Mexican War and the Spanish American War Essay Example for Free

Mexican War and the Spanish American War Essay Both the Mexican War and the Spanish War were a result of unfair treatment against weaker nations. The origins of the Mexican War lay with the United States and its expansionistic policies. Most Americans believed they had a divine right to bring their culture among others, because they were superior. This belief was put forth by Manifest Destiny, which had been circulating around the United States for a long time. The ignorance possessed by the Americans show no courtesy toward the Mexicans. Under the administration of President Polk, America adopted an aggressive expansion policy that often ignored many inferior countries. In 1492, it was Spain whom sailed across the Ocean and colonized the Amerindian nations of the Western Hemisphere. At its greatest extent, the empire that resulted from this exploration extended from Virginia on the eastern coast of the United States south to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America excluding Brazil and westward to California and Alaska. The ambitious United States paid no attention to Spain and aggressively sought more territory and influence in Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. The war started when the United States declared war on Spain after the sinking of an American vessel (Battleship Main) in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. They war ended on December 10, 1898 after the unfair Treaty of Paris, in which Spain lost all of its overseas possessions including Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, Guam, and many others. Both the Mexican War and the Spanish American War were a direct result in the abusive ways of superior power and influence. Manifest Destiny was more encouraged when Polk became President. He was elected president because of his strong support in bringing Oregon and Texas into the Union. President Polk was clearly the antagonist when he sent troops under General Zachary Taylor into land that Mexico held sovereignty, sparking a war. Polk now drafted a message to Congress: Mexico had passed the boundary of the United States, had invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil. Whether the Mexicans had fired the first shot or the Americans, whether the armies were on Mexican territory or American territory, Polk got his war. Despite the plea of innocence, Mexico cannot escape blame for the war. Mexico never had a strong centralized government to negotiate with a foreign state. Mexico was never even  successful in governing themselves for the time being. Mexico was on the verge of bankruptcy and their army was inadequately trained and equipped. The country was awash with political turmoil throughout the war, indeed, throughout the century, making it near impossible for them to ever conduct a sound defense of the country. Nevertheless, the United States, as a superior nation under Polks Presidency assumed an aggressive war like attitude toward Mexico without consideration of the Mexican stance. The conflict between the Spanish and Americans grew dramatically when General Valeriano Weyler began implementing a policy of Reconcentration that moved the population into central locations guarded by Spanish troops and placed the entire country of Cuba under martial law in February 1896. The American government was once again looking to exploit their defenseless neighbors and gain more influence in the countries. The main targets were Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Cuba was the first to initiate its own struggle for independence from Spain. America, being the closest superior power intervened in Cubas affairs. The Philippines were also growing intolerable to Spanish rule, and the United States took interest in the Philippines. Following its declaration of war against Spain issued on April 25, 1898, the United States added the Teller Amendment asserting that it would not attempt to exercise hegemony over Cuba. Under Commodore George Dewy at the Battle of Manila Bay on May 1st, the Spanish fleet under Rear Admiral Patricio Montojo was destroyed. The most disrespect followed the signing of the Treaty of Paris when Spain lost all of its overseas possessions. The superior powers, such as the United States, are always looking to profit themselves. During the Mexican war and the Spanish-American War, the dominance and ethnocentric ideals that America held flourished in many un-called-for, disrespectful disputes. The aggressive stance the troops held under Zachary Taylor under the orders of President Polk did not give room for negotiation. If the United States did not get what they wanted, they would insist by force, not by allowing the inferior nation in their eyes to make suggestions that regard their country and dignity. Both the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War resulted because of the unfair and unjust treatment that the United States held in their so-called foreign policy. Hispanic Division Library of Congress http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/intro.html A People A Nation 6th Edition The Mexican American War Memorial Homepage -from UMAN The Mexican American War Memorial Homepage -from UMAN Hispanic Division Library of Congress http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/intro.html Hispanic Division Library of Congress http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/intro.html

Concealed Carry Laws Debate

