POST YOUR SCHOOLWORK. DISCUSS. LEARN SOMETHING!

[Weedguru Higher]

This was an oral composition I had to give in english from a french class back in grade 7 or 8. I kept that diskette for some reason. It sucks but it did get me grade in the mid eighties. I remember very cleary cause I was sure I was gonna fail.


Martin Luther King Junior was born on January 15th, 1929 in Atlanta Georgia. He was one of three children of Martin Luther King Senior who was pastor of Ebenezer Church, and of Alberta King, a former school teacher.
Beginning at a very young age Martin faced many difficult obstacles, mainly due to the fact that he was a black boy, living in a predominantly white country. Although slavery had been abolished, segregation was still an issue. For example when his father would take him to the shoe store to buy new shoes, the clerk would send him to the back of the store so as not to disturb white customers. He could never use the same water fountains as other white children, nor use the same bathrooms. Young Martin could not understand why people were so ignorant , after all it was only skin color. Martin was able to overcome such issues through love and forgiveness, but nevertheless he remained greatly disturbed by the hate and this made a lasting impression on him.
Martin was an outstanding student, attending primary and highschools, and then entered college at only fifteen years of age. He graduated in 1948 with a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology. At age 18 he became an ordained minister like his father and grandfather. In 1951 he was awarded a Doctorate of Philosophy . These are only two of hundreds of great awards Dr.king received.
Although King greatly in enjoyed working as a pastor, spreading the word of God it was not what he wanted to do on a fulltime basis. Mr.Luther’s goal in life, his dream since childhood was that of obtaining equal rights for everyone. He commenced this journey in 1954 in Montgomery, Alabama where he established the Montgomery Improvement Association. This was a group of negro people who were fighting for the right to be able to ride the bus as white people did. This turned out to be a year long battle filled with many ups and downs and difficulties of all kinds for Dr.King. He was arrested and thrown in jail on several occasions, his house was bombed, and he was violently attacked by people filled with hatred. But even once doubted and threatened Dr.King continued to fight for what he believed in. This took great determination and courage, much more that most of us have. This dedication and the sacrifices he made finally paid off. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation on buses was illegal. The first of King’s goals had finally been achieved, but there were still so many issues he wanted to fight for to.
In 1957 King went on to establish the Southern Leadership Conference, an organization to fight all laws involving discrimination against black people. King traveled worldwide, expressing his views dreams and hopes concerning the racial issues. He spoke of resolving things through love, peace and nonviolence. In 1963 King held the largest demonstration in history in Washington D.C. This is where he delivered his famous “ I Have a Dream” speech . Two hundred and fifty thousand people attended this massive public gathering. He got the attention of the entire nation, including President John F. Kennedy.
The ultimate recognition of Dr.King’s determination, dedication and perserverance came in December 1964. At only thirty five years of age he received the nobel peace prize. He was the youngest person ever to receive this prestigious reward. He gave the prize money of fifty four thousand dollars over to civil rights movements.
Finally the laws slowly began to change more and more. In 1965 President Jackson signed the civil rights act into law. The same year a bill was passed giving negro people the right to vote. Laws were passed the rendered “white only” signs illegal. King had not only managed to change one town, he had changed an entire country for forever. This was an extraordinary accomplishment.
King went on with his crusading helping the poor people in Chicago who suffered from segregation problems also. In 1968 King went on to Memphis, Tennessee to help organize a strike for the black sanitation workers who very underpaid simply because of their skin color. They were fighting to have the same wages as the white workers. This was the last day King was to give a speech.
On April 4th, 1968 Martin Luther King Junior was shot and killed while standing on the balcony of his motel in Tennessee. He was only thirty nine years old.
Today, in the United States Dr.King is remembered through the Martin Luther King day, a national holiday reserved to honor the life and dreams of this great American hero. He is admired today because of the values he taught the nation – courage, truth, justice, compassion, dignity and determination. People from all walks of life have benefited from the work King did to make this world a better place. He showed people how to stand up for what they believe in, even when there are what seem to be impossible obstacles to overcome. Thanks to Mr.King we no longer live in segregation, we have united despite differences in skin color. Even in later times woman received the right to vote and work for the same wages as men. Had King not done what he did, we might be still living in a segregated unequal world. Martin Luther King Junior was a true American hero in all aspects and he will never be forgotten.

[NaturalMystic]

thast not bad for grade 7 or 8

[cutthecashflow]

Solve the difference Quotient

f(x)=2X^2+4X-44

f(x)=(x+h)-f(x)/h


[2(x+h)^2+4(x+h)-44]-[2x^2+4x-44]

2x^2+2xh+2h^2+4x+4h-44-2x^2-4x+44

2xh+2h^2+4h/h

h(2x+2h+4)

Correct answer: 2x+2h+4

[Weedguru Higher]

Solve the difference Quotient

f(x)=2X^2+4X-44

f(x)=(x+h)-f(x)/h


[2(x+h)^2+4(x+h)-44]-[2x^2+4x-44]

2x^2+2xh+2h^2+4x+4h-44-2x^2-4x+44

2xh+2h^2+4h/h

h(2x+2h+4)

Correct answer: 2x+2h+4

This is an english site you know, doubt anyone understands that german

[cutthecashflow]

Actually after rechecking my math it should have went something like this:

f(x)=2x^2+4x-44

f(x)=(x+h)-f(x)/h

[2(x+h)^2+4(x+h)-44]-[2x^2+4x-44]

2x^2+4xh+2h^2+4x+4h-44-2x^2-4x+44

4xh+2h^2+4h

h(4x+2h+4)

Conclusion:
4x+2h+4

The bold is where I messed up the first time. So this is the correct way to do it!

[Dr. Greenthumb]

My last art appreciation critique but ther we some pretty cool photos


University of Miami and the Lowe Art Museum

I went to the Lowe Art Museum at University of Miami in Coral Gables. The exhibition they had on display was Edward Weston: Life Work. Weston was a famous photographer that died in 1958 the exhibition displayed the different photographs from throughout his life. The two photographs I chose to critique are Shell and Pepper #30.
Pepper #30 measures 14 by 16 inches and is a simple pepper put in front of a plain background and was taken on a gelatin silver print. The one pepper that takes up about ninety percent of the image. The light is coming in from the top right of the photo; this helps give the image a sharp and realistic view. The concave pepper is taller than it is wide and folds into itself. The wrinkles and curves resemble some type of human form and the bottom right corner of the pepper has a small spot of decay. When speaking about the pepper Weston said, “It has no psychological attributes, no human emotions are aroused.” Although the pepper is just a simple vegetable its form gives the idea of human wrinkles and natural curves. While the spot of decay looks like an allusion to aging and death. The combination of the these two factors give the image aging and death and how it effect human life.
Shell is a photograph of a shell and its dimensions are 9 x 7 inches. It was also taken on a gelatin silver print. There is more than one work by Weston titled shell; the one that I saw is a side view of a nautilus shell. Once again the object (shell) was taken out of its natural environment and put on a plain background. This brings out the natural beauty and detail of the actual shelf. The nautilus shell is the ultimate example of proportion in nature. The size of the shell starts small and increases by exact proportion, this is also known as divine proportion. The symbol of proportion along with the symmetry of the photo allude do the balance seen within nature.
In conclusion, both photographs were take at the same period. Weston was attributed with the movement that led photography to be considered art. This is achieved by the abstract photos he took; where he shows details in common things which would not, otherwise, be noticed. In his photographs he captured amazing beauty and complexity through simple objects.

[cutthecashflow]

What is your major greenthumb?

[Dr. Greenthumb]

social sciences / radiology

[smokey06]

anyone do sociology or law by any chance

[cutthecashflow]

I've taken a fair share of sociology classes.

[BUDA]

I take A Level Sociology.

[smokey06]

nice...cause i gotta do ma coursework for wed but cant think of a topic....u done ur coursework yet?

[Ziggy]

hey im in university and for a medieval course im taking, i have to do a project on "courtly Love" and im trying to argue that it is sexist....any projects u guys have on it or good websites u might know about this, plz inform me at bufu8789@hotmail.com thx later

[cutthecashflow]

This is a group argument paper that we have to write for English. The topic is prescription medication in the media and how advertisement plays a crucial role in peoples descion makings. If anyone cares to take the time to read this maybe you could point out both the strong and weak points of the paper so I could better my grade. Thanks for anyone who helps!

Paper
How many of you have had a little round depressed ball with a social anxiety disorder bouncing around your screen lately? This little ball of a person seems absolutely miserable at the beginning of the commercial, but once he learns he can take Zoloft Sertraline HCl to cure him he becomes ecstatic. All of the sudden the ball is having all sorts of fun and is able to interact with people just because of a little pill. This is the type of advertisement that is misleading and portrays an improper image in peoples’ minds. Zoloft might be a wonderful drug, but the commercial makes it appear to be a wonder drug that almost everyone should have. This is why prescription drug advertisements are causing serious controversy.

overview:

Advertisement of prescription medication is an important ethical issue because it deals with the quality of health people receive. The ads effect how people think about their health care. Ads can have the power to persuade you (the consumer) to believe you need a certain medication and in turn, side step your trained physician. This is dangerous, medicine is a very technical field and the people that are trained to handle your health care spend numerous years in school and training to be able to do so effectively. The ads are also controversial because they are so effective on promoting a new drug. According to Dr. Lisa Ruby Basara in 1994 the company gained around 11.5 million dollars alone from new prescriptions resulting from ads. Dr. Basara also concluded that if one refill was also used then an “additional $10.5 million was realized.” (Basara 1996). Those are staggering numbers considering that the amount of advertisements used are increasing at an alarming rate. In 1991 direct to consumer advertisements (DTC) totaled in a value of $55 million. (Aparasu and Desselle 2000) In 2005 the amount of money spent on DTC was $4.1 trillion. (Agres 2006) It is also estimated by Agres that “every $1 spent in DTC advertising translated into $4 in increased sales.” (Agres 2006) This shows how much of an impact DTC advertising is having on the public. This impact is so controversial because the pharmaceutical companies have a right to get their product known to the general population, but with such a dangerous product, it has the potential of being disastrous to everyone involved.

Summary:

Prescription medication and direct to consumer advertising has become a major controversial issue in the United States. On one side there are the people that are for direct to consumer advertising who say the advertisements bring out education about certain medications that before people were unsure about. For example, such diseases such as erectile dysfunction or depression that are hard for some people to openly discuss with a physician can now have some questions answered through direct to consumer advertising. Another benefit of direct to consumer advertising is that physician visits that result in earlier detection of a disease, combined with appropriate treatment are always easier to cure then a disease that is not treated right away. With direct to consumer advertising the ads give off symptoms that an individual might have the disease and if the person is to catch the disease earlier then it is more likely that the person can be cured at minimal costs. If a doctor is doing his or her job, they will not prescribe a patient a medication that they asked for merely because it is advertised on TV.

On the other hand direct to consumer advertising may not always be good. When people here about a so called miracle drug they tend to stop taking care of their body the natural way and get this feeling that by popping a few pills they can live any lifestyle they choose. Another concern is that doctors are just prescribing whatever name a patient throws at them. This is not a good thing as if someone can just walk into a doctor’s office and pick up a prescription then there might as well only be over the counter medications. The advertising of prescription drugs also gives off the sense that we need a so called drug because of a few minor side effects that could range from the common cold to heart failure. Some people say that direct to consumer advertising encourages the overuse of prescription medications.

View Point 1: In Favor of DTC Advertisements:

Direct to consumer advertising is not a bad thing. In fact it is far from it, there are many beneficial things related directly to advertising of prescription medications. The advertisements provide sound medical education for the public which may not be provided in another way and show the viewer other options which are now available for their illness. If an individual can come to the conclusion that he or she has some of the side effects that are mentioned in an advertisement then catching the disease in an early stage is more likely to occur. This does not only lead to cheaper medical costs, but a more improved recovery rate then those who wait until it is too late. Another benefit of direct to consumer advertisement is that diseases that people often would feel ashamed discussing or seeking help for now have become more of a common and accepted disease. Erectile dysfunction and depression are two common diseases that in the past have been difficult to talk to with a doctor, now with direct to consumer ads however more people have a general idea if they are affected by the disease or if something else might be wrong. Direct to consumer advertisements also remind patients to get their prescriptions refilled and help them follow their set medical regimens.

Some people say that direct to consumer advertisements are not carefully monitored by anyone. This is not true, the FDA is responsible for making sure that consumers are not misled or deceived by advertisements that break the law. In three FDA surveys with physicians conducted in 1999 and in 2002 physicians said that direct to consumer advertisements had many beneficial effects. Fifty-three percent said direct to consumer ads led to better discussion with patients, forty-two percent said direct to consumer ads helped the patient be more aware of treatments related to their disease. (Rados). Other beneficial effects were Informs/educates, patients more likely to take prescribed drug, patients more likely to consider Rx drugs, and new conditions discovered. The FDA also reports that eighty-eight percent of people that came to see a doctor because of what they had seen on a television advertisement actually had the condition that the drug treats. (Rados)

Another study conducted by the FDA shows what information was recalled from television ads that had to do with prescription meds. Ninety percent of people could recall both the benefits and the risks/side effects associated with the medication. Eighty-nine percent could recall who should not take the drug. Eighty-six percent recalled how to obtain more information and seventy four percent could recall who should take the medication. With high numbers like this it is easy to see that direct to consumer advertising is safe, sound, and effective.

In addition to this it is illegal for advertisements to be false or misleading. If an advertisement violates the FDA’s approval then one of two paths are chosen. The drug company will receive either a warning letter or an untitled letter. If a warning letter is received then the company has already previously violated the law. If this should happen the advertisement is immediately removed and must be followed up with a corrective advertisement that explains what was wrong with the initial advertisement. An untitled letter is often given to first time offenders or less serious offenses. They typically require the removal of the advertisement or a modification to the advertisement. With every ad having to be subject to FDA approval it is extremely difficult to put out a dangerous or misleading advertisement. With all of the guidelines and restrictions placed on advertising it is nearly impossible to give off a false or misleading advertisement. In this day and age a product will not be marketed if it is harmful to ones health and if it is harmful to a person’s health it will not even be aired on television because of the strict guidelines that have to be followed. Advertisements provide education, symptoms, and warning signs of a disease and should continue to be allowed to run as long as the FDA keeps a firm foot in the door of direct to consumer advertising.

View 2: Advertisements Should be Restricted

Advertising for prescription drugs is a useful tool if kept in check. Currently the pharmaceutical companies are creating advertisements that make their drugs appear to be miracle drugs. The commercials should be limited to tell what the purpose of the drug is. They should also list the side effects in a loud clear statement rather than rambling them off quickly at the end of a commercial or squeezing them in small print at the end of the page. These advertisements also pose a staging ground for problems between the physician and the patient. Because of the above reasons, the FDA should regulate the pharmaceutical companies more strictly than they are. This would allow patients to be informed and to get involved in their healthcare decisions with their doctor rather than demanding to their doctor they need a certain drug based on a commercial.

The current regulations on advertisements of prescription medications from the FDA are as follows:
“(1) they cannot be false or misleading; (2) they must present a “fair balance” of information about the risks and benefits of using the drug; (3) they must contain “facts” that are “material” to the product’s advertised uses; and (4) in general, the advertisement’s “brief summary” of the drug must include every risk from the product’s approved labeling.” (Huang 2000)

These limitations are too broad to allow control. Advertisements only use the bare minimum to meet the rules and still appear to be a miracle drug. They are also set up so that you do not pay attention to the negative side effects of the drugs. This allows the consumer to ponder about how amazing this new drug is and then are distracted away when information of how it may cause such side effects such as nausea, vomiting, severe headaches, etc. This causes you, the intended target, to only remember how miraculous the drug is and feel that you need it.

The feelings that can be derived from prescription advertisements that are misleading will disrupt the ability of the doctor and pharmacist to provide the proper health care. When you, or another patient, get hooked by an ad you really don’t know enough to make an educated decision about it; yet some people jump to the conclusion that they “need” that medication. This puts even more demand on the physician, who is normally short on time, to persuade why the drug is really not the right one. This takes time away from the doctor from being able to discuss more about their illness and to describe the necessary medication and actions to make them well. As stated by Ms. Huang “Patients also may lose faith in their physicians when advertising messages conflict with professional advice.” (2000) This is ludicrous, to think that people could take the advice of a 30 second commercial or magazine ad, that are strewed to make the drug look like a super drug, over the advice of their trained physician.

` The advertisements can also build relationships as well. They inform you of new drugs that are available that may not have been when you were prescribed your current medication. They also inform the consumer of options that are available. When you take the information cautiously and discuss it with your doctor you open yourself up to more complete and useful information that can be used in your healthcare decisions. The commercials just need to be regulated in order to eliminate the image that they are super drugs.

This is why the commercials should be regulated more heavily by the FDA. You, the patient, need to be informed about your options. The company also has a right to tell you of a new product that they believe will help, but they must not make people believe that the drugs are 100% perfect. Every drug has its side effects and negativities, so the ads need to introduce the drug to you and instruct you to find out more before making a decision, either through a doctor or another trained professional. The FDA needs to make sure that is the only information in the ad and that there is no way that someone would jump to a conclusion about the drug from the ad.

View 3: Advertisements Should be Banned

Ads for pharmaceutical drugs are everywhere these days and they are only increasing. Trouble sleeping? Take Ambien! High cholesterol? Try Zocor! Heartburn? Ask about Nexium! From television to magazines and radio, it’s all over. All these drugs are available only through a doctor’s prescription but are still marketed directly to the consumer. Through these kinds of advertisements, pharmaceutical companies create a high demand for any kind of drug. Ads for prescription drugs are made so they could be appealing to the consumer and makes people think it’s the perfect medication for them. It is also uncomfortable for some parents watching television with their children due to the sexual content of some commercials, which is why ads for prescription medication should not be allowed.

A report in June 2003 from the Kaiser Family Foundation says that of the $19.1 billion spent on drug promotion in 2001, 86% was aimed at doctors, but spending on direct-to-consumer advertising went from $800 million in 1996 to $2.7 billion in 2001. More people are making appointments at the doctor’s office and asking about medication they have seen in ads. The ads do inform people of medication that’s available for conditions they may not have known were treatable but they have a downside. The drugs being advertised may be more expensive than older drugs, which are equally effective. Sometimes “these drugs are not warranted to treat a patient’s condition.”

The higher priced drugs are usually covered by insurance, which adds to the cost of health insurance for everyone. Russell Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va says that people can basically do unhealthy things and not worry about it since there is a medication for it. For example: if someone eats really spicy food because they like it but their body doesn’t react well, there is a drug they can take. If someone likes to sit around on the couch and watch TV but they have high cholesterol, they are less motivated to do that because there is a drug for that. It costs a $100 a dose, but the consumer only pays about $10. Should a fellow employee pay for it?

Another issue with the prescription drug ads is the sexual content of some commercials. Many parents do not want their children hearing things dealing with sexual problems and drugs that help with performance. When certain drug ads are targeted at certain age group, it doesn’t mean there aren’t other people in the room.

Conclusion:

As a group we decided that the advertisements do play a beneficial role. They inform patients about new drugs and even remind them to take their current prescriptions. The ads also encourage patients to discuss more with their doctors. The problem is that the ads are not controlled strict enough. Some of the ads make the consumers feel that they can’t live without the drug, or that the drugs are miracle drugs. This is why we concluded that we need the ads, but think that we, as citizens, need to urge the FDA to regulate advertisements more then their current standards.








Works Cited
Agres, Ted. “Policy and Projections: Advertising Pharma Restraints” Drug Discovery and Development. 2006. Reed Elsevier Inc. 2 Apr. 2006. <http://www.dddmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCO ... PRODLETT=V>
Basara, Lisa Ruby, RPh, PhD. “The Impact of a Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Medication Advertising Campaign on New Prescription Volume.” Drug Information Journal. 30 (1996): 715-729.
Desselle, Shane Paul, PhD and Rajender Aparasu, PhD. “Attitudinal Dimensions that Determine Pharmacists’ Decisions to Support DTCA of Prescription Medication.” Drug Information Journal. 34 (2000): 103-114.
Huang, Alison J., MPhil. “The Rise of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs in the United States.” MS JAMA: Medical Student JAMA. 284 (1 Nov. 2000): 2240-2244.
McClelland, Kent. “Drugs, Money and Advertising.” 20 Aug. 2001.
<http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/sst/f01 ... chang.html>
NIHCM Foundation. “Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising.” n.d.

www.nihcm.org/dtcbrief.pdf

Gladwell, Malcom. Interview with Daniel Capello. The New Yorker. 18 Oct. 2004. 3 Apr. 2006 <http://www.newyorker.com/printables/onl ... lineonly01>
Rados, Carol. "Truth in Advertising: Rx Drug Ads Come of Age." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. July-Aug. 2004. 3 Apr. 2006 <http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/404_ads.html>
"What Were the Beneficial Effects?" Chart. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA. 3 Apr. 2006 <http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/404_ads.html>

[Darth Inhaler]

I think the strongest view you have is the second one. There is nothing wrong with percription drug advertisements as long as they are being watched by the FDA.