Get help from the best in academic writing.

Need help with Business Law Questions!!

Need help with Business Law Questions!!.

A plaintiff in a sexual harassment case will not prevail if the employer can prove that it exercised reasonable care in trying to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment behavior and that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective procedures made available to the plaintiff.Question 15 options:TrueFalse
Need help with Business Law Questions!!

Report About Personal Perception Paper.

Policymaking occurs in organizations and governments. How policies are made, approved and enforced can vary depending on the entity and those making the decisions. It is important to understand how policy-making works, and in this assignment you share what you have learned and provide examples.Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper, describing your personal perception of policymaking in criminal justice. Identify any assumptions on which your perceptions are based. Be sure to answer the following questions:How would you describe policy-making?How would you describe policy analysis?What role does research play in criminal justice policy making?How do your perceptions of criminal justice policy making and policy analysis compare to the definitions in the readings?What are 2 to 3 examples of criminal justice policies? Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Report About Personal Perception Paper

Is Clausewitz Relevant To Modern Warfare Politics Essay. The students of international relations and strategic studies seek from Clausewitz not a theory of politics but an analysis of war. For some 150 years those who have sought to understand war have turned to Clausewitz- to explain the logic behind wars or to condemn its applicability to modern warfare. Carl Von Clausewitz’s concern with war was both practical and theoretical. A life-long soldier, he first put on Prussian uniform in 1792 at the age of twelve and saw action against France in the following year. Consequently, he took part in the campaigns against Napoleon, rose to the rank of Major General and was still soldiering when he died in 1831. Though ambitious in his military career and dissatisfied with his achievement, Clausewitz’s passionate interest in war also took an intellectual form. From his early twenties he studied and wrote about war, leaving for publication after his death seven volumes of military history and the eight books which constitute On War [1] . Clausewitz’s masterpiece of warfare, On War, has been much scrutinized [2] . Many critics have pointed to Clausewitz’s preoccupation with armies and the control of territory- ‘albeit the principal instruments and stakes of warfare in continental Europe in his time- and to his neglect of sea-power and the related questions of colonies, trade and empire’ [3] . Some have criticized Clausewitz’s lack of concern for logistics, his focus on combat at the expense of preparations for war [4] . Others have pointed out that perhaps unavoidably, he has little to say about the impact of technology on war, thereby raising the question of whether his analysis remains relevant to modern warfare [5] . Criticisms has also been directed at the unclear, even inconsistent ideas that run through On War, a defect which Clausewitz acknowledged in a note written in 1827 dealing with his plans for revision of the work. More fundamentally, Clausewitzian scholars have examined the strengths and weakness of his epistemology: his concept of ‘absolute war’, his approach to historical relativism, his ideas on the relationship between theory and praxis and his attempt to develop ‘critical analysis’ for ‘the application of theoretical truths to actual events’ [6] . However, most proponents of Clausewitz are agreed that one of his greatest contributions, if not the greatest, lies in the attention paid to the idea that war must be understood in its political context. This idea was not new, in simplistic form it was something of a commonplace by the end of the eighteenth century, but Clausewitz developed and expanded it. He was, Paret argues, the first theorist of war to make politics an essential part of his analysis [7] . For Clausewitz war is ‘only a branch of political activity, an activity which is in no sense autonomous’ [8] . War could be understood only in its political context and it is therefore in politics that the origins of war are to be found. Politics in Clausewitz’s words “is the womb in which war develops, where its outlines already exist in their hidden rudimentary form, like the characteristics of living creatures in their embryos” [9] . After Clausewitz it would be always difficult to think of war as something apart from politics. This is not the place to pursue Clausewitz’s analysis of war. In fact, this essay intends to critically analyze Clausewitz’s relevance for understanding contemporary patterns and dynamics of warfare. By the end of the Cold War, onwards, the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system, therefore altering the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have repudiated traditional theories of strategic thought. Calusewitzian theory, in particular has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. As Paul Hirst notes, ‘we are living in a period when the prevailing political and economic structures are widely perceived not merely to be changing but subject to radical transformation’ [10] . In this ‘new’ era it is broadly accepted that the political and economic forces