Supply Chain Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Supply Chain - Case Study Example It is the world’s largest apparel retail store having chain stores in many countries. It is famous that the production, operations and then the supply chain activities are so well managed at Zara that it takes just two weeks to manufacture a new product and then launch at a display store. Whereas other competitors working in the Apparel industry take minimum of six months for manufacturing and then launching a new product in the market. This developed structure is really a source of competitive advantage for the Company Zara (Bhagwat 2011). Benetton is another Italian based Clothing Company, working globally regardless of the geographical boundaries. Benetton is famous for its dual supply chain system. The production is usually based on the quantity demanded from the stores themselves. This is also sometimes known as pull driven strategy. In addition, the last one, H & M is Swedish based Apparel Company working successfully in the market. The full name of H & M is Hennes and M auritz. The products are famous for its reasonable prices and the availability of variety of stocks within no time. It is famous that no single item remains on shop shelves more than a month duration. At Zara, the efficient operational activities and the processes are the real cause or the source of gaining competitive advantage as compare to many other competitor firms operating in the industry. The managers at Zara Company continue the research process throughout the whole season and not just in the end. For this reason, they are successful in the provision of new products within no time. The lower prices as compare to many other competitors may also give a positive impact to strengthen the competitive advantage of the company. Anyone can imagine the work efficiency at Zara Company that the product stay at distribution centre is only three days and after that, workers dispatch it to different retail stores. Another innovative thinking of marketing managers at Zara

Obama or Romney Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Obama or Romney - Essay Example Firstly, this brief essay will consider Romney. Romney claims to have a very different view from the President with regards to the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009. However, the fact of the matter is that while governor of Massachusetts, Romney instituted a healthcare plan statewide that served as the very inspiration for the later adoption of the Affordable Health Care Act. As such, Romney continues to attempt to distance himself from this and claim that if he is elected president he will do all in his power to overturn the legislation. Obviously, such a disconnect from action/practice and actuality does not help Romney to appear as a steadfast candidate with regards to this particular issue. Similarly, much the same is true with regards to Romney’s stance on abortion. While campaigning for the gubernatorial race of Massachusetts, Romney went out of his way to emphasize that he was a pro-choice candidate. Similarly, most of the issues that involved abortion he masterfully d odged without coming down too hard in either direction. Yet, as he is running for a nationwide audience now and not merely for the gubernatorial candidacy of a small moderately liberal northeastern state, Romney has tracked to the right significantly and now claims that he will make it a policy directive to use his power to enforce the â€Å"sanctity of life†. Such a disconnect from his prior positions begs the question to what degree Romney is merely playing to the base of the Republican/conservative movement and what degree he actually espouses such a newfound believe in the sanctity of life. The case with Obama is somewhat different. Due to the fact that Obama is a sitting president, it is much easier to measure his actions against the words that he spoke back in the 2008 presidential election cycle. Although like any politician, Obama has embellished a bit and claimed to be able to perform feats that no president be reasonably expected to perform, the fact of the matter i s that in regards to the main issues, Obama has remained decidedly issue oriented and issue focused. With respect to his campaign promise to engage with Congress to create a lasting and historic solution to the issues that face many Americans in regards to healthcare, Obama, with the help of a Democratic controlled Congress, enacted the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009. Additionally, Obama has also made good on his campaign promise to cease military operations within Iraq and bring the majority of combat troops stationed there back home. This campaign promise and its ultimate implementation was an important step due to the fact that it allowed him to take an increased role of tracking al Qaeda and in helping the United States to locate and kill Osama bin Laden; the mastermind of the September 11th attacks that killed over 3,000 United States citizens. It should be noted though that this author does have a strong issue with the President’s foreign policy. Whereas he campaign ed on a platform of military non-aggression and sought to bring the majority of US combat troops home as a function of ending the pointless Iraq war, he entirely failed to keep the

Principle of Sovereign Immunity

