Get help from the best in academic writing.

Journal CORRECTIONS (Journal’s are complete, just need corrections)

Journal CORRECTIONS (Journal’s are complete, just need corrections).

Required Journal Entry 7: Description and Narration Prewriting
Choose a photograph that depicts an important event in your life.
Describe: 1. In your journal, make a list of everything you see in the photo. Work from left to right and
from the background to the foreground. 2. List two specific, concrete details for each sense that describes your experience of the event
as follows: • Sight
• Sound
• Smell
• Taste
• Touch Compare:
Write one fresh, creative comparison (one simile or metaphor) for one of your details . Narrate:
Sketch out the narrative details of your picture.
1. Scene—Where did the event take place?
2. Key actions—What events led up to the one depicted? Did anything significant happen
3. Key participants—Who is depicted in your photo?
4. Key lines of dialogue—What was being said at the time? By whom?
5. Feelings—What were you feeling at the time the photo was taken?Required Journal Entry 8: Description and Narration
Write: Using the details you collected in Journal Entry 7, write the story to accompany the
photo. Be sure that your story has a clear beginning, middle, and end, and that you use your dialogue and descriptive elements effectively to convey your feelings to your reader. (3 paragraphs,
6 sentences)
Reflect: Does your photo tell an audience everything they would need to know about this event?
What does your story provide that your picture can’t? Is the saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words” true? (Length open)Required Journal Entry 9: Comparison and Contrast Brainstorm: Make a list of all the things you write each day such as texts, status updates,
tweets, emails, reports, essays, and so on. Include all the people you write to or for such as
friends, family, supervisors, instructors, clients, and so on. Organize: Rearrange the items into two groups that represent formal writing and informal writing
and the audiences who receive each. Write: Compare and contrast the style of writing you use when you write to friends and family
with the style you use when you write to your coworkers, supervisors, or instructors. How does
your interaction with your audience change? Describe the differences in your tone and your
spelling, grammar, and punctuation. (2 paragraphs, 6 sentences)Required Journal Entry 10: Definition Read the definition of plagiarism, including deliberate and accidental
plagiarism, on page 150 in The Little, Brown Essential Handbook. Define: Prior to reading the definition in the textbook, what did you
believe plagiarism meant? Explain where your definition matched or
fell short of the textbook’s definition. (1 paragraph, 6 sentences)
Reflect: How does this knowledge change the way you approach
your coursework? (1 paragraph, 6 sentences)Required Journal Entry 11: Cause and Effect
Brainstorm: List the causes that made you decide to return to school or list the causes that
prompted you to choose online education. Next, add the short term effects your decision has had
on your life in the present. Finally, include the long-term effects you hope your decision will have
on your future. Organize: Review the graphic organizers from pages 481–482 in your Successful College Writing
textbook. Choose the organizer that you think would best present the information you brainstormed to an audience of your fellow Penn Foster classmates and arrange your content using
that format. Remember to include a thesis statement in your graphic organizer. (Length open)Required Journal Entry 12: Evaluation Review the patterns of development that you’ve learned and used in your essays and journal
entries in this unit. Explain how each of these patterns of development or organizational methods
will be useful to you in your upcoming courses and your future career. (Length open)
Journal CORRECTIONS (Journal’s are complete, just need corrections)

Civil Litigation Pre-Trial and Trial Motions.