reshaping international relations are causing equally profound changes in the nature and conduct of war. Moreover, since the end of the Cold War, speculation about a future not set neatly by parameters of the East/West stand-off has resulted in varied interpretations of both present and future. Would it be radically different world to that which passed? What would replace the Cold War rivalry? What would define international relations (IR) as it entered a new millennium? Of course, in the immediate aftermath of the ‘West’s’ Cold War victory, Francis Fukuyama, with his famous book, The end of History, heralded the triumph of capitalism over communism as confirmation that the world has entered an age free from antagonisms of ideology and that now ‘the Western Liberalism held the trump card as the global cure to war, inequality and domestic insecurity’ [11] . The western freedom and democratic values underpin the notion that ‘globalization’ of world politics driven by economic and liberal principles, has become one of the main features of contemporary international politics. It is widely accepted that these changes are also affecting the nature of war. The argument that the state, hitherto, the central actor in international system- is in terminal decline, has stimulated claims that war in 21st century is undergoing profound change. It has even been argued that globalization forces, hereby economic interdependence and a rising intolerance to the horrors of conflict- resulting from a Revolution in Attitudes towards the Military (RAM) [12] , has produced an era in which war between the major states is obsolete [13] . With the split of Soviet Russia and the victory of the West, in the early 1990s, political commentators such as Michael Mandelbaum were claiming that the trend towards obsolescence had accelerated [14] . He even recommended that ‘the rising cost of war and the diminishing expectations of victory’s benefits, have transformed its status’ [15] . In short, major war was thought to be a thing of the past. Furthermore, when war takes place it has been argued that it will differ fundamentally from the rest of strategic history; it is even claimed that the nature of war itself is changing. For supporters of this view, war has ceased to be a political and rational undertaking. Consequently, the claim is made that new ways of comprehending war’s modern dynamics are required to cope with political, cultural and technological transformation [16] . Relevant to that, is the idea of ‘new war’, which has done most to undermine traditional ideas about the nature of war. Attacking the traditional position propounded by Clausewitz, that ‘war is the continuation of policy’, the new war idea focuses on changes in the international system enthused by globalization-mainly the ostensible decline of the state. As new war proponents believe Clausewitzian theory is conterminous with the state, they repudiate his work as a result. However, the debate between these competing ideas has been ongoing since early 1990s without definitive answer as to which offers the greatest success of understanding patterns and dynamics of modern warfare. This research essay will reevaluate the relevance of Clausewitz’s war methods and assess its viability in contemporary warfare. While the new war argument is diverse, its primary claim is that modern conflict differs from its historical antecedents in three major ways: a) structure; b) methods; and c) motives, each element interpenetrate the other [17] . Moreover, though what is now termed the new war thesis is in fact a collection of different ideas about war in the modern world, the notion of a new, emergent type of warfare has been primarily attributed to scholars and practitioners such as William S. Lind, Martin van Creveld and Mary Kaldor, among others [18] . Like fellow advocates, Lind argues that the wars in the future will be different from the past because, according to him, globalization process has declined the role of the state as the main actor. His argument focuses on his concept of fourth-generation warfare (4GW), which Lind claims is part of an historical development that has already produced first, second, and third generation war. Although attention is now focused on 4GW, it is only a step towards the fifth, sixth and seventh generations of warfare at some point in the future. This irregular mode of conflict is believed to be a return to the way war worked before the state monopolized violence [19] . Lind’s 4GW analysis starts from the Peace of Westphalia (1648), when the state monopolized mass violence. The First Generation of War (1648-1860) was one of line and column- battle was perceived to be orderly and there was an increasingly clear distinction between combatant and civilian [20] . The Second Generation of War addressed mass firepower first encountered in the Great War (1914-1918) by maintaining order despite the increased indirect destructiveness of artillery fire. Mass firepower inflicted huge damage on the enemy, followed by the advance of infantry [21] . Third Generation War was developed from 1916-18. Exemplified by the Blitzkrieg of the German Army in the opening campaigns of World War 2, third generation war is based on speed rather than attrition and firepower. The primary emphasis is to attack the enemy’s rear areas and ‘collapse him from the rear forward’. For advocates of this idea, despite the high tempo, technologically dominated ‘effects’ based warfare practiced by the richest modern armies, contemporary state/military structures