Case 9 on the attached document (ADULTERY ONE OF LIFE DEEPEST WOUND) PAGE 131-141 of the case study excerpts ATTACHEDYou are expected to read, understand and have a thorough reflection on the case. following sections: 1. Discuss the facts of the case in the context of American Society. 2.Reflect on possible Biblical Examples to draw an analogy. 3. Think through your own personal experience(s) for similar situation and document as supporting evidence. 4. Give your Christian response/solutionto the problemas a pastoral leader in context of American Society. The paper must contain rich, and contextual Biblical support. You may consult and cite other scholarly works (commentaries, bible, dictionaries/encyclopedias, journals etc.).The main objective of the paper is to enable you integrate all the experiences and learnings in finding solution to a difficult situation in church within the context of American Society.Paper should be #12 font double spaced using the APA format
Pastoral Theology and Leadership Management Case Study
Stakeholder Memo You read about stakeholders in your Reading area of this unit. How might external stakeholders’ points of view be different from the internal stakeholders? What changes would you expect to see in writing under the following circumstances?
Stakeholder Memo You read about stakeholders in your Reading area of this unit. How might external stakeholders’ points of view be different from the internal stakeholders? What changes would you expect to see in writing under the following circumstances?.
Stakeholder Memo You read about stakeholders in your Reading area of this unit. How might external stakeholders’ points of view be different from the internal stakeholders? What changes would you expect to see in writing under the following circumstances? Read the scenario and follow the steps provided. Scenario: A public company is changing its mission and business entity to be a for-profit benefit corporation that is required to show social and environmental benefits besides a profit. But so far, the company has not altered their actions and policies with regards to enormous environmental waste being generated. Access background information for the Discussion Step 1: Read the scenario and choose one of these external stakeholders: Suppliers, customers, the community, competitors, society (the environment), banks and lending institutions, and the government. Step 2: Compose a short memo (200 words) to the CEO regarding your chosen stakeholder’s reaction to the changes and the ethical considerations. Remember the appropriate memo format. Step 3: Respond to one of your classmates’ memos as the CEO in a minimum of 150 words. Step 4: For your final response to classmates, vote (1) for the best memo from an external stakeholder and (2) the best response to an external stakeholder other than your own. JUST DO RESPONSE EACH POSTED # 1 to 3 DOWN BELOW ONLYPosted 1 Memo To: Phil Heatwole, Plant Manager From: Sr Environmental Agent Date: July 17, 2020 Subject: Environmental Waste Elimination I am writing to inform you that the time given for Campbell’s soup to complete their waste elimination project has elapsed. Campbell’s Soup was given three years to have their waste recycling fields in operation and at this time they are not. The plan was to provide safe drinking water to the surrounding area of the plant while filtering the waste water from the plant and the water supplies. With the upgrade of your waste water elimination process the goal was to save 500,000 gallons of water a year. The expectation was to be at 50% reduction by year 2020, we have hit 2020 and that goal has not been reached. If the expectations were not going to be met, the United States Environmental Protective Agency should have been informed. Please put in writing your plan to complete the project and new time line. If at any time there are any issue where expectations are not met feel free to contact me. Please let me know if there is anything you need or concerns pertaining to this memo please feel free to contact me by via email. Posted 2 Memo To: Robert George, CEO, A Benefit Corporation From: Compliance Officer, Wells Fargo Date: Friday, July 17, 2020 Subject: Final Notification: Environmental Waste Violations Please be advised this is the final notification regarding mandatory compliance of the environmental waste legislations mandated in each state you do business. The failure to comply with required regulations puts your corporation at risk for loss of insurance. If your corporation fails to remain insured, Wells Fargo, will be forced to freeze all lending and issue a foreclosure notice on real properties owned by A Benefit Corporation. After 15 years in business we want to work with you to ensure this doesn’t happen. With the change of status to a for-profit benefit corporation, A Benefit Corporation, is required by law to meet social and environmental legislation in each state with real property. It has come to our attention that you have not altered behavior or policies regarding excessive environmental waste being generated on your factory sites. This is a risk to our collective businesses and a violation of our agreement. In order to remain in good standing with Wells Fargo, A Benefit Corporation, has thirty (30) days to provide a written policy and get-well plan to address the waste concerns and