The Chemical Composition of Air

The Chemical Composition of Air Nearly all of the Earths atmosphere is made up of only five gases: nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide. Several other compounds are also present. Although this CRC table does not list water vapor, air can contain as much as 5% water vapor, more commonly ranging from 1-3%. The 1-5% range places water vapor as the third most common gas (which alters the other percentages accordingly). Below is the composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa. Nitrogen N2 78.084%Oxygen O2 20.9476%Argon Ar 0.934%Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314%Neon Ne 0.001818%Methane CH4 0.0002%Helium He 0.000524%Krypton Kr 0.000114%Hydrogen H2 0.00005%Xenon Xe 0.0000087%Ozone O3 0.000007%Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 0.000002%Iodine I2 0.000001%Carbon Monoxide CO traceAmmonia NH3 trace Reference CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, edited by David R. Lide, 1997.

20 Common Law Internship On-Campus Interview Questions

20 Common Law Internship On-Campus Interview Questions The on-campus interview (OCI): It has an ominous ring to it, maybe because of horror stories told by other law school students, maybe because of the pressure to do well. Almost all law schools offer some type of on-campus interview at the start of the students second year. Although your entire future may not hang on the success of your OCI, you definitely want to do well enough to proceed to the next step: the callback interview. If you manage that, your future will indeed be brighter.   You can do this, and you can do it well. In fact, you can ace it with the right preparation and if you know what to expect going in. The OCI Despite its name, the OCI may or may not actually take place on campus, but in a hotel conference room or another public facility. Its not with law school personnel, but rather with representatives of some of the foremost law firms in the area- even some outside the area. Theyre looking for the perfect students to staff their summer associate programs. And yes, that will look awesome on your resume even if your interview doesnt ultimately result in a summer  position, which is, of course, your ultimate goal.   Your meetings arent random. You must apply to your targeted firms first, and the firm will most likely receive a lot of bids. The firm then chooses who it wants to interview from among these bids. If youre chosen and if you do well, youll be invited back for that callback interview, which will most likely result in a summer job offer.   What Happens in the Law School Interview? Preparation means knowing what interview questions you can probably expect. Not every interview goes the same way, of course, so you may or may not be asked all the following questions. In a worst-case scenario, you wont be asked any of them. But you should at least have answers prepared for these so youre not caught off guard, and you can use them for ideas to branch out into other possible questions so you can prepare for those, too.   Why did you go to law school?Are you enjoying law school? What do you like/dislike about it?What classes do you enjoy/dislike?Do you feel youre getting a good legal education?If you could go back and decide whether to go to law school again, would you do it?Do you feel your GPA and/or class rank is representative of your legal abilities?Why do you think youd make a good lawyer?What is your biggest weakness?Do you like working on your own or on a team?How do you handle criticism?What is your proudest achievement?Where do you see yourself in 10 years?Do you consider yourself competitive?What have you learned from work experiences/student activities?Have you ever withdrawn from a class?What do you know about this firm?Why do you want to work at this firm?What areas of law interest you most?What types of books do you like to read?Do you have any questions? The last one can be tricky, but you are certainly entitled to ask a few questions of your own, so prepare for that possibility as well.

Why is workplace bullying an important issue in managing people at Essay

Why is workplace bullying an important issue in managing people at work - Essay Example Other that interfering with the physical well being of a person, bullying also inflicts psychological injury leading to deterioration of the victim’s helath. Despite that fact that a victim of bullying can legally claim for compensation, there is no specific compensation-value for psychological injury and the management should view bullying as a serious offence of potential threat to the organizational returns (Quigg, 2011). Several societies globally have raised interest concerning workplace bullying with communities such as government bodies and labor unions tying to seek for the best possible alternatives to eliminate such a vice. Most of the scholarly articles classify that majority of employees have directly experienced workplace bullying while a good number have also observed such happenings in their work institutions (Quigg, 2011). Workplace bullying is of critical concerns when it comes to managing people at work because it subjects an organizations to produces almost nothing or generate productivity far much less below their required capacity thus hurting the organization productivity and leading to a serious loss. Oade & Palgrave (2009), clarifies that it is critical for the management to embrace bullying and harassment tolerance within an organization since they pose serious threats to the production returns. Besides, workplace bullying interferes with the ability of employees from effective and efficient performance inline of their duties. Any slightest negativity as a result of bullying is perceived to be of potential financial loss to both the organization and to the employees themselves. The varying nature of workplace bullying shows that employees are exposed to varied number of symptoms. At some instances, employees experience cannot be associated with bullying. However, some of the common characteristics of bullying in an organization are: Oade & Palgrave (2009), explains that, when bullying is allowed to prevail

