Trains free essay sample

Click clack. Click clack. Click clack. The train bumped its way across the tracks stretching off into the horizon and out of sight across the huge open field. Far in the distance, there were the sharp, unforgiving silhouettes of the mountains, but the closer landscape was flat and smooth; it was lonely, but friendly and familiar. Every now and then, the telegraph wire running alongside the train collided with a pole before continuing its journey. Small patches of the bright blue open sky were covered by tufts of white clouds and one imposing blob of coal colored smoke. This was home. The railroad engineer pushed his sweaty cap higher up on his head as he scanned the horizon, searching for any reason to change anything. This was his life. Speed, distance, brakes, directions, stations, handling. It was all he had to know. He did not understand how anyone’s brain could be small enough to only hold that tiny bit of information. We will write a custom essay sample on Trains or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page He had perfected everything he â€Å"needed† and everything he was supposed to know long ago. Slowly, he started gathering new information. He noticed the way the clouds gathered and the cows collected under the trees when rain was coming. He saw the way the grass bent under different forces of wind and how it fluttered when the train whooshed by. He felt the shifting of the joints between the cars from the changing speed of the train and the different amounts of force it took to move the train depending on the type of cargo he was pulling. More than anything, he observed the small, almost unnoticeable weight that his weekly pay added to his pocket. Technically, it was enough. He could live off the small amount of money he had jingling softly in his pocket any time the train rolled over a badly nailed cross tie, but that was all he could do. He could only live this life, sleeping in the train, eating at the station while his cargo was unloaded and the next set of cars was att ached and have only a small amount of left over money saved in case an emergency came up, and he needed to repair some part of his train. It wasn’t what he wanted. His life was like the tracks the train was rattling down; it was straight and unchanging and appeared to be so far, far past the horizon line. That was something else he had learned. A sudden change in the straight yellow grass caught his attention and he turned his head to look out the right window. Old, rusting, black cars lay in pieces, strewn across the landscape for a mile or so, as good as he could guess. He found himself wishing that one of those cars had belonged to him, that he had once had the kind of money that everyone else in America seemed to have. The American Dream was scattered across the dead, dry landscape before him; it had been discarded before he even had a chance to grab a piece of it. He would give anything for a normal life. He imagined a pretty girl with a bright smile and rosy cheeks kissing him on the forehead before raising herself clumsily from her chair and crossing her hands beneath her belly, carefully supporting their son-to-be. Their first child, a little girl, was sitting on the floor, playing with a yarn doll he had helped her make before dinner, which was delicious. His wife was a wonderful cook. Their house was cozy and tid y, full of little objects and collections that made it feel like home, and one of those black cars was parked on the street outside. His day dream slowly faded away as the graveyard of skeleton Fords left his sight. He turned back to the front window, noted a landmark he knew and began the process of slowing the train. A station was approaching. This was his life.

Answers to Questions About Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Constructions