has ninety (90) days to complete implementation of the plan and remediate waste remaining on the factory sites. The environmental violations are a serious concern and may impact the ability for our firms to conduct business moving forward. It is important that you contact our office immediately regarding your receipt of this notice. We look forward to working with your staff to resolve this concern as soon as possible. Please contact our office no later than Friday July 17, 2020. Posted 3 To: Mark Johnson, CEO From : Environmental consultant Date: 7/20/20 RE: Environmental clean up We have received notice that and come to our attention that your company has changed its function from profit to a non-profit organization. We want to remind you that we are still expecting the environment to be taken care of per our current agreement. We have not received any confirmation of complicity or clean-up efforts by your company. We want to get on the same page to continue the efforts to keep the environment clean. We were hoping you would have started with the non-profit work by now seeing how it has been twenty-one days since you made the transition from profit to non-profit. Time is of the essence and we want to get on track in order to meet our goals. We are asking you to please send us an update on the status of sending us the equipment we need to help clean up the environment. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this memo please do not hesitate to contact me. I am readily available from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
Stakeholder Memo You read about stakeholders in your Reading area of this unit. How might external stakeholders’ points of view be different from the internal stakeholders? What changes would you expect to see in writing under the following circumstances?
Evaluation of Ethical Theories for Lying
programming assignment help Why Lie? We are presented with a scenario, Kelly whose father is dying, has built up a business that has proven to be successful. He wishes to pass down the business into the hands of his daughter and two sons. What the father does not know is that his sons intend to sell the company after he has passed away. Kelly knows of this plan and wants to do what is morally right: tell her father, or lie? What is considered to be morally right depends on what school of thought you adopt as your own and in this case, we have two ethical theories to consider. First, Mill’s theory of the utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of your actions and allows for lies to be told, if they generate more happiness. Second, Kant’s deontological theory, which does not care about the consequences of the action but rather sees if the action falls in line with duty and does not allow lies to ever be told. I argue that Kelly should tell a lie to her father based on Mill’s Utilitarianism approach, which allows a lie to be the morally correct thing to do. In order to assess what the correct moral action should be according to Mill, we must understand his ethical theory, utilitarianism. This ethical theory is a branch of consequentialism which focuses on the consequences an action produces to determine whether it is moral or not. Utilitarianism holds the same grounds for evaluating moral actions with one added step: it takes into account the happiness generated from the consequences an action created. To Mill, “happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain” (Mill 1 powerpoint slide 6). That is, happiness is a feeling of contentment and not one that holds any type of malefic intention. Mill uses this idea of happiness to create his principle called the greatest happiness principle or GHP for short. Mill creates his greatest happiness principle in order to assess whether an action is morally correct. According to this principle “[A]ctions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Utilitarianism, 7). That is, an action must produce happiness in order to be justified as morally correct, the more happiness produced the more morally correct the action was. In fact, the utilitarians created a scale in order to measure the amount of happiness created called “Hedonic Calculus” (Bentham). In this scale, all actions are measured in utiles, which is a measurement of happiness produced. The way happiness is measured is by taking into account everyone’s happiness that an action may have affected. For example, you may be invited to a friend’s wedding but have to pay for the plane ticket to go and see them. You can choose to spend the money on the ticket or donate the money to build a well for a needy village. According to Hedonic Calculus, we can assign the option of seeing your friends a 2 utile rating, while sparing the village the hard labor of constructing a well a 35 utile rating. In each case the inverse is true, that is if you go to the wedding the villagers get no well so that is a -35 utile rating, with a net utility rating of -33, while the other action of donating the money yields a -2 utile rating since you don’t see your friends but this leads to a net utility gain of 33. With these numbers assigned we can see that the morally correct thing to do based on the greatest happiness principle is to donate your money. Now with this in mind Mill steps up his principle by adding quality as a way to rate certain actions over others. Mill