suomen Ymparistokeskus [2003] All ER (EC) 366 (Case C-9/00) 18 April 2002 Saetti v Frediani [2004] Env LR 37 (Case C-235/02) 15 January 2004 Scottish Power Generation Ltd v Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No.1) [2005] SLT 98 OH Thames Water Utilities v Bromely Magistrates Court [2008] Env LR 3 (Case C-252/05) 10 May 2007

The Importance of Being Earnest :: English Literature

The Importance of Being Earnest A protagonist is described as the main character in the story. The story line revolves around this one character and the events in his/ her life. In the Importance of Being Earnest, Jack Worthing is the protagonist of the play because it is his character that dominates the narrative. His pursuit to marry Gwendolen, and the conflicts and struggles he goes up against to reach his ultimate goal, are traits which develop his character into being the protagonist. For a character to take on the role of protagonist, there always needs to be conflict. Jack Worthing’s first conflict is getting the approval to marry Gwendolen from her mother, Lady Bracknell. In the beginning of the story when Jack, also referred to as Ernest, proposes to Gwendolen, but is denied the ability to marry Gwendolen until he has passed Lady Bracknell’s series of tests; what she sees as a suitable husband for her daughter. This is shown through her statement of: â€Å"I fell bound to tell you that you are not on my list of eligible young men†¦however, I am quite ready to enter your name should your answers be what a really affectionate mother acquires† (Wilde,1438). Earnest informs her that he does not know anything from his childhood, including who his parents are, and why he became an orphan; and now is thought to be unacceptable suitor to marry her daughter, Gwendolen. Lady Bracknell reinforces to Jack that â€Å"to be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it had handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution†(Wilde, 1440), basically stating that having a hand bag for a parent is an unacceptable â€Å"notion about family life† (Parker), and needed to find out who his parents are before he can marry Gwendolen. It is this sort of conflict that must arise in order for the play to pursue any further. It is the role of the protagonist to ensure that he continues on his pursuit in order to get what one wants, that being the hand of Gwendolen. Jack lies and discoveries â€Å"of human freedom in protean identity† (Parker, 185) which he â€Å"adopt[ed] identities to suit the occasion† (parker, 185). All of these identities and secret lives eventually led to Gwendolen’s hand but also the truth of who Jack really was; the true importance of being Ernest, because being Ernest gets him what he wants. The title of the play â€Å"The Importance of being Earnest† shows significance because this creates conflict and comedy between the

Generators: Electric Power and Ashe Members

[pic] Regulatory Advisory A service to members, advisories are produced whenever there is a significant development that affects the job you do in your community. A Message to ASHE Members: The Joint Commission (JCAHO) is conducting a Field Review of its proposed addition to standard EC. 7. 40 on the inspection, testing and maintenance of emergency power systems. JCAHO proposes to add a new Element of Performance (EP) requiring annual testing of each emergency generator for four continuous hours, under load.ASHE members are encouraged to take full advantage of this opportunity to: †¢ Provide your input on the actual need for this new requirement, †¢ Comment if this requirement will assure greater reliability, †¢ Inform JCAHO of the specific impact to your facility from implementing this requirement as it is proposed. The Field Review will close on February 20, 2006 Standard EC. 7. 40 – Proposed Element of Performance #5The [organization] tests each emergency gen erator at least once every 12 months for a minimum of four continuous hours. This test shall be conducted under a load (dynamic or static) that is at least 30% of the nameplate rating of the generator. The Field Review is being conducted on the JCAHO website at: www. jcaho. org/accredited+organizations/hospitals/standards/field+reviews/ec740_std_fr. htm The notice contains background information that identifies emergency electrical generators as a critical resource for delivery of safe care.The background information further explains that â€Å"Testing generators for sufficient lengths of time increases the likelihood of detecting generator reliability problems and reduces the risk of losing this critical resource when it (is) most needed†. A key question ASHE members should comment on is: As it is written – will the proposed requirement lead to more effective detection of generator reliability problems and in doing so reduce the risk of failure under emergency conditi ons? † The Field Review is organized to challenge both the premise for and the wording of the proposed standard.The survey questions and ASHE’s guidance on responding to these questions are on pages 2 and 3 of this alert. All answers should be for your specific facility based on your experience. In addition to providing input on whether this standard will meet its intent, you should focus on possible obstacles to complying with this requirement including resources (fuel and labor costs), disruption to services and patient care during the test, and air emission regulatory compliance issues. ASHE urges