Internet Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Internet Law - Essay Example Before embarking upon the topic under study, it would be advisable to precisely define intellectual property. The term intellectual property simply refers to the assets that are the outcome of the intellect or ideas of an individual or a group of individuals, which solely belongs to the author or the individual on the one hand, and the organisation to whom its rights have been sold or delegated by the individual creating the intellectual property, and these types of intellectual property can either be tangible or intangible. The term Intellectual Property (IP) reflects the idea that its subject matter is the product of the mind or the intellect.'These could be in the form of Patents; Trademarks; Geographical Indications; Industrial Designs; Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits; Plant Variety Protection and Copyright.'1 Intellectual property act 1994 has determined two major types of intellectual property, which include i) Copyright and ii) Industrial property. Copyright consists of sections of art and literature including prose work, poems, lyrics, drama, novel, narrative, thesis, presentation, articles, essays, broachers, film, paintings, sculptures, drawings, photographs, musical tones and songs, printing material, publications, architectural and audio-visual works. Rafique defines copyright in these words: "Copyright is given to the first producer of a book irrespective of the fact whether that book is wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, or of literary merits or no merit whatever". 2 Modern technology has given a go to the introduction and implementation of new laws in order to settle the problems and issues appeared on the basis of information technology. The use or misuse of such property without the prior permission of the creator of the intellectual property is strictly prohibited under the intellectual property act. Intellectual Property Act aims to protect the rights of the owners and creators of the property and assets. The World intellectual Property Organization defines intellectual property in these words: "Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce." 3 Almost all the organisations whether large of small, national or multinational, and industrial or artistic develop logos, draw designs and introduce some specific names that serve as the identity mark of the company. Intellectual property is the identity mark of an individual, a company, an organisation or an industry, over which the creator contains complete and unconditional rights. The same is applied in respect of domain names and other rights created in the aftermath of technological advancements and hi-tech revolution. The statute of law provides protection to such property in favour of the originator, and claim over this type of property without referencing to the devisor is against the statute of law and liable to be punishment. Copyright Act, Trademark Ordinance and Patents Ordinance provide protection to

Poverty and Children in the United States Essay Example for Free

Poverty and Children in the United States Essay Poverty is the classification of people that fall under a certain income bracket set by the government. Poverty is broken down in to two groups relative and absolute. Relative poverty is in relation to some people have more where as absolute poverty is considered life-threatening. Poverty affects people of age, race and ethnicity, and gender and family patterns. Each group that is affected typically carries the pattern from one generation the next generation making the social status difficult to change (Macionis, 2006). Although poverty can affect many different types of people those most affected by poverty are the children and women which make up 55 percent of the poor population. There continues to be blame on why people are poor and why they cannot change their lives to do better. Some people believe that it is an endless battle and once poor always poor and it is too difficult to change living situations. Poverty affects children in many ways health, food, shelter, education and exposure to violence. The cause of poverty to children is directly related to poverty in women. The beliefs of the causes of poverty according to the Encyclopedia of Women and Gender (2001), â€Å"Individualistic beliefs focus on personality attributes. These beliefs include irresponsibility, lack of discipline and effort, or lower ability and talent. Structuralistic beliefs incorporate the larger socioeconomic system such as low wages for some jobs, poor schools, prejudice, discrimination, and job availability. Fatalistic beliefs as to the reasons for a persons poverty status focus on such things as bad luck, chance, and fate.† Most poverty that affects women are those that are single mothers although these women worked they made too much for public  assistance but not enough to be able to take care of themselves and their children with proper housing, food, clothing and health care. The lack of health care directly relates to the health of children. When a mother cannot afford health care for herself during pregnancy, health issues are passed to the child. The child is then born with health issues that will continue to go untreated due to lack of health care. The single mother that makes too much to qualify for public assi stance, does not make enough to purchase medical coverage for herself and her family (Encyclopedia of Women and Gender (2001). In 1996, policies to the welfare system were changed greatly. Agencies could cut assistance to families without notice. Only women with a child under that age of one were able to get assistance without much red tape. Most states allowed people to be on assistance for a maximum of two years. There were programs designed to help women get jobs and off welfare but federal minimum wage is not enough to support a family. Without welfare assistance women and their children fall back into poverty (Encyclopedia of Women and Gender (2001). According to Duncan, G., Yeung, W., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Smith, J. (1998), there are many factors the most significant is the relation to the paternal social economic status and how it effects to the child’s and adults achievements. Most that is in a poor social status tend to be poorly educated and have children out of marriage which add an extra strain to the families which can result in physical harm to the child. Adults with children that struggle to feed, clothe and house their children are easily stressed and at times react in extreme punishment to the children