encapsulate and practice third generation war. For many, this is precisely why victory in modern war appears so elusive. Colonel Thomas X. Hammes of the US Marine Corps explains: “Fourth generation warfare (4GW) uses all available networks- political, economic, social and military- to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency. Still rooted in the fundamental precept that superior political will, when properly employed, can defeat greater economic and military power, 4GW makes use of society’s networks to carry on its fight… Fourth generation wars are lengthy-measured in decades rather than months or years” [22] A new type of emergent warfare is also envisaged by Martin van Creveld, who claims that the state power is declining and as a result the traditional structures of International Relations are eroding. Van Creveld predicts that a breakdown of political legitimacy will transform war from a rational pursuit of states into irrational, unstructured activity-fought not by armies but by groups with varying motivations. In addition to that, he argues that war will lose its political purpose. Instead it will be driven by ‘a mixture of religious fanaticism, culture, ethnicity, or technology’ [23] . By claiming that the war has lost its political purpose, Van Creveld, offers a challenge to Clausewitzian model of warfare. Clausewitz argues that despite wars’ violent predicaments, it is bound by political objectives and that war should be fought for rational pursuit of political goals. As he mentions clearly: ‘the political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it and mans can never be considered in isolation from their purpose [24] . The idea that political objectivity encapsulates all aspects of warfare is thought to have been accumulated and presented in Clausewitz’s ‘Remarkable Trinity’. The concept of Clausewitzian Trinity continues to incite controversy. Indeed, the idea that the nature of military conflict has changed originated directly from the debate about the contemporary relevance of the Trinity in understanding the patterns and dynamics of modern warfare. Clausewitz wrote that: “War is more than a true chameleon that slightly adapts its characteristics to a given case. As a total phenomenon its dominant tendencies always make war a paradoxical trinity- composed of primordial violence, hatred and enmity which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason alone” [25] . He continues: “The first of these three aspects mainly concerns the people; the second the commander and his army; the third the government. The passions that are to be kindled in a war must already be inherent in the people; the scope which play of courage and talent will enjoy in the realm of probability and chance depends on the particular character of the army; but the political aims are the business of government alone” [26] . By associating the ‘Trinity’ to sections of society, many scholars have assumed that the concept is fundamentally linked to the state. Creveld’s argument that a new type of war is emerging rests with the fact that there has been a decline in the number of inter-state conflicts and that there has been a subsequent rise in the number of wars within states. For Creveld, the proliferation of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) in conflicts within states is evident that Clausewitzian Trinity concept no longer represents a coherent explanation why war is a rational instrument of the state. This is because with the end of the state and therefore the international system of states (in this case the decline of the state by globalization forces), only violent and non-Trinitarian, non-political war will remain [27] . Intertwined with changes in the structure of contemporary conflict is the argument that war’s distinctive character, of a confrontation between opposing armies, has been replaced. The argument runs, just as the structure of war has changed so too have the methods; modern wars rarely follow conventional norms and are thought to be of distinctive nature by their sheer brutality and lack of strategic rationality. The increasing use of irregular warfare by terrorist organizations and globally incremented civilians claims to loosen the historical bond between state and military, thus giving credibility to the claim that state war between recognizable belligerents is a thing of the past- ‘a post-Clausewitzian approach is therefore an immediate requirement’ [28] . As this trend develops traditional armies will become increasingly like their enemies in order to tackle the threat that this poses. According to Creveld, ‘armies will be replaced by police-like security forces on the one hand and bands of ruffians on the other’ [29] . Following the claims of both Lind’s and Creveld’s theses, war in the former Yugoslavia, Caucasus and throughout Africa seemed to substantiate their claims with much needed evidence. Mary Kaldor, the chief proponent of new war, has even claimed that ‘the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina has become the archetypal example, the paradigm of the new type of warfare’ [30] . These conflicts do appear to manifest irrational traits and they often seem to be guided by factors other than governmental policy. As such, it has become common for most commentators and theorists openly to envisage a world where ‘conventional armies cannot function properly against a new type of enemy. It is predicted that this trend will continuously develop and the feared result is an overspill of unorganized violence from the