Principle of Sovereign Immunity It is undisputed that international law is based on reciprocity, and nowhere is this more apparently than in the area of diplomatic relations and immunities. Thus the principle of equality of sovereign states is enshrined in Art 1(2) of the Charter of the United Nations, and the notion of state immunities including those afforded to its sovereigns operates on this principle, specifically â€Å"par in parem non hebet imperium† where since both states are equal, one cannot be subject to the jurisdiction and the courts of another. Furthermore, it is now widely accepted the heads of states and foreign ministers in representing states are also afforded this immunity to allow them to carry out their functions properly. However, modern times which has seen a rise in a respect of human rights has found a new clash with the principle of sovereign immunity. As such, international jurisprudence is now developing and arguably struggling to try and achieve a balance between these two objec tives, a matter which will be analysed in this essay. Ratione personae and Ratione Materiae The two different types of immunities delegated to state representatives will be noted at the outset, namely ratione personae and ratione materiae. The former allows immunities to a particular person from the jurisdiction of a states courts by virtue of the office he holds, for any of his actions whether conducted in an official or private capacity. Since this type of immunity is only required for a practical basis to allow functioning, once the individual leaves office this type of immunity lapses. The second type of immunity is that of ratione materiae, where it is the nature of the act which immunity is afforded to. Here, if an act was carried out in an official capacity it can not be the subject of a court action, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of state as noted above and non-intervention of one state into another states affairs. Since the nature of the act is the determining factor here, the immunity remains even if the official in question has left his post. The distinction is pointed out at the outset since the Courts have dealt with the two different types of immunities differently. Ratione materia will be dealt with in the first instance. The Pinochet Case Ratione Materia The issue of the potential conflict of immunities and human rights violations came to the forefront when the former President of Chile, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, visited the United Kingdom in 1998 for medical reasons. While there, the Spanish government requested the UK government to extradite Pinochet to face charges of inter alia torture and conspiracy to torture in the Spanish Courts under legislation enacting the Convention Against Torture [CAT] (1984). The issue went to the UK House of Lords where it was held that Pinochet could not claim immunity for his acts as a former head of state against allegations of torture. The immunity claimed in this case was that of ratione materia, since Pinochet was clearly not a current head of state and thus ratione personae immunity was not available to him. Although the House of Lords approved the judgement by a large majority there was only one dissenting Lord a variety of reasoning was employed. Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope and Lord Saville found that those who had signed the CAT had impliedly waivered state immunity for their sovereigns. It was noted that the definition of Torture provided for in Art 1 of CAT required for the acts complained of to have either been carried out by or with the involvement of a state official. As such, any allegation of torture would necessarily always be able to be met with a defence of state immunity which would render the CAT meaningless. Such an analysis is quite insightful, but may creates problems of distinction for claimants relying on the customary prohibition of torture rather than CAT. Criminal and Civil Liability Other judges adopted a more broad consideration of the issue, where it was held that due to the heinousness of the act of torture and the jus cogens nature of the prohibition of torture, immunity ratione materia could never be a valid defence. Their Lordships pointed out that the purpose of the immunity is to ensure that the national courts of one state do not adjudicate on the responsibly of another, but in this case they were dealing with an issue of individual criminal liability and to hold immunity existed in this case would go beyond the purposes intended for such immunities, namely stability of international relations. Thus, a distinction can be seen between criminal liability cases and civil liability which would necessarily entail criminal responsibility. This distinction can be appreciated in a later case. In Al-Adsani v UK, the applicant was a dual UK and Kuwaiti national who alleged that on a visit to Kuwait, he was subjected to torture in a Kuwaiti state prison as retaliation for his circulating sexual tapes showing the Emir of Kuwaits brother, the Sheikh. He brought a claim in the UK for physical injuries and mental suffering caused from the treatment he suffered against inter alia the state of Kuwait. The UK Courts however held that Kuwaits claim to the state immunity Act 1978 succeeded. The Court of Appeal referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights where the applicant alleged that in invoking state immunity and not allowing his case to be heard in the UK Courts, the UK violated Art 6, the right of a fair trial. This was a more contentious matter and the Court very narrowly held, with a nine to eight vote majority that the right of access was not violated by upholding the defence of state immunity. Here the European Court pointed out that the nature of jurisdictional immunities acted as a procedural bar, and if waived by the host state a substantive case could be heard. The Court pointed out that sovereign immunity was an essential concept of international law, with a legitimate aim of promoting comity and good international relations. As such, a distinction had to be made with civil suits and criminal cases. A criminal case, as in the case of Pinochet, went to the question of individual criminal liability for acts. A case for civil damages however, would necessarily have to find state responsibility and the Court concluded in its analysis of the case law that an international norm excluding liability for civil damages had not emerged. Such an approach of distinguishing criminal and civil liability was repeated by the UK Courts in Jones v