The 5 Best (and 5 Worst) Dinosaur Movies Ever Made

The History of Montessori Schools

A Montessori school is a school that follows the teachings of Dr. Maria Montessori,  an Italian doctor who devoted herself to educating the children of Romes ghettos. She became famous for her visionary methods and insight into how children learn. Her teachings spawned an educational movement which is enormously popular throughout the world. Learn more about Montessori teachings. The Montessori Philosophy A progressive movement with more than 100-years of success worldwide, the Montessori Philosophycenters around an approach that is child-directed  and is based on scientific research that comes from observation of individuals from birth to adulthood. There is a particular focus on allowing children to make their own choices in learning, with a teacher guiding the process rather than leading it. Much of the education method relies on hands-on learning, self-directed activity, and collaborative play.   Since the name Montessori is not protected by any copyright, Montessori in the name of a school does not necessarily mean that it adheres to the Montessori philosophy of education. Nor does it mean that it is accredited by the American Montessori Society or the Association Montessori Internationale. So, buyer beware is an important caution to keep in mind when looking for a Montessori school. Montessori Methodology Montessori schools theoretically cover infant education through matriculation from high school. In practice, most Montessori schools offer infant education through 8th grade. In fact, 90% of Montessori schools have very young children: ages 3 to 6. The centerpiece of the Montessori approach is allowing children to learn on their own while being guided by the teacher. Montessori teachers do not correct work and hand it back with lots of red marks. A childs work is not graded. The teacher assesses what the child has learned and then guides him into new areas of discovery. This description of a Montessori school was written by Ruth Hurvitz of The Montessori School in Wilton, CT:   The Montessori Schools culture is devoted to helping each child grow toward independence by building confidence, competence, self-esteem and respect for others. More than an approach to education, Montessori is an approach to life. The program at The Montessori School, both in philosophy and pedagogy, is based on the scientific research work of Dr. Maria Montessori and on AMI Montessori training. The School respects children as self-directed individuals and fosters their growth toward independence and social responsibility, while creating a joyful, diverse and family-oriented community. The Montessori Classroom Montessori classrooms are designed in a multi-age mix from toddlers through adolescents which allow  for both individual and social development. The classrooms are beautiful by design. They are set up in an open style, with work areas throughout the room and materials available on accessible shelving. Most lessons are given to small groups or individual children while other children are working independently. The school uses stories, Montessori materials, charts, timelines, objects of nature, treasures from the wealth of cultures around the worlds and sometimes conventional tools to teach the children. Guided by the teacher, Montessori students actively participate in planning their time and taking responsibility for their work. Committed to diversity, The Montessori School community is inclusive and depends on the tenets of respect. The school believes in sharing what we have with those in need and encouraging children to learn to live responsibly in the world. At The Montessori School, students are inspired to live both passionately and compassionately in a global community. Montessori vs Traditional Primary Education One of the differences between Dr. Montessoris approach to early childhood education and the approach found in many primary schools is the adoption of elements of the multiple intelligences theory. Harvard professor Howard Gardner developed and codified this theory in the late 20th century. Dr. Maria Montessori would seem to have developed her approach to teaching children along very similar lines. Regardless of who thought of it first, the multiple intelligences theory proposes  that children do not just learn using reading and writing intelligences. Many parents live by this theory because that is how they nurture their babies from birth. There are many parents who believe that too often, children who have been raised to use all their intelligence will go off to schools where they are severely restricted in what they learn and how they learn it, thus making a traditional public school a less than ideal option. If multiple intelligences are important to your child-rearing philosophy, then Montessori and Waldorf schools are worth a look. You also will want to read about the progressive education movement which was germinating about the same time as Maria Montessori and Rudolf Steiner were putting their educational theories into practice.

