Saturday, January 25, 2020
A Conservative Argument against Stem Cell Research Essay -- Stem Cell
A Conservative Argument against Stem Cell Research For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the resear ch of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs. The editorial, ?Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis,? appeared in the September 3, 2000 issue of the Los Angeles Times. Even though the Los Angeles Times, a widely distributed newspaper, has a slightly liberal slant, this editorial displays a strongly conservative view on stem cell research. Thus, the author of the editorial has to be very cautious in the tone that he uses in order not to offend liberal readers. George Weigel, the author of this editorial, picks apart what he sees as the fallacious argument of Michael Kinsley, a well-known libe... ...vative which is supported by the fact that Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Since, he is writing to an audience with a vast range of political viewpoints and he must be very careful not to be too aggressive in the tone he uses. Weigel begins this article with very basic logic and then progresses to logic by analogy with incorporated pathos. This is a very effective method for him with conservative readers because he is successfully able to transfer emotions about other subjects into emotions about stem cell research. He also uses logic by cause and effect, which in this case is designed to create fear in the reader: fear that history will repeat itself. Source Cited Weigel, George. ?Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis.? Editorial. Los Angeles Times. (September 3, 2000): 5. Online. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. A Conservative Argument against Stem Cell Research Essay -- Stem Cell A Conservative Argument against Stem Cell Research For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the resear ch of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs. The editorial, ?Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis,? appeared in the September 3, 2000 issue of the Los Angeles Times. Even though the Los Angeles Times, a widely distributed newspaper, has a slightly liberal slant, this editorial displays a strongly conservative view on stem cell research. Thus, the author of the editorial has to be very cautious in the tone that he uses in order not to offend liberal readers. George Weigel, the author of this editorial, picks apart what he sees as the fallacious argument of Michael Kinsley, a well-known libe... ...vative which is supported by the fact that Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Since, he is writing to an audience with a vast range of political viewpoints and he must be very careful not to be too aggressive in the tone he uses. Weigel begins this article with very basic logic and then progresses to logic by analogy with incorporated pathos. This is a very effective method for him with conservative readers because he is successfully able to transfer emotions about other subjects into emotions about stem cell research. He also uses logic by cause and effect, which in this case is designed to create fear in the reader: fear that history will repeat itself. Source Cited Weigel, George. ?Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis.? Editorial. Los Angeles Times. (September 3, 2000): 5. Online. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Kit Kat analysis Essay
Introduction Nestle has won, after 7 years, trademark battle against Cadbury over the four-fingered shape of the Nestle product – KitKat. Nestle is the Swiss multinational company in snack food, health-related goods industry. Nestle is the largest food company in the world by its revenue. Their products include baby food, bottle water, cereals, coffee, chocolate bars and many others. The most popular products are Nespresso, Nescafe, KitKat, Maggi and Nesquick. Nestlà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s largest competitors are Kraft Foods, Unilever and Mars incorporated. Cadbury is a British company and best known for its confectionary products. Cadbury was established as retailer of tea, coffee and drinking chocolate. The most popular products are Dairy Milk chocolate, the Crà ¨me Egg and Roses selection box. Cadbury`s main competitors are Jacobs Suchard, Nestle and Mars Incorporated. Kit Kat is one of the Nestle popular products which was invented in 18th century by Rowntree`s of York (than was acquired by Nestle). Kit Kat has unique four-fingered shape, which makes it recognizable as the product of Nestle. The following case is all about Kit Kat`s shape and weather Nestle can have a trademark on the shape (not the name – which is more common). Nestle and Cadbury were involved in a lawsuit over the four finger KitkKat`s shape. Nestle -the world’s biggest food company, has succeeded in stopping rivals from copying the shape of the four-fingered bar after a seven-year legal battle.1 Neste had registered shape of KitKat as a trademark in 2006 but Cadbury appealed against this application. In my paper I will discuss claim over trademark between Nestle and Cadbury, and the case status. This case is unusual in the way of concerns; the focus is not on the trademark name, but a trademark shape. By implying that we would not see an infringement in the case, but trademark ruling. KitKat shape The case of