Concealed Carry Laws Debate Mark Derham The study of crime in all its forms by scholars is a mainstay of academia. Research on this topic spans across a wide breadth of related issues, but the main concern of this essay is crime and the effect concealed handgun laws have on it. These laws provide citizens a legal means by which to carry a concealed handgun by having them undergo a background check through their local law enforcement agency to ensure they have no criminal history and are not suffering from a mental health illness (Lott and Mustard 1997).This particular issue was brought to the forefront of the academic debate by Lott and Mustard (1997) in an attempt to apply empirical, quantitative analysis to the issue to assist in the formulation of public policies regarding handguns and the right-to-carry. Following the publishing of Lott and Mustard (1997), numerous other scholars joined in the debate on concealed handgun laws and the effect such laws have on the crime rate (see Bartley and Cohen 1998; Black and Nagin 1 998; Ludwig 2000; Plassman and Tideman 2001; Ayres and Donohue III 2003; Plassman and Whitley 2003; Moody and Marvell 2008; etc.). What has resulted is a collection of work showing a divide amongst scholars and a debate on whether or not concealed handgun laws have a negative, neutral or positive effect on crime rate and the proper method for analyzing the available data. School shootings, gunmen attacking innocent civilians in public areas, and other forms of gun violence continue to put people on high alert when it comes to the issue of guns, their availability, and the ease in which one can lawfully carry said guns. These forms of crime in relation to gun laws also continue to play a big role in local, state and national elections, with party lines having already been drawn at all levels. As a result of the national attention crime receives and the impact it has on political debates, it is critical to understanding the issue of crime, and how local, state and national laws impact crime levels. With this information in mind, this essay is specifically concerned with the following question: why does the crime rate vary? With such a question, it is expected that there are numerous reasons that variance is to be found, and several variables will be set up and reviewed to determine their effect on the crime rate. The literature surrounding concealed carry laws is extensive due in large part to Lott and Mustard (1997) providing a spark for other scholars to join the debate. The results in the literature also reveal that scholars are deeply divided on the effects concealed carry laws have on the crime rate, and the methods by which researchers believe this issue should be addressed also widely vary. While there are not necessarily key findings due to the divide amongst scholars, there are several generalizations that can be gathered from the literature. First, crime data can be difficult to interpret due to inconsistency in reporting and classification of crimes over time (Lott and Mustard 1997; Ludwig 2000; Ayres and Donohue III 2003). Second, the independent variables used to control for other factors that affect the crime rate can have a significant impact on the end results, which comes as no surprise (Ludwig 2000; Ayres and Donohue III). Third, the unit of analysis used to study the issue has been shown to have a significant impact on the results due mainly to crime reports and different independent variables affecting different regions (Ayres and Donohue III; Black and Nagin 1998; Lott and Mustard 1997; Ludwig 2000). Fourth, the majority of the literature maintains even when lower violent crime rates cannot be attributed to concealed carry laws, there is also little evidence of higher violent crime rates as a result of these laws (Bartley and Cohen 1998; Black and Nagin 1998; Lott and Mustard 1997; Ludwig 2000; Moody and Marvell 2008; Plassman and Tideman 2001; Plassman and Whitley 2003). With such variance over all aspects of concealed handgun laws effects on crime rate, there is also a large variance in the results that scholars have achieved. Lott and Mustard (1997) originally determined that concealed handgun laws reduce murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults; property crimes increase when the laws go into effect; and the laws deter all types of crime with murder, rape, and aggravated assault being the most affected. Bartley and Cohen (1998) found a reduction in violent crime rates and no substitution effect for property crimes. Plassman and Tideman (2001) saw a deterrent for murder, rape and robbery in ten of the states they analyzed, but also recognize the potential for an increase in crime for the other half of states they reviewed. Plassman and Whitley (2003) conclude the laws do reduce murder rates, and Moody and Marvell (2009) also conclude there is generally a reduction in overall crime. Thus, even amongst the scholars that see a positive effect on conceal ed carry laws, the results are varied on what the precise effect is. The other side of the debate generally recognizes that the laws maintain a neutral effect on overall crime, although, Ayres and Donohue III (2003,2009) argue that their model shows an increase in crime once concealed handgun laws are put in place.They also reject the majority of the literature supporting a reduction in crime based on issues with the original data sets utilized by Lott (2000). Once the data sets are extended to include the years up to 2000 and corrections are made to original coding issues, the results of previous studies (Lott 2000; Plassman and Whitely 2003) are reversed (Ayres and Donohue III 2009). Once the data sets extend up to 2006, the issue becomes more complicated and only shows an increase in aggravated assaults with no significant results for murder and robbery (Ayres and Donohuee III 2009b).Black and Nagin (2008) argue in their analysis that there is too much sensitivity for the model and sample size and qualify this by showing that Lott and Mustardâ€⠄¢s (1997) results are dependent on Florida being included in the analysis. Once Florida is removed from the sample, there is no deterrence effect for murder and rape and assaults are unaffected. They conclude that Lott and Mustard’s results should not affect public policies due to the sensitivity of the analysis (Black and Nagin 2008). Finally, when analyzing only homicide rates and attempting to control for unobserved variables by using juveniles as a control group, there is a positive effect for concealed carry laws, but it is not significant (Ludwig 2000). Once again, the varied results complicate the overall analysis and provide questions on the overall reliability and accuracy of the results. The data used to study this issue were derived by pulling statistics and information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and then supplementing that data with state reported statistics obtained