Answers to Questions About Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Constructions Answers to Questions About Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Constructions Answers to Questions About Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Constructions By Mark Nichol The following questions from readers pertain to how to distinguish essential information from nonessential information. 1. A colleague of mine wrote, â€Å"Institutions need to be able to collect and collate data in a centralized tool, which is easily accessible and can be mined to inform data-analytics activities.† I corrected it to â€Å"Institutions need to be able to collect and collate data in a centralized tool that is easily accessible and can be mined to inform data-analytics activities,† but she disagrees with the edit. I know I’m right, but how do I explain it to her? In your revision, you have altered the sentence to reflect the writer’s interest in presenting the essential details that the centralized tool is easily accessible and is conducive to data mining. The original version of the sentence offers the details in an offhand fashion, set off as a subordinate clause rather than as part of the main clause. Both versions are grammatically valid, but only your revision conveys the emphasis the writer intends. 2. When is it right to put a comma in front of â€Å"such as†? In many of your examples, I notice that there is no specific standard to using â€Å"such as.† At times, you write it as â€Å", such as,† and at other times, you omit the comma preceding â€Å"such as.† Are there any rules to using a comma before â€Å"such as†? Precede â€Å"such as† with a comma when the phrase that includes the listed examples is not essential to the sentence, such as in â€Å"The program offers team sports, such as basketball and softball, for adults in recreational and competitive leagues.† Omit a comma before â€Å"such as† when the information is essential: â€Å"The program offers team sports such as the ones listed below for adults in both recreational and competitive leagues.† The wording in these examples is identical, but there’s a subtle difference in meaning: The commas in the first example set off the phrase â€Å"such as basketball and softball† as a parenthesis in the main clause â€Å"The program offers team sports for adults in recreational and competitive leagues,† which states that the program is exclusively for adults. The second sentence refers to a list of sports for adults in recreational and competitive leagues, implying that other team sports may be offered that are exclusively for children or are for adults or children alike or are only recreational or only competitive. 3. â€Å"In the sentence ‘Chairs that don’t have cushions are uncomfortable to sit on,’ I think which is acceptable in place of that, because chairs is a nonperson noun. I would appreciate if you let me know why that is the only correct answer.† The fact that chairs refers to a class of objects, rather than people, is irrelevant. That is not the only correct answer, but it is the best one. In American English, most careful writers employ that and which distinctly to clarify the difference in meaning between restrictively and nonrestrictively constructed sentences: â€Å"Chairs that don’t have cushions are uncomfortable to sit on† refers to a particular class of chairs: those without cushions. The implication is that many chairs are comfortable; the ones specifically referred to are a categorical exception. â€Å"Chairs, which don’t have cushions, are uncomfortable to sit on† expresses- erroneously- that all chairs are cushionless. (The phrase â€Å"which don’t have cushions† is parenthetical; it can be omitted without altering the meaning of the basic sentence: â€Å"Chairs are uncomfortable to sit on.† However, this sentence is also incorrect in its assertion.) Some writers will use which in both types of sentences: â€Å"Chairs which don’t have cushions are uncomfortable to sit on† and this is common in British English but most people (at least those in the United States) recognize that the distinctive wording helps strengthen the role of the commas in distinguishing meaning. By the way, although â€Å"Chairs, which don’t have cushions, are uncomfortable to sit on† and the abridged version, â€Å"Chairs are uncomfortable to sit on,† are logically erroneous comfortable chairs certainly do exist (though, unfortunately, I’m not sitting in one right now) a similarly constructed sentence can be valid: â€Å"Ostriches, which can’t fly, rely on their strong legs for mobility.† Conversely, because no ostriches are capable of flight, â€Å"Ostriches that can’t fly rely on their strong legs for mobility† is problematic. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Comparative Forms of AdjectivesDisappointed + Preposition150 Foreign Expressions to Inspire You

Business Law Final Case Study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Business Law Final Case Study - Essay Example In addition to this view, in a case where the defamation involves a very public person and or is a matter of public concern, the plaintiff, as the complainant in the case, has to provide or give proof in the court of law that the claims or comments made by the defendant are false, and also that the defendant has either known of the truth of the claim and has simply acted recklessly and disregarded the truth out of pure malice towards the complainant or plaintiff. The statements that Knarles has made to his friends and colleagues are by all means just personal opinions, rather than facts; they are far from facts. If this is the case, then by all means, there is no case of defamation at all (Defamation. Ewell v. Boutwell, 1924). If Knarles was not simply stating his opinions about the person – the plaintiff who is Ian Chetum, then in that case his statements and comments could be considered as defamatory in nature. This is because in as much as his statements and comments could have been simple, fair comments to an issue that is of public interest and concern, Knarles had no proof of any kind that his statements were or are the truth. Therefore, as such, Knarles’ statements were made in high disregard of what is the truth, and this is utter recklessness. Consequently, Knarles can be sued for defamation by Ian Chetum. Chetum v. Stucko The next legal issue arises between Ian Chetum and Stucko. The legal issue at hand is still defamation. Just as, stated above, a case of defamation has to be backed by proof that a false statement of a fact has been made about the complainant, and have been made by a third party and caused damage to be liable in court (Defamation. Ewell v. Boutwell, 1924). The statements made by Stucko are obviously factual. If we assume that he made the statements with knowledge that he was falsifying them or blatantly disregarding the truth, then in that case he would be very liable to be charged for defamation. Nonetheless, the truth is often used as a defense for defamation claim – therefore, if the claims and statements are the truth, then Stucko has no case to answer on the grounds of defamation. The Residents v. Chetum This is the next case that the business conflict has brought up. The legal issue at hand is that of Battery. The rule of common law on Battery is that it is the intentional and or offensive act of touching of a third party without their privilege or consent to any way (Battery. Cavuoto v. Buchanan, 2004). When the building owner Ian Chetum tells the plumber from Knarles and Barkley’s company to ‘fix it’, – when referring to the broken boiler, and at the same time knowing that the broken boiler is highly defective, and the manufacturer had recalled their product, Ian Chetum, as the owner of the building is intentionally engaging in a harmful ‘touching’ of all of the residents of his building

