Who is the most annoying in the Business and Computing department?

Computing & Business

Grace Hopper (1906-1992): An American computer scientist and U.S. Navy rear admiral. She was a pioneer in computer programming and developed the first compiler for a computer programming language, laying the groundwork for cobol. Garrett Augustus Morgan Sr. (1877-1963): An African American inventor who patented the traffic signal and the safety hood, a precursor to the modern gas mask. Hedy Lamarr (1914-2000): An Austrian-American actress and inventor who co-invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications, a key to modern wifi and bluetooth technology. Otis Boykin (1920-1982): An African American inventor who patented over 25 electronic devices, including a control unit for the pacemaker that is widely used today. Stephanie Kwolek (1923-2014): An American chemist who invented the synthetic fiber Kevlar, which is used in bulletproof vests and other protective equipment. Gladys West (b. 1930): An African American mathematician who played a crucial role in the development of the GPS technology we use today. Shirley Ann Jackson (b. 1946): An African American physicist who was the first African American woman to receive a doctorate at MIT and her work laid the foundations for the touch-tone telephone, caller ID, and call waiting. Tu Youyou (b. 1930): A Chinese pharmaceutical chemist who discovered artemisinin, a drug therapy that has significantly reduced the mortality rates for malaria, for which she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015. Chien-Shiung Wu (1912-1997): A Chinese-American physicist who made significant contributions to the Manhattan Project and disproved the hypothetical law of conservation of parity, for which her male colleagues received the Nobel Prize (she did not). Mária Telkes (1900-1995): A Hungarian-American biophysicist and architect dubbed the "Sun Queen" for her pioneering work in solar energy, including the development of the first solar-powered house. Percy Lavon Julian (1899-1975): An African American chemist and pioneer in the chemical synthesis of medicinal drugs from plants. Charles Ginsburg (1925-1992): An American engineer who led the team that developed the first commercial videotape recorder. Philo Farnsworth (1906-1971): An American inventor who developed an electronic television system and made major contributions to early television technology. María Montoya Martínez (1887-1980): A Native American (Tewa) potter from San Ildefonso Pueblo, New Mexico, who helped revive the traditional black-on-black pottery style and is considered one of the most influential Pueblo potters of the 20th century. Satya Nadella (b. 1967): An Indian-American business executive who has been the chief executive officer of Microsoft since 2014, overseeing the company's transformation into a cloud computing powerhouse. Junko Tabei (1939-2016): A Japanese mountaineer who in 1975 became the first woman to reach the summit of Mount Everest, and the first woman to ascend the Seven Summits, climbing the highest peaks on each continent. Mildred Dresselhaus (1930-2017): An American physicist and engineer, known as the "Queen of Carbon Science," who made groundbreaking contributions to the study of carbon materials like graphite and carbon nanotubes. Ellen Ochoa (b. 1958): An American engineer and former astronaut. In 1993, she became the first Hispanic woman to go to space when she flew on the Space Shuttle Discovery. Françoise Barré-Sinoussi (b. 1947): A French virologist who co-discovered HIV as the cause of AIDS, for which she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008. Esther Lederberg (1922-2006): An American microbiologist who made significant contributions to genetics and microbiology, including the discovery of the bacterial virus lambda, but whose work was often overshadowed by her husband's Nobel Prize-winning accomplishments.

Here are 12 questions based on the Word Wall Spin the Wheel Activity focusing on Robber Barons and Labor Unions: Multiple Choice: What is a "Trust"? A) A labor organization formed by skilled workers. B) A large business combination that aims to control markets and reduce competition. C) A worker strike that demands higher wages. D) A type of factory producing steel. Answer: B Which labor union sought to include all workers, regardless of skill, gender, or race? A) American Federation of Labor (AFL) B) Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) C) Knights of Labor D) Pullman Company Answer: C Who was the founder of Standard Oil, known for his monopolistic practices? A) Andrew Carnegie B) Eugene V. Debs C) John D. Rockefeller D) Samuel Gompers Answer: C Which event involved a nationwide railroad strike that led to federal intervention and the arrest of Eugene V. Debs? A) Haymarket Square Riot B) Pullman Strike C) Homestead Strike D) Coal Strike of 1902 Answer: B What is "Vertical Integration"? A) A system where one company controls all phases of production from raw materials to finished product. B) A labor union negotiation process for better working conditions. C) The consolidation of competing businesses under a single company. D) A strike where workers occupy a factory to prevent its operation. Answer: A Which of the following was a key goal of the American Federation of Labor (AFL)? A) Overthrow the capitalist system. B) Establish worker-run factories. C) Secure higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions. D) Eliminate all forms of skilled labor. Answer: C Fill in the Blank: John D. Rockefeller used ___________ to gain control over the oil industry and eliminate his competition. Answer: Trusts The labor organization founded by Samuel Gompers that focused on craft unionism and collective bargaining was the ___________. Answer: American Federation of Labor (AFL) The ___________ advocated for direct action and sought to organize all workers into one large union, regardless of skill or background. Answer: Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) The ___________ was an 1894 labor strike against the Pullman Company that resulted in federal troops being sent to restore order. Answer: Pullman Strike Andrew Carnegie’s belief that the wealthy had a moral obligation to use their wealth for the betterment of society was known as the ___________. Answer: Gospel of Wealth The ___________ began as a peaceful rally for an eight-hour workday but turned violent after a bomb was thrown, leading to a nationwide backlash against labor unions. Answer: Haymarket Square Riot These questions combine multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank formats, reinforcing key concepts related to labor unions and robber barons.