you to seize this opportunity to comment!Your input is essential to ensure this proposed revision is well thought out and will actually improve system reliability. JCAHO Field Review – Proposed Emergency Power Testing Standards The Field Review is an on-line survey launched from the Field Review web page at: www. jcaho. org/accredited+organizations/hospitals/standard s/field+reviews/ec740_std_fr. htm The actual survey is conducted through surveymonkey. com with results compiled for JCAHO. Below are the survey questions with guidance on how to respond to each question 1.Name – this is listed as optional but we suggest you provide your name 2. Organization – again this is optional but we suggest you provide this 3. In which one of the following categories are you primarily responding? – there is a list provided to chose from – in most cases you will select the first choice as being a ‘Joint Commission Accredited Organization’. 4. If you are primarily representing a Joint Commission accredited organization, which one category best describes your role in that organization? similar to the previous question this is a list – most ASHE members will choose ‘Facility Maintenance’, Facility Design’, or ‘Safety Management/Security Management’. 5. For which accredited program ar e you responding to this field review? – a list is provided of each of the JCAHO programs for which this proposed standard will apply. Please select your primary facility (e. g. Hospital). If you have multiple care settings, please consider filling out a survey for each different type of care setting. 6. Does your organization rely on an emergency generator to provide care, treatment, and services during electrical power outages? Yes/No 7. Would your organization rely on an emergency generator to continue care, treatment, or services for four hours or more during extended electrical power outages? – typically this is Yes unless your program allows for the discontinuation of services and facility evacuation 8. Are the proposed revisions illustrated in â€Å"Element of Performance #5†, understandable or clear to your organization? – this is where the â€Å"rubber hits the road†. Comment on the proposed standard as it is written – don’t read into it what you think it is trying to say.If it is not clear please take the time to comment on what is unclear and/or if there is a better way to clearly state what they want you to do. 9. Regarding â€Å"Element of Performance #5†, is the required frequency for testing emergency generators appropriate? – the real question is – should this be an annual test? The 2005 edition of NFPA 110 – Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems – requires Level 1 EPSS (Emergency Power Supply Systems) to be tested for at least 4 hours, at least once within every 36 months.ASHE members are represented on the technical committee of NFPA 110 along with manufacturers and designers. This technical committee has voted that a 4 hour test, every three years provides adequate assurance of reliable performance. If you agree with NFPA 110 you should select No. 10. If you indicated no, what would be the appropriate frequency of testing? – NFPA 110 require s 36 months (NFPA 110 – 2005, section 8. 4. 9) 11. Do you feel that a load of 30% of the nameplate rating of the generator required in â€Å"Element of Performance #5† would adequately assess the generator’s fueling and cooling systems during the test? NFPA 110 requires the test load to be the EPSS load running at the time of the test. This is to test the ability of the EPSS to deliver the required power to the outlets, lighting, and systems that are on the emergency power system rather then to simulate it with a load. As written, EP 5 could be met through use of a resistive load bank without testing other vital components of the EPSS including transfer switches and paralleling switchgear. This is a fundamental question – will â€Å"cooking† the engine for 4 hours adequately test he fuel and cooling systems and therefore enhance system reliability? Or is should the entire EPSS be tested? If you feel that the entire system should be tested as requir ed by NFPA 110 – 2005, section 8. 4. 9. 1, answer question 11 as No and list your reasons in the provided space for comment. 12. Would the proposed revisions in â€Å"Element of Performance #5† be burdensome for your organization? – ASHE recommends that you discuss this issue with your administration and safety committee to fully identify all the implications of performing this test annually.Issues to discuss include additional resources (fuel consumption and labor to conduct the test), increased amounts of air emissions from the test (state or regional clean air regulations), and disruption to services during the test such as computer based systems on emergency power, lighting, transportation systems, and ventilation systems. Organizations that have experienced any difficulty in scheduling and performing the currently required monthly tests must ensure that all stakeholders are fully informed and supportive of the scheduling and performance of this proposed 4 h our test. 3. If â€Å"Element of Performance #5† became effective immediately, how long would it take for your organization to be in compliance? – this question only allows one of four responses, with a maximum of 12 months. Your response should be informed by the discussion from question 12. If you feel that none of the listed time frames are adequate, utilize the â€Å"additional comments† area at the end of the survey to discuss the compliance timeframe 14. Would your organization utilize outside sources to perform this test required by â€Å"Element of Performance #5†? For example, would your organization need to utilize a load bank to meet the 30% test load requirement? ) – Consider if you have the available staff, the available expertise on staff, and/or the available current load to perform this test without taking on additional outside expenses. If you anticipate additional expenses, provide a ‘best-guess’ of that cost. For que stions or comments contact Dale Woodin at [email  protected] org or 312-422-3812 https://www. premierinc. com/safety/safety-share/05-06-downloads/11-ashe-fda-bed-rail-entrapment-05-06. pdf