Social Impact of Technology Free Essays

string(48) " People are reduced to consumers and suppliers\." The Social Impact of Technology There is no doubt that technological change brings about social change. The Industrial revolution saw many people displaced from their land, to find work in crowded city factories. Serfdom was abolished and the population shifted from villages to the cities. We will write a custom essay sample on Social Impact of Technology or any similar topic only for you Order Now Strong family ties, self sufficiency and the right to occupy land were replaced with uncertain tenancy of land, dependency on trade and a weakening of the family unit. Economically, goods and money abounded, and trade flourished. The merchant class profited from the wealth that was generated on the backs of the displaced population of urban workers. Children were sent to work in factories, in order for families to make enough money to live. The peasant class worked long hard hours in poor conditions with no security. The Industrial revolution led to the alienation of the working class and although many union battles have since led to the adoption of better working conditions, the effects of the Industrial revolution remain. The family unit is even more vulnerable today with soaring divorce rates, high rates of teenage suicide, most of society are either heavily mortgaged to banks or paying high rents, and no one can be self-sufficient in a world governed by free wheeling free trade. Advances in technology, is generally not equitably shared within society. People with money have more opportunity to aquire technology, which enables them to acquire even more wealth. It is also important to remember that war has been and will continue to be the driving force for technology and innovation. Power and wealth are intrinsically tied together. Technology leads to greater social economic division. Laborers are viewed as commodities and expendable. Technology leads to alienation because it can create jobs that require no specialist knowledge. To date, since the industrial revolution we have seen technology used to the detriment of society. The right to occupy land has become a privelege that must be worked for and earned and now the battle is on to control all the world’s food and textiles through genetically modified seeds and animals. The insidious part of GM is that there is no recall once it is released into the environment. Salmon that will grow ten times faster than normal salmon will destroy river systems, as their unfair genetically modified advantage will see all smaller life forms extinguished, and genetically modified crops that are dependent on pesticides will contaminate organic, heritage seeds that have sustained people for thousands of years. Seeds will no longer be able to be harvested and replanted but the farmer will have to buy new seed every year from GM seed makers. This fight is more important that the fight over open source because it involves the right of people everywhere to have clean, safe food that has not been genetically altered. Essentially GM is a tax on everyone because a patent will be on every seed and seeds are made to be sterile the following year. This is something to become angry about. The greedy corporations and individuals that want control over our food, water and land, do not care about the irreversible damage to the environment. people and animals that they cause. We have the right to eat tomatoes that are free of fish DNA, meat and milk that is free of human DNA, pigs that haven’t been grown to harvest anthrax antibodies. They will never be able to prove the safety of GM food and no long term studies have been done. Nor will GM solve the problem of soil erosion, and pollution of rivers from artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Only a return to responsible organic and biodynamic farming practices will solve these problems. The 50 harmful effects of GM food Courts are not keen to pursue pesticide makers for poisoning farmers, or GM seed makers for monopolizing the world’s seeds through patents, (through genetic engineering that not only renders the seed worthless for replanting the next year but also contaminates non-GM crops by cross pollination. Already the majority of the world’s seed stock is controlled by a handful of corporations – see http://www. cqs. com/50harm. htm and http://www. seedsavers. net ) The internet in its current form was developed as a free exchange of information, unregulated by any one government or owned by any one person or company. In its raw form it was the playground of hackers and computer geeks, who challenged the status quo. It brings about a new era, the technological revolution. The free flow of information, has brought about technological advances at an unprecedented rate and has made many rich and brought companies who failed to adapt to a standstill. How will this technological revolution impact on our society? If the industrial revolution is any thing to go by, there will be winners and losers to technological revolution. E-commerce will affect the middle man and allow direct trade with consumers. Efficiency brings about lower prices for the consumer, but it is more accurate to argue that efficiency brings about greater wealth for shareholders, directors and owners. The intrinsic weave of social interactions of trade, can be disentangled and made into a horizontal supply chain. E-commerce will create efficiencies that effectively remove the need for a long supply chain but at the expense of social relationships. The effect of e-commerce, and the internet will impact on every society on the earth. Already, the barriers of trade between individuals in different countries are non-existent. Company contact details are searchable through powerful search engines, and trade can commerce between two individuals who would otherwise never have met. The internet dissolves national boundaries, and the consequences for cities that have developed as