Social Performance of National Football League(NFL) Research Paper

Social Performance of National Football League(NFL) - Research Paper Example Finally, in the end, a single elimination game is organized between the group winners of AFC and NFC. This culmination of the two group champions is known as the Super Bowl. The ultimate winner from the Super Bowl is awarded the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Other awards and accolades are given to the coaches and individual players for their exceptional performance that help a team to win. Most of the games are scheduled on the Sunday afternoons to attract more viewers. During the normal season, some games are planned on other week days like Thursdays and Mondays. The corporate structure of NFL is interesting to study. The league office of NFL is not constrained by income tax, as this unincorporated association earns no profit. However, the individual teams are subject to income tax because individually the teams generate profit. So NFL is like a trade association that is financed by its member teams. The league is mainly operated by the commissioner, treasurer and secretary. The conference s are headed by the president. An election is conducted to elect the commissioner and the president (August, n.d.). The prevailing weather condition is one of the key factors that affect the league externally. Sometimes the temperature can go below the normal expected temperature. This may negatively affect the league. Matches may get cancelled due to bad weather conditions, as in an extremely chilly weather it becomes difficult for the players to perform. It is also imperative to enhance the game experience for the fans. Initiatives should be taken by the league committee to conduct the games in indoor stadiums in case of adverse weather conditions. There has to be uniformity in the games so that unfair advantage is not given to any of the teams i.e. indoor facilities should be ensured for every match and not for particular matches as the external environment is vital for the team’s performance. Bad weather