Response of chapter 1 of inside rikers Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Response of chapter 1 of inside rikers - Essay Example In this context, Jennifer tries to understand the issues and the prison conditions. The rest of the book involves her visiting the prison as a rehabilitation teacher and eventually as the director of the program that she had established in the prison. Her major goal in going to the prison was to get some sort of understanding of the social context in there. After acquiring this, the book explains that she intended to take up the matter with the respective authorities in a bid to get prison reforms (Wayne, 2002). This was inspiring to me as I have always been a person who supports justice and equality despite the different social statures around. The chapter states that in the prison, she talked to some of the inmates, after which she was able to go and visit their homes and talk to their families. The stories provided by their families are very touching and leave one contemplating the feeling of having one of their family members in prison. Jennifer talks about the food that the inmates eat. She complains stating that the fact that they had broken the law does not mean that they had to suffer the conditions which they were going through. One of the points stated in the book is where she explains the manner in which one of the inmates wakes up in tattered clothes as he walks around the cellblock. This was one issue I found very disturbing as the welfare of inmates was ignored even after guards looking at him and giving a scornful laugh. Another key point that I noted explained in the book was that of drugs in prison. In the prisons, many of the interpersonal relationships found to go well were those that involved drugs. She was able to find that there were different gangs, or rather territories as they referred to them. These were the major causes of the violent activities witnessed in prisons. Not only does Jennifer focus on the welfare of inmates but also looks at the condition of the correctional

Terrorist Strategies Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4250 words

Terrorist Strategies - Research Paper Example In some parts of the world, the organized terrorist organizations have formed government like structures of running these countries and this has contributed to increase in such extremist groupings. To achieve their objective and increase terror in people, terrorist adopt different strategies and approaches which have been blamed for causing misery, deaths and destruction of property. Of all these strategies, the use of indiscriminative violence is common and this has been used in the US soil in a number of instances. This paper will evaluate the strategies that terrorist have employed in different parts of the world and more specifically in the united states and countries bordering it. different strategies including the use of violence, threats and intimidation, kidnapping and the internet will be analyzed to highlight the impacts of these strategies in assisting terrorists achieve their goals. An evaluation and analysis of the strategies used by terrorists to achieve their objective is essential in the development of approaches of mitigating the rise of terrorist groups and activities across the world. The United States government has highlighted a number of strategies that have been used by terrorists in the country and in other parts of the globe. The threat of terrorism in different parts of the world has risen to a level that has affected the peaceful existence of citizens across the world due to the approaches that these terrorists have adopted. In the United States, terrorism is considered as number one threat to the domestic and international security and this explains the reason why the government has been instrumental in the development of anti-terrorism approaches. The rise in terrorism in different parts of the globe has been attributed to the turbulent political situations in a number of Arab and former soviet