separates these qualities into two categories, higher and lower pleasures. Mill adds to the hedonic calculus equation the qualitative trait; higher and lower pleasures. Pleasures are heterogeneous, meaning they are not of the same kind and thus leads to some being higher and some being lower. There is a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, the higher pleasure is pleasures that make use of the “more elevated” faculties, while the lower pleasures are often pleasures of sensation (Mill 2 powerpoint slide 7). To Mill, seeing your friends may have been classified as a lower pleasure while assisting in the preservation of someone else’s life IE donating a water well, would be classified as higher pleasure. The higher pleasure requires active engagement, in the case mentioned previously, the action of actively donating money may lead to a higher pleasure. In contrast, the act of seeing your friends may produce some happiness when you initially see them but as time passes the happiness begins to fleet and then just becomes something passive, which are traits of a lower pleasure. The whole basis of what utilitarianism is built on is spreading utility which in this case is happiness. To lie to others only pushes us away from our “sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity” (Mill 22). That is when lies are told and spread we are pushing ourselves away from trust, which is the glue that holds society together, that allows us to confide in others. The act of telling the truth is normally beneficial while being deceptive normally harms. This is why lying is generally wrong, as lies are a source of heat that can begin to melt the glue of trust away. Even in cases where the truth can cause harm, according to Mill we should resist the urge to lie because by truth-telling, we cultivate a disposition in ourselves and others to honesty, and honesty is conducive to trust which is “the principle support of social well-being” (Mill 22). Through this analysis it would seem that Mill would say lying is never correct, however, this is incorrect. There does lie a possibility where lying can be morally correct, as long as it falls in line with his GHP and generates more happiness (utility) than unhappiness. Such an example of this would be to lie to a murderer who wants to kill your friend and asks you if you know where they are. By lying to the murderer you are producing more happiness with your friend staying alive than the murderer’s unhappiness by leaving empty-handed. Kant, on the other hand, would argue that a lie should never be told as that breaks your duty to honesty. In order to counter Mill’s principle of the greatest happiness principle, Kant creates two principles, the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In order to fully understand the categorical imperative, which is the main counter to the GHP, I must first explain the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperative is an imperative that requires reason to assess what needs to be done. For example, if someone wishes to pursue law school, reason will tell them to begin studying for the LSAT, in these cases the commands of reason are conditional (Kant 2 slide 18). With this in mind, we can now examine how the categorical imperative differs. First off, the categorical imperative lacks circumstances, there is simply an action that will be performed regardless of the circumstances. To be clearer, the categorical imperative does not depend on us choosing to pursue some end, in this case, the commands from reason are unconditional (Kant 2 slide 18). The two imperatives contrast each other in the sense that in the hypothetical case we need to know the person’s intentions before we know what has to be done. In the categorical imperative since reason is the driving factor, it tells us that our maxims, our wants, must conform to the laws of reason, which are universally valid (Kant 2 slide 20). Upon applying this concept it then boils down that there is only a single categorical imperative, “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant 4:421). Here Kant is saying that you should only act upon your actions if you can consent to that action being performed on you by everyone else. This lays the groundwork for what Kant derives as The Formula of Universal Law. Kant has established this Formula of Universal Law to be the first version of the categorical imperative. This formula put into simple terms serves as a test to any maxims you wish to entertain. It holds that any action you wish to do must be universalizable in order to be morally sound. If your maxim cannot be universalized then it is morally impermissible and should not be acted upon. As mentioned before since this is like a test to see if your action is morally sound there are two ways your maxim can fail the test. The first way to fail is if it contains a contradiction in conception. To fail this test your maxim must violate a perfect duty, which are duties that are not permitted to be violated. “When I believe myself to be in need of money I shall borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know that this will never happen” (Kant 4:422). Here, Kant is presenting us with a maxim that would fail the formula of universal law. In this scenario, the person is rationalizing telling a lie so they may have a personal advantage. Kant