How does the filming help to make ‘The Shining’ an exceptional Horror movie? Essay

Stanley Kubrick a.k.a. â€Å"The Master Filmmaker,† was born on July 26, 1928 in the Bronx, New York City. By age 13 he had developed passions for jazz, drumming, chess and photography. In 1951 at 23 years of age, Kubrick used his savings to finance his first film, a 16-minute documentary short about boxer Walter Cartier. On March 7th, 1999, Stanley Kubrick died in his sleep of a heart attack. He was 70 years old. The Shining is a typical example of the horror genre because it works by arousing irrational fear. Stanley Kubrick uses step down imagery to make the terror in the horror, controlled and not too over whelming for the audience, to make it seem more believable. The horror is a paradox because it presents a vision of terror to the audience but the audience try to fight everything the director is trying to achieve by telling themselves that, ‘it is just a movie, its not real, you can’t scare me.’ The Shining was based on Stephen King’s third published novel, which became a best seller upon its release in 1977. What also makes The Shining such an exceptional horror movie is the way Stanley Kubrick keeps the horror hidden from the audience and like most good horror films, there is always a sense of the supernatural, good vs. evil and a sense of isolation. Personally I feel that the Shining is a typical horror film because it’s a situation where the victims are isolated from the outside world and there is a mad man or something out of the ordinary killing them, which is true of most horror films like Nightmare on Elm Street, The Ring, Signs, Jeepers Creeper’s 1 and 2 and Dracula. The camera at the start of the film is moving over a huge mountain pass. We are shown a tiny Volkswagen car driving down a road, the film has many of the most beautiful, atmospheric cinematography, by John Alcott. This scene gives the impression of man’s vulnerability, when seen against the massive powers of nature – a sense of ‘the other’ is also created here by the aerial photography – a dark power looking down on the tiny ‘beetle’. Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) is attending a job interview for the position of a winter caretaker at The Overlook Hotel, located in the rockies of Colorado, built on an Indian burial ground. At the beginning of this film Jack conducts himself as a calm, charming man. He goes for the interview looking smart wearing a collar and a tie, shaven and looking very confident. During his interview the camera is films from behind Jack, making it seem as though someone or something is watching Jack – a sense of the ‘other’ and there are some frontal shots in which the background is peach, soft and warm. This presents a comforting, secure atmosphere. As the movie builds up we begin to release that the Overlook Hotel is not just any other normal Hotel but haunted although the horror is kept hidden from us we just see parts of the supernatural, although as we discover through the movie that this is much more than a mere haunted house tale. One of the things that makes it so interesting is that it shows a wide variety of elements that lead to Jack’s insanity to the point that we are left with the question on our minds whether it really was the house that leads to Jack’s insanity or the isolation for six months, so far from the outside world or Jack’s own psychological make-up or even reincarnation. We are also told very early in the film, that the hotel has something of a ‘history,’ in summary, some years previously, a crazed-psycho (the ex-caretaker) killed his wife and two children by chopping them up into small pieces with an axe! But once the family settle into the caretaker lifestyle it turns out that Torrance’s wife does most of the ‘caretaking’ while her grouchy husband seeks inspiration for a novel he is writing. At first everything goes well but as time goes by, he gets increasingly frustrated with his failure to write and takes it out on his wife (Shelly Duvall). Slowly, Jack begins to change he becomes pale, his clothes become rougher looking more like a labourer and becomes more and more irritable & malevolent towards both his wife and son. In the background, their son played by Danny Lloyd also starts having problems of his very own when he starts receiving psychic visions (E.S.P) of twin girls who were murdered a couple of years ago by their father who was also the caretaker at the Hotel and there are warnings from Tony of ‘redrum’ which spells murder when you read it backwards. It is clear that both Jack and Danny have some form of psychic gift as they are both able to pick-up the Hotel’s own psychic emissions of the horrors