centers of administration and trade will be disastrous, if they do not embrace the technological advances in communication and trade that the internet brings. While at the same time, free trade means fierce competition without the protection of award wages. People are reduced to consumers and suppliers. You read "Social Impact of Technology" in category "Papers" Resisting the tide of technological change is impossible. Of course it is possible to do business without a website or email or mobile phone or a fax machine. People have been doing business well before any of these gadgets were invented. But business today is about competition, and technology is about leverage. Technology can lead to alienation if it is not widely dispersed in society. The Industrial age saw the concentration of technology in the hands of the rich and powerful, allowing them to dominate and subdue the population into harsh working conditions and the social impact of the internet and computers is only just beginning, will it challenge the status quo or will it lead to greater population control? The latter is probably more likely, and many will look on this time as the golden age of the internet. Already technology like digital TV is being pushed in the guise of better quality but the benefits to those who own the systems is that they will be able to track what you watch, when you watch it, whether or not you switch off an ad, and perhaps even whether that pizza ad makes you pick up the phone and call for a pizza. Knowledge is power, and with access to tapping phone lines, reading emails, reading your credit card statements, knowing by GPS where you are by tracking your mobile phone, it can be a scary world, if all that knowledge and power were to be used to oppress and control. On the upside, technology has made the developed world a richer place to the detriment of the environment. Machines have allowed people to move away from physical work, so that now in Australia there is 100,000 accountants and 85,000 farmers. Perhaps, technology has gone too far, and there are more people counting beans than growing them ! Impact of technology on government The legal system is dependent on local jurisdictions under common law. Historically, one has to remember that before the age of the internet, airplanes and telephones, the vast majority of business was done locally. Technology has rapidly changed the way people do business but there has not adapted to the changes. There is no one body that governs international trade. What are the implications? If you buy a product from a local supplier in your State, and it turns out that the item is faulty, you can go back to your supplier to work out repair or replacement and if they don’t help you, you can take the matter to local Trades office or file legal action in your state. If however, you buy a product outside your jurisdiction, you must file a claim in the State, where the supplier is located. You can only use a lawyer in the State where you file your action, your local llawyer can only act as a consultant and has no authority to represent you in court or to serve papers. Therefore, we have a world which is governed by local laws and yet the businesses and individuals are now actively trading outside of their local area. Governments are trying to make laws about content on the internet but have no jurisdiction to enforce those laws. This has created havens in small developing countries, that are happy to accept companies that want to run online gambling websites that may be outlawed in their jurisdiction or companies that wish to reduce their tax liabilities by opening up bank accounts in developing countries. We see arising now a homogenizing of local laws on issues like SPAM, and even sending a international letter from anywhere in the world involves the completion of almost identical forms, Governments are making agreements, in an attempt to be relevant in a world where people are able to trade more freely and where digital communication has enabled businesses to work, almost without physical boundaries. Business names and the Internet In the beginning, it was easy to start a new business. You would go to your local business registration office in your State and apply for a business name. If it was taken, you would choose another name. Most people do not realize that a business name is only valid for the State that it is registered in and the only way to protect your business name is to incorporate a company. In Australia, you would lodge forms with ASIC to incorporate a company and you then have rights to use your business name exclusively in Australia and its territories. However, with the birth of the internet, your Australian company name may be the same as the name of a company overseas. This has resulted in legal action being taken, as companies tussle of business names and the rights to use those names and a court system that is unable to deal effectively with international disputes over business names and has resulted in greater costs to people who want to start a business as they must register multiple domain names, take about international trademarks and find a name that has not already been taken. Even if they contact lawyers to register all the domain names and trademarks to avoid disputes(both local and international), legal action can still be taken against them. And when it comes to justice, money wins almost every time, unless companies want to relocate to safe havens in developing countries where they cannot be pursued in court. Conclusion Technology has allowed man to move from manual labour of the fields to cities and machines. It has allowed huge cities to arise, because of the urban poor that have migrated to cities for improved services and job opportunities. Technology has spawned the growth of modern society but it is also now used to control the population, in a way the Roman Caesars could only have dreamed of The economic impact of information technology has been a subject of a great deal of debate. For business economists, it is useful to identify how information technology (IT) is likely to impact the economy, because IT (defined as computer and communications technology and its applications) is likely to have a substantial impact on the economy’s growth during the coming decades. The reason for this is the use of IT by nearly all industries in the economy’s base, so that IT becomes a universal input to nearly all other outputs. If IT costs decline, they can create substantial economic gains for many of the industries that use IT, because money spent on IT can be invested in other inputs and improvements in production or services. Furthermore, because business relies upon IT to do a wide range of tasks and to create competitive advantage, by facilitating these tasks for end users, important gains are achieved that are difficult to measure in a classic input-output framework. In addition, IT, seen in a larger context, should have even wider impacts on the economy, because new channels of communications, such as the Internet, cellular television, and broadband applications, will provide business with new channels to reach customers and suppliers. In the past, the economic impact of IT has been subject to much debate. The productivity paradox was first proposed by Steven Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley, who found that BLS data on investments in computers had a clear negative rather than a positive impact on productivity gains in several major industries. Roach’s paradox appeared to be valid because quite a few service industries had negative productivity gains between 1977 and 1984. Some tried to explain this paradox by noting that it was difficult for workers to adjust to computers. Others noted that few computer applications made significant improvements in the amount of work most workers could do. Still additional commentators felt that the paradox was a product of poor statistical measurement. Because this paradox was driven by the negative productivity results for several service industries, one approach was to see if the service productivity figures were accurate. One study, by Joel Popkin and Company for IBM,(1) found that the BLS productivity statistics Roach used for several service sectors had important shortcomings. Most importantly, the BLS productivity data relied on output measures that did not truly reflect the changes in the nature of work in some service industries. If these are corrected in several important service industries, two things could be shown. How to cite Social Impact of Technology, Papers

Why did the Conservative Party split in 1846 Essay Example

Why did the Conservative Party split in 1846 Essay When Peel announced that he supported a repeal of the Corn Laws that protected the landed classes it resulted in his resignation and the split of the Conservative Party and arguably therefore Peel was the founder of modern Conservatism (Gash). However although the issue of repeal was the main issue that delivered the final blow to the party, as R Stewart states the rot had set in some years before. The Great Reform Act had created within the Conservatives a party of movement and a party of resistance. One was a more liberal type of conservatism, which aimed to appease to prevent the spread of democracy; the other was anti catholic and protectionist, the old conservatism. It was the clash of these two groupings that led to the eventual split in the party. The split although having many causes had its roots in reform but was pushed up into the sunlight by the arrogant actions of Peel. The repeal of the corn laws, if not the major cause, was most definitely the last straw that finally split the two sides of the party; as R. Stewart describes it for the Conservative party, repeal was a watershed. We will write a custom essay sample on Why did the Conservative Party split in 1846 specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Why did the Conservative Party split in 1846 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Why did the Conservative Party split in 1846 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer To understand the way in which the suggestion of repeal of the corn laws by Peel led to the split in the party we must first look to the causes of the split in opinion between the those in favour of reform and the protectionists. It has been suggested by certain historians such as J. A Thomas that the split over the repeal generally was a class battle between the business and manufacturing classes who tended to favour repeal and the landed classes who tended to be against it due to the relative personal economic benefits that it would bring. However Professor Aydelotte disputes this, removing the issue of class; although he agrees with Thomas that there were a higher proportion of votes among non-landed members than among landed for repeal. However Thomas ignores the issues of party and constituency, within the Conservative party the landed section was not proportionately more opposed than the non-landed, however the section of Conservative MPs that represented the land was, therefore it could be argued that the Tory Mps were not voting for their own interests but that of their constituencies and thus bowing to public opinion, a result of reform? When looking at the national social and economic situations that could be argued led to the idea of repeal and thus party split, one must not ignore the Potato famine in Ireland and economic instability in certain parts of England and Scotland. They required a large amount of food at lower prices, removing the corn laws would enable this, Peels view on this can be seen in his memoirs The minister who foresaw that there would be cruel distress in Ireland from the scarcity of food, might surely advise the removal of restrictions on its import without incurring the reproach of treason and perfidy to his party connections. However many historians have challenged the view that it was the potato famine that made Peels decision to push through repeal, as Boyd Hilton points out in his journal Peel a reappraisal in which he regards the potato blight as merely a pretext for repeal and that it is clear that, some time before the first intimations of famine, repeal had emerged as an end in itsel f. Indeed Peels cabinet itself was not even convinced of the need for appeal following the potato blight. However Peel had seemingly made his mind up and one possible reason for this could have been the popular pressure of public opinion (such as the anti corn law league), this is a likely explanation, this liberal interpretation is highlighted by Hilton who describes it as seeing Peel as a slave not to intellectual fashion but public opinion. We have looked at the economic and social reasons for the differing opinions on the repeal and thus the split in the party but it is now important to look at the role the man who suggested the repeal played. Heavy blame can be placed on Peel not only on the single issue of repeal but also on most other major issues that led to the split of the Conservative party (however these will be addressed later). The most obvious reason blame can be placed on Peel is because it was Peel who was the leader of the government who suggested the repeal, which led to the split in the party. However to really understand why Peel is so much to blame for making the issue of repeal the final straw we must look at his actions leading up to his announcement that he supported repeal. When the Conservative government was elected to power in 1841 it was believed by most Conservative backbenchers to have been won because it and Peel pledged to maintain the Corn Laws and protect the landed class, it was the traditional Conservative doctrine. Evidence of this belief can be found at Benticks reaction to the election results First let me congratulate you (he wrote to Lord Lincoln) that the country has refused to be cajoled by the latest fabrication from the workshop of Whig trickery and delusion The Whig trickery and delusion he spoke of was of course the case for repeal. In fact even the Whigs believed that Peel was one hundred percent behind sustaining the Corn Laws, this can be seen in Lord Monmouths comment that the election of 1841 was being fought between, on one side a free trade party and on the other a protectionist one. It is clear to see from this evidence why so many members of the party felt betrayed by Peels apparently sudden u-turn on the issue of repeal, Benticks reaction clearly reflected the protectionist feeling of betrayal, describing Peel and his accomplices as no better than common cheats. politically lying and pledge breaking. Confidence in Peel was shaken so much not necessarily because he supported repeal (although of course this did play its part) but rather because of the manner in which he had seemingly committed treason against his party and the pride in which he seemed to take in declaring he had devised his scheme of repeal without caring whether or not he would receive the support of the backbenchers. It is this arrogan ce and failure to look to see the future consequences of his actions that made Peel such a danger to his party and inevitably was one of the reasons the split occurred. However there is the opinion amongst some historians that many at the time believed Conservative success at the elections in 1841 derived principally from confidence which the electorate placed in Peels administrative ability. Indeed the Tamworth Manifesto did not mention preserving the Corn Laws or protecting agricultural or landed interests but instead spoke of preserving the integrity of the two Houses of Parliament, the Monarchy and stability; as Gash states it was a constitutional and religious not a social and economic policy. Therefore the extent of Peels betrayal and the extent to which he is to blame may be bought into question, although the fact remains that Peel had publicly announced his support of the Corn Laws. As for the argument that Peel ignored his backbenchers thus causing substantial tension and eventual split; Stewart argues that since the days of Pitt there had been strain within the party between the business men of the cabinet and the squires of the backbenches. Perhaps then Peels arrogance towards the backbenchers was nothing out of the ordinary and we should be careful about how much blame we place on Peel. However Gash makes the important point that in the days of Pitt he could afford major defeats as he had the crown to fall back upon, but by the time of Peel parliament had far more authority in making the controversial administrative decisions and therefore Peel needed the support of his party. Perhaps if Peels actions and attitude towards the repeal of Corn Laws had been the only way in which he acted slightly tyrannically, as some of protectionists described his actions, then the party may not have become so unstable; however it was not. The other major issue in which Peels decisions contributed significantly to the split in the Tory party was the way in which he handled the situation of Catholicism and Ireland; Once again the backbenchers were left unconsulted and their opinions ignored. There was a certain tradition within the Conservative party of anti-Catholicism and attacks on the Irish, Catholicism was seen by the Anglican, protestant Conservatives to be a threat to Anglican dominance which had already been substantially weakened by Catholic Emancipation and the Great Reform Act of 1832. The greatest example of these attacks on the Catholic Church in Ireland came from the quarterly reviews, which mounted the most extreme attacks. At first, although not joining in on the anti Irish and Catholicism, Peel and the leaders were at least wise enough not to disassociate themselves from it; this split therefore as Stewart puts it was papered over. However, it did not last, the biggest controversy was caused by the Mounoth Act, described by T. F Kebbel as one of the