then turns the light to see if this maxim could ever be universalizable. “I, therefore, turn the demand of self-love into a universal law and put the question as follows: how would it be if my maxim became a universal law?” (Kant 4:422). This maxim could never be universalizable as this would nullify any type of promises made, promises would no longer function if this maxim were to be made universal law since this would be self-contradicting. It simply does not make sense to make something a universal law that allows everyone to lie in order to help themselves. The second way to fail the test is for your maxim to have a contradiction of will. Let’s say you wish to keep to yourself and do not want to help others but at the same time you don’t want others to help you, that sounds logical but according to Kant, it goes against one of our imperfect duties (Kant 4:423). We have an imperfect duty to provide aid to others, in other words since this an imperfect duty there is some room to determine how to help others but nonetheless, help must be given. You simply cannot wish to only focus on your needs and ignore the needs of those around you. It is with this idea that you should help those in need that leads us to Kant’s second formula, the Formula of Humanity. The Formula of Humanity is the second version of the categorical imperative. In this version, Kant is stepping back to assess how we should be treating each other. In contrast to the Formula for Universal Law, this view takes a look at what the grounds for relationships are for the categorical imperative rather than what can be universalized. Kant expresses the importance of humanity stating “so act, that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (Kant 4:429). Humanity in this sense is the ability to set and pursue ends, ends that we deem worthy to pursue in order to benefit ourselves or others. Kant thinks humanity is the key to having a strong grounding relationship because we should seek to pursue everyone as an end rather than simply a means. “The ground of this principle is: rational nature exists as an end in itself” (Kant 4:429). We are rational beings so we are the end in itself which in turn provide the ground of the categorical imperative. “The human being necessarily represents his own existence in this way; so far it is thus a subjective principle of human actions” (Kant 4:429). Every human wishes to pursue their own personal end. We should not inhibit others from pursuing their ends as by doing so we would not be treating them as a rational being. It then follows to say that since we should never use humans as a mere tool, we should never lie to one another then, as that would contradict this formula of humanity. When it comes to lying, Kant stresses that is never permissible. To tell the truth is a perfect duty that must never be broken. “To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is . . . a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences.” (“On the Supposed Right to Lie for Philanthropic Reasons”, 1799). Here Kant is breaking down exactly what his previous formulas stated. In reference to the formula of universal law, it makes sense that any maxim rooted in truth is to be universalized as it coincides with the upholding of our perfect duty to never lie. In regards to the formula of humanity, by telling the truth we are treating every person as an end rather than a mean. We are treating them with dignity and acknowledging that they possess reason that must be respected. With this in mind it holds that even if it were to make others happy or even ourselves, a lie must never be told. Now although according to Kant a lie can never be told, this is not the case for Mill. With regard to Kelly’s case, I could see Mill allowing for a lie to be told to her father. Since Mill only cares about the consequences that result from an action it makes sense to think that the consequence from lying to her father would produce happiness. If we think about it, lying to someone who is on their deathbed letting them know their final wishes will come true would allow the person to enjoy their time left here on Earth. With this in mind, Kelly should indeed lie to her father in order to produce the most amount of happiness. Let’s imagine the truth were to be told and now the father has to die knowing all his hard work was for nothing, not only would the father suffer unhappiness from this but most likely Kelly would generate unhappiness because she caused her father to feel worthless. In this scenario, Kelly’s consequence produces only unhappiness, even though “we should usually resist the temptation to lie” the truth does more harm than good (Mill 2 slide 21). Although the truth would cause more harm sometimes telling the truth sets you free, or at least it keeps you in line with your duty according to Kant. Kant would never allow a lie to be told. To lie is to go against our duty to uphold honesty and to spread truth. Kelly should bite the bullet and tell her father the truth regardless of the outcome. To Kant the outcome doesn’t matter, Kelly should treat her father as a human being and treat him as an end, not a means. To elaborate, she should allow her father to know the truth and not simply use him as a means to make herself feel better. She should not lie to him in order to spare his feelings because it could well, in