Your supervising attorney is preparing for a trial in Illinois. The Plaintiff in this case, Billy Bob, began his employment with Widget World Co., the Defendant, on January 2, 1990. Mr. Bob worked as a truck driver for Widget World, initially in its Blackacre terminal, and then in its Whiteacre terminal. Widget World is a widget company that utilizes hazardous materials on a daily basis. On November 11, 20015, Mr. Bob was terminated.In September of 2015, Mr. Bob and several other Widget World employees were sent to Whiteacre to refurbish a floor in the plant with epoxy product. There is a question as to whether Mr. Bob followed instructions in refurbishing the floor in the plant.Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Mr. Bob suffered from a workplace injury, and reported it to the company. Mr. Bob has had on-going rheumatoid arthritis, and in October of 2015, he stepped off the back end of a trailer and jarred himself when he hit the ground. A few weeks later he felt such a sharp pain from his injury that he could hardly walk. His pain was so intense that he was taken to the local emergency room and received several painkiller injections. He informed the company that he was going to file a worker’s compensation claim pertaining to that injury. When Mr. Bob informed Mr. Widgetall, Widget World’s Safety Director, about his intention, the conversation between the two became heated.At a meeting on November 11, 2015, Mr. Bob reiterated his intention to file a worker’s compensation claim for his injury. Mr. Mitchell, the safety director for Roeder, then produced a termination letter to Mr. Bob, alleging insubordination and terminated Bob’s employment. The next day, Mr. Bob filed a workers’ compensation claim.Mr. Bob initiated this case, alleging that he was terminated in relation for his intent to file a workers’ compensation claim, in violation of Whiteacre law. Widget World has filed a counterclaim against Mr. Bob, alleging defamation. The trial is set to commence in two weeks, and motions in limine are required to be filed this week. Suzy Cue is your supervising attorney at Alpha & Beta LLC, 432 Brown Ct, Whiteacre. She would like you to prepare a motion in limine to keep any mention of the following evidence out of court:Any mention of Billy’s psychological counseling, which he has been receiving for the last 5 yearsAny mention of Billy’s previous conviction for possession of marijuanaBilly’s request for $50,000 in exchange for his dismissal of the caseUsing this sample template attached provided by Suzy, as well as your own research, draft a motionin limine using the laws of the State of Illinois, USA. Please site state law sources.
Civil Litigation Pre-Trial and Trial Motions

How geograms work and why there useful.