Saudi Arabia, where it was held immunity could not be waived for a claim for civil damages as a result of torture. Some commentators have suggested that the civil-criminal liability is distinguished due to the nature of the crimes in the case. However, the analysis of the Court seems to suggest a different ground of distinction in this case Criminal responsibility is based on individuals, and thus does not involve any question of state liability or state sovereignty. The case of Re Pinochet did not entail any judgement at all in the actions of Chile as a state itself, and render it liable for any reparations for example. If however there was to be no state immunity allowed in Al-Adsani, it would be found that Kuwait entailed responsibility for the actions and liable for damages, thus entering into the realms of state sovereignty and non-intervention in other states affairs. The effect on international relations was therefore clearly a determining factor in this case. Where there was less of an effect on international status in criminal cases, more weight was given to human rights norms. Normative Hierarchy Theory Of course, the dissenting judges in Al-Adsani did not consider that the distinction between civil and criminal liability was important enough when pitted against a prohibition of torture. Many judges pointed out that since the Court accepted that torture was a jus cogens norm, they should also accept that it would always prevail over all other norms including those of state immunity. Thus the status of torture would invalidate immunity laws or its effect at least for that particular case. This has been described as a normative hierarchy theory since torture is a jus cogens norm, it goes above the norm of state immunity. Some of the judges in Re Pinochet also adopted this theory. The Pinochet case is considered by many around the world as revolutionary as it is principally the first case to consider that immunity did not exist for allegations of egregious human rights violations. This approach is attractive from the human rights perspective and does accord well with the prohibition of torture in international law in stating that there can be no justification whatsoever for the use of torture. However, there are relatively few jus cogens norms in international law, and even the status of torture as jus cogens is disputed. Adopting such a theory in absence of other justifications would mean that other human rights violations cannot be pitted against the laws of state immunity. No immunity for ratione personae A further distinction that has been made by Courts is that for existing officials of state, who still hold immunity ratione personae. This can be seen in the Arrest Warrants case held before the ICJ. Under a Belgian law of 1993 Belgian Courts had universal jurisdiction in respect of grave breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity, irrespective or not of whether the offender has acted in an official capacity. On this basis a Belgian investigating judge issued an arrest warrant in absentia for the then Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Congo. Congo responded by taking the matter to the ICJ, challenging that that the alleged arrest warrant violated the principle of sovereign equality among member states of the UN as enshrined in Art 2(1) of the UN Charter, as well as diplomatic immunity for ministers of foreign affairs for a sovereign state as laid out in Art 41(2) for the 1862 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations. The majority of the ICJ, thirteen votes to three, held that the arrest warrant was indeed in violation of customary international law laying down rules of absolute inviolably and immunity from criminal proceedings of incumbent foreign ministers, therefore breaching principles of sovereign equality among states. However, no form of satisfaction was awarded other than the judgement which the Court held would make good the moral injury complained of by the Congo. This case thus shows that the doctrine adopted in Pinochet is highly unlikely to extend to existing officials, illustrating that the main rationale behind immunities is to allow international relations to develop. Holding a Foreign Minister liable to prosecution in another country while he is still Foreign Minister would greatly impair this ability as the Court noted in its majority judgement, Foreign Ministers are allowed this immunity to allow them to travel and communicate with other states and allowed effective representation of their State. The Court, like other decisions abovementioned, did emphatically state that immunity did not equate to impunity and the procedural bar of immunity once lifted could hold an individual responsible, such as before the courts of his own country, where the state has waived immunity, after the person in question has ceased to hold public office or perhaps in the future under the International Criminal Court. The Court can be said to show some lea ning towards appreciation of human rights when it did not approve of damages further than the damage being claimed, recognising perhaps that to award damages to someone accused of such egregious human rights violations would exceed the doctrine of immunities and would not serve a beneficial purpose. Judges Higgins, Koojimans and Burgenthal issued a separate opinion in the Arrest Warrants case, where they dissented with the Court requiring a cancellation of the Arrest Warrant issued by Belgium. They noted that the Court noted the provision of immunities to the Foreign Minister in this case was to allow his continue travelling and maintain communication and relations with other states in order to represent his state effectively. However, since he was no longer Foreign Minister at the time of the hearing at the international court there was no longer need for this expansive immunity and as such a cancellation of the arrest warrant would not be required. Such opinions are clearly based on the rationale