Who Killed Romeo And Juliet Essay Example For Students

Who Killed Romeo And Juliet Essay Romeo and Juliet is a play about two silly, immature teenagers who lackcommon sense. Therefore, the play expresses the danger of a love in which twopeople become the whole world to one another. To what extent do you agree ordisagree? The story of Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy. The two lovers go againsttheir families and against their hate to be together but they dont thinkabout the consequences, which in the end are devastating. Romeo and Julietengage in a love that they believe is the one true love. They dont even knoweach other and dont know each others personality so they can only beattracted sexually. Instead of taking things slowly and getting to know eachother or on the other hand engage in a type of relationship just to satisfy eachothers desires they act like they have known each other for a long time and thatthey cant live one without the other. At the start of the play we see thatRomeo is in love with Roseline and that he only talks about her but when hemeets Juliet at the party he totally forgets Roseline and falls in love withJuliet. Friar Laurence clearly states this to Romeo: Is Rosaline, whom thoudidst love so dear, so soon forsaken? Young mens love then lies not truly intheir hearts, but in their eyes. This is exactly how Romeo behaves. Juliet onthe other hand had to marry Count Paris so her love with Romeo is simply a wayto get out of it. She never had a relationship with a man and she didnt liketo have her first and only relationship with a man her parents arranged for her. We will write a custom essay on Who Killed Romeo And Juliet specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now She wanted freedom and Romeo was her ticket to it. During the story Romeo andJuliet convince them selves to be in love with each other and they becomeobsessed, not with the love for each other, but with the fact of being in lovewith each other. Young people like to do forbidden things it gives them afeeling of exhilaration and freedom and thats exactly what Romeo and Julietwere doing. They did what they were not supposed to be doing without thinkingabout the consequences and simply hoping for the best. In the end their actsconcluded to their own deaths. Shakespeare

The Paradox of Tragedy

The Paradox of Tragedy How is it possible that human beings can derive pleasure from unpleasant states? This is the question addressed by Hume in his essay On Tragedy, which lies at the heart of a long-standing philosophical discussion on tragedy. Take horror movies, for instance. Some people are terrified while watching them, or they don’t sleep for days. So why  are they doing it? Why stay in front of the screen for a horror movie?It is clear that sometimes we enjoy being spectators of tragedies. Although this may be an everyday observation, it is a surprising one. Indeed, the view of a tragedy typically produces disgust or awe in the viewer. But disgust and awe are unpleasant states. So how is it possible that we enjoy unpleasant states?It is by no chance that Hume devoted a whole essay to the topic. The rise of aesthetics in his time took place side by side with a revival of a fascination for horror. The issue had already kept busy a number of ancient philosophers. Here is, for example, what t he Roman poet Lucretius and British philosopher Thomas Hobbes had to say on it. What joy it is, when out at sea the stormwinds are lashing the waters, to gaze from the shore at the heavy stress some other man is enduring! Not that anyones afflictions are in themselves a source of delight; but to realize from what troubles you yourself are free is joy indeed. Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book II.From what passion proceedeth it, that men take pleasure to behold from the shore the danger of them that are at sea in a tempest, or in fight, or from a safe castle to behold two armies charge one another in the field? It is certainly in the whole sum joy. else men would never flock to such a spectacle. Nevertheless there is in it both joy and grief. For as there is novelty and remembrance of [ones] own security present, which is delight; so is there also pity, which is grief But the delight is so far predominant, that men usually are content in such a case to be spectators of the misery of their friends. Hobbes, Elements of Law, 9.19.So, how to solve the par adox? More Pleasure Than Pain One first attempt, pretty obvious, consists in claiming that the pleasures involved in any spectacle of tragedy outweigh the pains. Of course I’m suffering while watching a horror movie; but that thrill, that excitement that accompanies the experience is totally worth the travail. After all, one could say, the most delectable pleasures all come with some sacrifice; in this circumstance, the sacrifice is to be horrified.On the other hand, it seems that some people do not find particular pleasure in watching horror movies. If there is any pleasure at all, it’s the pleasure of being in pain. How can that be? Pain as Catharsis A second possible approach sees in the quest for pain an attempt to find a catharsis, that is a form of liberation, from those negative emotions. It is by inflicting upon ourselves some form of punishment that we find relief from those negative emotions and feelings that we have experienced.This is, in the end, an ancient interpretation of the power and relevance of tragedy, as that form of entertainment that is quintessential to elevate our spirits by allowing them to surpass our traumas. Pain is, Sometimes, Fun Yet another, third, approach to the paradox of horror comes from philosopher  Berys  Gaut. According to him, to be in awe or in pain, to suffer, can in some circumstances be sources of enjoyment. That is, the way to pleasure is pain. In this perspective, pleasure and pain are not really opposites: they may be two sides of the very same coin. This is because what’s bad in a tragedy is not the sensation, but the scene that elicits such sensation. Such a scene is connected to a horrific emotion, and this, in turn, elicits a sensation that we find in the end pleasurable.Whether Gaut’s ingenious proposal got it right is questionable, but the paradox of horror certainly remains one of the most entertaining subjects in philosophy.