developing world. Kaldor, perhaps the best known of the new war advocates, explains the difference inherent in new wars: “In contrast to the vertically organized hierarchical units that were typical of ‘old wars’, the units that fight these wars include a disparate range of different types of groups such as paramilitary units, local warlords, criminal gangs, police forces, mercenary groups and also regular armies including breakaway units of regular armies. In organizational terms, they are highly decentralized and they operate through a mixture of confrontation and cooperation even when on opposing sides” [31] . Throughout the 1990s, wars in Balkans, Caucasus and Africa propelled the idea of Transformative change in International Relations. Advocated by Robert Kaplan’s provocative thesis The Coming Anarchy, it is argued that the global economic inequality, combined with stabilizing effects of failed states are the primary danger awaiting the modern world- especially when ‘factions’ resort to communal violence in order to restore ‘group’ security. For Kaplan, the implications necessitate analysis of, ‘the whole question of war’ [32] . Furthermore, he mirrors Creveld’s position; he too rejects the Clausewitzian argument that war is governed by politics. Like other ‘new war’ writers, Kaplan warns that a preponderance of ‘high-tech’ weapons is useless in a world where ‘conventional’ war is outmoded. He cautions, ‘something far more terrible awaits us’ [33] . War will not be characterized by the large-scale industrial confrontations of the twentieth century, or be subject to any notion of legality; there will be no rules of war as understood today. Rather, the primary target in new wars is the civilian population. If the present conflict in Iraq is any measure, attacking civilians has become the tactic of choice for the non-state actors operating there. According to the Brookings Institute’s ‘Iraq Index’, the figures for civilian deaths during conflict are even more telling. From March 2003 until June 2006, the index estimates the total number of civilian fatalities as a result of conflict at 151,000 [34] . Certainly, the recent experiences of the United States and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to suggest a trend towards difficult irregular warfare. These examples seem to compound the argument that future war will be asymmetrical, at least on one side [35] . Some commentators, have even suggested that using the term ‘war’ at all, gives it a credibility that belies its unorganized character [36] . After all, these ‘new internal wars’ do not manifest military objectives; at least, not ones we are used to seeing [37] . According to Kalevi Holsti: “War has become de-institutionalized in the sense of central control, rules, regulations, etiquette and armaments. Armies are rag-tag groups frequently made up of teenagers paid in drugs, or not paid at all. In the absence of authority and discipline, but quite in keeping with the interests of the warlords, ‘soldiers’ discover opportunities for private enterprises of their own” [38] . Rupert Smith, a retired top British general with direct experience of war in Balkans, Northern Ireland and the Middle East, goes even further, claiming that: “War no longer exists. Confrontation, conflict and combat undoubtedly exist all around the world- most noticeably, but not only, in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Palestinian Territories- and states still have armed forces which they use as symbols of power. None the less, war as cognitively known to most non-combatants, war as battle in a field between men and machinery, war as a massive deciding event in a dispute in international affairs: such war no longer exists” [39] . For new war advocates, globalization’s pervasive nature stimulates dissonance between those able to play a part in a globalized world, and those who are not. As Mark Duffield argues: ‘The changing competence of the nation-state is reflected in the shift from hierarchical patterns of government to the wider and more polyarchial networks, contracts and partnerships of governance’ [40] . It is an opinion championed by Kaldor, who claims the process of globalization is tearing up the previously stable state system- a system which for many has provided a starting point for understanding war and it role in international relations system [41] . Consequently, she too rejects the Clausewitzian Paradigm [42] . Like other ‘new war’ commentators, Kaldor believes the pervasive nature of globalization is the root cause of modern political instability and war. As globalization erodes the state system, there will be a parallel trend highlighting an increase in identity politics. Just as there has been a change in structure and methods so too are there changes in the motivations of modern war. With socially ostracized communities unable to express their political grievances, it is thought they will employ war as the most attractive expression of their local cultural/religious needs [43] . To grab power, this process is supported by political elites [44] . Several studies into the economies of new wars suggest that ‘greed’ plays a large role in contemporary civil conflict [45] . They also agree that the economic element found in new wars is directly linked to why the distinction between war and peace has become blurred [46] . For Mark Duffield, ‘war is no longer a Clausewitzian affair of state; it is a problem of underdevelopment and political breakdown’ [47] . Is Clausewitz Relevant To Modern Warfare Politics Essay