behind immunity being that of functionality of international relations once this is no longer at risk a whole immunity is no longer required. Judge Van Den Wyngaert went even further and stated that the Court had taken immunities too far in creating a potential violation of international human rights.23 The dissenting judges in this case therefore clearly carried out balancing exercises between the two objectives of functionality of international relations and human rights with some reaching different conclusions to others. It is particularly notable that following this case, under diplomatic pressure from other states Belgium amended its laws on 23 April 2003 and once again on 5th August of that year, holding persons granted immunity under international law will be excluded from the reach of that legislation. Many commentators have regretted that diplomatic pressure and international politics has ‘destroyed the revolutionary character of Belgiums legislation in this case. In conclusion therefore an analysis of international case-law shows that allowing immunity to provide for and facilitate international relations has been seen as a particularly important objective Thus immunities have not been waived with regard to those still holding office. As Judge Van den Wyngaert pointed out in dissenting in the Arrest Warrants case, such an approach is likely to have stemmed from a consideration of avoiding chaos and abuse in international processes. Even where immunities have been waived with regard to those who have formerly held office, as in the Pinochet case for example, this has only been done with regard to individual criminal liability where Courts point out that they are not invoking the responsibility of states. Furthermore, the issue is only ever raised with regard to particularly egregious human rights norms such as those of torture and it seems hardly likely immunity would be waived for a norm perceived to be of lesser value such as an economic an d social right of development. Thus, while international law is clearly developing in the area of human rights, the fact that immunities is based on such an important precept of international law renders Courts very reluctant to waive immunity, and they have only done so on very limited occasions. Many commentators have criticised this Caplan for example points out that a theory of collective state benefit should be employed and granting immunities to human rights violates does not benefit the collective international community.28 McGregor points out that the new UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Properties does not include any reference to human rights and criticises the lack of a human rights protocol, as does Denza. It is the very nature of international law however that law can only be made when states reach a consensus, and until they reach a consensus to not raise claims of infringement of sovereignty by waiving immunity, it is anticipated that very slow progress will be made in this area.

Professional Wrestling :: essays research papers

Current Issues  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Professional Wrestling   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When some people hear the word wrestling they think of â€Å"2 points takedown† or headgear and singlets. But most people think of the WWF, WCW, NWO, and the WolfPac. They think of names such as Hollywood Hogan, Sting, Stone Cold, Diamond Dallas Page, and Golberg. If you have been alive in today’s TV culture, you have undoubtedly heard these names.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although professional wrestling has been enjoying newfound success lately, it is not a new sport by any means. Professional Wrestling has been around since the 1800’s but it was mainly confined to barns and other small areas with people betting on the winner. These were often bloody and dangerous fights. Dangerous for the wrestlers as well as the audience as sometimes the fight would spill out into the crowd.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Professional Wrestling became more of a spectator sport in the early to mid 1900’s, but it resembled very little of what we think of Professional Wrestling today. Today, as opposed to old-time wrestling, it is just a spectator event with people cheering for a â€Å"hero† against a â€Å"vilian†. Most all matches are set up in a way that there is always one crowd favorite, and one that the crowd hates.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Today Professional Wrestling is no longer a sport but a entertainment industry. The fights are rigged, the wrestling is fake, and the only thing real about wrestling is the money. Millions of dollars are generated by professional wrestling. TV contracts, t-shirts, posters, Video games, movies. These all generate enough money and interest to make professional wrestling the most watched entertainment event today. One of the reasons that wrestling has become such a powerful force in entertainment is that it has all the action of a Jackie Chan movie, all the drama of ER and all of the â€Å"eye-candy† of Baywatch.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I am going to tell you some of todays biggest stars and give you a little background on them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One of the most entertaining people in professional wrestling is current world champion Goldberg. Goldberg grew up as a doctors son in Oklahoma with his two brothers. Goldberg was even an imposing future at a young age as he was a bouncer in a bar at age 17. He went on to play college football at SEC power Georgia. As a Georgia Bulldog, Goldberg earned all-confernce honors as a nose-guard and was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons and eventually ended his career as a LA Ram. Goldberg was not done bashing skulls after he hurt his knee though. He shaved his head and got a tattoo and followed many former football players into Pro wrestling.