What effect did the first world war have on the health of the British Essay

What effect did the first world war have on the health of the British population - Essay Example For example, in examining the Great Depression of the 1930s, it is typically determined that government policies together with statistics published by health officials reveal a decline in health and an increase in hunger. Bryder argues that perhaps a more localized study would reveal a more realistic account of the health of a population at any given time.3 In this essay, we examine various studies and reports documenting the health of the British population on the health of the British population during the First World War. Bourke demonstrates that the First World War had a significantly detrimental effect on the bodies of surviving soldiers. This is turn had a detrimental impact on the quality of their lives in the post-war era. Many of these men joined the war as â€Å"middle-class volunteers† who were â€Å"eager to do their bit†.4 As Bourke points out: The decisive impact of the Great War on men’s bodies can be seen most clearly by looking at the war-maimed. Irrevocably re-moulded by their experiences, these men struggled to create new lives that challenged their status as physically disabled.5 The gravity of dismemberment is captured by statistics provided by Bourke. According to Bourke, the number of mutilated and maimed men during the First World War was at the time unprecedented and a shock to the British morale. More than 41,000 British soldiers experienced amputated limbs during the First World War. Among the amputees, 69% lost a leg, 28% lost an arm and 3% lost both an arm and a leg. In addition, 272,000 sustained damages to the limbs, although amputation was not required. Approximately 65,500, soldiers sustained head or eye injuries. Another 89,000 suffered grave bodily harm.6 The number of maimed and disabled soldiers returning to civilian life would obviously impact the health or at least the well-being of the general population. The economic conditions would have obviously declined as a result of the expense involved in figh ting the war. Yet, post-war expenses would have increased over expenses in the pre-war era. As Bourke points out, the number of disabled persons relying on public funds necessarily increased as a result of the war experience. For example, up to 1920, 31, 500 soldiers were still on disability for amputations.7 There was also a psychological impact of war in that the mental health of the soldiers during the First World War was arguably unavoidable and this would also add to the public’s financial burden. During the First World War, surviving soldiers witnessed the mass burial of their fallen and mangled colleagues. As Bourke reports, men were systematically buried wherever they happened to fall since there was no time or resources to retrieve the bodies and take them to a place of dignity for property burial.8 Harrison maintains that although the First World War itself contributed to the spread of disease and as such posed a threat to the health of both the civilian and soldier population, it had positive outcomes for the long-term health of the general population overall. As Harrison reports, historically, during war times, more soldiers died of disease than those who died from war-related injury. However, during the First World War, this trend changed in that more soldiers died of war-related injury than those who died of disease. While it is quite possible that this turn around in the ratio of disease-related

The nature of absolute truth Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The nature of absolute truth - Essay Example The paper tells that an absolute truth is something that happens to be a universal truth. However, the thing that needs to be understood is that before proceeding to delve into the practical nature of absolute truth the thing that needs to be understood is that humans arrive at an absolute truth through two aspects: The input that the humans gather from the outside world through their sensory organs like eyes, ears, skin, etc. The processing of these inputs in the human brain by correlating it to the past experiences. It does need to be understood that within the realm of metaphysics, absolute truth is open to argumentative challenges. However, defining and explaining absolute truth is much easier and readily feasible within the realm of the physical. For instance, consider a person who has a pet cat at one’s home. The fact that this person has a pet cat in his home is an absolute truth. People may differ with regards to the subjective endowments ascribed to that cat. For instance, say somebody says that this individual has the most beautiful cat in the world as his pet. Many people may disagree that this cat is the most beautiful cat in the world. Some may say that the cat is indeed very beautiful. Some may agree to the contrary that the cat is indeed ugly and repulsive. However, no one will disagree with the fact that this person has got a pet in his house that is definitely a cat. Thereby the fact that this pet is a cat is an absolute truth. If somebody says that this pet is a dog. It is not true. If somebody says that this pet is a tiger.