a paper about comic books

a paper about comic books. I’m working on a Writing exercise and need support.

Here’s a nifty site where you can read free digital comics. Yeah!
For your final paper, you will be conducting a very basic critical analysis of a graphic novel of your choice. You may also use a story arc consisting of several issues. You may not use a single issue of a comic for your analysis. Here’s the breakdown:
•4 pages total
•1” margins
•MLA format (including headings and Works Cited Page)
•4 sources (one for the book itself. One for your theory. Two others for supporting evidence (could be other critical analyses or other definitions for your theory, or a definition describing your lens of choice, etc.)
How to move forward:
1.Pick a graphic novel or story arc. Approve it with me.
2.Read it.
3.Think about which lens would work. Remember. This semester we covered:
a.Psychological Lens
b.Sociological Lens
d.Feminist Lens
4.Find a theory within the lens you choose. For example, if you choose the psychological lens, choose a psychology theory.
5.Write paper.
Writing the Paper:
The paper is broken down into six sections.
2.Summary (1/2 page).
3.Value judgment (1/2 page) (what did you like about the comic book? What didn’t you like?) Cover:
a.Art work
b.Content (story)
d.You may cover other elements like paneling, lettering, etc.
4.Introduce us to your lens and theory (1/2 page to 1 page)
a.Tell us about your theory? Which lens does it fall under? Who created the theory? Can you provide us with a working definition?
5.Analyze your text using the lens.
If you need help finding a theory, please consult the “theories” document in this folder.
FINAL NOTE: If you deviate a bit from the organization, that is fine. For example, some students incorporate analysis into the summary because they don’t want to waste an entire page of the paper summarizing the text. That would be acceptable.
Another example would be incorporating the introduction of your lens/theory into the intro paragraph and then not discussing it after the summary section. This too would be acceptable.
Q: Can I expand upon one of my journals for this assignment?
A: Naw. That would inhibit your growth as a literary analyst!

Psychological Lens
1.Freud’s theory of Id, Ego, Superego
2.Freud’s “Dream Theory” or Dream-Symbol Analysis
3.Erikson’s Psychosocial stages of development
4.Eysenck’s Three Dimensions of Personality

Sociological Lens
1.Class Conflict Theory
2.Marxist Criticism
3.Social Identity Theory (Henri Tajfel) (could also be arguably psychological)
4.Durkheim’s theory of Anomie
5.Anarchism/Anarchy theory

1.Hero Archetypes
2.Character Archetypes in General
3.Hero’s Journey
4.You also have the option of doing a comparative analysis, comparing objects/characters to their depictions in previous mythology, like we did with Sandman

Feminist Lens – essentially sociological
1.Looking at the depiction of females in your text, how they are portrayed visually
2.Looking at the predominance of male characters and hyper masculine, sexist males in comics
Race Relations – essentially sociological
1.Looking at the depiction of characters of different races/ethnicities and how they are portrayed visually.

a paper about comic books

UCSD Behaviorism Banking Method of Teaching Discussion

write my term paper UCSD Behaviorism Banking Method of Teaching Discussion.