fact, be she is lying to protect her own feelings as to know she didn’t cause further harm to her dying father. If Kelly were to lie to her father she is ignoring his humanity and simply treating him as an object with no respect for his dignity (Kant 4:429). Kelly should instead show respect and uphold her duty, to tell the truth to her father and let him die with the truth being known. However, Kant’s idea of always telling the truth could lead to some questionable situations. Kant argues that we are morally bound to comply with whatever duty we must follow but this can hold some flaws; for example, it is our duty to always be honest and not inhibit someone else’s self-preservation. Let’s say you are a teacher at an elementary school and a school shooter enters the campus. One by one, you hear the: screams of children, loud bangs, and the thuds of bodies falling across the hallway, leading towards your classroom. You know it is only a matter of time before the shooter reaches your classroom, so your initial response is to hide your children in any small covered location such as the cabinets and closets. The shooter enters the room and asks you, is there anyone else in this room before I kill you? According to Kant, you should disclose the location of your students, even though it will result in their death. This example shows that by telling the truth at all times you are breaking your duty of not inhibiting someone else’s self-preservation as by telling the truth you might as well have killed the students yourself. In contrast, Mill would allow you to lie as that would cause more happiness overall, your students get to live so that would be something like 1000 utiles and the shooter only kills one person something like -100 utiles, overall more happiness is generated through the lie than through the truth. Now, this sounds like a good idea, to lie in order to create happiness, but this can’t always be the case. For Mill’s ideology, there lies a major fault. It seems as though humans can be sacrificed as long as happiness is generated. Mill’s reasoning is more persuasive than Kant’s for the sheer possibility of flexibility. In Mill’s reasoning, he allows for the use of lies which if used properly, can generate more happiness than unhappiness which coincides with his greatest happiness principle. Kant, on the other hand, condemns any form of lying as that would not only degrade the person you are lying to but create a situation where the person may begin to lie back to you. Mill’s argument is much more practical as it takes into account actions for their consequences rather than for just the action as per Kant’s argument. To Mill, what is important is what arises from the decision you make rather than the decision itself. This gives the action meaning and doesn’t simply write it off as some sort of meaningless action. Now let’s step back and examine what Kelly should do. I think Kelly should lie to her father on the grounds that he has the right to be at peace in his final days. I wholeheartedly agree with Mill’s greatest happiness principle that this decision is the morally correct thing to do. As noted previously, the truth seems to only lead to unhappiness while the lie promotes happiness. Her father has the right to be happy by any means necessary and although it may not be conforming to Kelly’s duty, to tell the truth, I think Kelly has a bigger duty to her father and owes it to him to keep him happy in any way possible. Since utilitarians allow the use of sacrifices, Kelly should sacrifice herself, in the sense that she should eat the regret she may feel from lying to her father; sacrifice her emotions for his happiness. In this essay, I have explained and analyzed the ethical principles of Mill’s greatest happiness principle and Kant’s categorical imperative, which contradict each other. Mill allows for the use of lies in order to promote happiness, while Kant never allows lies to be told as it is our duty to always be truthful. Overall, I argue for Mill’s greatest happiness principle, as it is more practical and readily acceptable for Kelly’s decision of whether to lie to her father or not, considering the ideology allows for more flexibility in everyday life. A question that I would like to explore in the future is how Kant would respond to a situation where a lie would save a life? I would like to know if somehow the goodwill is self-contradicting since it is the goodwill that says one should never lie, but how can a goodwill be good if it is at the expense of other people? Works Cited Kant, Immanuel, et al. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press, 2012 Mill, John S, and George Sher. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1979. Print.
Simplified Soft Decision Decoding of LDPC codes