KiKat, as mentioned above, is an unusual trademark wrangle between Cadbury and Nestle over shape of chocolate bar. Neste had introduced Kit Kat in 1935 and had registered KitKats shape in 2006. Cadbury applied to invalidate the registration on the basis of shape, since one company cannot monopolize shape. The office of harmonization of the Internal Market, which registers EU Community Trade Marks, allowed 3d – shape trademarks2 for sweets, bakery, biscuits, cakes and waffles in 2006, but lacked in application for chocolate, candy and confectionery. Few years later Cadbury disputed Nestle trademark to Cancellation Committee because of the mark was for a 3d-shape rather than over a name. The Cancellation Committee declared the Nestle trademark invalid. Originally, Cadbury had won its claim. Nestle had appealed and trademark regulators overturned decision after. Regulators reached new decision: as the four-fingered shape Kit Kat was exclusively associating as Nestle product. Nestle had provided evidence of using that shape for long period of time and had provided evidence of KitKat shape was exclusively associated with Nestle across the world and had gathered enough evidence to proof that Nestle had educated the public that chocolate bar with fingered shape is originated by Nestle. Case in flash In 2007 Cadbury filed a declaration of invalidity against Nestle, the request was directed against all the good covered by Nestle. Cadbury had thought that trademarking shape of the chocolate bar is a limitation of choice for consumers. In the proceedings parties submitted their observations and supporting documents. Nestle had submitted the following evidence to proof the KitKats shape was exclusively associated with them3: Overview of the worldwide sales volume, turnover and advertising cost for the 1995-2007 years; Set of documents related for a Kit Kat consumption in the United Kingdom; Promotional leaflet in which history of KitKat presented ; Compilation of the launch dates of the four fingered chocolate bar in the European Union (Uk 1937, Italy 1960, Austria 1988 and etc.); Marketing research, concerning market share; List of commercial and CD (containing examples); Nestle internal financial figures, market share, advertising expenses . Even though trademark is commonly the mark, motto or device, the shape of a product is considered trademark too, because consumers can identify the source of were the product originated. By submitting above evidence it was clear that trademark elements had been met: Kit Kat`s shape is distinctive – sufficient for consumers to identify manufacturer, suggestive – its clear for consumers that four-fingers shape is KitKat taste and even fanciful – Kit Kat had been massively invented by Nestle. Conclusion: Cadbury now has to decide whether or not it wants to appeal against the decision. The latest ruling over KitKat`s shape will prevent similar companies from producing similar bars of chocolate; it is now exclusively associated with Nestle. It was significant win for Nestle, since the four-finger shape became synonymous with its product. Nestlà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s case follows history of legal battles between the two companies. In 2012 Cadbury secured trademark rights to the purple color used on its packaging. Intellectual property office had awarded particular shade of purple to chocolate bars and drinking chocolate to Cadbury. Nowadays a lot of trademark cases are existing. Analyzing the importance of trademark, we can conclude that companies are very concerned of being exclusive and protecting its intellectual property. A lot of trademark cases exist because of technology progress, it is so much easier today to advertise online, have the market research done online, surveying the product satisfaction and etc. Since multimedia is our everyday routine, rivals can easily caught the consumer’s attention (by using already existing trademark) or converse the existing relationship with the product. References: 1. Office for Harmonization in the internal market http://www.ie-forum.nl/backoffice/uploads/file/IEForum%20OHIM%20Board%20of%20Appeal%2011%20december%202012,%20zaak%20R%20513_2011-2%20(Nestlà ©%20tegen%20Cadbury%20Holdings%20Limited).pdf 2. Cadbury thwarted over KitKat design as Nestlà © wins battle to prevent rivals copying four-fingered bar – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256648/Cadbury-thwarted-KitKat-desig
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Advanced French Verb Conjugation
Conjugation refers to the five possible inflections of a verb: Person, Number, Mood, Tense, and Voice. Once youve made a choice from each of these five, you have a conjugation or inflection. For example:Verb - parlerPerson - first personNumber - singularMood - indicativeTense - presentVoice - active je parleVerb - allerPerson - third personNumber - pluralMood - subjunctiveTense - presentVoice - active quils aillentWhen conjugating a French verb, the first things to figure out are the tense and mood, which work hand-in-hand. All moods have at least two tenses (present and past) out of the possible 8 (only the indicative has all 8). The verb timeline lists moods horizontally and tenses vertically.The indicative is the most common mood and is normally not stated. When you talk about the passà © composà ©, the imperfect, or the present tense, for