How does Elizabeth Bennet contradict the typical image of an 18th century woman? Essay

The 18th century women of Jane Austen’s pages and of her times lived a gentle, sheltered and delicate life. The rules of conduct especially in relation to women were defined and strict. All women were expected to be courteous, decent, fragile, polite, refined, modest and respectable, have â€Å"good breeding†, impeccable manners and perfect social etiquette. Women were limited to very few activities- mainly drawing, singing and dancing. They had to be accomplished in every sense of the word. An accomplished â€Å"woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing and the modern languages to deserve the word: and besides all this she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be half deserved.† Such were the requirements that society asked of every woman if she wanted to hold a place of her own in the marriage rat race. Elizabeth Bennet, the twenty-year-old heroine of the novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and the second oldest of the Bennet sisters, has all these qualities in her. However she is superior to all the other women that are presented to us in the novel. She is ‘accomplished’ and beautiful but unlike other women, she does not show-off at every opportunity. She is not a hypocrite or a snob like Caroline Bingley, or â€Å"ignorant, idle and vain† like her youngest sister Lydia or tactless and insensitive like her own mother, who is the butt of her husband’s sarcasm. Elizabeth is the fast favourite of her father and has inherited his wit, intelligence and independence. Through Elizabeth, Jane Austen mocks the snobbery, hypocrisy and materialism of many people like Caroline Bingley, Lady Catherine, Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins. Elizabeth is fully aware of the shortcomings of her mother and her younger sisters. She is ashamed at her mother’s embarrassing lack of refinement and discretion, which are demonstrated firstly at the Netherfield ball when she makes a premature public announcement that Jane Bennet is to marry Mr. Charles Bingley, and secondly, by her disdainful treatment of Mr. Darcy, her social superior. Mrs. Bennet’s lack of good breeding, intelligence and sense of humour is very evident. â€Å"The solace† of her life was â€Å"visiting and news†. She loved a good gossip, which is rather typical of a woman- 18th century or otherwise. Gossiping was a major pastime for women and we can see how fast information gets around town. Mrs. Philips, the sister of Mrs. Bennet, provides her with the gossip around Meryton. It was Mrs. Philips who informed Mrs. Bennet about Mr. Bingley buying Netherfield, the talk around Meryton about Lydia’s scandal and Mr. Bingley’s return to Netherfield. However not all women indulged in gossip. We do not see Jane or Elizabeth interfering with other people’s business. â€Å"If it was to be a secret, say not another word on the subject. You may depend on my seeking no further.† Their attitude differs from their mother. Then again, it was a ‘necessity’ for Mrs. Bennet to keep tabs on everything going around because any information might help in race to get her five daughters married off. We can see the importance of marriage in the 18th century clearly through Mrs. Bennet and Mrs. Lucas. Their main occupation is arranging for their daughters to be married to rich husbands. This desire governs Mrs. Bennet’s life. â€Å"The business of her life was to get her daughters married.† The immoral behaviour of her youngest daughter Lydia is of no importance to her once the wedding had been announced. Instead Mrs. Bennet’s immediate concern is the wedding clothes which Lydia may buy after she is married. However Mrs. Bennet’s desire to get her daughters married off as soon as possible are based on economic facts since they would not inherit any money after their father’s death. Wealth was the main criteria for a ‘successful’ and ‘secure’ marriage and that was what Mrs. Bennet, like all other mothers, looked for in prospective grooms. Love and happiness did not matter much or in fact, at all. As Elizabeth’s best friend Charlotte Lucas put it â€Å"Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance.† This was a very common attitude in the 18th century. Charlotte accepts the proposal of Mr. Collins, a pompous and foolish man even though she knows that the two of them are incompatible. However she is a practical and sensible person and she is aware of her poor financial state and of her age, at twenty-seven she was considered to be an â€Å"old maid†, and thus was prepared to marry solely for the sake of money. This shows us that very few options were open to a woman in Charlotte’s position. She could either become a governess or a companion to a lady or just remain at home, reducing her younger sisters chances of being married. Jane Austen uses the theme of â€Å"Love and Marriage† to show us how the whole of a woman’s life revolved around marriage. From the time she is born, she is trained and tutored to be a â€Å"perfect wife†. She is thought how to sit, stand, walk, talk, eat, drink, dance, sing, draw, and sew in the hope of securing a good, wealthy husband. Elizabeth Bennet is perfect in her manners, her expressions and her â€Å"civility†. But I find her very different from the conventional 18th century woman because of her ideals on love and marriage. She has all the necessary ‘qualifications’ of an eligible spinster but chooses not to marry for the sake of it. Elizabeth remarks, â€Å"One has got all the goodness, the other all the appearance of it†, referring to Wickham and Darcy. Here the difference between appearance and reality is highlighted. The ease with which even sharp people like Elizabeth could be deceived by appearance was a real danger in Jane Austen’s society, with all its emphasis on manners and breeding, and with its strict code of public behaviour. People like Wickham who could â€Å"perform† well in public were judged on that rather than on their true characters. Elizabeth’s pride and her prejudice blind her to Wickham’s faults and lead her to accept his slanderous portrayal of Darcy.. â€Å"She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me;† is what Darcy said of Elizabeth at their first meeting. This hurt combined with the knowledge of Darcy’s hand in separating Jane and Bingley leaves Elizabeth with a strong dislike for Darcy. Therefore when Darcy proposes to her she is thunderstruck and dismisses him to be â€Å"the last man in the world I could be prevailed upon to marry†. I think Elizabeth’s rejection of Darcy’s proposal a very brave thing to do because it would have been considered sacrilege, keeping in mind the importance given to money in the 18th century. She impresses both Darcy and the readers with her wit and liveliness. Darcy, while maintaining that Elizabeth’s manners are â€Å"not those of the fashionable world†, is nevertheless attracted to her spirit and an independence of mind. However by the end of the novel Elizabeth accepts that not all â€Å"first impressions† can be taken at face value. We can see the themes of â€Å"Appearance versus Reality† and â€Å"Self-realization† being brought out. Elizabeth’s independence of spirit is show by her decision to walk to Netherfield in order to visit her sister. It is looked upon as a monstrous thing that Elizabeth Bennet should walk three miles on a country road, and Miss Bingley criticizes her exclaiming â€Å"to walk three miles, or whatever it is, above her ankles in dirt, and alone, quite alone! It seems to me to show an abominable sort of conceited independence, a most country-town indifference to decorum. She looked almost wild!† This sneering remark of Caroline Bingley shows us the typical 18th century woman mentality. Elizabeth’s behaviour is considered to be â€Å"unorthodox† and very â€Å"unladylike† since she walked, unescorted all the way from Meryton to Netherfield just to see her sick sister. This shows us that Elizabeth places her sister before any social rules of etiquette. Elizabeth’s affectionate nature is demonstrated by her close relationship with her elder sister Jane, whose sensitive and compassionate nature she admires. It has been suggested that Elizabeth and Jane’s relationship mirrors the close relationship the author had with her own sister Cassandra. However Jane is different from Elizabeth in her gentle nature, which is so pleasant and amiable that it is almost a failing due to her unquestioning acceptance of others. Elizabeth is more outspoken and prides herself to be a good judge of character. Her perception does not allow her to be taken in by the superficial and two- faced Caroline Bingley and Mrs. Hurst who are proud and rich and make their superior social rank known. They are introduced as â€Å"fine women with a decided air of fashion.