through various state agencies for conviction rates, sentencing length, and concealed handgun permits issues (Lott and Mustard 1997). This data pool is criticized to an extent due to the known issues with the UCR data being a victim of non-reporting, incomplete reporting, and under reporting (Ludwig 2000). However, there appears to be an agreement that this is the best available data since the majority of the available literature utilized Lott and Mustard’s data to conduct their own analysis (Ayres and Donohue III; Bartley and Cohen 1998; Black and Nagin 1998; Lott and Mustard 1997; Ludwig 2000; Moody and Marvell 2008; Plassman and Tideman 2001; Plassman and Whitley 2003). There has also been work completed to supplement Lott and Mustardâ⠂¬â„¢s data by including additional years of statistics up to 2006 (Ayres and Donohue III 2009b; Moody and Marvell 2008). There is also the issue of obtaining data regarding a state’s concealed handgun permits. Since there only six states that had any reportable data available regarding the number of concealed handgun permits issued, there was also agreement that a dichotomous value was required to assess the status of a states concealed handgun laws (Ayres and Donohue III 2003; Bartley and Cohen 1998; Black and Nagin 1998; Lott and Mustard 1997; Ludwig 2000; Moody and Marvell 2008; Plassman and Tideman 2001; Plassman and Whitley 2000). This continues to be a contentious point amongst scholars since there is no measure for the number of issued concealed weapon permits by state. The unit at which the studies were analyzed varied, and there is some level of debate as to which unit of analysis is best able to interpret the available data. Lott and Mustard (1997) argue that the county is the best unit of analysis based on the heterogeneity of states and the effects this carries over to state level analysis. Additionally, they argue that the city level isn’t appropriate due to the lack of time-series data once the laws are put in place (Lott and Mustard 1997). However, the county as the unit of analysis is rejected by several other scholars. Black and Nagin (1998) use the county as their unit of analysis but reject Lott and Mustard’s results based on their acceptance of all counties, which results in the dropping of a large amount of data due to some crimes not being present in all counties each year. Thus, Black and Nagin (1998) set a population limit on the counties being accepted into the analysis. On the other hand, Plassman and Tideman (2001) find that limiting counties by size results in a loss of significant value to the models and instead use the state to discover a significant variation in results across multiple states. Finally, Ayres and Donohue III (2003, 2009b) run models utilizing both state and county levels to test for reliability and accuracy of the available data. Additionally, the state level data was able to be extended using the UCR through 2006. Utilizing county level data is dangerous due to the sheer inaccuracy of it, amongst other issues (Ayres and Donohue III 2003).What is clear from each of these studies is that the unit of analysis can certainly vary, and it is necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each before moving forward. The methods used by scholars are the true dividing force in the debate over concealed handgun laws. There seems to be little agreement on which methods produce the most accurate results and each subsequent scholar that joins the debate finds a new method to interpret the available data. The only consensus that is to be found in the literature supports a cross-sectional, time series study. Following that, the models used to analyze the data vary widely. Lott and Mustard (1997) utilized a least squares regression model along with Black and Nagin (1998) and Bartley and Cohen (1998). Plassman and Tideman (2001) found this causes unreliable results since the least squares method is not suitable for the low levels of occurrence for some of the crimes. They argue that a Poisson-lognormal model is much more accurate based on the available data (Plassman and Tideman 2001). Ludwig (2000) utilizes only the homicide data, due to the unreliability of other nonviolent crime data, to run a differen ce-in-difference-in-difference (DDD) model at the state level. Ayres and Donohue III (2003) also reject the least squares regression model based on the re-running of the analysis with their additional data sets and instead favor a hybrid model that incorporates state trends, state post-law dummies, and state post-law trends. This latter model has also been rejected due to the restriction of Ayres and Donohue III’s post passage analysis to only five years. When the model was extended by one more year, the results shifted completely (Moody and Marvell 2009).This is also dangerous since there was only one to three years worth of data available for the 25 states originally reviewed, so extending the analysis an additional year could have caused errors in the results (Ayres and Donohue III, 2009). The available research on right to carry laws and their effects on the crime rate show that there is much disagreement surrounding the available data, at what level the data should be analyzed, measures utilized, and models used for the regression analysis. As a result, there is still room to provide input into this issue and no true key findings amongst scholars exist, though, general findings can be surmised. With regard to the data, there will always be inconsistencies with how crime is reported and provided to the public in the UCR. Regardless, this is the best available source for crime data and the real debate should be on what level that data is analyzed and how to control for the inaccuracy of the available data. All of the research has used either state or county level data due to the lack of city level data prior to 1985. The measures utilized also show a discrepancy amongst research as to the most appropriate variables necessary to account for other factors that affect cri me. This is certainly a problem all of its own due to the demonstrated effects on results of removing certain variables and accounting for others. Thus, more work is necessary to discover the most