A Genogram is a resourceful clinical tool that is being used by family therapists and medical professions as an assessment tool to assist in identifying a patient’s important family information (Shellenberger, et al, 2007, 368). Adding a cultural layer to the genogram has assisted many medical physicians in understanding the reasons why some patients don’t understand the medical diganosis and refuse medical treatment (372). The genogram that includes biological history and cultural history has been found to be a resourceful instrument that is becoming part of the client’s medical records (368). The genogram can also be used to focus attention on the biopsychosocial context of the patient’s health and wellness concerns (368). To start a genogram, one begins with basic answers to questions taken in during the intake session at the patient’s first visit to the family physician or family therapist. The therapist or practitioner would include important events, such as deaths, marriages, and divorces all deserve careful study (Nichols, 2010, 125). It would also include answers relating to the patient’s nuclear family such as who lives in the household (name, age, gender, occupation, and education), where the other members live, and what health related changes or problems have the family faced most recently (Shellenberger, et al, p. 369). Other significant information included in the genogram would be concerns regarding pregnancies, illnesses, hospitalizations, deaths, and even psychiatric problems such as depression, anxieties, and phobias (Nichols, 2010, 125). In addition, dates and relationships provide the framework to explore emotional boundaries, triangles, fusion and cutoffs between family members, and critical conflicts that occur among family members (125). The answers to these questions and questions relating to biological heredity will indicate whether there are common themes that show up through generations which would indicate possible cause to current medical or psychological concerns (125). Common themes like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension are just a few that tends to be hereditary. Genograms can find a link in a family history that indicate psychosocial problems (i.e. domestic violence, substance abuse, relationship difficulties) as well as cultural beliefs, values, attitudes and health practices (Shellenberger, et al, 369-370). After the patient assessment is complete the information can be transformed into an organizational family tree type drawing with symbols used to identify gender. For example, men are notated by squares and women by circles, with ages inputted inside the frame (Nichols, 2010, p. 124). Horizontal lines indicate marriages, with the date of marriage written on the line and vertical lines connect parents and children (124). These are just a few basic symbols to get the genogram started. There are many uses of genograms in family therapy that have been found to be extremely successful. Therapists have reported that using the genogram as a tool for family members to express emotions by telling “facts” and not opinions can prevent unnecessary negative comments and frustration. The genogram can also be used to initiate a cooling down period after a heated family battle and can be a way that a therapist can connect with their client in order to lay the foundation for positive relationship (Schilson, Braun, and Hudson, 1993, 201). It has found to be a means through which a therapist can learn key words and ideas for later use when developing goals and direction with their clients. When a therapist looks into each family member’s personal concerns, values, wishes and fears they are better able to connect to the core issues causing conflict. The genogram can capture information about the family structure, major life events, repetitive illnesses and eventually the process can be therapeutic (201). These benefits all aim to assess, while it boosts patient morale by highlighting individual and family coping strengths. The positive relationship that is established during the intake session supports the relationship between client and therapist by gaining the patient’s trust and connection with the health care staff (201-202). When genograms were used as a training tool in preparing therapists and physicians for working in their field they became more effective in developing the client-practitioner relationship. (Aten, Madson and Kruse, 2008, 111-112). Research on the effectiveness of genograms as a tool can teach family therapist and supervisors in training ways to assess their client’s family relationships and history but it also helps gain self awareness and self reflection during their internship (111-112). It has been shown that cultural issues can affect patients, families, and health provider’s perspective on the specific illness. It also discovered that cultural genograms were used to further develop training for postgraduate student and to develop their skill set in understanding cultural sensitivity which helped gain insight, sensitivity and awareness to cultural issues. This ongoing training influence the quality and outcome of the patient and family encounter (112). Trainees are able to explore their own ethnic and cultural heritages and draw personal genogram depicting these origins (115). Shellenberger, et al (2007), proved that when residents learn how to create their own individual cultural genogram enables them to understand their beliefs, values, attitudes and how general health practices differ from their own found the cultural genogram to be a continuous working document used throughout the sessions, collecting as much information on the intake interview and add to it on subsequent visits (380). Similar to the traditional genogram, the cultural genogram provides information about where the family members are from, their health beliefs and behaviors, the gender roles within the household as well as culture and health resources (368). They showed that the use of cultural genograms as teaching tools in medical practice proved to be beneficial when used in cultural sensitivity training. It proved to be a creative, practical tool to assist clinicians in understanding the history of the client (380). Aten, Madson and Kruse (2008) found that an introduction to family functioning and cultural competence resulted in a deeper positive response from students to learn a structure approach to identify cultural information for use in a clinical setting (114). Also indicated that when patient and provider do not share a common culture, communication can be challenging among the extend family. Without this type of understanding and knowledge of the patient’s past can lead to misunderstanding of a patient’s culture and family. It can lead to the patient’s feeling disrespected or uncomfortable or receiving care that is inconsistent with important cultural practices (Shellenberger, et al, 2007 p.371). Today the cultural diversity of the U.S. population, combined with the increasing cultural diversity of medicinal students and primary care residents, has created a critical need for approaches to cultural sensitivity training that are not tied to any single culture (380). By building on this understanding, providers can then develop management plans that are more consistent with the patient’s worldview and more likely to be followed. Although Schilson, Braun, and Hudson (1993) have discussed many benefits of using the genogram as an effective tool in the medical field, it has not been implemented in most practices due to the extensive time it takes to gather the information. The extensive family histories are found to be a time consuming task that some find impractical in a busy office practice (203). The family physicians who have successfully intergraded genograms into their practices acknowledge that the genogram does take more time to process and will increases the length of time during each visit; however they also claim that the extra time required is often spent building patient rapport (Shellenberger, et al, p.372). The rapport building provided useful family information that can be used to address a patient’s concerns during a particular office visits or at some future visit. As a result therapists were able to use reflective listening to contribute to the healing process of the patient (372). The more intense understanding of the past and present experiences and responses contributed to a more supporting and effective treatment strategies (372). In conclusion, this research indicates that the family therapy and medical practitioner have found many useful ways of assessing families in which the families themselves can participate. The purpose of this research was to examine the implications of the benefits of the genogram. The assessment process and procedures described here depend upon mutual engagement and participation of both the therapist and client. The family therapy has been incorporated into several family-medicine training programs and proven to be successful. The other alternatives for physicians who prefer not to use the genogram often refer to the family therapist to continue to aid the physician by acting as a referral source for patients. It is likely that further qualitative and quantitative research will clarify how the two professionals can work together most efficiently to benefit the client. Per Shellenberger, et al, (2007), clearly, as health care evolves into total life care, the family physician/family therapist association prom-ises to be a vital union, beneficial to care providers and the patients and clients they serve (380).

Cloud Computing

programming assignment help Cloud Computing. I need help with a Computer Science question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

Submit your Portfolio Project Outline and References
Week 4 deliverables:
An APA formatted document that contains:
1. A 3 page outline addressing all required topics with subtopics. There must be a paragraph describing each topic and a 2-3 sentence description under each subtopic topic.
2. A reference list with at least five scholarly sources listed on the reference page. These must be scholarly and within the last 5 years.

Topics of cloud computing:
1. Virtualization
2. Cloud enabling technology
3. Securing the cloud
4. Fundamental Cloud Security
Cloud Computing

Foundationalism And Its Scepticisms Philosophy Essay

In philosophy, there are many ways in which beliefs can be justified, and thus classified as knowledge. All are met with scepticism, which are arguments against the strength of these methods. These scepticisms, if not properly addressed, can make certain justifications seem inadequate, and therefore call into question the classification of beliefs as knowledge. One such method of inadequate justification is known as foundationalism, which has not properly dealt with the scepticisms it faces. Foundationalism uses the idea that all knowledge is based on what are known as self-evident first principles or basic beliefs. These principles are true, sufficient to support other truths, and clear and distinct. They are non-inferential (are not in relation to anything else) and are justified non-inferentially (not justified by anything else, or self-justified). They form the basis for all knowledge and all non-basic beliefs are inferred from them (Week 2, Reading 3, 99). Foundational justification works similar to a chain, where justification is non-reciprocal (belief A can either justify belief B or be justified by belief B, but not both). The Regress Problem is one of the major scepticisms of foundationalism. The problem is as follows: when justifying knowledge, the requirement for justification is infinite, and so there is an unending requirement for justification (Week 2, Reading 3, 105). This means that justification would be impossible to achieve, because whenever a justification is made a new question or requirement immediately surfaces – resulting in an infinite regress or the infinite necessity to justify beliefs. Foundationalists believe that they have a solution to this problem. They state, that if a belief (A) is justified by another belief (B), wherein the other belief (B) is foundational or non-inferential (therefore is a basic belief), no further justification is required (Week 2, Reading 3, 107). This means that every justified belief is either a basic belief itself, or its chain of justification eventually ends with a basic belief. This method, in theory, terminates the infinite regress of justification, and so effectively stops the Regress Problem. It relies on the fact that the regress is linear (similar to a chain, where a belief A is connected to a belief B, which is connected to a belief C, and so on) and that there is a final, basic belief that is without a doubt self-justified. All beliefs receive justification in a linear fashion, until they reach a final, properly basic belief. The major criticism with this response to the Regress Problem is that it declares a belief to be justified in an inadequate way. The criticism uses the Epistemic Ascent Argument, which states the following: if an empirical belief (C) is properly basic, then it does not need any further justification. It does not need further justification because it is very likely to be true, and beliefs that are very likely to be true do not need to be justified (Week 2, Reading 3, 108). The problem with this argument is that for belief (C) to be basic, it must depend on at least one other empirical belief (which is the belief that highly true beliefs do not need further justification). Since it requires another belief, it is in fact a non-basic belief. This argument is powerful, as it shows that the response foundationalism gives to one of its major scepticisms contradicts the foundationalist definition of a basic belief. It also questions the idea of properly empirical beliefs, which brings forth the question of whether or not foundationalism can truly justify beliefs regarding the external world. This shows that foundationalism does not address the Regress Problem properly and can be considered somewhat inadequate – as it cannot counter one of its most important scepticisms. A second scepticism, built from the Epistemic Ascent Argument, attempts to prove that there are, in fact, no empirical beliefs that can be properly basic. This scepticism states that in foundationalism, basic empirical beliefs must be both epistemically justified and must be justified so that they do not require justification from any other empirical beliefs. For these beliefs to be epistemically justified, they require a reason to be considered true – such as the fact that they are highly likely. In turn, the individual doing the justifying must be in possession of that reason. The only way for that individual to be in possession of the reason is to believe that the reason is true, with premises justifying it. The problem with this is that the premises supporting this empirical belief cannot be entirely a priori, and so at least one premise must be empirical. In other words, a basic empirical belief must be justified by another empirical belief, which contradicts the definition of a proper basic belief altogether (Week 2, Reading 3, 108). Much like the argument against the foundationalist response to the Regress Problem, this scepticism shows that properly empiric basic beliefs are not possible. This lack of properly empirical basic beliefs makes it impossible for foundationalism to justify beliefs regarding the external world, and as such makes it an inadequate method with which to justify knowledge. There are two responses foundationalism gives in counter: the externalist response and the internalist response. The externalist response rejects the idea that the individual must be in possession of the reasoning behind why a basic belief is basic. Externalists argue that as long as the belief is generated in a reliable way, the individual who holds that belief does not need to explain why they hold it (Week 2, Reading 3, 109). The externalist response itself can be seen as inadequate, as it does not explain a reliable process for forming a basic belief, or specify the necessary conditions for a reliable process to occur. For this reason it is quite vague, and does not effectively counter the criticism above. The internalist response, on the