International Taxation - International Taxation and Foreign Tax Research Paper

International Taxation - International Taxation and Foreign Tax Credits - Research Paper Example However, in reality the U.S. government ignores this concept of neutrality and imposes taxation on profits earned by U.S. companies in any country outside the border. Thus, U.S. companies who seek to spread businesses overseas are burdened with a combination of tax systems. Such companies are required to pay taxes to the U.S. Government as well as the government of the countries where they are conducting their activities (Henchman, 2011, pp.1-2). This paper contains my proposals as a tax professional to my U.S based client who wants to expand his business into foreign markets. Taxpayer’s organizations My client can establish chain of hotels or restaurants in a foreign country. This will make my client fall under deferral system of U.S. foreign tax. Under this system, subsidiary companies that are situated in other countries can be exempted from U.S. taxation unless such revenue is repatriated to the parent company like in the form of dividends. Also, I will advice my client to launch hotels in countries that are keen on promoting tourism by easy tax credits and ready development loans. For instance in Peru, foreign investors on hotel industry are given tax incentives and tax returns even before the investments are completed or the recommended constructions are completed (Finkelstein, 2012). The second type of organization that my client can establish is manufacturing company. This will benefit my client if he sells the manufactured products to foreign clients with foreign titles. Such income will fall under foreign income category although the company is situated with the U.S. Moreover, in the initial year since my client will be new in the foreign market his sales volumes will be low. In that case my suggestion will be to conduct activities from the U.S. without opening subsidiary company in the foreign country. In this way he will be able to avoid local taxes in the country on income earned from local sources. Tax mitigation on repatriate earnings A ma jor portion of income earned by U.S. companies is derived from foreign sources. Both the United States and the country in which the company is executing its activities prefer to impose taxes on the company. The governments of both countries try to benefit from these companies thereby establishing double taxation concept. Although the U.S. government attempts to mitigate its tax claim, these overlapping tax impositions create complications for U.S. tax collectors. This provides opportunities to multinational companies to avoid taxes. Subsidiary companies are confronted with high tax rates in countries where they operate. As an owner of a multinational company, my client will have an incentive to get income remittances in one of the forms that propose tax deductions. The incentive will not be in the form of dividends. A remittance that is subject to tax deductions directly reduces tax payments of source country. On the other hand, dividend expenses may only generate unusable surplus o f credits. The strategy is to keep the rates of tax less than that on dividends on the forms of payments that fall under the category of tax deductions. This will be more beneficial if the parent company that is situated within US has surplus of credit. It will be then profitable for my client to conduct payments in these tax-deductible forms. The surplus of credits can also be utilized for counterbalancing any remaining U.S. tax on such payments. The principle impact will be that

Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) Benefits

Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) Benefits Drivers and Barriers of Modern Methods of Construction Work produced by; Blayse (2004), Goodier (2006), Koebel (2008), NHBC Foundation (2006), Pan (2006), Pasquire (2004), Rosenfeld (1994), Sexton (2005), Taylor (2009), The Barker Review, (2003), Venables (2004), The Market Transformation Programme (2008) and The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (2003) have all suggested the necessity to increase the adoption of Modern Methods of Construction. These sources have stated the following perceived advantages associated with MMCs Tackling the skills shortage. An easier method of compliance to building standards. The ability to achieve high standards, including high thermal and acoustic performance. A reduction in waste materials, with a larger incentive for suppliers to reduce waste. Shorter build times. A better quality construction in finish with fewer defects. A reduction in both accidents and health concerns. Construction that is less effected by inclement weather during the build. Less local disruption in the form of noise dust and site traffic. Fewer and less skilled triads required on site. Creation of employment in a fix location due to the permanence of the factory resulting in shorter distances for the workforce to travel and thus making workforce shortages easier to address. Reduced cost/increased cost certainty, not only