appropriate variables to control for during the analysis. Finally, a host of models have been used to run regression analysis with each finding differing results. This calls into question the reliability of the results and the need for additional research. With this information in mind, this study will approach the issue of the crime rate in a quantitative method. The dependent variable will be the crime rate since the issue at hand is what causes variance in the crime rate. The units of analysis will be states and time represented over a calendar year. Treatment and control states will be utilized to account for other factors that can be expected to impact crime rates. The primary variable this article will analyze is the presence of concealed handgun laws. The second variable this study expects to affect crime rate variance is the metropolitan population percentage of a state. With the dependant and independent variables having been established, there are two hypotheses this study puts forward. First, if concealed handgun laws are in place, then the crime rate should be reduced over time. Second, if a state’s metropolitan population percentage decreases over time, then the crime rate should decrease over time. Thus, for the independent variable of concealed handgun laws, this study expects to see a positive impact to the crime rate. For the metropolitan population percentage variable, it is expected that a lower percentage over time will have a positive impact to the crime rate, and a higher percentage over time will have a negative impact. Works Cited Aikens, Steven and Slider, Gary. 2014. â€Å"US State Pages.† Accessed on March 3, 2014.http://www.handgunlaw.us/. Ayres, Ian and Donohue III, John J. 2003.â€Å"Shooting down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis.†Stanford Law Review 55 (April): 1193-1312.  ­Ã‚ ­Ã‚ ­Ã‚ ­Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚ ­Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚ ­Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚ ­. 2009. â€Å"Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis – With Some Help From Moody and Marvell.† Econ Journal Watch 6 (January): 35-59. – ­Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚ ­Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚ ­Ã‚ ­Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚ ­. 2009b. â€Å"More Guns, Less Crime FailsAgain: The Latest Evidence from1977 – 2006.† Econ Journal Watch 6 (May): 218-238. Bartley, William A. and Cohen, Mark A. 1998. â€Å"the Effect of Concealed weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis.† Economic Inquiry 36 (April): 258-265. Black, Dan A. and Nagin, Daniel S. 1998. â€Å"Do Rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?† The Journal of Legal Studies 27 (January): 209-219. Lott, John R. and Mustard, David B. 1997. â€Å"Crime, Deterrence, and Rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Carry Concealed Handguns.† The Journal of Legal Studies 26 (January): 1-68. Lott, John R. 2000. More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ludwig, Jens. 2000. â€Å"Gun Self-Defense and Deterrence.† Crime and Justice 27: 363-417. Moody, Carlisle E. and Marvell, Thomas B. 2008).â€Å"The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws.†Econ Journal Watch 5 (September): 269-293. Plassman, Florenz and Tideman, Nicolaus. 2001. â€Å"Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say.† Journal of Law and Economics 44 (October): 771-798. Plassman, Florenz and Whitley, John. 2003. â€Å"Confirming More Guns, Less Crime.† Stanford Law Review 55 (April): 1313-1369.

Compare And Contrast Tcsec And Cc Information Technology Essay

Compare And Contrast Tcsec And Cc Information Technology Essay To evaluate a computer system or product to see it meets the security requirements based on the information security evaluation standards. Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) was the first computer security evaluation standard which was published by the U.S. defense department in1985. TCSEC influenced other European countries and very soon some countries based on TCSEC to develop their own security evaluation standards. In 1996, America combined with 5 European countries (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands and Canada) and NSA (National Security Agency) and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) developed a new criterion which was called Common Criteria (CC). In 1999 Common Criteria (CC) was recognized by ISO and named ISO/IEC 15408-1999. In this essay TCSEC and CC will be discussed, compared and contrasted to find out the similarities and differences and the strength of CC will be indicated. The answers for the topic are based on research on relevant articles and journals and most of the resources are from the internet. The materials are then analyzed and discussed. The outline of the report is as follows: Introduction- brief description of the topic. Background- explanation of TCSEC and CC. Compare and contrast the two standards Describe the similarities and differences between the two standards and state the advantages of CC. Some journals, articles and books are used in this report which can be found in the references. Background This session discusses TCSEC with the evaluation class of TCSEC. And also describes the CC and evaluation of assurance level of CC and the evaluation process. TCSEC Evaluation Class CC- Assurances Levels D Lowest protections EAL1 Functionally tested C1 Discretionary Protection EAL2 Structurally tested C2 Controlled Access Protection EAL3 Methodically tested checked B1 Labeled Security Protection EAL4 Methodically designed, tested, reviewed B2 Structured Protection EAL5 Semi-formally designed and tested B3 Security Domains EAL6 Semi-formally verified design and tested A1 Verified Protection EAL7 Formally verified design and tested Table 1- Evaluation Class of TCSEC and Evaluation Assurances Level CC TCSEC is commonly called the Orange Book (the cover of book is orange). TCSEC has 4 divisions and 7 evaluation classes. Each class contains security requirements and it is used to determine the level of trust of a computing system. The divisions of TCSEC are A, B, C, D and the seven evaluation