most pitiful incidents in the whole history of Toryism. The decision by Peel to increase and make permanent a grant of money to the Catholic Irish college of Mounoth nearly split the party there and then. Peel was on such dangerous ground because anti-Catholicism was to be the nerve centre of protectionist policy, anti Catholicism was inexplicitly linked with the right of the party and the Ultras, for Peel to act as he did meant a gulf now appeared between the liberal Peelites and the anti catholic, protectionist right of the party. The sheer unpopularity of the act can be seen through the 3000 petitions that Peel received against the act, most of which came from his own party. The disgruntlement of the right wing of the party was made worse by the fact that Peel had refused to grant money on a number of occasions to the Anglican church, for example The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. This clearly sent out a message of the declining influence of the Anglican church that it could no longer collect aid from the state by right; the fact that the Roman Catholic church on the other hand was receiving money paid for by English taxes greatly angered many Conservatives. Sir Robert Inglis went so far as to proclaim not just that this issue could result in the split of the Tory party but of the Union itself. Disraelis speech on the matter did more to add to the gulf that was forming within the party, describing Peel as a great middleman e is a man who bamboozles one party and plunders the other. Although this issue played an important role in if not opening, widening the gulf in the party, it is important to note that the party stayed in tact after this affair, does this then suggest that the gulf it caused was not in fact all that important? This is not the case, for as is pointed out by Stewart, the party held together during the late 1830s and early 40s due to a common respect for and recognition of the necessity of Peels leadership, by the end of 1844 that bond was gone. Therefore just because the party did not split at this point it does not make Peels actions here any less destructive than his actions during the repeal of the Corn Laws. One slightly longer-term factor that must be taken into consideration for which Peel is not quite so responsible for is the effect that the Great Reform Act and growing liberalism played on the party. Certainly the party had changed since the Reform Act, proof of this lies in the posts held by the Ultras and those on the far right of th e party such as Graham and Lord Staley who held minor positions. Anna Gambles brings up the idea that the reform had resulted in a modernised Conservatism which had adapted to the reform act of 1832 against a protectionist alternative. Certainly it can be argued that Peel represented this more liberal type of Conservatism, who just as the Whigs had advocated reform to prevent revolution and democracy so to Peel and his liberal Tories saw free trade as a necessary concession to new interests in society, a concession which would save the aristocracy from an outright radical assault. Here the knock on effects of the Reform Act can clearly be seen, the new interests in society being those newly enfranchised middle class men. However others such as the Duke of Richmond saw repeal as a further step towards democracy I ask you, will they stop here? It is the first step; they feel that it is the yeomanry of England that stand between them and the democratic principles which they wish to carry out. As Gambles rightly suggests after the Great Reform Act protectionism gained new significance as an economic instrument with which governments could represent and balance propertied interests with the reformed constitution. It was for the right of the party the last great barrier against the reform act protecting the landed classes; it is therefore no wonder they fought so passionately if helplessly to defend it. Just as during the great debate around the reform act had caused splits in the party in 1832, these same splits were re-emerging but were also more apparent. The question raised by the influence of the reform act is whether or not a Conservative party is justified in carrying out changes it has already resisted; is Peel justified in going back on his policies? It raises the question of whether Peel did betray his party because of a lack of intelligence as Disraeli so often attacked him for, a lack of seeing the future consequences of his actions therefore making Peel mostly responsible for the split in the conservative party or was it in fact a well thought out adaptation to the constitution to prevent revolution and protect the landed classes? Peel was an opportunist, a number of historians agree with this view such as Anna Ramsay, however Peels great weakness was his arrogance and failure to see future consequences of his actions made him the solely most important factor in the split of the Conservative party. The way In which he acted was at times despotic even tyrannical, not only on the issues of corn and Ireland but on numerous other occasions such as the attempt by parliament to reduce the working hours in factories, the act was passed but Peel threatened to resign and thus the act was reversed. Peel could have and did get away with acting in this way many a number of times but his failure was that he did not know when to stop his ever increasing liberal actions that to his colleagues on the backbenches smacked of democracy. Peel and the liberal Tories were children of the reform of parliament, the reformed Tories, the problem was that the rest of the party took a reactionary approach to the reform act, one that Peel foolishly thought he could ignore. Would the Conservative party have split without then potato famine and other economic factors leading up to the repeal? Yes, would it have split without the actions of Peel? Eventually yes, as rot had already set in before Peel came to office but it is unlikely it would have happened so soon.