that it has seen. The down side is that the visions end up making Jack, go insane. Throughout the movie, the camera follows the action like someone is watching (presence in the Hotel) and there is always a sense of claustrophobia, For example when Danny is cycling in the corridors and he meets the two murdered girls, the camera when he meets them zooms to his face then back to the girls four times and gets closer with each shot then a close up again to Danny then a close up of the girls’ dead bodies four times but not for long so that the audience probably would not find it sickening. We know that the twin girls are ghosts because there is an axe on the floor and blood, and when talking to Danny they use repetition, â€Å"Come and play with us, for ever and ever and ever† which is the Lord’s Prayer. After that scene Jack sees a vision of a lift and when the doors open blood flows like a river, Personally I felt that this was technically clever because it emphasis on the horror aspect. The scariest moment in the movie is when Jack has gone completely insane and is trying to â€Å"correct† his wife and son because he had no real idea what his job as the caretaker there was really till Mr Grady (ex-caretaker) had told him to kill his family because they were trying to damage the house and that his son had brought a coloured cook into the house, the climax of the scariest point is when Jack says â€Å"Here’s Johnny† which was rated scariest horror scene out of hundred horror films. This is clever as it uses comedy to make the tragedy seem even more horrific. The end scene is a shot of Jack, frost-bitten and dead in the snow apparently hours later, is a satisfying and scary ending. But Stanley Kubrick delivers an ultimate conclusion, which Stephen King could never have achieved in his novel. The haunting music begins again, the camera sweeps to a framed photo on the wall, and we see a portrait of a ballroom party from decades ago. After the camera zooms in thrice, Jack is seen in the centre of the photo, and the caption reads, â€Å"Overlook Hotel, 1921.† This caption indicates that Jack, or at least his spirit, has always been present in the Overlook Hotel. Kubrick brilliantly arranges each shot in the film so that the viewer is easily drawn into the story. There is no single scene, shot, or camera angle, which does not denote a deeper meaning or have symbolic value. This movie is perhaps Stanley Kubrick’s greatest work. I feel that this movie could not have had a better cast, and there is nowhere else in the world where this movie could have been set. I feel that Jack Nicholson’s performance in The Shining was absolutely stunning. I also feel that without Jack Nicholson, â€Å"The Shining† would have been just another haunted house film. Jack Nicholson’s depiction of a man teetering on the brink of insanity was brilliant. We watch in terror as the insanity slowly settles in and exploding fiercely into this man, transforming him from one who is trying to repair his fragile family life into a stark raving lunatic bent on destroying everything he loves. It is truly a magical movie experience. So I feel that The Shining really is the greatest horror movie ever made.

Deception Point Page 101

Now, with Sexton standing before her, staring down, she sensed him searching her eyes for a lie. Sedgewick Sexton could smell untruths like nobody Gabrielle had ever met. If she lied to him, Sexton would know. â€Å"You've been drinking,† Gabrielle said, turning away. How does he know I was in his office? Sexton put his hands on her shoulders and spun her back around. â€Å"Were you in my office?† Gabrielle felt a rising fear. Sexton had indeed been drinking. His touch was rough. â€Å"In your office?† she demanded, forcing a confused laugh. â€Å"How? Why?† â€Å"I heard my Jourdain in the background when I called you.† Gabrielle cringed inwardly. His clock? It had not even occurred to her. â€Å"Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?† â€Å"I spend all day in that office. I know what my clock sounds like.† Gabrielle sensed she had to end this immediately. The best defense is a good offense. At least that's what Yolanda Cole always said. Placing her hands on her hips, Gabrielle went for him with all she had. She stepped toward him, getting in his face, glaring. â€Å"Let me get this straight, senator. It's four o'clock in the morning, you've been drinking, you heard a ticking on your phone, and that's why you're here?† She pointed her finger indignantly down the hall at his door. â€Å"Just for the record, are you accusing me of disarming a federal alarm system, picking two sets of locks, breaking into your office, being stupid enough to answer my cellphone while in the process of committing a felony, rearming the alarm system on my way out, and then calmly using the ladies' room before I run off with nothing to show for it? Is that the story here?† Sexton blinked, wide-eyed. â€Å"There's a reason people shouldn't drink alone,† Gabrielle said. â€Å"Now do you want to talk about NASA, or not?† Sexton felt befuddled as he walked back into his office. He went straight to his wet bar and poured himself a Pepsi. He sure as hell didn't feel drunk. Could he really have been wrong about this? Across the room, his Jourdain ticked mockingly. Sexton drained his Pepsi and poured himself another, and one for Gabrielle. â€Å"Drink, Gabrielle?