classes are: D (lowest), C1, C2, B1, B2, B3 and A1 (highest). A is more secure than D, and 2 is more secure than 1. (See Table 1) Level D: non-secure system Level D only contains D1 evaluation class. D1 is the lowest protections and only provides security protection for file and user. Level D can be applied to any system which has been evaluated but did not meet the higher evaluation class requirements. Level C: Discretionary protection Level C provides audit trial protection and Level C includes C1 and C2.C1 is discretionary security protection and its class is lower in Level C. C1 provides discretionary access control and it has the responsibility for Identification and authentication. C2 has all the security features of C1 and has the function of audit trail and access protection. C2 requires single- user log-in with password and an audit trail system. C2 works through log-in process, security event and source isolation to increase access. Level B: Mandatory Control. There are 3 classes in Level B and they are B1, B2 and B3.B1 has all the requirements of C2 and it also has some new requirements: each object has a label which is under system control. It uses sensitivity labels as a basis of all the access control and labels the object which will import to the system. When the system administrator adds a new communication channel or I/O mechanism, he has to manually assign security level to the channel and mechanism. The system uses user password to determine the user access level and it also uses audit to record any unauthorized access [13]. B2 has all the requirements of B1. Besides that, the B2 administrator must have clear and documentation style of security policy for trusted computing base. B2 has some new security requirements: system must immediately inform any changes between user and associated network, only user is able to do initial communication in the trusted path and the trusted computer base supports inde pendent administrator and operator. B3 has all the requirements of B2. But B3 has stronger ability to monitor access and anti-interference. B3 system has to set the security of the administrator. The new security requirements for B3 are: provide a readable security list, some objects are not allowed for certain users to access, the system has to provide a description of the users and to identify user before any operation and the trusted computing base establishes security audit trail for each labeled object [13]. Level A has the highest security. Level A only has A1 class. A1 is similar to B3. A1has the obvious features a developer of system must adopt for a formal design specification to analyze a system. After analysis, the developer has to use verification technology to ensure that the system meets the design specifications. The entire installation operation must be done by the system administrator and each step has to provide formal documentation. In TCSEC, to identify the security and to give some assurance to the system, it has to meet the security requirements [14]. The TCSEC was replaced by CC. CC is a framework of mutually recognized evaluation criteria and it contains 3 parts: security model, security functional requirements and security assurance requirements. Security assurance components are the basis for the security assurance requirements and it expresses in Protection Profile (PP) or Security Target (ST) [15]. A Protection Profile is the security requirements of customers and a company of users for a class of Targets of Evaluation (TOE) [15]. A PP uses a template independently to express security requirement. This is useful when implementing a product line or a family of related products [7]. Protection Profile copy TCSEC security requirements of C2 and B1. Protection Profile include: a template of commercial security profile, Firewall profiles which use for packet filters and application gateways, Smart card profiles, Database profile and a role which is based on control profile [16]. A Security Target consists of a collection of security requirements and used to evaluate computer system or product [7]. Figure 1 The PP/ST specification framework [7] Evaluation is that use defined criteria to evaluate a computer system or IT product [16]. Figure 1 shows specification framework to the Targets of Evaluation. The Common Criteria evaluation process starts from identifying a TOE (Target of Evaluation), and then input an ST which describes the security functions of the TOE [16], the example of TOE is computer system or product, To see if the result of the system is secure, it should meet a set of security requirements or protection profile [7]. Common Criteria provides a set of Evaluation Assurance Levels (EAL) from EAL1 (lowest) to EAL7 (highest) and it will be awarded to products and system upon successful completion of evaluation (see Table 1). The Common Criteria is absorbed by ISO (NO. 15408) EAL1- Functionally tested. For the correct operation of EAL1, it requires a certain confidence of occasion. This situation is of the view that the security threats are not serious [7]. EAL1 provide the evidence of testing and its documentation. EAL2- Structurally tested. In the delivery of the design information and test results, EAL2 requires the developer collaboration. But do not spend too much energy beyond the good commercial operation of consistency. EAL3- Methodically tested checked. Without a lot of changes on the premise of reasonable development practices, it allows a conscientious developer to obtain maximum assurance during the design phase from the correct security engineering. EAL4- Methodically designed, tested, reviewed. It allows the developers to obtain maximum guarantee from the correct security engineering, the security engineering is based on good and strict commercial development practice. This development practice does not need much professional knowledge, skills or other resources. In the rational economic conditions, and to renovate an existing production line, EAL can achieve the highest level of result [7]. EAL5- Semi-formally designed and tested. It enables the developers to obtain maximum security from the security engineering. The security engineering is based on a strictly commercial development