due to decreased erection time and economics of scale, but also do to a reduction in preliminaries, site storage requirements and welfare facilities Improved traceability of components enabling improvements to maintenance regimes. Improved accuracy and tolerances, due to the use of jigs and templates in factory conditions Reduced life-cycle costs Increased accuracy on completion dates A more simplified procurement process Reductions in CO2 emissions. Increased on-site productivity Generally increased ‘value of products Increased rate of housing supply Although not all MMC solutions offer all of these advantages, it is the opinion of the vast majority of the literature that they would have a beneficial impact on the UK construction industry, if increasingly adopted. The most significant of these drivers for an increased uptake of MMCs will be discussed in more detail in the latter part of this chapter. There are however, a number of potential barriers to increasing the adoption of these methods suggested by the sources listed above. These include: Real or perceived additional cost and the lack of accurate cost data. Long lead-in times and the associated difficulties in integrating MMCs with traditional procurement systems. Clients negative perception. The lack of publish information and guidance. Increased risk and the industries reluctance to change. The lack of published codes and standards. The lack of local availability of the materials. The lack of experience of the construction process and the materials. Difficulties obtaining finance. Insufficient worker skill. Difficulties in achieving economics of scale. The fact that the quality and durability of the techniques over time have not been proven. Difficulties integrating MMCs with traditional works. The inflexibility of factories to respond to fluctuating demand. Similarly as with the drivers, not all MMCs are perceived to have these barriers to increased integration. Again, the most significant barriers will be discussed in more detail in the latter part of this chapter. As stated in Chapter 1, due to restrictions on time all of the above drivers and barriers and their significance to an increased adoption of MMCs cannot be discussed in detail. It is for this reason that the paper will now aim to establish the most significant issues for in depth discussion. Pan (2006) produced a survey of the top 100 private housebuilders (in 2004) by unit completion, to ascertain the most prolific drivers and barriers of MMCs in their opinion. As â€Å"the top 100 house builders contributed 113,882 (65%) of the total amount (of new houses) by the industry† (Pan, 2006, p.185) in 2003, the level of use of MMCs within the sector will be largely determined by these companies. â€Å"large housebuilders () account for the vast majority of housing completions and thus are determinant in increasing the take-up of MMC technologies† (Pan, 2006, p.189) It is for this reason that the significance of the issues to these housebuilders will have a large effect on the adoption of MMCs within the housing sector. The work produced by Pan (2006), found that the top 3 advantages to MMCs from the opinion of housebuilders were addressing the skills shortage (61%), ensuring time certainty (54%) and ensuring cost certainty (54%). These results were followed closely by achieving high quality (50%) and minimising on-site duration (43%). Venables (2004, p.10) also found reductions in on-site assembly time as an important driver to MMCs adoption, but interestingly found that â€Å"the quality of production and finish as the most significant advantages†, in the opinion of suppliers. The same study by Pan (2006) found that the top 3 barriers to MMC from the opinion of housebuilders were higher capital cost (68%), difficulties in achieving economics of scale (43%), the inability to ‘freeze the design early on, and complex interfacing between systems, both at (29%). The nature of the UK planning system was also ranked relatively high by 25% of the respondents. Contrarily to this, work by Edge (2002, p.V) found that the major barrier to MMCs was the negative perception of the client. Suppliers were found by Goodier (2006, p.598) to have a similar opinion, with 65% of respondents viewing the negative image of MMCs as the major barrier to increased adoption of the methods. This demonstrates that the significance of the barriers to increasing the adoption of MMCs varies, depending on the position within the industry. Following investigation of the literature however, the overriding issues, which will now be discussed in detail, are: Addressing the skills shortage, ensuring cost certainty, improved quality, minimising onsite duration, high capital costs, difficulties in achieving economics of scale, and the perception of MMCs in and around the industry. Significance of Drivers and Barriers The negative annotations associated with modern methods of construction are an issue for the industry. Edge (2002) conducted a study to ascertain the causes for the resistance by clients and the market to prefabrication and standardisation in housing. Findings revealed