STEP TWO:By Friday, go back and find two of your classmates’ post to respond to. You can share more insight into the quote they choose or you can try to answer the question they posted. Your response should be a minimum of 100-150 words long. First discussion: I chose a quote Freire retrieved from Footnote #4: Fromm, op. cit. p. 41, stating that “While life is characterized by growth in a structured functional manner, the necrophilous person loves all that does not grow, all that is mechanical. The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to approach life mechanically, as if all living persons were things. . . .Memory, rather than experience; Having, rather than being, is what counts’ The necrophilous person can relate to an object ­­ a flower or a person ­­ only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a threat to himself, if he loses possession he loses contact with the world. . . . He loves control, and in the act of controlling he kills life” (5).I think this quote is purposed to provide insights to the meaning and aim of the current education system which aims at serving the oppressors than students. It explains the selfish gains of the educators and creators of education. Also, I regard this quote important because it explains the nature of education, characteristics of students and their teachers, nature of teaching, and what is expected from the students being taught.Lastly, my question would be, what do you think the text explains and aims to communicate? Second discussion:Teacher talks and the students listen ­­ meekly;the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply;the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher;the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted)adapt to it;the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.It is not surprising that the banking concept of education regard. Problem-posing education solves the student–teacher contradiction by recognizing that knowledge is not deposited from one (the teacher) to another (the student) but is instead formulated through dialogue between the two. Because the education is more than just learning how to read and write. Education helps us grow personally, professionally, and socially. It also helps us become better versions of ourselves. And it broadens our perspectives to help us learn about different societies and cultures.What is Behaviorism banking method of teaching?
UCSD Behaviorism Banking Method of Teaching Discussion

BIO100 Unit 4 Project

BIO100 Unit 4 Project.

Assignment OverviewStudent Learning Outcome: Describe the core concepts and methods in the sciences, including animal physiology and anatomyThe last few weeks we’ve been really getting to know the many different ways animals have adapted to live in nearly all environments on our planet. This project is asking you to become an expert in one of the phyla of animals we’ve covered.1. You will be assigned an animal phylum and will choose a species from that phylum that you’d like to research. The animal will be doing is: Echinodermata2. Your research should focus on the following questions:How is the animal classified (phylum, class, order, family, genus and species)?In what kind of environment is the animal found? What is its niche?Anatomy and Physiology of the speciesHow does the animal obtain and process food?How does the animal exchange gases with its environment and circulate nutrients throughout its body?How does the animal regulate its internal environment (body temperature, water balance, waste filtration and elimination)How does the animal sense and respond to external stimuli?How does the organism reproduce?Describe the organism’s life cycle.3. Your next step will be to create an informative website using Google sites. Your site should highlight your animal and provide details about the questions above. Be sure to provide citations for all of the information, images, video clips, and/or music you may use. HERE IS RUBRIC FOR THE PROJECT:View the animal diversity unit project rubric in this google doc (Links to an external site.). To save a copy of the rubric, go to file – make a copy. Or, download the rubric by going to file – download.
BIO100 Unit 4 Project