The Ethics Of Poverty

The Ethics Of Poverty I will begin this delicate topic with some information about poverty and then I will explain the differences between those who believe it is not our duty to provide support to the impoverished and those who do. Regardless of who is morally right or wrong or who is responsible for helping the poor, poverty will always be a part of life in this world. There will always be wealthy people and there will always be poor people. It is a fact of our life struggles that corresponds with Darwins theory, only the strong survive. With the economic condition of the world today poverty is a concern that is becoming a greater issue; despite its being overlooked around the world for many years. Most people would rather turn their heads and ignore the fact that there are millions of individuals who live in some state of poverty every day. It is easy for those who are well off to ignore the realization that poverty does exist; because those who choose to remain ignorant about poverty are not worried about where they will sleep that night or where they will get food from. They are also not forced to live in extreme conditions every day or wonder where they can get a shower or clothes, because they have their basic necessities in life. Maybe if they understood what those poverty stricken people were going through, they might reconsider their outlook on poverty. In the United States, poverty is measured by poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines. (Wikipedia, 2011) According to numerous surveys at one time or another, over forty percent of Americans have had to deal with some type of poverty caused by hardships, such as job loss, financial strains, natural disasters, death, divorce, poor economic conditions, and even war. According to the United States Census Bureau, poverty in the U.S. has spiked to an all-time high surpassing fourteen percent. (CNNMoney.com, 2010) According to National Public Radio online, poverty has not been the main issue for many Americans and in fact it has slowly faded from the headlines. (NPR, 2001) So with all that information; I will pose some questions that are always being asked about who are actually responsible for the lack of attention the poverty issue has received. Is the U. S. Government to blame? Do we blame Globalization? Who in the world can be the sole individual to blame? Do we blame Americans because our nation is more advanced than those third world countries? Whose duty is it to help those in need? These questions are the ones that many human rights supporters and their opponents are quarreling over. Despite this information and the questions I presented; there are Americans who believe poverty is a big problem and they are all in consensus that something should be done about it. Many of those individuals also agree that any aid our government/country gives to those in need is only done because it is in the best interest of our national government and not because the government feels they have to. If our government felt it was their duty as a nation to give continuously to the impoverished, then we wouldnt have poverty stricken people or homeless individuals here in the United States. The worlds poverty numbers would diminish extremely if our government felt it was their duty to help all those in need. There are many philosophers like Peter Singer, Ayn Rand, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky and numerous Human Rights Activists such as Thomas Pogge and Simon Caney as well as other humanitarian organizations that believe wealthy people have a moral obligation or duty to help those who are severely destitute. If the well-to-do opt not to help those who live a life of severe poverty, they are considered human rights violators and the same Activist protest there should be some kind of condemnation for ignoring those who are suffering from poverty. (Saddia, 2010) For example, Peter Singer suggests that if the well off have abundance and are well to do then it is their moral responsibility to assist those in need. (Wikipedia, 2011) Helping those in need comes down to ones beliefs and moral values. It really is up to individuals to decide for themselves as to whether or not they want to help the needy. If they feel bad for those in need, then the answer would be yes, those individuals should help the poor. But, if there are no deep feelings of sorrow, then the answer to whether they should help, would be no. Like I previously stated, it is what the individual believes in their mind and heart. Their moral judgment will give them the answer they are searching for as to whether they are wasting their time and money in trying to help the needy or if they feel helping the needy would make them feel better as a person. In the case of poverty, I believe an individuals morals are based off emotions, reflexes and what they feel in their hearts. Most individuals depend on these emotions, reflexes, and feelings to help them make decisions. There is a possibility the world could benefit from those who help the needy; the total number of impoverished families and people in the world might be reduced with help from the wealthy. But there are too many poverty stricken people in this world to help, that it would take much longer than we have on this earth to see the positive changes. All individuals have a right to basic necessities such as food, water, clothing, and shelter; however, providing the basic necessities to the needy should not be the sole responsibility of those who are better off. An individual who is well off can only do so much for so long and after helping those in need, individuals begin to assume they are being taken advantage of and they start providing less and less assistance to the needy. They tend to find a mindset of why am I the only one helping these people and why should I help them. Other individuals have concerns as to where their monetary assistance is actually going. People who help out by donating money to those charity organizations that support the impoverished, wonder if their monetary support is actually making it to those in need in a third world country or if some organization leader is keeping a majority of the donated money to help cover costs of that organization. Like me I wonder the same thing, because I know there are millions of people and charity organizations who are helping the impoverished, but we cannot assume that all the aid is going to those needy because nothing is really changing for those who are poor. It seems those who support the poor are fighting a losing battle. On the other hand, there are many people world-wide who believe the well-to-do do not have a moral duty or obligation to provide support or provide assistance to those who desperately need it. Individuals who think this believe they have worked too hard to for what they have, that they shouldnt have to just give it away because someone else in another country is not working hard enough to alleviate their plight. They also believe that it is not their concern or their fault that people in other countries are so poor. Forcing the well-to-do to share their wealth with the poor would be considered a violation of their rights since they are not being allowed to choose whether to give or not. If we continue to just provide assistance instead of resources for them, to the impoverished we are just causing more problems down the road, because those who are poor will continue to expect support instead of using the resources to better themselves. Needless to say, the poor continue to reproduce at a greater number than the rich. So those third world countries are practically doubling in population and if we continue to provide some sort of safety net in the form of support from the wealthy, then how can the poor population ever recover. I dont want to venture into religious opinions, but the Bible does state there will always be poor amongst us. Yet many Archbishops state, the rich should help the poor. Garrett Hardin a philosopher as well was opposed to Peter Singers theory that the rich should be influenced to help the poor. There are many well-to-do individuals who claim they have no responsibility for the millions of poor people across the world, because it was not their fault the poor people ended up in that situation. Yet there are those who believe we have several options: we may be tempted to try to live by the Christian ideal of being our brothers keeper, or by the Marxist ideal of to each according to his needs. (Hardin, 2003) Those who believe we should not supp ort the poor are said to have more of an individual egoism (Philosophy Basics, ) which means they are more inclined to act in their self-interest. So with all that being said, what is the morally right thing to do and whos duty is it to help those in need? There is and always will be different views on who is to blame and who should help the impoverished. The absolute fact is that there will always be poverty stricken people in this world no matter if we as individuals feel it is our duty to help those in need or not. From the beginning of time to the present day, people have fallen into two categories, they are either hunters or they are gatherers. Those who fall into the hunter category or have the hunter persona are individuals who fight hard to ensure their families have the basic necessities and more if possible. Then you have those individuals who fall into the gatherer category or have the gatherer persona; they expect others, particularly the hunters to feed and take care of them. There are several reasons as to why people are severely poor and those people who are capable of helping would probably make the better decision and help those who fell into poverty because of a natural disaster, job loss due to businesses downsizing, or even medical related problems which keep people from working. Extreme reasons like that affects individuals differently and they are more inclined to help those who fell into poverty. But for someone to say we should help those in need because they fall victim to drugs or violence is not a severe enough reason to entice someone to help. People are not sympathetic to those kinds of reasons. I however, dont believe it is the rich mans responsibility to take care of the poor simply because we choose our own path in life and there is always room for change. Staying in a state of poverty just because there is a small amount of help is not a justifiable reason to avoid changing their situation. I also dont if someone who was extremely poor suddenly became rich, that they would turn around and give their money to the poor. I believe they would possibly donate some of their money to certain charity organizations or maybe give a little money to friends or family who helped them through the tough times. But how long would they continue to give their earnings to the poor is unknown, because they possibly would become tired of having to continuously support those who have less. So in the end, who is really to blame for the poor being poor? I believe their governments should rise up and do more to alleviate the poverty issues in their respective countries. For example, Africa is known for being a continent with a majority of the population being impoverished and not having basic necessities. Yet they export oil, diamonds, and other goods which would increase their Gross National Product and they could use the increase to help the poor. If the country where those needy live has a failing economy, then who is responsible or who do we blame? Do we blame it on Globalization? I believe the American welfare system does not help the poor or improve their situation, it merely allows them to get by and because of this they do not put enough effort into improving their status. It is true to this day, the rich get richer and the poor, poorer.