† To belong to a family whose fortune was made in trade was to belong to an inferior class. It is ironic to see Miss Bingley and her sister criticizing Jane for having an uncle with trade connections, when their own fortune was gained through trade. In the 18th century society, Miss Bingley and her sister are called ‘ladies’ as they fulfill all the requirements: they have money, beauty and are accomplished. But as Elizabeth notes, with irony, that they were: â€Å"in every respect entitled to think well of themselves†¦Ã¢â‚¬  their subsequent behaviour, particularly with regard to the Bennets is far from ‘ladylike’. Jane Austen here reveals the theme of â€Å"Appearance versus Reality† again and also shows us, through Miss Bingley behaviour, that ‘manners’ are a better indication of ‘breeding’ than birth into an upper-class family. The character of Lady Catherine de Bourgh proves this point again. She is an overbearing, self-important, and controlling aristocrat who has a narrow-minded, unpleasant and selfish manner. She feels that her rank as a ‘Lady’ gives her a right to meddle in other people’s affairs. Everyone is in awe of her except for Elizabeth, since she attaches little importance to rank for its own sake. Elizabeth stands up to her and senses that she must be the first person to ever have done so. This shows us that Elizabeth is not afraid to stand up for herself especially when Lady Catherine attempts to persuade her not to marry Darcy. Elizabeth’s defiance shocks Lady Catherine who makes her reasons for objecting to their marriage very clear. She says â€Å"honour, decorum, prudence, nay, interest, forbid it†- all reasons which Darcy had declared that he had overcome when he proposed to Elizabeth at Hunsford. Elizabeth’s choice of love reflects her desire to find a husband who matches her in terms of character and taste. Elizabeth’s relationship with Darcy is beyond what any other couples share in the novel â€Å"Pride and Prejudice†. The bond between Elizabeth and Darcy is â€Å"rationally founded†, based on â€Å"excellent understanding† and â€Å"general similarity of feeling and taste.† Elizabeth likes Darcy for the fact that he has no airs about him and he is honest, frank and very similar to her in character. Darcy in return is impressed by Elizabeth physical and mental energy and by her sharp wit and her ability to laugh at misfortune and her optimism. Jane Austen uses Elizabeth as her mouthpiece when she says, â€Å"I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can.† Elizabeth is like Jane Austen in that she is shown to be interested in the human character. Unlike other women of her times, Elizabeth has a good sense of humour and possesses the ability to laugh at herself. Austen’s sense of humour and intelligence allow her to show the reader the â€Å"follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies,† of her characters. The way Austen presents Lydia and Mrs. Bennet are a good example of this. She does this without being unfair, as she laughs not at them but at what they do. Her use of irony and satire are more serious; she uses them to show meaning without telling the reader directly and to make fun of things, especially those with social importance and meaning. The tone of â€Å"Pride and Prejudice† is li ght, satirical and vivid. We can still, despite the vast differences between her 18th century society and our own 21st century society, recognize ourselves in the way her characters think and behave. We all know people as cleverly manipulative and outwardly affectionate as Miss Bingley; as self-involved as Lady Catherine de Bourgh; and as charming but as lacking in principles as Wickham. We conceal ourselves with arrogance like Darcy; assume we understand more than we do like Elizabeth and revel in gossip Like Mrs. Bennet. And the very fact that Jane Austen’s characters are so relatable to makes the novel all the more readable. Her writing also appealed to me because of its simplicity. I do not mean to say that her work is easy to understand, but that she uses ‘simple’ English. I found the character of Elizabeth to be very intricately designed for she has timeless appeal. She is by no means perfect but is by far the closest to perfection among all the other women in the novel. Elizabeth is vivacious, teasing, sensitive, perceptive and filled with sparkling beauty and wit. Her dialogues are full of intelligence and precisely crafted often to convey subtle meanings. Elizabeth is Jane Austen’s best, most loved and certainly most popular creation. â€Å"I must confess I think her as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print†, wrote Austen of Elizabeth; few readers have ever disagreed. Elizabeth Bennet contradicts the image of the typical 18th century woman who is born and brought up only with marriage in mind. She has a mind of her own and quite a sharp one at that. She captures and captivates not only Darcy but the readers as well. She has all the qualities in her that were desired in a ‘perfect’ wife. But besides these she has a certain ‘something’ in her that no other woman has. She is a woman far beyond her time and would not seem out of place in today’s world, two centuries later. I think Jane Austen has really created a marvelous masterpiece, which will always survive the changing demands of literature.