The Roles Of Ict In The Government Information Technology Essay

ICT stands for information and communications technology, ICT mainly focuses on the role of communication that includes phone lines and wireless data/signals as well as the ability to control information including hardware for computers and networks and software. Throughout this essay, the way in which ICT has affected and continues to become of high importance to the United kingdoms Government will be explored, the main areas that will be conducted in this research are the Government ICT strategy, greening government ICT, how the internet is transforming the UK Economy, a selected number of Government departments and how ICT is important to their daily use and finally an end conclusion highlighting the importance of ICT development in the UK government. Government ICT strategy In October 2005, the first government ICT strategy was released setting the schedule for the ICT public sector (organisations funded by the government) towards the next five years. Its main aim was to focus on the areas that could enable transformed service delivery, ‘putting the citizen at the heart of what we do, shared services and professionalising IT-enabled business change (Cabinet Office 2010 [URL] – Date Accessed 02/11/10). Five years later, after reviewing yearly reports and employing a new Government chief information officer a new strategy was released. Its approach has been adapted to fit the current economic climate in which the nation is in ‘transforming services against a backdrop of economic pressure’ change (Cabinet Office 2010 [URL] – Date Accessed 02/11/10). The new strategy will now make possible an ICT infrastructure that will solve many problems ‘across the board’ which the Government faces. It also encourages the development of delivery being increased via the public, private and third party sectors in order to meet the needs and requirements. In 1994 formally known as was announced to hold all websites and links to government and agency websites, with all the increased pressure to deliver higher and better public services, expectations had never been higher due to the potential of better services that was unforeseen when the website was first published. However, with the increased prospect of technology, expectations have changed and so have demands which has enabled the government to make it easier to handle their day to day business and help those in need of support, was set up to assist and explain the dangers of drugs and was set up for those children excluded from school. On the other hand Denis McCauley, Global Technology Research Director at the Economist Intelligence Unit, believes the government can do more recognizing that although it does well in terms of its internet website, its popularity is decreasing rapidly and he thinks that even more can be done in terms of using information technology. Although the United Kingdoms Government is not solely to thanks for its success in its public sector ICT use, it reaches the top spot when compared to the rest of Europe, as its citizen-based services are 100% online compared with the average 71% that Europe has. Since the turn of the century the UK was the first Government to even start to allow its citizen-based service online taken approximately four years till Europe’s average came became public. Turning Government ICT green Since the governments increased use of ICT from owning some of the largest and most power fullest computers and public servants using their desktop computers at a higher rate than expected, be it from issuing tax disks to people across the country to saving x-rays on file. The Government is the countries largest purchaser of ICT equipment, and use a large amount of power and resources. They have decided to set an example amongst the nation and turn green, as they want the disposal of monitors, printers, computers and servers to happen in a sustainable and responsible way. To start the Governments reduction of carbon emissions another strategy has been created called the greening government strategy. According to the cabinet offices brochure on becoming green by turning just one computer off will save 235kg of carbon dioxide emission’s a year. By ‘turning off every one of Whitehall’s 500,000 computers at night would have the same effect as taking 40,000 cars off the road.’ How the Internet has transformed the United kingdom’s Economy Moving away from the strategies recently formed for ICT, this essay will now review how the Internet has affected and transformed the UK Economy. The Internet has largely influenced societies in the United Kingdom with a majority of them having easy access to it, many modern phones now come with the capability to do such thing. Websites such as and have increased the populations spending habits, which further down the line companies pay tax, which turns back into the government. In 2009 the Internet contributed to 7.2 per cent of GDP in Britain, an estimated £100 billion making it larger than the countries transportation, construction or utilities industry. Whilst the large growth in Internet activity has increased it has disrupted many businesses but has had a positive effect on the medium and smaller based businesses that sell anything from clothes to computer games with research showing that the United Kingdoms economy is likely to increase by up to 15 per cent via the Internet. Government organisations and their use of ICT Now this essay will look at a number of government organisations and the importance that ICT plays in them. -Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) To begin with The Department of Work and pensions (DWP) pays money into millions of peoples accounts across the nation, from people on benefits to elderly people receiving their pension, its use of ICT is on a large-scale basis and as a whole plays a major role in the social sector of today’s lifestyle. ICT is a positive use in the DWP as it allows a quicker way of handling information and delivering an output service due to the large memory servers they have. However errors still occur in which the government loses millions at a time and because of this have called for an urgent change in the way their ICT strategy is changed -Ministry of Defence The Ministry of Defences (MoD) role is to protect the nation against any potential threat internally and externally, its team highlights dangers through many methods that involve ICT such as listening in on phone calls or checking the internet for major threats. Its ICT role again is very important to how its run due to keeping in contact with other global agencies to keep informed about terrorism strikes, it also informs local media in order to get information broadcasted across the UK. Another use of ICT within the MoD is to ensure military standards are kept high as well as the environment. Again by using the Website they allow people to view the procedures and information of the MoD, which encourages responsibility. -Driver and vehicle Licensing Agency DVLA The use of computers in the DVLA is very important, as they have to produce tax certificates as well as driving licenses and number plate registration forms in their large memory banks. Conclusion Concluding the report, ICT is probably one of the most important aspects of the governments way in terms of running its whole organisation, due to this it is hard to find any faults into the way they are actually sustaining their ICT, the only weak point is due to the fact that their website is not as popular as it was before however it still provides the information that you look for as well as email addresses and phone numbers if you need more help. With the Government also turning green they have taken another positive step in terms of being leaders and hopefully turning it in to a national thing; they have started to release television adverts and produce leaflets to spread the word.

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service