One of the worst things about living in a city is the high cost of living. Pros and Cons of Living in a City Living in a city offers numerous advantages, but it also comes with its own set of drawbacks. Here are the pros and cons of living in a city: Pros: Job Opportunities: Cities are often hubs for various industries and businesses, providing a wide array of job opportunities across different sectors. This can lead to better career prospects and higher earning potential for residents. Cultural Diversity: Cities are melting pots of different cultures, traditions, and lifestyles. This diversity enriches the social fabric of the city, offering exposure to various cuisines, arts, festivals, and languages. Access to Amenities: Cities typically offer an abundance of amenities such as restaurants, shopping centers, entertainment venues, healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and public services. Residents have easy access to these conveniences. Public Transportation: Many cities have well-developed public transportation systems, including buses, subways, trains, and trams. This can make commuting more convenient and reduce the need for personal vehicles. Entertainment and Recreation: Cities are known for their vibrant nightlife, cultural events, museums, theaters, sports venues, and recreational spaces. Residents can enjoy a wide range of entertainment options. Educational Opportunities: Cities often boast prestigious universities, colleges, and research institutions. This provides residents with access to quality education and lifelong learning opportunities. Healthcare Facilities: Major cities tend to have top-tier medical facilities and specialized healthcare services, ensuring that residents have access to advanced healthcare resources. Cons: Cost of Living: Cities are often associated with a higher cost of living due to expensive housing, transportation expenses, dining out costs, and other daily expenses. Noise and Pollution: Urban areas can be noisy and polluted due to heavy traffic, industrial activities, construction projects, and densely populated neighborhoods. Crowded Environment: Cities are densely populated, leading to crowded streets, public spaces, and public transportation systems. This can result in congestion and longer commute times. Limited Green Spaces: While cities offer many amenities, they may lack sufficient green spaces such as parks or gardens for residents to relax and connect with nature. Stressful Lifestyle: The fast-paced lifestyle in cities can contribute to higher stress levels for some individuals due to demanding work environments and busy schedules. Security Concerns: Certain urban areas may face higher crime rates compared to rural or suburban areas, leading to concerns about safety and security. Traffic Congestion: Heavy traffic congestion is a common issue in cities, leading to longer commute times and frustration for residents who rely on personal vehicles or public transportation. In conclusion, living in a city presents both advantages and disadvantages that individuals should carefully consider based on their lifestyle preferences and priorities.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

business essay in comparing and contrast essay

Cryptocurrency regulations in Africa vary significantly across the continent, reflecting different approaches by governments to balance innovation with consumer protection and financial stability. Here's an overview of the regulatory landscape in several key African countries: 1. Nigeria Central Bank Ban: In February 2021, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) banned financial institutions from providing services to crypto exchanges, effectively restricting crypto transactions through traditional banking channels. eNaira: Despite the restrictive stance on cryptocurrencies, Nigeria launched its central bank digital currency (CBDC), the eNaira, in October 2021, aiming to enhance financial inclusion and support the digital economy. 2. South Africa Regulatory Framework: The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has proposed a regulatory framework to classify cryptocurrencies as financial products. This will subject crypto service providers to regulations similar to those governing other financial services. AML/CFT Compliance: Crypto exchanges are required to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) regulations. 3. Kenya Regulatory Caution: The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) has issued warnings about the risks associated with cryptocurrencies but has not imposed an outright ban. Cryptocurrencies are not considered legal tender. Innovation Support: Kenya is known for its innovative financial services sector, including mobile money, which creates a fertile ground for crypto and blockchain adoption despite the cautious regulatory stance. 4. Ghana Regulatory Research: The Bank of Ghana is conducting research into cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, with a focus on understanding the potential benefits and risks. Sandbox Initiative: Ghana has introduced a regulatory sandbox to encourage innovation in fintech, including blockchain and cryptocurrencies. 5. Uganda Regulatory Oversight: The Bank of Uganda has warned the public about the risks of cryptocurrencies but has not imposed a ban. There is ongoing discussion about developing a regulatory framework. Blockchain Adoption: Uganda is exploring the use of blockchain technology in various sectors, including agriculture and healthcare. 6. Zimbabwe Ban and Reconsideration: The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) initially banned banks from processing crypto transactions but has since been exploring ways to regulate the industry. Blockchain Task Force: The government has established a blockchain and digital assets task force to study the implications and potential uses of the technology. 7. Tanzania Government Support: In 2021, the Tanzanian government indicated support for adopting blockchain and cryptocurrency technologies, with the central bank working on creating a regulatory framework. Presidential Endorsement: President Samia Suluhu Hassan called on the central bank to prepare for the adoption of cryptocurrencies. Regional Initiatives and Trends Cross-Border Collaboration: Some African countries are exploring regional cooperation to harmonize crypto regulations and promote cross-border fintech solutions. Fintech Hubs: Countries like Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya are becoming fintech hubs, attracting startups and investment in the blockchain and crypto space. Education and Awareness: Efforts are being made to educate the public and policymakers about cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology to promote informed decision-making. Challenges and Considerations Regulatory Uncertainty: The lack of clear and consistent regulations across the continent poses challenges for businesses and investors. Risk Management: Balancing innovation with risk management, particularly concerning AML/CFT compliance, is a key concern for regulators. Infrastructure and Accessibility: Limited internet access and technological infrastructure can hinder widespread adoption and effective regulation. The regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies in Africa is dynamic and evolving, with a mix of cautious approaches and supportive measures aimed at harnessing the benefits of blockchain technology while managing associated risks.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes