Get help from the best in academic writing.

all you need to do is part 2 and combine it with part 1 in one file

all you need to do is part 2 and combine it with part 1 in one file.

the instructions for part 2 is attached as well as the maps we use each week are attached you have to put them in a file and describe them according to instructions part 1 in doc file 2 excels files are the main data that must be used in part 2 and i solved it you have to enter the pictures from them and some description final project pdf fie is instructions remaining pdf files are the maps you have to include them not much writting work i did the main parts just add them and describe them according to instructions thanks
all you need to do is part 2 and combine it with part 1 in one file

Northumbria University Credit Card Defaults Data Science Method Essay.

I’m working on a computer science report and need an explanation to help me understand better.

In this 4000-word assignment, you will be required to select, apply and evaluate a choice of data science methods, tools, and techniques on a sizeable dataset of the given scenario. 
Credit Card Defaults was the scenario and Dataset will be provided (scenario brief will be in the attached doc)(please view the attached doc for the dataset and assignment brief as well)
All the stages mentioned in the Key components should be in the report and. Please note that it is expected that you will use R to complete this assignment by following Assignment criteria and mark allocation

Northumbria University Credit Card Defaults Data Science Method Essay

International Restrictions Impact of Globalization on Borders Research Paper.

Directions: This assignment is to provide your first draft of the research paper where you will receive feedback from other students on your research paper. Please submit your draft and annotated bibliography by Thursday, July 9. After you have submitted your draft, you will be assigned to respond to two papers after the due date. Please respond to the submissions by Saturday, July 11. Please remember to use constructive feedback when writing comments to your peers. Use the SpeedGrader instead of Submission Comments.Requirements: The draft should be at least two to three pages for Essay 3 (this could be a unique part of the paper like the literature review, main argument or counterargument).I will send you the pdf of this essay.
International Restrictions Impact of Globalization on Borders Research Paper

Chemistry: Which of the following is true for a system whose equilibrium constant is much greater than one?.

Which of the following is true for a system whose equilibrium constant is much greater than one?Select one:a. The reaction mixture contains mostly reactants at equilibriumb. The rate of reaction is very fastc. The reaction mixture contains mostly products at equilibriumd. The moles of reactants and products are relatively similar at equilibrium
Chemistry: Which of the following is true for a system whose equilibrium constant is much greater than one?

AirAsia Planning and Decision Making

AirAsia Planning and Decision Making. This is the logo and the organization which I interested and I want to intro the planning process and Decision Making in this company. It is one of the famous company in Malaysia. Asia’s leading airline was established with the dream of making flying possible for everyone. Since 2001, AirAsia has swiftly broken travel norms around the globe and has risen to become the world’s best. With a route network that spans through more than 20 countries, AirAsia continues to pave the way for low-cost aviation through our innovative solutions, efficient processes and a passionate approach to business. Together with our associate companies, AirAsia X, Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia, They are set to take low-cost flying to an all new high with our believe, ”Now Everyone Can Fly”. Planning is one of the most important project management and management techniques. Planning is preparing a sequence of action steps to achieve some specific goal. If you do it effectively, you can reduce much the necessary time and effort of achieving the goal. The important of planning involves like defining organization goals, establish strategies to achieve goals,and develop plans to integrateAirAsia Planning and Decision Making

Comparison of ‘War on Terror’ with the Cold War

best assignment help Does the ‘Global War on Terror’ inaugurated by George W. Bush have similarities to the Cold War? Since 2001, academics and the United States administration have continuously compared the war against terrorism to the Cold War. The confrontations that the United States and its allies experienced during the war against communism in the Cold War and, more recently, the War on Terror arguably share significant similarities. Although there is significant debate across academia, some argue that Terrorism is the new Communism which similarly seeks to challenge and overthrow Western ideas and the whole structure of the liberal democratic world order. Others, among them revisionist historians, Claim that the main similarity between the Cold War and the War on Terror is the desire of the US to benefit from conflict, capitalise and secure other countries in its economic structures for own benefit. However, even though these are significant arguments, there has been a significant rise of discourse that seeks to separate the War on Terror from other conflicts, including the Cold War, stating that it is a new kind of war which symbolises a profound social transformation in the contemporary globalised world. For the purpose of this essay I summarise the nature of the War on Terror and its prevalent similarities to the Cold War. After that I present arguments stating that the War on Terror is in fact significantly different. After 9/11 the Bush administration urged the national policy to strengthen the core need to focus on a stronger homeland defence. The Department of Homeland Security was established as a movement toward centralisation of security at a national level. The 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) relied on force and action to uphold international standards, unlike the previous years where leadership through co-operation was emphasised instead. Arguably that was the case because of the change of the nature of threat that was exerted on the US. Before the War on Terror the threat was to American values, whereas now the threat was a lot more serious, questioning survival. In the 1990’s the United States were involved in peace and humanitarian operations, supporting and extending American values worldwide. 2001, however, symbolised a shift in world order which directly threatened not just the United States but also its allies in Europe and elsewhere (Vrooman, 2004: 82). The United States were faced with a new type of war: a war without an easily identifiable enemy, which was not tied to a nation-state as we would traditionally expect (NSS, 2002: 5). This posed a number of problems with deterrence: The impossibility of destroying an enemy in a single manoeuvre, difficulty of identifying the enemy, and possibility of a costly counter-attack by the enemy. Terrorist groups were thought to have the ability, with the help of modern technology, to communicate while staying in the shadow, coordinating strategies and tactics. This allowed them to be highly decentralised and elusive while at the same time have the ability to act simultaneously for greater effect. The attackers were further seen to be mobilised by a common ideational standpoint: fanatical militarism legitimised through interpretation of religious texts in a certain way. This posed a serious problem as the attackers could not be negotiated with and shared little of the ideas the ‘west’ and America had (Vrooman, 2004: 83). What we can deduct from this is that the War on Terror now had a more direct dimension, posing physical threat to the United States while at the same time being strongly ideological in nature, showing a confrontation of civilizational ideas (Stokes, 2003: 571). It also meant that, because the attackers could not be intimidated or discouraged by the cost that their attacks would incur upon themselves, that the potential magnitude of terrorist attacks was unprecedented and had to be dealt with similarly unprecedented force. While the War on Terror has become a primary focus of the United States in the aftermath of 9/11, 2001, with the Bush doctrine, it was largely carried out as continuation of exiting struggles that the U.S. faced in the middle-east during the Cold War, particularly during Reagan’s presidency in the 1980’s. The Reagan’s administration, during that time, was also expected of reacting quickly and as a result drafted many concepts, that were later used in the Bush doctrine, such as identifying terrorism as a form of warfare and not crime, or fighting regimes that could be seen as sponsors of terror rather than inter-state or transnational organisations (Toaldo, 2012: 3, Tirman, 2006: 3). Elements of the War on Terror, including fatal terrorist strikes, were present during the Cold War. Therefore, we can expect that the experience gained by the U.S. government during the Cold War would reciprocate into the post-2001 War on Terror (Smart, 2005). The desire to be influential, rather than coercive through hard power, was seen as the main weakness that led to the increase of terrorist threat. In the late half of the 1980’s the secretary of state, George Shultz would actively advocate for a more aggressive stance, focusing on Libya in 1986. Scandals during the time made office officials leaning towards isolationism less inclined to act in this new manner. These ideas, however, would inspire the Bush administration in 2001 (Toaldo, 2012: 5), revolving around maintaining a physical presence of military might: “To be safe, the US must be strong, with strength measured by readily available military might. Yet merely possessing military power does not suffice. Since perceptions shape reality, the US must leave others in no doubt as to its willingness to use power. Passivity invites aggression. Activism, if successful, enhances credibility” (A. Bacevich, 2011). The US administration was interested in maintaining a foothold in the middle-east throughout the entire cold-war period, and the emphasis of the Bush doctrine on its importance is nothing new. The middle-east was an area of confrontation between the two superpowers of the time – The USSR and USA. The US identified the nations in the region as either violent radicals or moderate reformists, with the latter being their allies. Interestingly, the distinction originally used to categorize between areas of US and Soviet influence, saw a revival after 9/11, but this time with terrorists taking the place of the soviets. The philosophy of “with us or against us” that was so prominent during the Cold War remained a crucial factor affecting US involvement and foreign policy in the region (Harling and Malley, 2010). What is fundamentally different with the new War on Terror, from the acts of terror that happened during the Cold War, is that it was no longer seen within the limits of being a tool in the Global Cold War, but an enemy in itself, since the threat of terrorism did not go away with USSR. The US was once again motivated to take action as soon as it saw a threat to the primacy of American ideals and its status as an absolute superpower (Toaldo, 2012: 23). The War on Terror continues the legacy that was conceived with the Cold War as there are: “affinities between terrorism and totalitarianism: both regard violence as an appropriate means to their political ends… Both reject the basic moral principles of Judeo-Christian civilization”(Jeanne Kirkpatrick in Toaldo, 2012: 24). Indeed, for the US, similarly to Middle-Eastern terrorists the ‘oriental’ Russian mind was viewed to do nothing more than pretend to be civilized and use this false image to work discretely in achieving its own ‘barbaric’ ends (Kennan, in Hutchings and Miazhevich, 2009: 4). Larry Diamond (2002) categorizes terrorist groups that pose a threat to the US as the ‘new Bolsheviks’ due to their struggle against the same elements of leading capitalist nations that the ‘old Bolsheviks’ struggled against: corrupt, exploitative alliances and imperialism supported by the ‘West’ with US in charge. This logic is prevalent among large sections of the Muslim world, outside of terrorist groups, that was spared the benefits of post-Cold War world order led by US, because of corruption. Terrorist attack on the World Trade Center can therefore be seen as a symbol of a revolution, similar to that which happened in Russia in 1917: “Like Hitler, Lenin and other charismatic demagogues before him (ideological enemies of the US), Osama bin Laden offers and alluring explanation: It is the fault of Jews, of the international capitalist system, and of the United States and the globalizing order it is imposing” (Diamond, 2002: 2). As the War on Terror developed, some academics went as far as to see its development a representation of a new Cold War, between post-Yeltsin Russia and the US-led ‘West’. Russia was blamed for its involvement in Afghanistan which resulted in formation of Al Qaeda, and the ‘West’, primarily the US, was blamed for providing the conditions necessary for terrorism to flourish through its intervention in Iraq and desire to form and maintain a form of imperialistic hegemony. In this case, terrorism, even though not under control of any of the sides, can be seen to function as a source of continuing competition and friction between the US and post-soviet Russia. (Hutchings and Miazhevich, 2009: 2). The ‘us versus them’, shows that during the Cold War and after it with the War on Terror, there is a continuity of an ideological confrontation based on competing ideas. Some writers (revisionist historians such Chomsky, Gaddis, Stokes, J. and G. Kolko), took that further, to argue that behind the ideological confrontations which were, and still are so obvious, is hidden the true purpose of the perpetuating conflict of the US with the rest of the ‘non-Western’ world. They see the confrontation as being in place to justify broader geoeconomic interests of US capital. They argue that all along it was “not the containment of communism, but rather more directly the extension and expansion of American capitalism, according to its new economic power and needs” (Kolko J., and G., 1972: 23). Therefore, we can see the Cold War as structural feature of a much longer period of exploitative relations between advanced capitalist economies and less developed, poorer nations. In order for the US economy to progress after the end of the Cold War confrontation between USSR and US and not stagnate, it had to find another front for its military-industrial complex which generated significant revenue and economic growth for the US. Massive military spending was once again justified when the War on Terror was brought to the table. Between the Cold War and the War on Terror there was a confrontation with Latin American countries which symbolized the continuity of economic interests as guiding foreign policy of the US. Latin America, being rich in natural resources, saw great amounts of US influence which ensured control over the area, preventing egalitarian socioeconomic reform that could potentially threaten US interests (Stokes, 2003). Us involvement in regional governments can be seen with the case of Colombia in the context of the Drug War in 2000 (Stokes, 2003: 577). Arguably we can see that ideology was not the only common theme present in the Cold War and the War on Terror, but there was also a geoeconomic rationale that was guiding US foreign policy from within in both wars. The US was not only interested in promoting democracy, but also in constructing a capitalist world order conductive to its interests (Chomsky, 1997). War on Terror also poses some new challenges to US Foreign Policy, and it is a weakness to discuss it simply from the premise of ideological confrontation and structural, geoeconomic standpoint without giving the necessary attention to its unique nature. Indeed, some scholars do not find the link between US foreign policy during the Cold War and War on Terror convincing. The War on Terror can also be seen resulting from a completely new development in social conditions connected with globalization due to a bridge between Industrial and Information Age. Therefore the war is no longer about ideas or the economy, but against competing global structures symbolized within terrorism. Al Qaeda has become a brand resembling the corruption of Western ideas. Modern Western society now has terrorist networks within its borders with many young terrorists born within its countries fighting against it through symbols of Islam. This is, perhaps, a very important distinction between the Cold War, which was fought between two distinctive camps, and the War on Terror. US foreign policy makers understand this, as globalization and its impacts are discussed within National Security Strategy (Smart, 2005: 3). What is important however is that the American policy-makers still fail to understand the fact that terrorist groups are often not acting as a single organization within a centralized or decentralized structure, they act independently from each other. In Hardt and Negris Empire (2000), the multitude (or people of the modern proletariat) struggle against capitalism independently yet, at the same time, as a group. They do not communicate or organize, but pursue own small goals against the capitalist ‘empire’ system which add on to a greater picture and together represent a greater struggle. What is profoundly different about the War on Terror from the Cold War is that it pioneered this very same principle within terrorism: of many independent actors forming a greater struggle against a system (in this case the Western civilization) through their independent and autonomous actions. Similarities can, without doubt, be seen in US foreign policy during the Cold War and the War on Terror. However these similarities are present even between the two wars, suggesting a pattern for US approach to foreign policy. Ideological, civilizational struggle, going as far as to claim it is still against Russia and America, can be used to describe the stance of US foreign policy in both conflicts just as well as structural economic and internal factors. However, reducing to these two points does not allow us to explain why the US has seen relatively low success in its fight against terrorism. It is a failure to identify the War on Terror in the same way the Cold War has been identified, since the first is fought on a new, rather obscure battleground that we do not yet fully understand against a highly decentralized enemy which is not embodied in any physical representative and works from within modern liberal society, against it. No matter how many similarities there are between the Cold War and the War on Terror, the US cannot fall into a trap of dealing with Terror the same way as it dealt with Communism as this is likely to never remove it, if not make it an even more significant threat. Bibliography: Bacevich, A. (2011), ‘Secretary of Self-Defence‘, Financial Times, 13 February. Chomsky, N. (1997), “The Political-Economic Order”. In: World Orders, Old and New. Pluto Press: London. Diamond, L. (2002), “Winning the New Cold War on Terrorism: The Democratic-Governance Imperative”, Institute for Global Democracy, Policy Paper No. 1. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000), Empire. Harvard University Press: USA. The White House (2002), The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Hutchings, S. and Miazhevich, G. (2009), “The Polonium trail to Islam: Litvinenko, Liminality, and Television’s (Cold) War on Terror”, Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol. 2 (2). University of Manchester: UK. Kolko, J. and G. (1972), The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945–1954. Harper and Row: New York. Malley, R. and Harling P. (2010), “Beyond Moderates and Militants: How Obama Can Chart a New Course in the Middle East”, Foreign affairs, September/October. Smart, C. (2005), “The Global War on Terror: Mistaking Ideology as the Center of Gravity”, Center for Strategic Leadership (CSL), Vol. 8 (5). Stokes, D. (2003), “Why the end of the Cold War doesn’t matter: the US war of terror in Colombia”, Review of International Studies, vol. 29, pp. 569-585. The White House (2002), The National Security Strategy of the United States Of America. Tirman, J. (2006), “The War on Terror and the Cold War: They’re Not the Same”, The Audit of Conventional Wisdom, vol. 6 (6). Center for International Studies, MIT: MA. Toaldo, M. (2012), “The War on Terror and Its Cold War Burdens: An Assessment of the Reagan Legacy”, Wednesday Panel Sessions, June 20th, British International Studies Association. Vrooman, S. (2004), Homeland Security Strategy from the Cold War into the Global War on Terrorism: An Analysis of Deterrence, Forward Presence, and Homeland Defense. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

King’s ‘The letter from Birmingham Jail’ Essay

‘The letter from Birmingham Jail’ was written by king junior during his incarceration in the jail of Birmingham. This showed that despite the fact that he was lonely in the prison, his resolve to fight for the freedom of the black people was still strong. He says that he was in Birmingham because there was injustice. By saying this, he means that regardless of the discrimination and racial prejudices that prevailed, he was prepared to fight for the freedom of the blacks. His letter was a response to another letter written by the clergy complaining about the demonstrations that were agitating for the freedom of the blacks. King’s letter has the capacity to evoke patriotic feelings among the readers. He agrees that there are many states in the US but the cohesiveness of the nation as a single unit is vital. The constraint in the letter is that racism does not play any part in a nation that is united and one that focuses on progression. Racial prejudices and discrimination have the impact of damaging the structure and foundation associated with the greatness of the US. He says that the oppressors do not give freedom voluntarily unless the oppressed fight for it. With reference to history, people in authority find it difficult to give up their positions and in most cases, they are corrupted by the power they yield. This leads to dictatorship that limits the freedom of people greatly. King’s main issue in his letter is racial discrimination and the injustices that the black people are exposed to. He is concerned about the interrelatedness of all communities because according to him, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. As a result, he is fighting for the emancipation of the black population and other colored people in the United States. He claims that since the clergy is not willing to listen to them and give them their rights, they have to show the importance of the matter by holding non-violent demonstrations. He says that there are just and unjust laws and tries to distinguish between the two. He does this in a bid to ensure that there are no laws that perpetuate racial discrimination. With regard to the letter from the clergy, the main issue is the demonstrations being held by the oppressed who support King. They claim that the activities being spearheaded by king are untimely and unwise. In their letter, they strongly argue against the demonstrations taking place. Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More They say that the habit of holding demonstrations is not the right way to address the issues the blacks want to be addressed. According to them, the action taken by king and his associates is untimely. This is basically because they have not given the new administration of the city enough time to act. Instead, they have resorted to extreme actions. Although the demonstrations are non-violent, the clergy is of the view that they will eventually precipitate violence hence they should be stopped. The claim by the clergy that the demonstrations will trigger violence although they are peaceful is a fallacy. According to them, the end result of the demonstrations will be violence. King uses rebuttal to convince them that non-violent demonstrations cannot lead to violence. He tells them that this is not a logical assertion and uses analogies. For instance, he says that it is similar to condemning a person who has been robbed because the fact that he had money caused the robbery. In King’s letter, the support comes from the associates and the oppressed people who feel that they should not continue to live in oppression. After so many years of suffering, the black people have come out in support of king by saying that they must be granted their freedom. The oppressor does not give freedom willingly unless it is demanded by the oppressed. The warrant in the letter is that the teachings of Christ manifest themselves slowly. King uses biblical allusions as a form of backing in his letter. He refers to biblical characters that were determined to leave their home villages in order to liberate their people. He likens himself to them and says that he will leave his hometown to ensure that all people are free. The letter from the clergy has its support in the argument that the actions of King and his associates are wrong and should not take place. They support their argument by saying that the actions are untimely and unwise because the new administration should have been given some time to take action. There warrants and backing is based on the law. They use the law to shield themselves and prevent the demonstrations from taking place. According to them, the law prohibits such demonstrations hence they are able to take action against demonstrators on its basis. One unethical quality that is evident in the letter by the clergy is that it tries to silence the demonstrators not because there is a good reason to do it, but simply because there is racial discrimination. The act of preventing them from demonstrating is aimed at ensuring that they never get their rights. It is unethical for human beings to deny their fellow human beings their rights. We will write a custom Essay on King’s ‘The letter from Birmingham Jail’ specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The second unethical issue in the letter written by the clergy is that it is morally wrong for the church to be an instrument of oppression. On the contrary, churches are expected to be on the forefront in fighting for the rights of all people and ensuring that justice prevails everywhere. Their act of trying to oppress people is therefore unethical. In kings’ letter, one of the unethical issues is his constant blame on the church. He argues that he was raised in the church and he is still a minister of the gospel. It is unethical that he has identified many flaws in the church yet he has been part of the church and has never taken any action to correct the ills that are prevalent in the same church. The second unethical issue that is evident in the letter is that King compares himself with biblical characters. Although he is very determined to fight for his cause, he might not be able to do what the biblical characters did or march their achievements. It is factual that there is injustice which emanates from racial discrimination and that is why King is in jail. Since the clergy does not want to listen to the issues of the blacks and give them their rights, the only option is to fight for their freedom. King’s letter is effective because it highlights the concerns of the black people and points out where the clergy has gone wrong. It is more effective than the one written by the clergy in that it gives facts and highlights the things that the clergy should have considered before raising there issues. While King’s letter is elaborate, the one written by the clergy is sketchy and does not give convincing reasons for its arguments.

HIST 115 UMGC Economic Impact of the Black Death Annotated Bibliography

HIST 115 UMGC Economic Impact of the Black Death Annotated Bibliography.

For help with this you should review this source from the UMGC Writing Center: https://www.umgc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/writing-center/writing-resources/evaluating-sources.cfm.
Select a topic that will form the basis for your Annotated Bibliography and Annotated Webliography (your Annotated Webliography is due in Week 7). You should choose some topic that deals with some aspect of world history to 1500. This covers a broad area so you can use your imagination. For example, you could cover Egyptian Agriculture, medieval weaponry, or Roman aqueducts to name a few. If you are unsure whether your topic is acceptable, you should run it by your instructor for approval.  
Provide a complete citation for the site, including the URL and your date of access. Note that the required citation style is Chicago Manual of Style. For an example of what elements to include in your citation, go to Course Content and review the resources in the Chicago Style module. In the Sample Citations section, look under Online Journal Articles and note that you need to provide the name of the database you found the article in and your date of access. Submit your paper in MS Word or docx format.  
Analytical Annotated Bibliography Components:
1. Begin each annotated bibliography entry by identifying the source in correct Chicago Manual of Style documentation.
2. A brief description of the author’s topic, thesis, and methodology. In other words, in what academic discipline does the work fall in (history, literature, social science, women’s studies, cultural studies, etc.)? What kind of evidence does the author draw upon?
3. A concise outline of the main points in the text.
4. A statement about the author’s goals and his/her intended audience. Are there any clear biases?
5. MOST IMPORTANTLY–Your critical evaluation of the text’s usefulness for the investigation of your topic. What are the strengths of the source? What are the deficiencies or limitations of the source?
6. Did the article help you to further understand the topic? If so, explain how. If not, explain what information might have been helpful.
7. Explain how each of your sources compares to the others. Are there any general trends you see in your selected books and articles?
There are numerous websites that will show you how to construct an annotated bibliography. UMGC also has a guide to writing an annotated bibliography (requires Flash Player to view the video) https://sites.umgc.edu/library/libhow/bibliography_tutorial.cfm

HIST 115 UMGC Economic Impact of the Black Death Annotated Bibliography