that a large proportion of the resistance was within the housing industry itself. The commitment for change that was found within senior management was failing to defuse throughout the organisations enough to bring about the transformation. Interestingly the study found that the public was not resistant to new forms of construction entirely, although there was a partial resistance when considering the ‘value of the new materials and methods. The study concluded that house buyers are strongly influenced by the negative association of the post-war ‘prefab and as a result of this will resist changes to what a ‘traditional house looks like. An example of this would be the adverse media coverage that was r eceived by timber framed houses. Edge (2002, p.I) explains that this adverse media coverage severely reduced the application of this method in England to nearly 0%, whereas in Scotland it constituted 65% of new houses in 2001. The findings of Edge (2002), it would seem, have not diminished over time. Goodier (2006, p.589) found that the negative image of MMCs are â€Å"by far the greatest influence on the industrys ability to expand†. This sentiment, although not listed directly as a barrier by the housebuilders, was found by Pan (2006 p.118) to be the most significant area to tackle, in their opinion, to see increase adoption of MMCs. â€Å"There exists significant prejudice against the take-up of MMC among housebuilders and in the wider context of housing supply†. This negative view towards MMCs was also found by Edge (2002 p.I) â€Å"lenders are reluctant to give mortgages on non-traditional construction, () valuers put lower values on it () and that planners delay the process of acquiring the necessary permissions†. Edge (2002) attributes these problems to the fear of the unknown techniques and potential maintenance problems, due to MMCs unproven nature that was discussed earlier. This Negative opinion towards MMCs is likely to be having a negative effect on the adoption of the methods. To increase MMCs take-up there will need to be considerable measures taken to improve its image. These measures are discussed in more detail in chapter 4. The suggested ‘improved quality that is presented as a driver for an increased adoption of MMCs may also have an influence in changing peoples perceptions, although it would appear that the industry is aware of this advantage. Pan (2006, p.187) found that 50% of the top 100 housebuilders viewed the ability to achieve high quality as one of the top 3 drivers for MMCs. Goodier (2006, p.588) revealed similar findings, with 79% of clients and designers and 77% of contractors viewing increased quality as an advantage of MMCs. Venables (2004, p.30) found that 39% of manufacturers viewed quality as the most important advantage of MMCs. A reason for low adoption of MMCs, even though the improved quality is known as a major advantage may be due to the point raised earlier, that the commitment for change that was found within senior management was failing to defuse throughout the organisations enough to bring about the transformation. This is because the surveys that were carried out in both Goodier (2006) and Pan (2006) were answered by persons high up in the management structure and so the advantages and disadvantages of MMCs may in fact not actually be realised by the persons choosing and using the systems. There is a large amount of supporting literature that agrees that improved quality can be achieved with the use of MMCs. An example of this would be the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology who state that â€Å"MMC houses typically have fewer defects ()† (2003, p.1). The improved quality of MMC can be seen as a major driver, especially when considering that â€Å"traditional building practices often fall short in conforming to design specification† (The Market Transformation Programme 2008, p.3). A reason behind the apparent lack of impact that this advantage is having on adoption of MMC was given by The Market Transformation Programme (2008, p.3), â€Å"Changes in construction practice, such as the use of drylining instead of wet plaster and the internal walls being studwork instead of blockwork, may give the occupants the impression that houses are less solid or robust than they used to be†. This relates back to the negative perception of MMCs and the fear of the unknown that was mentioned earlier and show how it is having a much wider impact on the uptake of MMCs than was first suspected. Work produced by Pan (2006, p.189) however states that â€Å"the end market has shown little interest in how a house is built () location and price are the two main determinants of which house to buy.