blaming the child for the situation that the family is currently in. Once children are exposed to domestic violence and violence upon themselves then the cycle usually cont inues from generation to generation. Not being able to break the cycle can be a factor of poor education. Poor education is part of living in poor cities urban and rural. Families that are poor are only accepted by those that are like them, poor. So families that are in these communities seem to be stuck in the social status and cycle. Not knowing how to get out or afraid to get out of that status. If that status is something a person has always known some will not think anything different than that status being a normal way of life. According to Fantuzzo, J., Fusco, R., Mohr, W., Perry, M. (2007), during violence witnessed by children the perpetrators were more likely to be  arrested then times when children were not present. The police officers were concern that it was of great importance to send a message the violence is wrong. When it comes to domestic violence children are likely to have serious issue with development. These children tend to be more withdrawn from others and have poor social skills. There are many agencies that help assist the children in cases where the children are in danger from others. Such agencies are child protected services (CPS). Services such as CPS assist in placing child in home that will help to protect them from violence and neglect. With all of the research that has been done on how violence affects children in poverty there is no accuracy to the full impact of violence and children. According to Koch (2000), â€Å"The child poverty rate has declined slowly since 1993, and the rate of black child poverty is the lowest in history. But 13.5 million American children still live in poverty the highest rate of any industrialized country. Conservatives attribute the decline to welfare reform, which forced millions of single welfare mothers to go to work. But child advocates like the Childrens Defense Fund say that progress in reducing child poverty has slowed markedly and that cuts in social service programs made the poorest families poorer.† Today the rich still get richer and it seems that the poor continue to get poorer and the children of these poor families are the ones that are suffering the most. Most of the child poverty is in inner cities (urban areas). Families move to urban areas for better opportunities for themselves and their families but it has not improved these families quality of life. These families want to give their children a better chance to succeed by moving to these urban areas but that idea seems to be failing. Some will say that these families suffer from being dependent on welfare dependency but in truth these child suffer because wages are to low and housing is too high for their par ents to be able to make ends meet and try to get ahead of the system. With welfare assistance these children would not have food to eat and medical care. Welfare assistance assists the parents to help provide for the child when their financial income does not adequately provide for the child (Koch, 2000). The United States is supposed to have the most wealth but with that wealth the United States also has the highest child poverty as illustrated in the above chart (Koch, 2000). Most families that fall in to the poverty level make minimum wage jobs and will never be able  to get out of the poverty level. With these families they are usually poor educated which greatly impacts their earnings. Since some families work more than one job to try to make ends meet there is not time to try to better educate them. The children of these families learn from example and will continue to develop the habits of their parents. Working low paying jobs to provide food, clothing and shelter from their children will continue to be the pattern and education will be far down on the list (Koch, 2000). There has been some change to welfare reform law called Charitable Choice, this changes has made it easier for the government to be able to contract religious groups to provide social services to the poor. Many programs have come from this reform like Big Brothers/Big Sisters which is a mentoring program that helps children see a different way of life and have a positive role model to help encourage these poor children to stay in school, go to college and understand that though they may come from poor families does not mean that they have to continue in the path of their parents. These programs help children to gain confidence in the child. These programs also cut first time drug use by half and violent acts by a third. Although faith based organizations cannot replace the government programs faith based organization over lap government programs by 75 percent which include medical aid, housing, help pay bills for heating and water and educational programs to help those get back on their feet to help better provide for their families (Koch, 2000). Poverty affects everyone not just the people living in poverty. The group that is most affected by poverty is the child. Without proper care and basic needs taken care of these children of poverty will become ill and some of these children die. These children have poor education and many do not stay in school to get there high school diploma. The children of poverty usually drop out of school to help provide for those that are in the home assisting their parents in paying the bills and providing food. These jobs are once again low paying jobs and the cycle continues. Without proper education the pattern will never end, with government assistance and faith based organizations to help these families and mentor their children will help for these children to get out of the poor status and has a chance to get off government assistance in the future. Everyone needs to be aware that although the United States is considered a wealthy country, there is poverty in the United States and the people need  to work together to break the cycle and make sure that the child are taken care of, so they can live a productive, healthy and happy life. References Duncan, G., Yeung, W., Brooks-Gunn, J., Smith, J. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63(3), 406-423. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Complete. (Document ID: 30936057). Fantuzzo, J., Fusco, R., Mohr, W., Perry, M. (2007). Domestic Violence and Children’s Presence: A Population-based Study of Law Enforcement Surveillance of Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 331-340. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9080-4. Koch, K. (2000, April 7). Child poverty. CQ Researcher, 10, 281-304. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2000040700. Macionis, J.J. (2006) Society: The Basics Eighth Edition, Published by Prentice-Hall Poverty and Women in the United States. (2001). In Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/estwomen/poverty_and_women_in_the_united_stat es