practice. It relies on the appropriate application of professional safety engineering technology for support. EAL6- Semi-formally verified design and tested. It enables the developers to gain a high level of certification through the application of safety engineering technology and strict development environment, and. This is to produce a costly TOE to protect high-value assets against major risks [16]. EAL7- Formally verified design and tested. It is applicable to safe TOE development and it applies to places where the risk is very high, or high value assets that worth higher expenses. In this session discussed TCSEC and CC, an explained evaluation class of TCSEC, evaluation assurance level of CC and the evaluation process. Those discussions are very important that helps to find out the similarities and difference of TCSEC and CC. Next session, TCSEC and CC will be compared and contrasted based on the above discussion. Compare and contrast TCSEC and CC This session will discuss the similarities and differences between the security standards based on the above description on TCSEC and CC. It will also state the strength of CC and to explain why CC is a relatively successful security evaluation standard. Similarities Even though TCSEC has been replaced by CC, they still have some similarities. Both of them are security evaluation standard and evaluate computer system by security level classification and each level has security requirements. Both of them provide confidentiality security functionality and evaluate Computer Operation System. Differences Although CC has some similarities as TCSEC, but both of them are different. TSCEC is only used in U.S. In the beginning, it was proposed that TCSEC was to focus on independent computer system and it suited evaluation of military operating system. TCSEC does not involve security criteria for open system and it is the criteria for static model. TSCEC just considered protecting system owner and operator but did not cover user security area especially for the security of telecommunication system user. And also only considered confidentiality for documents of system owner and it did not address integrity and availability. From Table 1 we see that the evaluation of TCSEC is mix security and functionality. So if any hardware of software is changed, it will start to evaluate the system again. But CC is recognized by ISO organization and it applies to nations. Compared CC with TCSEC, CC is more complete. Common Criteria is not only focus on operating system but also for Network and Database. Common Criteria involve security criteria for open system and the criteria for dynamic model. CC keeps system confidentiality, availability and integrity through TOEs security specifications. CC has distinguished security and functionality, any change does not affect the evaluation. The evaluation process of both also is different. TCSEC checks system to see if it is secure by using the security requirements which is classified by evaluation class. In a Common Criteria evaluation, use Common Criteria to evaluate the product or computer system. The evaluation stages are: Protection Profile evaluation, Security Targets evaluation, TOE evaluation and Assurance maintenance.CC evaluates system starting from identifying a TOE, and then developing a set of criteria to the TOE for evaluation. For each step, detailed information will be added. To get to know if the system is secure, it should meet a set of security criteria or protection profile. Finally TCSEC has been substituted by CC. That means TCSEC was abandoned but CC is still the ongoing security evaluation standard. The advantages of CC Form the above comparison of the differences between TCSEC and CC, we can point out that CC is a relatively successful security evaluation standard because CC has some advantages. CC is an international security standard and many countries acknowledge the testing result. CC is absorbed in security objectives and the related threats and the evaluation process help to enhance confidentiality, availability and integrity of the system. CC provides a set of security criteria in detail and the criteria details are easily understood by customer and supplier. Customer can use them to determine the security level of the products and also to find out their own security requirements. So that supplier can design product for them and also use them to identify their product or system security features. Customer can trust the evaluation because the testing is done independently and not by the supplier. In this session, the similarities and differences between TCSEC and CC have been discussed and after comparison, the advantages of CC have been indicated. Conclusion To sum up, through the discussion of the evaluation process and assurance level of TCSEC and CC, we found out the similarities and differences between the two standards and also the advantages of CC. TCSEC is firstly a security standard and it develops 4 levels and 7 evaluation classes. Each evaluation class contains security requirements and using the requirements it will help to identify the security level of the system or product. TCSEC has provided identification and authentication for user to access the system document and also to provide audit trial and access protection. TCSEC evaluates system or products by checking security requirements to see if the system meets them. TCSEC has been replaced by CC and CC is an international security evaluation standard. CC provides Protection Profiles and Security Targets which are documents for specifying security requirements. [2] CC has 7 Evaluation assurance levels. Because CC came from TCSEC, they have some similarities but actually they are quite different. TCSEC only applies to operation system and it focuses on the demand of confidentiality. CC has full description of security mode, security concepts and security functionality. Compared with TCSEC, CC has some advantages. The testing result is accepted by nations, supplier can design product for customer based on their requirements. CC keeps system confidentiality, availability and integrity. After comparison we can say that CC is relatively a successful security evaluation standard.