† he asked, turning back into the room. Gabrielle had not followed him in. She was still standing in the doorway, rubbing his nose in it. â€Å"Oh, for God's sake! Come in. Tell me what you found out at NASA.† â€Å"I think I've had enough for tonight,† she said, sounding distant. â€Å"Let's talk tomorrow.† Sexton was in no mood for games. He needed this information now, and he had no intention of begging for it. He heaved a tired sigh. Extend the bond of trust. It's all about trust. â€Å"I screwed up,† he said. â€Å"I'm sorry. It's been a hell of a day. I don't know what I was thinking.† Gabrielle remained in the doorway. Sexton walked to his desk and set Gabrielle's Pepsi down on his blotter. He motioned to his leather chair-the position of power. â€Å"Have a seat. Enjoy a soda. I'm going to go stick my head in the sink.† He headed for the bathroom. Gabrielle still wasn't moving. â€Å"I think I saw a fax in the machine,† Sexton called over his shoulder as he entered the bathroom. Show her you trust her. â€Å"Have a look at it for me, will you?† Sexton closed the door and filled the sink with cold water. He splashed it on his face and felt no clearer. This had never happened to him before-being so sure, and being so wrong. Sexton was a man who trusted his instincts, and his instincts told him Gabrielle Ashe had been in his office. But how? It was impossible. Sexton told himself to forget about it and focus on the matter at hand. NASA. He needed Gabrielle right now. This was no time to alienate her. He needed to know what she knew. Forget your instincts. You were wrong. As Sexton dried his face, he threw his head back and took a deep breath. Relax, he told himself. Don't get punchy. He closed his eyes and inhaled deeply again, feeling better. When Sexton exited the bathroom, he was relieved to see Gabrielle had acquiesced and come back into his office. Good, he thought. Now we can get to business. Gabrielle was standing at his fax machine flipping through whatever pages had come in. Sexton was confused, however, when he saw her face. It was a mask of disorientation and fear. â€Å"What is it?† Sexton said, moving toward her. Gabrielle teetered, as if she were about to pass out. â€Å"What?† â€Å"The meteorite†¦ † she choked, her voice frail as her trembling hand held the stack of fax papers out to him. â€Å"And your daughter†¦ she's in danger.† Bewildered, Sexton walked over, and took the fax pages from Gabrielle. The top sheet was a handwritten note. Sexton immediately recognized the writing. The communique was awkward and shocking in its simplicity. Meteorite is fake. Here's proof. NASA/White House trying to kill me. Help! RS The senator seldom felt totally at a loss of understanding, but as he reread Rachel's words, he had no idea what to make of them. The meteorite is a fake? NASA and the White House are trying to kill her? In a deepening haze, Sexton began sifting through the half dozen sheets. The first page was a computerized image whose heading read â€Å"Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR).† The picture appeared to be an ice-sounding of some sort. Sexton saw the extraction pit they had talked about on television. His eye was drawn to what looked like the faint outline of a body floating in the shaft. Then he saw something even more shocking-the clear outline of a second shaft directly beneath where the meteorite had been-as if the stone had been inserted from underneath the ice. What in the world? Flipping to the next page, Sexton came face-to-face with a photograph of some sort of living ocean species called a Bathynomous giganteus. He stared in utter amazement. That's the animal from the meteorite fossils! Flipping faster now, he saw a graphic display depicting the ionized hydrogen content in the meteorite's crust. This page had a handwritten scrawl on it: Slush-hydrogen burn? NASA Expander Cycle Engine? Sexton could not believe his eyes. With the room starting to spin around him, he flipped to the final page-a photo of a rock containing metallic bubbles that looked exactly like those in the meteorite. Shockingly, the accompanying description said the rock was the product of oceanic volcanism. A rock from the ocean? Sexton wondered. But NASA said chondrules form only in space! Sexton set the sheets down on his desk and collapsed in his chair. It had taken him only fifteen seconds to piece together everything he was looking at. The implications of the images on the papers were crystal clear. Anyone with half a brain could see what these photos proved. The NASA meteorite is a fake! No day in Sexton's career had been filled with such extreme highs and lows. Today had been a roller-coaster ride of hope and despair. Sexton's bafflement over how this enormous scam could possibly have been pulled off evaporated into irrelevance when he realized what the scam meant for him politically. When I go public with this information, the presidency is mine! In his upwelling of celebration, Senator Sedgewick Sexton had momentarily forgotten his daughter's claim that she was in trouble. â€Å"Rachel is in danger,† Gabrielle said. â€Å"Her note says NASA and the White House are trying to-â€Å" Sexton's fax machine suddenly began ringing again. Gabrielle wheeled and stared at the machine. Sexton found himself staring too. He could not imagine what else Rachel could be sending him. More proof? How much more could there be? This is plenty! When the fax machine answered the call, however, no pages came through. The machine, detecting no data signal, had switched to its answering machine feature.