MARUTHI L N K S GURUMURTHY Abstract LDPC codes gained importance since its re-discovery by Mackay and Neil based on Tanner Graph. This paper presents the implementation of forward error correction soft-input, soft-output decoding process that efficiently decodes the received set of data under low signal-to-noise ratios due to which the errors are reduced and hence transmission time is greatly reduced. The implemented algorithm is less complex and does not require knowledge of signal-to-noise-ratio of the received data-path. INTRODUCTION Error correction coding techniques came into existence after existence of channel capacity theorem by Shannon, the father of information theory in 1948 on reliable communication over noisy transmission channels. Thereafter, many coding techniques were developed for efficient coding techniques, like Hamming, Golay and many other techniques were developed. Though Gallagher in 1962 developed LDPC codes, the method employed was not optimal. Hence it was not reviewed for last 3 decades, until 1992, when a paper “Near Shannon limit error correcting coding and decoding: turbo codes” presented by Berrou, Glavieux and Thitimajshima changed the trend followed by researchers for the past 5 decades. And now, we are aiming to develop such codes through another strategy. The coding gain provided by this method is much higher when compared to other coding systems. The LDPC codes are becoming more popular because of their reduced power for transmission and less complex logic to achieve low BER’s which is very essential for reliable transmission over noisy channels. LDPC CODES Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes are a powerful class of forward error correction codes developed by Gallagher in 1962, practically implemented by MacKay in 1995. Low Density refers to less number of 1’s in the Parity Check Matrix (H) of Block Codes. Block codes are a type of Error Correction Codes which uses a Generator Matrix(G) to produces a Code-word of length n for message(D) of length k, where n-k is the redundancy bits added to make a Code-word of length n, higher the redundancy higher the error correction capability and higher the Bandwidth. Hence, there is a trade-off between error correction capability and bandwidth. C=D.G The size of the Matrix G is (n, n-k) and the size of the Matrix H is (n-k, n). Usually redundancy is defined by the term “code rate” which is given by R=k/n This varies from ½ to 1/6. The Encoder produces a Code-word which satisfy the condition C.HT=0 If R is the received data from the Transmitter then the acknowledgement of the correct data received is given by the Syndrome(S). S=R.HT The value of S obtained by the above calculation determines whether the received data is free from error or not, i.e. if S=0 then the received data is free from error, otherwise the received data has an error. Since this property is very useful to reduce the calculation time if we receive the data correctly as soon as we receive data. The probability that the received data needs to be retransmitted which in the range of 10-6 to 10-8. Encoding the data as required is an easy process, but decoding the data effectively and efficiently is a very hard process. The proposed algorithm uses the basic concept of block codes, i.e. R=C E Where R=noise corrupted vector C=Code vector transmitted over noisy channel E=Error vector. The receiver does not know C and E; its function is to decode C from R, and the message D from C. PROPOSED ALGORITHM The base for LDPC decoding algorithm proposed is as described by MacKay and Neil in 1997. Following are the steps that briefly describe the algorithm STEP 1: INITIALIZATION Let rj be the received vector, i.e. the data received from the Gaussian channel We calculate the components of the vectors d02( j), and d12( j) as: d02( j)= (rj 1)2 d12( j)= (rj-1)2 j = 1, 2, . . . , n (1) These first soft estimates of the code symbols are used to initialise the algorithm by setting the following coefficients q0ij and q1ij at each symbol node q0ij= d02( j) q1ij= d12( j) j = 1, 2, . . . , n, i = 1, 2. . . , . n-k, (2) To eliminate the effect of zero in the calculation the expressions for the calculations can be reduced as shown below ln(em en) = max(m,n) ln(1 e-|m-n|) log2(2m 2n) = max(m,n) ln(1 2-|m-n|)(3) The tables required for calculations are computed using the above formula. The complexity is greatly reduced and the reliability of the transmission of signal is increased. STEP 2: HORIZONTAL STEP aij= f (q0ij , q1 ij ) bij= −f−(q0ij , q1ij) if (−q 0ij ) ≥ (−q1ij ) sij= 0 else sij= 1 cij= ik–ik if ik is even r0n,ij= −f (0, cij ) r1n,ij= f−(0, cij ) if ik is odd r0n,ij= f−(0, cij ) r1n,ij= −f (0, cij ) STEP 3: VERTICAL STEP q0ij= d02 (j) 0n,ij q1ij= d12 (j) 1n,ij STEP 4: DECISION rm0ij=r0n,ij q0ij rm1ij=r1n,ij q1ij if rm02(j)< rm12(j) then c(j) = 1 else c(j) = 0 The LUT entries used in the proposed algorithm for equation (3) and the exact value obtained will vary as shown in the figure. Comparison of BER performance of (8 * 12) LDPC SSD decoder (10 iterations) Comparison of BER performance of (8 * 12) LDPC SSD decoder (50 iterations) As explained above, for higher precision the number of iterations is increased to obtain the same performance of the exact equation. The obtained results approach towards the complex algorithm developed by Gallagher with simple iterative approach and provides a high coding gain compared to uncoded signal. And it provides higher performance at larger iterations. This algorithm provides even higher performance for large length codes. CONCLUSION In this paper we have described Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes and decoding of these codes using low complexity algorithms. LDPC codes are used now-a-days in communication systems that take advantage of parallelism, good error correction and high through put. This led to the new algorithm which could decode the errors and yet give similar BER