costs and affects of quarrying in National Parks Essay -- essays resea

Mining and quarrying were the backbone of Britain’s economy since the start of the industrial revolution. Due to cleaner methods in energy production, which have been enforced during last 100 years and the course of developments in modern technology, Britain’s principle wealth is now governed mainly by the success of her tertiary businesses synonymous with the larger towns and cities. Nevertheless our standard of living also depends on the supply of aggregates, the most basic of building materials but most commonly used in the construction of buildings, transport networks, tunnels railroads and airports. According to Foster Yeoman (1994) the aggregates industry is five times the size of the domestic coal industry. However, such material often comes from quarries located in areas of high scenic value, which are often National Parks or Areas of Natural Beauty (AONB’s) and is raising cause for concern among environmentalists and local communities, but for different reasons. The National Parks of England and Wales were designated as such under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949. The purposes for which they were designated were to: ‘conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of its area and to provide for the enjoyment and understanding of its special qualities by the public’ Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA 2001). Furthermore the National Park Authorities (NPAs) are also required to foster the social and economic well being of the communities within the park.’ Scotland however had a much smaller population; therefore the pressures on the land were deemed not to be as great. Consequently places of natural beauty did not warrant the designation of national park status. Nevertheless, the new Scottish Parliament is currently implementing National Park areas throughout Scotland. Described by Simmons (1974) protected landscape is a non-consumptive resource: the crop is of a visual nature and when this has been taken in by the consumer; the source remains the same and it is the aim of the management to perpetuate this attribute. It is the duty of the NPAs (and their governing body ANPA) to promote methods of sustainable development, which is commonly achieved by each NPA having a ‘balanced membership’, consisting of local people and those representing the national interest by virtue of their individual knowl... ...01 http://www.qpa.org/profile_ohme.html  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  02 May 2001 http://www.peakdistrict.org/Pages/Facts/fz2tour.htm  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  02 May 2001 http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/~visimp.htm  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  07 May 2001 REFERENCES Wallis E.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Geofile: UK Mines and Quarries  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  April 1992   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Edition 194 McGarvie M.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Foster Yeoman 75  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Butler & Tanner   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A Pictorial History  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   1998 Simmons I.G.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Ecology of Natural Resources  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Edward Arnold   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  1974 http://www.anpa.co.uk http://www.yeoman-poland.pl/e_ofirmie2.html http://www.qpa.org/profile_ohme.html

Temptations :: essays research papers

Temptation I. Introduction: Temptation is a vast topic. The bible is filled with temptation from cover to cover, mostly about how God dealt with our problem of sin and giving us victory. God deals with temptation and we deal with it too. It is reality that everybody gets tempted from time to time by the devil. Jesus also was tempted but never sinned , temptations goal is to lure you away from God. There are a lot of ways the devil can tempt you, just make sure to stay focused and filled with the Spirit. And understand the goals of the devil to want to send temptation to us. II. Today’s situations of getting tempted to do wrong. A. Temptation is everywhere Picture this: Like a scuba diver in the ocean, we feel engulfed with water and alluring sights. B. The ways a person can be tempted are through materialism, pride, laziness, sexually, greed, envy, gluttony, and lying. III. FILLING: of the Spirit A. No wonder the Bible instructs believers to get filled with the Spirit of God: Instead, let the Holy Spirit fill and control you. Then you will sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, making music to the Lord in your hearts. And you will always give thanks for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eph 5:18-19 B. See how God helps? It is in our distress, when we feel weak, the Spirit prays for us. It is all about trust and dependence on God. God will work things out. So stand firm in truth that God assigns no blame, truly forgiven of sins. No condemnation for those in Jesus (Rom.8:1 ff.) So the Spirit of life dwells in all true believers and it is His Spirit that continues to help. Apart from God we have no life. IV. Goal of Temptation A. Temptation’s Lure: Find life apart from God -That is what Satan wanted to do with Jesus – go for the â€Å"do it yourself, instant fix† B. Strategy: Twisting Scripture That is what Satan specializes in. He knows the Bible well enough to twist it with some from of innocent looking deception. What’s wrong with telling a stone to become bread? V. Conclusion Jesus has promised to help, let go of the seeds and seek His help. The story of Jesus’ temptation reminds us Jesus knows the experience really well, the battle isn’t over, Satan will want to get at us at an "opportune time", but he is able to help, be like Jesus, full of the Spirit, full of God’s acceptance and love.