† It was argued that this is due to the housing shortage and that housebuilders themselves should reassess their attitudes towards MMCs. The quality of MMCs it was discussed by Taylor (2009, p.6) is greatly improved, in comparison to traditional methods. This was attributed to the controlled working conditions resulting in fully tested services and a better finish in an environment that inherently reduces risks of accidents and ill health among the workforce. The potential quality improvements that can be made with the use of MMCs will have a large impact on their take-up. This is because as quality and other advantages become more apparent within the industry, not only to the persons implementing the systems but everyone involved, than perceptions are likely to change resulting in an accelerated adoption of the methods. One of the largest incentives of an increase in the level of MMCs to be used in the UK is that of time and cost. â€Å"The construction industry () should use more offsite and standardisation in order to () reduce cost and time,† Goodier (2006, p.587). Similarly â€Å"innovative systems which take less time to construct on-site can lead to savings on, e.g. site prelims and equipment hire† NHBC Foundation (2006, p.5). Goodier (2004, p.4) supports this stating that â€Å"the belief that using off-site is more expensive when compared with traditional construction is clearly the main barrier to increased use of off-site in the UK.† This proportion of the literature suggests that there are cost and time savings to be made by the use of MMCs along with the work by Pan (2006) who found that cost certainty was viewed as a driver for 54% of the respondents. Although there is a view within the industry of cost savings, Pasquire (2004, p.2) found that â€Å"the use of off-site production, by many of those involved in the construction process, is poorly understood. Some view the approach as too expensive to justify its use ()†. This point was heighten by Venables (2004, p.33) who states that â€Å"the general view is that it (MMC) is currently more expensive.† A study conducted by The National Audit Office (2005) had similar findings, â€Å"Volumetric and hybrid methods were slightly more expensive (than traditional methods).† Lusby-Taylor (2004) also revealed that â€Å"projects would cost more than if traditionally built†. The most recent sources show that there is around 7-10% increase in MMCS costs, compared to traditional methods (The Market Transformation Programme, 2008, p.5). Taylor (2009, p.7) interesting states that â€Å"Tenders often take no account of the shorter delivery and erection times () Othe r savings are made in the reduction of preliminaries, reduced site storage requirements and welfare facilities.† This implies that the knock on savings of MMCs are often not included in the tender price. This was a sentiment that was also the opinion of Goodier in 2006 (p. 588). â€Å"Many projects are still judged purely on first or initial cost.† These sources show that there is much confusion as to the true cost of MMCs and if savings are achievable. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology mention that accurate cost comparison is difficult as â€Å"project financial information is financially confidential† (2003, p.2) and that traditional masonry costs vary widely. The unclear cost information is quite significant in effecting the uptake of MMCs as if cost comparisons are unclear or inaccurate than there is likely to be a reluctance to move away from familiar traditional methods by actors within the industry. Gates (2004, p.2) suggests that MMCs have failed to deliver cost savings and that it is expensive because the industry is small. The fact that the industry is small is suspected to be a cause for the higher costs, â€Å"Many MMC suppliers currently design their products around tradition housing types. This is seen as a market entry strategy since it allows developers to demonstrate that a house produced using MMC components can be indistinguishable from a traditionally built home. Redesigning houses to better suit the specific characteristics of the MMC product would certainly allow for a cost reduction,† Venables (2004, p.33). This again points towards negative perception of MMCs and results in production of products aiming to look like a traditional construction. This means that improved quality and cost reductions could be achievable without the need for the products to be disguised as traditional construction. It was the opinion of The National Audit Office 2005 however th at the cost of building elements could be reduced by 15% as the MMC market matures. This is encouraging for the MMC market as a definite cost saving could result in an accelerated uptake of the methods (The Market Transformation Programme, 2008, p.3). Work produced by Goodier (2006, p.588) indicates that this may be the case with 67% of clients and designers, and 77% of contractors viewing the higher expense of MMCs as the main barrier. Whilst it is unclear as to the true cost of MMCs in comparison to traditional methods in practice, a number of studies have shown that the higher capital costs are a major issue for the industry. Pan (2006) found it to be the most significant barrier to MMCs in the opinion of the top 100 housebuilders with 68% of the respondents. This may be due to the supply chain of traditional building practices, where there is more of a uniform expenditure throughout the duration of the project. With a number of MMC techniques there is a large expenditure at the beginning