other hand, agrees that the individual doing the justifying must have possession of the correct reasoning behind the justification to a reasonable extent. However, they argue that empirically basic beliefs are self-evident, and so require no premises to justify (Week 2, Reading 3, 110). This response, too, can be seen as inadequate – as the idea of self-evident knowledge can be seen as incorrect. The response does not make the distinction between sense perceptions and basic empirical knowledge, and so does not take into account the fact that sense perception, although necessary to gain empirical knowledge, is not knowledge itself. For this reason, the internalist response, as well, does not affectively counter the criticism. As foundationalists cannot effectively counter this anti-foundationalist argument, the scepticism effectively proves that foundationalism is an inadequate way to justify knowledge, because it cannot provide any justified knowledge of the external world since empirical basic beliefs are impossible. There are also two main categories of foundationalism, which in turn have their own scepticisms. The first category is classical foundationalism. This also referred to as strong foundationalism, since it demands that all basic knowledge must be infallible (incapable of failure or any kind of error), incorrigible (true simply by virtue of being), and self-evident (Week 2, Reading 3, 101). In this version of foundationalism, empirical beliefs can be basic if indubitable or self-evident to the senses (Week 2, Reading 3, 103). The most prominent critic of classical foundationalism focuses on its definition of basic beliefs. The requirements of infallibility, self-evidence, and incorrigibleness mean that there is very little knowledge available that can be considered properly basic (Week 2, Reading 3, 107). For this reason, there are very few beliefs by which other beliefs can be properly justified. These requirements do not produce a practical foundation for knowledge, and do not yield a substantial amount of inferred knowledge or justified belief. In reality, these requirements result in scepticisms towards the external world, perceptions, memory beliefs, other minds, etc. For these reasons, it can be seen that classical foundationalism is not an adequate method with which knowledge can be justified, as it actually produces more scepticism than it counters. The second category is contemporary foundationalism. This moderate foundationalism removes the requirement that all basic truths be infallible, and has allowed the idea that proper basicality is determined by the individual (i.e. whether or not a truth is basic is based on your own personal point of view). In this version of foundationalism, any basic beliefs can be proven false, and there are only some self-evident and incorrigible truths (such as simple mathematics, truths of logic, and the cogita: “I think, therefore I am”) (Week 2, Reading 3, 104). This version of foundationalism does not allow empirical beliefs to be considered self-evident and incorrigible, as they are susceptible to too much possible doubt (Week 2, Reading 3, 105). The most prominent critic of contemporary foundationalism focuses on the justification resulting from the method. As this form of foundationalism compromises the strength of the basic knowledge (as it no longer has to be infallible, self-evident, and incorrigible), it can be said that the resulting justification is no longer as definite or sturdy as it should be (Week 2, Reading 3, 107). As the basic beliefs are now subject to doubt, the non-basic beliefs justified by them are therefore also subject to doubt, resulting in weak beliefs. The few self-evident and incorrigible truths (such as mathematics) that could be considered adequate enough do not provide a large enough base with which beliefs can be based. Furthermore, the fact that empirical beliefs are not self-evident and incorrigible means that there cannot possibly be any infallible knowledge of the external world. For these reasons, contemporary foundationalism is also not an adequate method of justification, as it results in either weak justifications, or a limited amount of strong justifications. There are several scepticisms that argue against foundationalism, and that weaken its ability to justify knowledge properly. These scepticisms include the Regress Problem, the inability to justify knowledge of the external world, and arguments against both classical and contemporary foundationalism. Unfortunately, foundationalism does not affectively counter these scepticisms, and so it is an inadequate method with which knowledge can or should be justified.

History of Film Industry Essay

History of Film Industry Essay.

Week 5PERFORMANCEHow does film studies deal with acting? Movie reviewers tell us that certain performances are good while others are terrible. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gives awards every year in tribute to the quality of individual performances. And we all come away from the movies we see with opinions of whether the stars have done a good job creating their characters or not. But it should be clear by now that as an academic discipline, film studies is less interested in issuing judgments than in analyzing aspects and components of meaning, as we shall seeGenreGenre: a type or category of film—such as the western, the horror film, the comedy, or the musical—that has its own recognizable conventions and character types.To return to a point raised while defining the term convention, we sometimes assume that art is about pure creativity—that great films (or novels, or paintings, or musical works) are a matter of complete originality. But genres belie that idea. Genres rely on repetition and variation rather than uniqueness—familiar, recognizable conventions rather than raw, pure inventions.The assignments are designed to match the material of each week. I am happy to have you complete the assignment in a fashion that accords with your interests, as long as you connect it to the material of the course
History of Film Industry Essay

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service