Family and Young Boy Charley

Book Report â€Å"For One More Day†, By Mitch Albom Made by: Kitti Kristanti, Sec 1d For One More Day â€Å"This is a story about a family, and as there is a ghost involved, you might call it a ghost story. But every family is a ghost story  . The dead sit at our tables long after they have gone. † This is a beautiful, haunting novel about the family we love and the chances we miss. It explores the question, â€Å"What would you do if you could spend one more day with the ones you love? †Ã‚   The story  covers a conversation  Charley Benetto has with a sports writer.Throughout the conversation he goes back and forth between  the one last day he had with his mother and the important  events in his life, sharing his feelings– both past and present– about them. I particularly enjoyed the   way he shared throughout the book little vignettes of the times his mother stood up for him and the times he didn’t stand up for her. As a mother myself, I couldn’t help wondering if someday my own children would be able to look back and see with clarity the sacrifices I have made for them.Throughout the book I ‘heard’ some of the same things from the young boy Charley that I hear from my own children. It was rewarding and brought hope to see him come to a realization of how his interpretation of the events had been inaccurate and skewed by emotions in the moment. Perhaps my children will also understand someday As a young boy Charley Benetto makes the choice to be a daddy’s boy and does everything his father asks him to. Then his father disappears, leaving a broken family and an embarrassing situation for the young Charley to endure.Being raised by a single mother has it’s challenges and plenty of embarrassment, many that Charley takes out on his mother. â€Å"So he chooses his father, and he worships him- right up to the day the man disappears. An eleven-year-old Charley must then turn to his mother, who bravely raises him on her own, despite Charley’s emabarrassment and yearning for a complete family. †   Ã¢â‚¬ Decade later, Charley is a broken man. His life has been crumbled by alcohol and regret. He loses his job. He leaves his family. He hits bottom after discovering his only daughter has shut him out of her wedding.And he decides to take his own life. † â€Å"He makes a midnight ride to his small home-town, with plans to do himself in. But upon failing to do that, he staggers back to his old house, only to make an astonishing discovery. His mother- who died eight years earlier- is still living there, and welcomes him home as if nothing had ever happened. † â€Å"What follows is the one ‘ordinary’ day so many of us yearn for, a chance to make good with a lost parent, to explain family secrets, and to seek forgiveness. Somewhere between this life and the next, Charley learns the things he never knew about his mother and h er sacrifices.And he tries, with her tender guidance, to put the crumbled pieces of his life back together. † I related to this story on many levels. As a single mother myself I could relate to many of the experiences described and gained insight into what my children may be experiencing as a result of events they have no control over. As a daughter  who has at times experienced a  strained relationship with my own mother,   I gained  valuable insights into my own childhood memories and interpretations and was  reminded, again, that there is much more to the story that I do not completely understand.And as always– the betrayal revealed in the end made the recent and  painful betrayal of my own life seem small and insignificant in comparison. This clever story, told in Mitch’s masterful storytelling style, has left me with a new appreciation and understanding for those I love and has motivated me to be more intentional in valuing and cherishing the rel ationships I enjoy with those I love so that I will not be left with regrets for the experiences and the love lost. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has ever been a part of a family, who has ever lived with regrets, and who has ever questionned the value of their very existence.

Federal government of the United States Essay

 © 2010 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved. The Carnegie Endowment does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Endowment, its staff, or its trustees. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Carnegie Endowment. Please direct inquiries to: About the Author Nathaniel Ahrens is a visiting scholar in the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, where his research focuses on climate, energy, and sustainable development issues in China. He is the president of Golden Road Ventures Ltd., a business development and strategic advisory firm that provides expertise and support for critical projects in China, including sustainable development, government procurement, agriculture, and media. Previously, Ahrens was senior product manager and director of international sales for Intrinsic Technology, a Shanghai-based telecommunications software provider. He also founded Shanghai Pack Ltd., a luxury-brand packaging company based in Shanghai and Paris. Ahrens is a member of the National Committee on U.S.–China Relations, the Asia Society, and serves as an honorary ambassador for the State of Maine. Indigenous innovation1 has become the greatest immediate source of economic friction between the United States and China. This trend is not unique to these two countries; policy makers globally are actively trying to stimulate domestic innovation. The burgeoning markets for biotech and environmentrelated products and services and, potentially even more important, countries’ efforts to emerge from the global economic slowdown all reinforce this trend. Mindful of this global scene, China has made indigenous innovation one of the core elements of its attempt to make a structural shift up the industrial value chain. Recently, however, indigenous innovation has been tarred with a protectionist brush. In both China and the United States, there have been increasing calls for buy-local stipulations and the erection of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. In China, these measures primarily take the shape of government â€Å"local content† mandates and through the preferential treatment given to products officially classified as â€Å"national indigenous innovation products† (NIIP) in the government procurement process. In the United States, they have taken the form of buy-local provisions and efforts to shut out foreign companies. The conflict has been escalating dangerously. In the run-up to the recent Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the U.S. business community ranked indigenous innovation in China as its number one policy concern, above even the currency issue. As of this writing, the key points of contention remain unresolved. Yet despite the loud cries of protest against it, the global trend toward â€Å"homegrown† innovation is a healthy, positive development. Without innovation, countries cannot continually raise wages and living standards.2 Government procurement should play an important role in stimulating innovation, but maintaining open markets and international linkages is critical. But instead of following its current approach of short-term product substitution and picking winners by protecting them from competition, China should focus on proven, market-friendly ways of stimulating innovation. Government procurement’s primary roles should be market signaling, de-risking R&D, bridging the finance gap, and stimulating demand. The United States would also benefit by refocusing its government procurement policies along the lines indicated in the key findings of this paper, especially concentrating on facilitating more open markets and elevating the importance of sustainable procurement. The following set of specific recommendations for China will stimulate innovation through open markets and the effective use of government procurement