Thallium Facts - Periodic Table of the Elements

Thallium Facts - Periodic Table of the Elements ThalliumBasic Facts Atomic Number: 81 Symbol: Tl Atomic Weight: 204.3833 Discovery: Crookes 1861 Electron Configuration: [Xe] 4f14 5d10 6s2 6p1 Element Classification: metal Discovered By: Sir William Crookes Discovery Date: 1861 (England) Name Origin: Greek: thallos (green twig), named for a bright green line in its spectrum. Thallium Physical Data Density (g/cc): 11.85 Melting Point (Â °K): 576.6 Boiling Point (Â °K): 1730 Appearance: soft bluish-gray metal Atomic Radius (pm): 171 Atomic Volume (cc/mol): 17.2 Covalent Radius (pm): 148 Ionic Radius: 95 (3e) 147 (1e) Specific Heat (20Â °C J/g mol): 0.128 Fusion Heat (kJ/mol): 4.31 Evaporation Heat (kJ/mol): 162.4 Thermal Conductivity: 46.1 J/m-sec-deg Debye Temperature (Â °K): 96.00 Pauling Negativity Number: 1.62 First Ionizing Energy (kJ/mol): 588.9 Oxidation States: 3, 1 Lattice Structure: hexagonal Lattice Constant (Ã…): 3.460 Lattice C/A Ratio: 1.599 Uses: infrared detectors, photomultipliers Source: obtained as a by-product of Zn/Pb smelting References: Los Alamos National Laboratory (2001), Crescent Chemical Company (2001), Langes Handbook of Chemistry (1952) Periodic Table of the Elements

Body of Stalin Removed From Lenins Tomb

Body of Stalin Removed From Lenins Tomb After his death in 1953, Soviet leader Joseph Stalins remains were embalmed and put on display next to Vladimir Lenin. Hundreds of thousands of people came to see the Generalissimo in the mausoleum. In 1961, just eight years later, the Soviet government ordered Stalins remains removed from the tomb. Why did the Soviet government change their mind? What happened to Stalins body after it was removed from Lenins tomb? Stalin's Death Joseph Stalin had been the despotic dictator of the Soviet Union for nearly 30 years. Though he is now considered responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people through famine and purges, when his death was announced to the people of the Soviet Union on March 6, 1953, many wept. Stalin had led them to victory in World War II. He had been their leader, the Father of the Peoples, the Supreme Commander, the Generalissimo. And now he was dead. Through a succession of bulletins, the Soviet people had been made aware that Stalin was gravely ill. At four in the morning of March 6, 1953, it was announced: [T]he heart of the comrade-in-arms and continuer of genius of Lenins cause, of the wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, has ceased to beat.1 Joseph Stalin, 73 years of age, had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died at 9:50 p.m. on March 5, 1953. Temporary Display Stalins body was washed by a nurse and then carried via a white car to the Kremlin mortuary. There, an autopsy was performed. After the autopsy was completed, Stalins body was given to the embalmers to prepare it for the three days it would lay-in-state. Stalins body was placed on temporary display in the Hall of Columns. Thousands of people lined up in the snow to see it. The crowds were so dense and chaotic outside that some people were trampled underfoot, others rammed against traffic lights, and some others choked to death. It is estimated that 500 people lost their lives while trying to get a glimpse of Stalins corpse. On March 9, nine pallbearers carried the coffin from the Hall of Columns onto a gun carriage. The body was then ceremoniously taken to Lenins tomb on the Red Square in Moscow. Only three speeches were made - one by Georgy Malenkov, another by Lavrenty Beria, and the third by Vyacheslav Molotov. Then, covered in black and red silk, Stalins coffin was carried into the tomb. At noon, throughout the Soviet Union, came a loud roar - whistles, bells, guns, and sirens were blown in honor of Stalin. Preparation for Eternity Though Stalins body had been embalmed, it was only prepared for the three-day lying-in-state. It was going to take much more preparation to make the body seem unchanged for generations. When Lenin died in 1924, Professor Vorobyev had done the embalming. It was a complicated process that resulted in an electric pump being installed inside Lenins body to maintain a constant humidity.2 When Stalin died in 1953, Professor Vorobyev had already passed away. Thus, the job of embalming Stalin went to Professor Vorobyevs assistant, Professor Zharsky. The embalming process took several months. In November 1953, seven months after Stalins death, Lenins  tomb was reopened. Stalin was placed inside the tomb, in an open coffin, under glass, near the body of Lenin.   