Macbeth Eulogy Essay

Today, I stand before a nation in mourning, grieving the passing of its King, Macbeth. He shall surely be remembered in history as a noble and courageous soldier and leader who fought with a fierce loyalty and belief in Scotland. Although his reign was not trouble-free or lengthy, Macbeth inspired a unique and individual pride in his country and made every decision with careful thought, holding firmly to his ideals and principles to the very end. Scotland has lost a distinctive and unrivalled leader and those of us who knew him personally are now without a friend whose character shall always be remembered. If there is one word worthy of Macbeth, it is ‘courage’. He was a shining light on the battlefield, seizing opportunities in the bleakest of times and setting an admirable example to his troops. The monarch before him, Duncan, recognised Macbeth’s skills and honoured him as a â€Å"valiant cousin† (Macbeth, Act 1, scene 2) and â€Å"worthy gentleman,â₠¬  deserving respect and reward. Macbeth regularly led his nation into battle in Duncan’s stead, and it would be hard for any present to forget his daring and fearless attitude, particularly not on the day he defeated Sweno’s Norwegian invasion and Macdonald, the rebellious Thane of Cawdor. I termed him Bellona’s bridegroom for his ferocious and splendid skill, and when Duncan was informed of Cawdor’s treachery, he saw Macbeth as deserving a higher status, proclaiming that what â€Å"[the former Thane of Cawdor] hath lost, noble Macbeth hath won.† All will acknowledge he deserved such a status, for he fought with a stubborn determination that would never surrender, and no matter how many invaders flooded our shores, he never ceased to meet them with unforgiving steel. He was a hero to the Scottish nation and his example shall be followed by thousands of soldiers to come. Macbeth carried over his admirable battle qualities to his personal life, but brought none of the violence. Indeed, Duncan observed that his castle â€Å"hath a pleasant seat,† and Lady Macbeth remarked to me on several occasions that although her husband was seen by some as a warrior, he was nonetheless â€Å"full o’ the milk of human kindness.† I can attest to the truth in this statement as could many others seated here today, though it is with profound  regret that we can all see evidence of how this kind nature was abused. Few are aware of the significant influence his now deceased wife had upon him, and in his devotion, he would seek her confidence and advice when contemplating options and making decisions. Though this may have led to fault, it also meant the Macbeths shared a strong bond based upon communication, a quality both of them treasured. Together, they were gracious hosts, renowned amongst other noble families for their much-anticipated banquets. If ever there was an enjoyable social event, Macbeth was sure to be the unparalleled host. His personality was much deeper than dinner parties, however. Macbeth was a man who thought about decisions seriously and deeply, rarely acting upon a thought he had not fully considered. On numerous occasions as a guest of Macbeth, I would encounter him pacing through his castle, lost in solemn contemplation, attempting to comprehend life and philosophical concepts. This led him to recognise that life is fragile and fleeting, labelling it â€Å"a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.† Despite this bleak outlook, he would always consider the consequences that lay before him, giving due respect to the Lord who had blessed him with his position. Although this virtue did not always lead him to the happiness he desired, Macbeth would always contemplate his actions, even in the most dire of circumstances. In his life, he faced many such situations, and once he made a decision, he stubbornly held to it. Despite criticism or hardship, he believed in himself and his information, and he sought to keep his dignity and strength regardless of what calamity he faced. At his death, he stood alone against an army of English who had moved Birnam Wood, choosing not to meekly surrender but instead to bravely fight to the end. With a call of â€Å"blow, wind! come, wrack! At least we’ll die with harness on our back,† he took up arms and fought as boldly as he ever had. He proclaimed that â€Å"bear-like †¦ [he would] fight the course,† and as was his manner, he made his word true, dying as a soldier and gallant fighter. One thing is certain, and it is that Macbeth will never be forgotten by any assembled here or by the Scottish nation as a whole. His courageous deeds as a hero of the nation’s military shone with brilliance and glory, never to dull with the passage of time, and none could honestly say that his time as national monarch was a bland or typical reign. Although famed for his skills  as both a warrior and a host, his personality ran much deeper; his deep thought and loyal devotion to his wife did not always result in prosperity or universal delight, but he nevertheless made much philosophical contemplation and was capable of recognising his own failings. God gave Scotland a king unlike any other, of a standard never to be seen again, and may he rest eternally in a peace he forsook in his earthly life. While we mourn Macbeth’s passing, we should take due time to consider his life and the actions and characteristics that typified it. Everyone, from fellow nobles to peasants e king a living from distant land, could surely learn valuable lessons.