Scientists Take An Organic Approach To Improving Machines

Naturally occurring chemicals are being used to develop state-of-the-art microprocessors capable of replacing much bigger computers, for dimes on the dollar! Researchers headed by a team of scientists from the Netherlands’ University of Groningen, Netherlands have developed a way to alter the chemical composition of silicon dioxide, which could mean a revolution in the manufacturing industry. The discovery is the latest in the budding field of organic electronics that are gaining acceptance due to their multifold superiority over electronics made from artificial substances. These electronics are being seen as the biggest developments in the field of electronics since the invention of micro chips. Researchers from the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials at the University enlisted a team of industry-insiders from the Philips Research Laboratories, The Dutch Polymer Institute of the Netherlands as well as the Enikolopov Institute of Synthetic Polymer Materials in Moscow Russia. Their combined efforts have materialized in the form of ‘self-assembled-monolayer field-effect transistor’ or SAMFET. SAMFET is the newest innovation in organic electronics, a newly emerging kind of electronic circuits which are constructed using only chemicals that occur naturally, such as silicon. Bottom-up organic electronics is a hot topic nowadays among electronic engineers and industrialists alike because, this technology allows the building of highly complicated circuits at a fraction of the cost of conventional circuits. Besides the economy, such circuits are also proving to be much more energy efficient than their predecessors. So the hype around the invention of this kind of ‘self-assembled-monolayer field-effect transistor’ or SAMFET is well-earned! Although the technique used to create SAMFET’s is complex, thankfully it is much more easily comprehendible. Researchers have basically developed a way to control the shape and proximity of atoms within a given sample of silicon dioxide. This allows them to mold molecules of the substance into a very compact and tightly packed formation. The molecular arrangements are organized in tiny layers sandwiched between another substance such as titanium. The ability to regularize the size and form of the molecules, together with the capability of cramming together millions of molecules more closely is the key element in this technology. This is so because the arrangement of the layers within a microprocessor is what allows complicated processes to be controlled by a microprocessor smaller than a matchbox! Electric pulses that pass through these layers are controlled with the circuits that are made of these SAMFET’s. Since the new innovation has allowed the packing of many more molecules into every layer of electronic circuits; many more commands to control and direct the currents can be programmed into an organic circuit as compared to a conventional electronic circuit made of synthetic materials. The developers explain that this innovation has been developed from the same liquid crystal technology that is used in television screens. LCD televisions are able to display better contrast and detail because of the fine crystals and their uniform distribution. In other words, they use the same technology as SAMFET’s albeit at a less complex scale. The newly developed silicon compound is sandwiched in layers of titanium for durability and strength. The titanium would normally restrict the flow of current but the inventors have come up with another ingenuity to overcome that problem. Contact points that link the different layers of silicon dioxide inside each microprocessor, are made of gold. Gold, one of the best conductors of electricity; allows small electric signals to pass between layers without much resistance against the current. Additionally due to the proximity and evenness of the molecules of silicon and other compounds within the layers, the smallest pulses of electricity can pass through it without any significant loss of energy. Experiments have been conducted to compare the performance of conventional microprocessors to those built using this newly developed technology. Inventors Simon Mathjiseen and Edsger Smits They say results indicate that their components can not only transfer electric currents through more elaborate formations; they can achieve this task with smaller currents because very little energy is wasted in the process. This allows them to build ever more complicated circuits. SAMFETS are structured to minimize resistance against electric currents, and since there are no moving parts, power is not wasted in transportation or heating. In turn, one microprocessor can perform much more elaborate tasks to help build multi-purpose machines that can carry out operations that would previously require many different machines. Simply put; a smaller, more efficient machine can now perform tasks that would have required an entire sequence of machines and robots. For manufacturers this means a ton of savings in their processes. This is so because at the moment even the most technologically advanced assembly lines contain many different machines, and materials have to be shifted between them many times before the final product is made. By combining many processes into a fewer number of machines, manufacturers can save money on the purchase and maintenance of equipment, and on the cost of human resource that is used to monitor and control these assembly lines. The developers of this strategy are confident they have discovered the building blocks to a new era of technology, one where the size†¦ of the circuit, does not matter! Instead, by increasing the density of molecules inside the layers that make up micro chips, more complex programs such as those used to control robots or entire assembly lines can be programmed into the same sized chip. Coupled with the energy efficiency, which means a lower cost of operating such electronics; these compact processors are being hailed as a much needed boost to the manufacturing and electronics industries. Under the current economic recession, many factories across the globe are looking to cut costs of production. SAMFET technology seems very promising in this regard because it allows manufacturers to use smaller, smarter electronic components. Not only can they save on human resource costs, but also on the cost of running these processors which act like the brains of the assembly line. All that remains to be seen now is how soon this technology can go into mass production.