example, you mean of the indicative mood. Its only with other moods like subjunctive and conditional that the mood is stated explicitly.All m oods have a present tense, which is again not made explicit except in the indicative and participle (parentheses indicate what normally goes unsaid): present (indicative)(present) conditional(present) subjunctive(present) imperative(present) infinitivepresent participle So for example, the imperfect (indicative) and the imperfect subjunctive are two different moods of the same tense. On the other hand, the (present) conditional and the past conditional are two different tenses of the same mood. The verb timeline can help you understand this, because it lines up moods and tenses so that you can see how they all fit together. X axis Y axis verb form and basis of individual conjugations. Voilà - now that you understand the basics of French verb conjugation, study the lessons on individual tenses and moods (linked from the verb timeline) to learn more, or visit my French grammar glossary. Tricky Subjects When you understand subject pronouns, tenses, moods, and how to conjugate French verbs, youre in great shape. There are however some grammatical subjects which make conjugation a bit more difficult. Multiple Subjects When you have more than one subject, you have to figure out which subject pronouns would replace that group and then conjugate the verb accordingly. For example, toi et moi would be replaced by nous, as would David et moi. Toi et lui and Michel et toi would be replaced by vous. Lui et elle or Marc et Anne would be replaced by ils. The trick is to make this replacement in your head without actually saying it out loud, as denoted by the (parentheses):   Toi et moi (nous) pouvons le faire   You and I can do it   Paul, Marie et moi (nous) mangeons   Paul, Marie, and I are eating   Toi et elle (vous) à ªtes en retard   You and she are late   Sophie et toi (vous) devez partir   You and Sophie have to leave   Luc et sa femme (ils) sont arrivà ©s   Luc and his wife have arrived   Lui et elle (ils) lisent beaucoup   He and she read a lot Subject +Object Pronoun In a construction with an object pronoun, usually nous or vous, there is sometimes a tendency to conjugate the verb according to it, rather than to the subject pronoun, because the object directly precedes the verb. Though this tends to be a careless mistake made orally rather than a lack of understanding, its included here just as a little reminder.   Je vous ai donnà © la liste   I gave you the list   xx Je vous avez donnà © la liste xx   Vous nous avez menti   You lied to us   xx Vous nous avons menti xx Cest... qui The construction cest  stressed pronoun  qui makes many people - including at times native French speakers - want to use the third person singular verb conjugation because of qui. But this is incorrect; in fact, the conjugation has to agree with the pronoun.   Cest moi qui ai gagnà ©Ã‚   Its me that won   xx Cest moi qui a gagnà © xx   Cest vous qui avez tort   Youre the one whos wrong   xx Cest vous qui a tort xx   Cest nous qui allons le faire   Were the ones who are going to do it   xx Cest nous qui va le faire xx Pronoun + Qui Similar to the cest... qui construction is a subject or demonstrative pronoun  qui. Again, the qui makes people want to use the third person singular, but once again the conjugation has to agree with the pronoun.   Vous qui avez mangà © pouvez partir   Those of you who have eaten may leave   xx Vous qui a mangà © pouvez partir xx   Ceux qui veulent aider doivent me voir   Those who want to help need to see me   xx Ceux qui veut aider doivent me voir xx   Je cherche celles qui à ©tudient   Im looking for the ones who are studying   xx Je cherche celles qui à ©tudie xx Collective Subjects Collective subjects can take the third person singular or plural:    Un tas de fleurs sont mortes / Un tas de fleurs est mort   A bunch of flowers died   Un grand nombre de livres ont disparu / Un grand nombre de livres a disparu   A large number of books disappeared Adverbs of Quantity Adverbs of quantity take the third person singular or plural, depending on the number of the noun that follows:    Beaucoup dà ©tudiants sont arrivà ©s   A lot of students have arrived   Peu de pluie est tombà ©e   Little rain fell   Combien de livres y a-t-il ?   How many books are there?Also see ...dentre... below. Indefinite Pronouns Indefinite pronouns always take a third person conjugation (either singular or plural, depending on the number of the pronoun).   La plupart a dà ©cidà ©Ã‚   Most have decided   Plusieurs sont perdus   Many are lost   Tout le monde est là    Everyone is thereAlso see ...dentre... ...dentre... When an adverb of quantity or indefinite pronoun is followed by entre  personal pronoun, many non-native French speakers (including myself) want to conjugate the verb according to the personal pronoun. But this is incorrect - in this construction, the verb has to be conjugated to agree with what comes before entre, not what comes after.   Certains dentre vous ont oublià ©Ã‚   Some of you forgot   xx Certains dentre vous avez oublià © xx   Beaucoup dentre nous sont en retard   Many of us are late   xx Beaucoup dentre nous sommes en retard xx   Chacun dentre vous peut le faire   Each one of you can do it   xx Chacun dentre vous pouvez le faire xx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)