Jeffrey Dahmer Life, Crimes Death - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 598 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/07/03 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Serial Killer Essay Did you like this example? Jeffrey Dahmer is arguably one of the most evil, sadistic and ruthless serial killers in the 20th century. He is believed to have killed 17 young men and boys premeditatedly during the years 1978 to 1991. Jeffrey was a very lonely person and was very friendless as he grew up not getting much attention from his parents. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Jeffrey Dahmer: Life, Crimes Death" essay for you Create order He had said numerously times that his murderous thoughts came around the age of 14 when his parents had divorced. His first ever murder did not come up till after his high school graduation where he had picked up an aged 15 hitchhiker in his car and beat him to death. After this, he had become an alcoholic and could not control his cravings. Despite his insanity, Jeffrey had an IQ of 145 which is top 2% in the world. He had landed himself a spot at Ohio State University which he quickly withdrew from after half of a semester. His father insisted he enlist in the Army, in which he did and worked as a chef, but was later discharged because of his drinking habits. Following his discharge, Jeffrey was forced to live with his grandmother, where his madness only grew as he was arrested multiple times due to indecent exposure and behavior towards other people. He then boiled his victims bodies and hid them under his grandmothers house until he was eventually caught when he lured a man to hi s home, who then luckily escaped and ran straight to the police. He was then sentenced to life in prison. Jeffrey himself had said that his motives were to have complete control over a person and for them never to leave them. Although Jeffrey Dahmer was a very insane and infamous serial killer, Dennis Nilsen also had a very similar life and unique way of killing victims. Dennis is believed to have killed 15 people during his spree of murder. Similarly to Jeffrey, Dennis also grew up a very lonely and withdrawn boy due to his parents. It was not until Dennis was the age of 33 that he had killed his first victim who was a 15 year old boy who he had met at a pub. Unlike Jeffreys high IQ, Dennis Nilsens IQ was never really tested, but must have been high as he did really well in school. Like Jeffrey, Dennis was also enlisted in the Army at a young age and worked as a chef. When Dennis had left the Army, he then pursued to work as a police officer but was later fired after he had taken pictures of David Painter, who was a fellow worker with him, asleep. When Dennis was confronted of the situation, he denied everything and was released without charge. While Jeffrey lived with his grandmother, Dennis lived in an apartment alone which made it much easier to lure and kill people. Although Jeffrey killed his victims in a very horrific way, Dennis, on the other hand, was very gruesome when he killed people because he would clean them up, attempt to have sexual intercourse with them, and then bury them up underneath his floorboards. Dennis would also need to boil his victims as they would have a very bad odor after weeks of being underneath his apartment. In contrast of Jeffrey, Dennis was very good in covering his tracks, but was later caught because of an investigation in his apartment building due to the sewer pipes and was also then sentenced to life imprisonment. The infamous serial killer lives of Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen are possibly the most gruesome and horrific out of the many killers that are known.