performance as the complex algorithms without the knowledge of the channel noise parameters like variance. This new algorithm is based on repeated use of an antilog-sum operation, and has been simulated on the Tanner graph representation of several LDPC codes and this algorithm can be regarded as a generalized form of belief propagation, where the belief propagated is Euclidean distance estimate rather than a probability estimate. The advantages of the new algorithm are that the performance is as good as the complex algorithm provided the value of base of the logarithm is used properly; that knowledge of noise is not required and that in the simplified form the algorithm needs only additions/subtractions, comparisons and two look-up tables avoiding the use of quotients and products operations that are of high complexity in practical implementations especially using FPGA technology. REFERENCES 1] R.G. Gallager, “Low Density Parity Check Codes”, IRE Trans. Information Theory, IT-8, 21-28 (1962). 2] D.J.C. Mackay and R.M. Neal, “Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes,” Electronics Letters, vol. 33, pp 457-458 (1997). 3] L. Arnone, C. Gayaso, C. Gonzalez and J. Castineira, “Sum-Subtract Fixed Point LDPC Decoder,” Latin American Applied Research, vol. 37, pp 17-20 (2007). 4] Castineira Moreira, Farrell P.G.: “Essentials of error control coding”, Wiley (2006). 5] Castineira Moreira J., Farrell, P.G.: “Soft-decision SISO decoding of error-control codes”, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on telecommunications (SENACITEL ’08), Valdivia, Chile, 12-15 November 2008. 6] L. Arnone, Castineira Moreira, Farrell P.G.: “FPGA implementation of a Euclidean distance metric SISO decoder,” Int. Symposium on communication theory and applications (ISCTA’09), Ambleside, UK, July 2009. 7] P.G. Farrell, L.Arnone, J. Castineira Moreira: “Euclidean distance soft-input soft-output decoding algorithm for low density parity check codes,” IET comm. Vol.5, Iss. 16, pp. 2364-2370, (2011). 8] J. Castineira Moreira, M. Rabini, C. Gonzalez, C. Gayaso, L. Arnone: “FPGA implementation of two very low complexity LDPC decoders,” IEEE papers, (2011). 9] Simon Haykin: “Digital communications”, John Wiley
High Court of Australia Essay (Critical Writing)
Introduction The Australian High Court is a national monument with historic, judicial and architectural significance to both the people of Australia and scholars. Its architectural design is unique to its time of development and is especially significant as it seeks to portray the important role the judiciary plays in the lives of Australians. This discussion will especially focus on the importance of the building’s design as well as the use of construction materials within the confines of architecture to bring forth the desired judicial posture of the Australian judiciary. Precisely, there will be a brief look at the history of the building and as well as the location and site selection. Importantly, the discussion will focus on the Brutalist architectural style that was used to build the structure the rationale behind adoption of this style and the intricate use of materials to produce an architectural finish that reflects the overall Australian judicial aspirations. There will be an overt emphasis on concrete which is the main building material in the building and an analysis on how concrete is used to bring out the Brutalist style of architecture. Part of the information used in this discussion was provided by an Australian High Court clerk who answered a list of pre determined questions that were asked to him through a phone interview. High Court of Australia building History The history of the High Court building dates back to 1950 when Prime Minister of Australia Robert Menzies pushed through plans develop Canberra to a national city where government offices are to be located (MacMahon 2001, p. 147). In 1972, the government through the NCDC conducted an international architectural completion for the building’s design. Out of a total of 158 designs that the NCDC received, only six made it to the final stage with a winner- Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs Pty Ltd- announced in October 1973 by the Premier Whitlam. Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The NCDC advertised for contractors for construction of the building with the tender awarded to PDC Constructions Pty Ltd. The Prime Minister unveiled the foundation plague in 1975 and the project was completed in April 1980. Its official opening took place on May 26th the same year. Site and Location The eventual location of the Australian High Court is a result of the original plans by Walter Burley Griffin’s 1911 designs that envisioned a new national capital with a section specifically meant for a group government buildings that astride the Land Axis at the lake side Water Gate. The designers of the building were fronting for a large building that will effectively reflect the constitutional status of the High Court instead of its actual work related needs. The Australian government decided in 1968 its decision to transfer the principle seat of the High Court to Canberra whose building was to be located next to the Parliamentary Triangle and the National Library Service. According to Edquist
Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay
Review This Service