Secretly Removing Stalin's Body Stalin had been a dictator and a tyrant. Yet he presented himself as the Father of Peoples, a wise leader, and the continuer of Lenins cause. After his death, people began to acknowledge that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of their own countrymen. Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the Communist Party (1953-1964) and premier of the Soviet Union (1958-1964), spearheaded this movement against the false memory of Stalin. Khrushchevs policies became known as de-Stalinization. On February 24-25, 1956, three years after Stalins death, Khrushchev gave a speech at the Twentieth Party Congress that crushed the aura of greatness that had surrounded Stalin. In this Secret Speech, Khrushchev revealed many of the horrible atrocities committed by Stalin. Five years later, it was time to physically remove Stalin from a place of honor. At the Twenty-second Party Congress in October 1961, an old, devoted Bolshevik woman, Dora Abramovna Lazurkina stood up and said: My heart is always full of Lenin. Comrades, I could survive the most difficult moments only because I carried Lenin in my heart, and always consulted him on what to do. Yesterday I consulted him. He was standing there before me as if he were alive, and he said: It is unpleasant to be next to Stalin, who did so much harm to the party.This speech had been pre-planned yet it was still very effective. Khrushchev followed by reading a decree ordering the removal of Stalins remains. The further retention in the mausoleum of the sarcophagus with the bier of J. V. Stalin shall be recognized as inappropriate since the A few days later, Stalins body was quietly removed from the mausoleum. There were no ceremonies and no fanfare. About 300 feet from the mausoleum, Stalins body was buried near other minor leaders of the Russian Revolution. Stalins body was placed near the Kremlin wall, half-hidden by trees. A few weeks later, a simple dark granite stone marked the grave with the very simple, J. V. STALIN 1879-1953. In 1970, a small bust was added to the grave. Notes As quoted in Robert Payne,  The Rise and Fall of Stalin  (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965) 682.Georges Bortoli,  The Death of Stalin  (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975) 171.Dora Lazurkina as quoted in  Rise and Fall 712-713.Nikita Khrushchev as quoted in  Ibid  713. Sources: Bortoli, Georges.  The Death of Stalin. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975.Hingley, Ronald.  Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.Hyde, H. Montgomery.  Stalin: The History of a Dictator. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971.Payne, Robert.  The Rise and Fall of Stalin. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965.

Contemporary Supply Chain Management and Consultancy management Essay

Contemporary Supply Chain Management and Consultancy management techniques - Essay Example This helps these businesses to achieve maximum efficiency because they worry less about these aspects of business because they focus more on adding value to their customers. In order for a business to reap the benefits of supply chain management, it is important for a business to identify suppliers that are able to deliver value as intended meaning that the process of seeking suppliers has to be a rigorous one. Many businesses have to come to understand the potential that supply chain management (SCM) has to their operations because when implemented effectively can help them in achieving competitive advantage in the markets that they exist in (Monczka, Handfield, Giunipero & Patterson 2015, 349). The concept of SCM has gained popularity because business entities developed a keen eye on delivering quality to the markets they serve and also based on the need to manage the materials that are used in product developed. Also the need to manage logistics as a way of creating value for the customers being served by a business has further propelled the inclusion of SCM as part of business operations. Based on this overview, this essay will focus on influencing understanding and application of appropriate management frameworks that can be essential in the planning and control of goods and services by having the aspects of quality, quantity and cost analysis in mind. Further, the paper will also seek to create an understanding of the tools and techniques that exists that can help in achieving efficiency in the supply chain managerial decision making under supply chain management. In relation to consultancy management techniques, the essay will identify data and information sources that are relevant to the decision making process and also analyze this information so as to support the decision making process. Further, emphasis will be on communicating the