of the project, for example when commissioning the construction of a large number of volumetric units, which can cause problems to the cash flows of many projects. Interestingly however, the study conducted by Goodier (2006, p588) found that reduce initial cost was in the opinion, of 44% of clients and designers, and 15% of contractors, to be an advantage of MMCs. This difference of opinion could be attributed to the vastly diff erent methods that constitute an MMC and varying project delivery methods that are used within the industry which result in lower capital costs then with the traditional equivalent. The opinions of the top 100 housebuilders show that measures are required to combat the issue of high capital costs, however it should be noted that Goodier (2006, p.590) found that only 25% of suppliers thought that a reduction costs would overcome the resistance to MMCs. It is for this reason that possible solutions are likely to include promoting the other advantages of MMCs to ensure that tenders are based on value as appose to cost. This will be discussed in more depth in chapter 4. 87% of clients and designers, and 92% or contractors in the survey conducted by Goodier (2006, p.588) found decreased construction time as the main advantage to MMCs. The study conducted by Pan (2006, p.187) found minimizing onsite duration as the 4th most important driver for increased adoption of MMC. This shows that there is a clear benefit to using MMCs with regard to construction time onsite from the industry view point. This is because much of the work can be performed in factory conditions before work is needed to take place on site. This lessens the chance of accidents and defects, and reduces reliance on clement weather. As a knock on effect there is a reduced cost of rectification of defects, equipment hire, dangerous working conditions and delays. Taylor (2009, p.7) An example of reduced time on site of a project was given by The Office Of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003, p.1) â€Å"the time on sight to complete () the project was 50 weeks, saving some 40 per cent compared with traditional site-based construction†. Venables (2004, p.33) however, makes an interesting point in that â€Å"while the actual on site assembly time for many off site manufactured components is significantly less than traditional components, the design and production lead in times, and in particular redesign times, can remove this time advantage† This point demonstrates that a major drawback of some forms of MMC, particularly those performed offsite, is the amount of pre construction work that is required in comparison to traditional methods. This point was found by Goodier (2006, p.588) as the 2nd most important barrier to an increased adoption of MMCs, with 46% of clients and designers, and 62% of contractors. Other associated problems inherent with these forms of MMC can be defects. As it has been established, MMCS generally result in fewer defects and improved quality, however when they occur, particularly in mass produced items such as a bathroom pod, the defects are likely to be present in all of the products. This is due to the repetitive nature of the construction, as opposed to traditional construction where a defect in the roof construction of a house is likely to be due to poor workmanship and expected to be present in only one roof. (The Market Transformation Programme, 2008, p.2) Venables (2004, p.33) states that if standard components can be used in a creative way to create variation in designs, whilst minimising alterations in the production lines, it will allow for the best advantages of economics of scales to be had. It should be reiterated however that Goodier (2007, p.590), found that only around 25% of the suppliers in the survey viewed a reduction in price as a means of overcoming resistance to modern methods of construction. This was in spite of the fact that it was viewed as the main barrier to MMCs adoption in the study conducted by Pan (2006). Goodier (2007, p.590) concluded that this was possibly due to the other appeals of MMCs, and so were basing their opinion on value as opposed to cost. Pan (2006, p.192) suggested that not all MMCs are applicable in all circumstances, however certain instances allow for significant gains to be had via economics of scale. By mass producing products there can be a number of benefits that result in quite substantial savings, however due to the specific instances that are required for this to take place the impact of this issue on further adoption of MMCs, as a hole, is likely to be minimal. A large proportion of the literature has expressed that a shortage of a skilled workforce as a barrier to MMC adoption. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2003, p.3) found that in 2003, 80% of housebuilders reported difficulties with recruitment. The skills shortage it would appear does not only exist within contractors on site but also at factories where a large proportion of MMCs are constructed. 