Anselms Ontological Argument

Anselms Ontological Argument In this essay I shall describe Anselms ontological argument and look at how it may prove Gods existence. I will then go on to look at criticisms of the argument from both Gaunilo and Kant to see if they can show that the argument does not work and if not, why not. The core of Anselms ontological argument uses a reductio ad absurdum structure to attempt to prove the existence of God. He does this by showing that if the negation of the conclusion is followed then this leads to absurdity (a false or nonsensical conclusion). Anselms argument is as follows: If therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone [and not in reality], then this thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than that which a greater can be conceived. And this is clearly impossible. Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in reality. This quote is somewhat confusing due to the language used so a simplified version may be of some use. The argument can be seen as such (1) God is something which nothing can be greater than; God is the being of maximum greatness. (2)It is completely possible that God can exist within reality ; God, no matter whether he actually exists within reality, can exist within some circumstances, therefore God may possibly have existed within our world. (3)Now if something exists entirely and only within the constraints of the mind and does not exist in reality but is still possible then it is plausible that that something which exists only within the mind may have been greater. (4) Now imagine that God exists only within the mind and does not exist in our reality (this can be seen to be God not actually existing at all), this allows for the idea that there is a possible entity which is greater than God. (5)So it can be a possibility that there is a being or entity which is greater than God! (6)Because God is the greatest and there is nothing which can be greater than God (as stated in point 1) then this argument has shown that there is something which can be greater than that which nothing can be greater than! Because statement 6 makes no sense due to it being self contradictory God must exist not just in the mind but also at the same time in reality. This argument has been given in many different forms over time and I will cite one here to show that the interpretation given above is not too far removed from other interpretations. The following interpretation is given by Plantinga: God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise) 3. A being having all of Gods properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise) 4. A being having all of Gods properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).) 5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).) 6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of God.) 7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).) 8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.) 9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).) This interpretation basically follows the same structure as mine and uses the reductio ad absurdum principle to prove Gods existence. Now we have seen how the argument works we must look at some criticisms of Anselms approach. One of the most successful and effective criticisms is given by Gaunilo. He attacked Anselms argument by stating that his reductio ad absurdum could be applied to many things and not just god. For this reason he believed that Anselms argument was not a valid or acceptable way to justify Gods existence. Gaunilo used the example of the greatest possible island (originally conceivable but we shall use possible for cohesions sake). He went on to apply Anselms argument to the greatest possible island to prove the existence of this fictional island using the same style of reasoning which Anselm used to prove the existence of God. Now if somebody told me that there was an island greater than all other islands ever I would have absolutely no problem understanding the words which they used or the concept they were attempting to divulge. But if they then went on to state that because I can imagine the island in my mind then the island must be possible then I would have serious doubts about thi s concept (and their sanity for that matter). What follows will be Gaunilos criticism placed into the format of Anselms reductio ad absurdum argument : (1) Best island is an island that nothing can be greater than; Best island is the island of maximum greatness. (2)It is completely possible that Best island can exist within reality; Best island, no matter whether it actually exists within reality, can exist within some circumstances, therefore Best island may possibly have existed within our world. (3)Now if something exists entirely and only within the constraints of the mind and does not exist in reality but is still possible then it is plausible that that something which exists only within the mind may have been greater. (4) Now imagine that Best island exists only within the mind and does not exist in our reality (this can be seen to be Best island not actually existing at all), this allows for the idea that there is a possible island which is greater than Best island. (5)So it can be a possibility that there is a land or island which is greater than Best Island! (6)Because Best island is the greatest and there is nothing whic h can be greater than Best Island (as stated in point 1) then this argument shows that there is a possible island which is greater than the island that no island can be greater than. Because statement 6 is self contradictory then Best Island must exist not just in the mind but in reality at the same time. This argument seems to show that Anselms argument to prove God can be used to prove a lot of seemingly ridiculous ideas, for example greatest possible bouncy castle or greatest possible goat. On first impressions it would seem as though this argument goes a long way to disproving Anselms argument for God but there is a problem with this. Gaunilos argument doesnt actually tell us what is wrong with Anselms argument; although it shows that seemingly ridiculous conclusions can be proved to be true it does not specify what is exactly is wrong or invalid about Anselms argument. It does not state that any of the premises are wrong and neither does it show the conclusion to be invalid. In fact if Anselms argument is looked at in terms of logic then there is nothing wrong with it at all. Although this is the case, Gaunilos criticism is still a fairly weighty one due its ability to prove absurd conclusions. As with every objection there is always a response so now lets look at some responses to Gaunilos weighty criticism. One of these responses focuses on the idea of the greatest possible island (or best island). It states that the greatest possible island can actually not exist. My conception of the greatest possible island almost certainly differs from your conception of the greatest possible island. For example I may prefer there to be a lot of animals on the island, dangerous and non dangerous and a lot of trees. Whereas you may prefer to only have non dangerous animals and mostly open areas on the island. This shows us that although subjectively there is the possibility of the greatest possible island on a large objective scale there can be no such thing. In other words there is nothing within the definition of an island that allows for maximum greatness within a certain island. The oxford English dictionary defines an island as a piece of land surrounded by water. Clearly there is nothing there which could allow for one island to be greater than all others. It mentions nothing of the depth of water surrounding the island, whether or not there are inhabitants of the island, the size of the island etc. This is not the same for God though. Anselm describes God as maximum perfection of which nothing can be greater. The idea of God cannot be pulled away from the description of God. God is that which nothing can be greater than. This differs from the greatest possible island as the idea of perfection is a separate concept which has be added to the idea of an island. So it seems that although Gaunilos objection on first inspection is a good one it misses the point that maximum perfection cannot be separated from the concept of God whereas maximum perfection can be separated from the concept of an island. The final objection that I will look at comes from Kant, the very man who coined the phrase ontological for Anselms argument. Kants argument works by rejecting premise (3) (if something exists entirely and only within the constraints of the mind and does not exist in reality but is still possible then it is plausible that that something which exists only within the mind may have been greater). Kant states that the Anselms argument is based on the idea that a God which exists is greater than a God which does not. Kant believes this to be false and confusing. In this objection Kant states that existence is not a property which can be possessed, or not possessed by an object. He goes on to say that existence, if it not a property, is a concept which refers or corresponds to something within our world (universe). In other words if something exists then there will be an example of the thing that exists in our world. A way to illustrate this is by giving the example of a ball. This ball is blue, round, fairly heavy and has the diameter of 50cm. Now if I say that this ball exists it does not add any properties to this ball, equally if I say that it doesnt exist it adds no properties to the ball. When I say that it exists I am merely saying that there is an example of this ball within our world. When one applies this to the argument we can see why Kants objection is so well accepted amongst those who reject the ontological argument. If existence is not a property then a God which exists and a God which does not exist are absolutely identical. Both are omnipotent, omnipresent and so on. If they are both identical then Anselm cannot claim that a God which exists is greater than a God which does not exist. If this is the case then the ontological argument fails as premise three is false! One response to Kants objection is that existence adds something to our conception of a subject. If I read about superman believing that he existed I would be very impressed with his powers and what he has done etc. If then I discover that superman does not exist I may be disappointed and my conception of him may change. This then allows for existence to alter my conception of a subject thus allowing for a God that exists to be different, slightly, to a God which does not exist. This response seems somewhat weak though and I believe that Kants objection still stands. To conclude I have found that, through Kants property based objection, Anselms ontological argument fails to provide a decent way of proving Gods existence. Because Existence cannot be seen to be a property then the ontological argument fails. Gaunilo also provides some criticism of Anselm through showing that the ontological argument can be used to prove all kinds of ridiculous conclusions (if one accepts that the idea of maximum perfection can be separated from the concept of God). So because the ontological argument fails to defend itself adequately against criticism I believe that it fails as a way to prove Gods existence.

My professional and academic goals related to wardens school of nursing Essay

My Professional and Academic Goals related to Walden’s School of Nursing Perspectives I have been a nurse for 14 years, mostly in the Emergency Department, and have become aware of the growing population and the need for Family Nurse Practitioners (FNP’s). According to Walden’s University Catalog (DEC. 2013a), FNP’s are defined as â€Å"advanced practice registered nurses with the knowledge and skills to assess and manage health issues in patients of all age groups, from birth through senior years. † My goal as a FNP is to provide advanced health care with a holistic approach including: disease prevention, health maintenance, health promotion, restorative care, and a positive social change. I have chosen Walden University through high recommendations from my colleagues. They have enlightened me on the positive impact Walden School of Nursing has made in their personal and professional careers. Walden’s vision and mission statement reinforced my decision to become a part of the Walden Family Nurse Practitioner School of Nursing. According to Walden University Catalog (DEC. 2013b) their vision is focused on a distinctive different 21st –century learning community that provides immediate solutions of critical societal challenges and advancing global good. My vision agrees that healthcare professionals need to focus on advanced 21st century technology and the societal challenges that arise and promote a positive social change. Walden University Catalog (DEC.2013b) defines positive social change â€Å"as a deliberate process of creating and applying ideas, strategies, and actions to promote the worth, dignity, and development of individuals, communities, organizations, institutions, cultures, and societies. Positive social change results in the improvement of human and social conditions. † I plan to implement social change with the knowledge and education that the Walden School of Nursing provides while supporting and recognizing the many cultures in the community.