The human body converts internal chemical energy into work and heat at rates of 60 to 125W (called the basal metabolic rate). This energy comes from food and is usually measured in kilocalories [1 kcal = 4.186 kJ]. (Note that the nutritional ‘Calorie’ listed on packaged food actually equals 1 kilocalorie). How many kilocalories of food energy does a person with a metoblic rate of 103.0 W require per day? Enter the numerical answer without units.

## The human body converts internal chemical energy into work and heat at rates of 60 to 125W (called the basal metabolic rate). This energy comes from food and is usually measured in kilocalories [1 kcal = 4.186 kJ]. (Note that the nutritional ‘Calorie’ listed on packaged food actually equals 1 kilocalorie). How many kilocalories of food energy does a person with a metoblic rate of 103.0 W require per day? Enter the numerical answer without units.

The human body converts internal chemical energy into work and … Read More...
ENGR 1120 – PROGRAMMING FOR ENGINEERS (MATLAB) Homework Program #2 Objectives: Demonstrate knowledge of data files, vector variables, intrinsic functions, subscript manipulation, for loops, and plotting in MATLAB. You have been given a set of ASCII data files that contain directions for laying out patterns in a field. The data files contain in the first column a distance to travel and in the second column a direction heading. Unfortunately, the person who created the data did not have a good understanding of orienteering and the direction headings are given as referenced to a clock face. The pattern begins at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system with the person facing 12 o’clock, see the figure below. The figure shows an example of the first step in the pattern being a distance of 1.5 feet in the direction of 7 o’clock. All direction headings are given in terms of this clock orientation. The distance values given are in feet. There are 5 data files provided online for testing of the program. Write a script file that will allow the user to input from the keyboard the filename of the file that they wish to analyze. Load only that ONE data file and plot the resulting pattern. Once each point forming the pattern has been located, find and designate on the plot which of the resulting nodes was the farthest away from the origin. Also find and designate the center of the pattern as defined to occur at the coordinate location corresponding to (average x, average y). When plotting the resulting pattern on the Cartesian coordinate system, set the axes limits to appropriate values. HINT: Correlate the direction headings provided in the data files to a Cartesian coordinate system by using the following vector in your script file. This requires subscript manipulation. angle = [60; 30; 0; 330; 300; 270; 240; 210; 180; 150; 120; 90] -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 you are here

## ENGR 1120 – PROGRAMMING FOR ENGINEERS (MATLAB) Homework Program #2 Objectives: Demonstrate knowledge of data files, vector variables, intrinsic functions, subscript manipulation, for loops, and plotting in MATLAB. You have been given a set of ASCII data files that contain directions for laying out patterns in a field. The data files contain in the first column a distance to travel and in the second column a direction heading. Unfortunately, the person who created the data did not have a good understanding of orienteering and the direction headings are given as referenced to a clock face. The pattern begins at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system with the person facing 12 o’clock, see the figure below. The figure shows an example of the first step in the pattern being a distance of 1.5 feet in the direction of 7 o’clock. All direction headings are given in terms of this clock orientation. The distance values given are in feet. There are 5 data files provided online for testing of the program. Write a script file that will allow the user to input from the keyboard the filename of the file that they wish to analyze. Load only that ONE data file and plot the resulting pattern. Once each point forming the pattern has been located, find and designate on the plot which of the resulting nodes was the farthest away from the origin. Also find and designate the center of the pattern as defined to occur at the coordinate location corresponding to (average x, average y). When plotting the resulting pattern on the Cartesian coordinate system, set the axes limits to appropriate values. HINT: Correlate the direction headings provided in the data files to a Cartesian coordinate system by using the following vector in your script file. This requires subscript manipulation. angle = [60; 30; 0; 330; 300; 270; 240; 210; 180; 150; 120; 90] -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 you are here

info@checkyourstudy.com

info@checkyourstudy.com

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince17.htm   How does Machiavelli feel about cruelty versus clemency? … Read More...

info@checkyourstudy.com
The second task : Tutorial Topic 7 – MIS (to be completed over 2 weeks) Describe a decision support system whose purpose is to help you decide which accommodation would be best for you whilst at college next year. Hints: You will need to decide on the factors that will influence your decision, and decide on any weightings that may apply to these factors. You will also need to supply a formula to derive ‘the best solution’, making sure it can support ‘what if’ features. Factors you might consider – affordable rent values, flat or house, sharing (how many others), location, personal circumstances etc.

## The second task : Tutorial Topic 7 – MIS (to be completed over 2 weeks) Describe a decision support system whose purpose is to help you decide which accommodation would be best for you whilst at college next year. Hints: You will need to decide on the factors that will influence your decision, and decide on any weightings that may apply to these factors. You will also need to supply a formula to derive ‘the best solution’, making sure it can support ‘what if’ features. Factors you might consider – affordable rent values, flat or house, sharing (how many others), location, personal circumstances etc.

As any DSS system, my DSS system will have the … Read More...
1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

## 1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

500 words essay responding to a poem needed in 12 hours from now. it is one page poem that I will provide you with. The essay details are below: Essay #1- Poetry Length: 500 words (~2 pages) MLA Format Write a formal academic essay responding to a poem we have discussed in class. Pick ONE poem on the reading schedule and discuss how the poem’s literary devices and formal elements contribute to its larger thematic concerns. Two pages is not a lot of space, so focus on the most important elements, rather than trying to include everything. Some things to think about: Figurative language: Note the images the poem describes. Does the poem seem to be literally describing things, or does the poet employ figurative language? Are there any metaphors or conceits? How does the poet move from one image to the next? Does there seem to be any theme tying the images together? Form: Look at the way the poem appears on the page. Do you notice any patterns? Is the poem written in stanzas? Does the poem employ a specific meter (iambic pentameter)? Is the poem a fixed form (sonnet)? Does the poet employ punctuation? Does the poem appear neat or chaotic? How do any of these elements relate to what the poem describes? Sound: Read the poem out loud. Do the sounds roll off your tongue, or does it feel like a tongue-twister? Is the language clunky or smooth? Does the poem use alliteration, assonance, or repetition? If the poem rhymes, are they perfect rhymes or near rhymes? Do the rhymes appear at the end of the line or in the middle? Does the way the poem sounds bring out the feeling of what it is describing? Speaker: Who is the speaker (age/gender/role)? Who are they speaking to? Is it first person, third-person, written in a persona? Is the tone formal or conversational? Is the diction simple, or does the speaker use words you have to look up in a dictionary? What might this tell us? Theme: Are there any specific ideas the poem seems to be addressing? How do the poem’s formal concerns (how it appears on the page) emphasize, challenge, or undercut these ideas? Some themes we might focus on include: identity, place, defamiliarization, freedom and constraint, violence and language, racial injustice. (You may focus on one of these or come up with your own.) Make sure this is a formal academic essay. Format your page to include page numbers, double-spacing, and 1” margins. Use Times New Roman font. Include a Works Cited page. Using any source that is not the primary text will result in a 25% penalty.