11% of the respondents in the study conducted by Pan (2006, p.188) viewed the skills shortage as a barrier to MMC use. The study conducted by Goodier (2006, p.588) found that insufficient worker skill was an issue for 21% of clients and designers and 23% of contractors. This low rating by those within the industry may be due to the point raised by The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2003, p.3), who argued that â€Å"using MMC to build house parts in factories, and faster on site construction, means that fewer labourers are required.† This would sugge st that increasing the adoption of MMCs is likely to decrease the problems found by housebuilders with recruitment. Goodier (2006, p.592) expressed that between 70% and 80% of the workforce within UK construction has no formal qualification, with a narrow skill base and limited training. The study found that the skills most lacking were Electricians, Joiners and Brick layers in the opinions of suppliers, designers and clients, and contractors. Goodier (2006, p.588) concluded that this is a driver for an increased application of MMCs, due to their findings that most within the industry viewed MMCs as requiring an equally or less skilled workforce. Contrary to this Clarke (2002) argues that â€Å"a skilled workforce is required to enable innovation () to be applied† and that due to the lack of broad basic training in construction after which they specialise, workers are usually trained for one role. This makes it difficult for the workforce to become multi skilled which is required for increasing the adoption of MMCs. Venables (2004, p.38) indicated that suppliers usually had to provide addit ional training as 89% of the general Labour available did not possess the multiple skills required. This was because suppliers normally require â€Å"semi-skilled and multi-skilled workers with a medium level of training, rather than specific trades†, (p.593). Taylor (2009, p.7) puts forward the idea that increasing the adoption of MMCs will reduce the impact of a skills shortage as permanently based factory units allow for the numbers and levels of skill to be more easily addressed than on static sites. It is also suggested that due to the lack of locally available skilled labour, the workforce will have to travel large distances with traditional construction, where as with offsite methods the workforce can be more centrally based increasing local employment. This shows that the skills shortage in some instances is acting as a driver of MMC adoption but at the same time may actually be limiting its take-up. A lack of skill on site may drive for an increased use of prefabricated components that require less skill to construct (Goodier, 2006, p.588), but if suppliers and manufactures of the products cannot obtain the skills required to build the components than MMC adoption is likely to fall. Chapter 4 will discuss the potential solutions suggested within the literature for coping with a shortage of skill in the workforce. Summary The discussion so far has established that there are a number of potential barriers and drivers to the industry if attempting to increase the adoption of MMCs. Major barriers have been determined and include: the negative public perception, the perceived or actual higher cost, the perceived or actual higher initial cost and the shortage of skills. The major drivers were also determined, these include, improved quality, reduced onsite duration and, again, the shortage of skills. Although advantageous to the industry it was discussed that they also have their own associated drawbacks.

truth within experience Essay -- essays research papers

Truth Within Experiments   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Milgram and Asch reports about obedience are different. In Milgrim’s report he was trying to say that people will do something to the extreme even if they are hurting someone or something. The experiment he decided to construct shows just that. His experiment shows that will power can go a long way. Asch’s reported experiment showed that people can be easily influenced by a group of people. And if the one person feels alone in a group situation the majority is correct. Social pressure is the factor in this case.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The basic question in Milgram’s report comes down to who are we and should we obey when it interferes with our conscience? Based on his writing about what he learned in his experiment average people learned more about themselves and how much will power they had. On the other hand, Asch hoped to learn the extent of peer pressure. Will a group of people alter the thinking of one individual? He states that the tests also illustrate a new kind of attack on the problem and some of the more subtle questions that it raises ( 307). Each psychologist designed their own unique experiment to study and research the answers to their questions.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Migram’s first experiment consists of two people in a laboratory. The learner is sent to a room and is strapped into an electric chair. He is also told he is to listen to a list of paired words to remember and if he gets them...