Merits And Demerits Of Utilitarianism

Merits And Demerits Of Utilitarianism Over the history of philosophy, utilitarianism has been widely regarded as an influential and convincing approach to normative ethics. It would not be possible to dissect and thoroughly discuss the many varieties of utilitarian ethics instead I will attempt to discuss the theory in broader less distinctive terms, and in particular the views of prominent utilitarian theorists John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to understand Utilitarianism as a code of ethics. It is important however to bear in mind that the theory exists as a form of consequentialism whereby for an action to be right, the consequences produced must be good or desirable. Essentially stripped of most underlying complexities utilitarianism is essentially about maximising the good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism as described by Bentham is the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle. Mill believed that for an action to be deemed right it must promote or result in happiness, likewise a wrong action would be one that brings about displeasure. However this could be considered a quite egocentric and self satisfying claim if it were not for the important establishment that it is not the facilitators own happiness that matters but the happiness of a majority. Personally it seems that utilitarianism achieves its goals by promoting moral values of honour so that all individuals work to serve the interests of others, in my view, an unrealistic expectation. In this sense it could be regarded as a standard for moral behaviour. Deontological ethics provide a powerful contrast to utilitarianism, which does not place utmost importance on the consequence of an action when determining the moral validity of an action. Utilitarianism as a concept essentially determines the moral worth of an action by its usefulness. If your action maximizes utility or usefulness to a large number of people it is deemed good. It is thus a form of consequentialism, (the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.) Jeremy Bentham is largely credited with developing a structured theory on Utilitarianism. Whilst his initial input is invaluable it would be ignorant to disregard the contributions of the man who greatly improved upon Benthams theories, John Stuart Mill. Both Bentham and Mill sought to use utilitarianism to help structure society. Mill believed we had rights if they were underwritten by utility. John Stuart Mill developed Benthams theory of utilitarianism and despite disagreeing with part of Benthams work, especially on the nature of happiness, they were similar. Bentham claimed that there were no qualitative differences between pleasures, only quantitative ones. Mill believed Benthams hedonism was too egalitarian. His view that unsophisticated pleasures particularly those of a sensual nature, were just as good as more sophisticated and complex pleasures conflicted strongly with Mills view of clear differentiation between pleasures. Benthams belief that qualitative differences in pleasures were nonexistent left him open to criticism that human pleasures were of no more value than animal pleasures. By this admission it was believed if there could be no differentiation of pleasures we were as morally complex as the common pig, tied to their sentience. Mills rule utilitarianism involves encouraging people to undertake pleasurable activites as long as they belong to what he deems a higher pleasure, such as reading a piece of well articulated philosophy or attending the opera. His notion of what constitutes a higher pleasure is dictated by certain class values and shows an arrogance in this assumption of ordering of pleasures. only the individual can truly determine the level of pleasure. His presumption that intellectual pleasures are more satisfactory and desirable than those of a more sensual nature also reveal a certain bias of character. It seems rationale that the decision would be left to a person who has experienced both à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"lower and higherà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  pleasures to decide what is more fulfilling and in this regard, whilst I do not certainly know i can make an educated guess he led a life without much of the more sensual pleasure. To some this seems to mean that Mill really wasnt a h edonistic utilitarian. Maybe it is simply the degree of knowledge an individual has with the activity that determines the amount of pleasure they can receive from it, therefore their pleasure is limited by their socialisation. But I would propose that the less educated pleasure of drinking a beer in a pub and watching sport, compared to watching the opera and conversing in an intellectual nature have no difference if ones highest pleasure in both cases stated is simply that. By the same token, to remove a lower socio economic class citizen and place them within the opera which has no cultural context or relevance, they would find it a highly dissatisfying pleasure. There is no set scale of validating higher and lower pleasures, for the individual interpretation ranges too greatly. Instead the greatest pleasure you experience becomes at the top of your individual rankings and depending on your socialisation you will likewise rank all other experiences you encounter. Whilst it is true a lower class citizen may not encounter a broadened range of intellectually stimulating pleasures, this is not to say they need to in order to be fulfilled. Good and pleasure are ratified by the person that experiences them and the culture they live in. It can be said in critique of Utilitarianism that it only looks at the consequences of actions, and disregards the intention that motivate them. This today seems like a huge moral oversight, especially regarding the legal system for where for one to be proven guilty upon criminal charges both, Actus Reus-the guilty act- and Mens Rea-the guilty mind must be present. Certain crimes such as man slaughter and rape do not require Mens Rea but this is an exception. It would seem that society does not place a greater importance upon the intention of the act over the consequence consistently, rather it is situation dependent. However an interesting contradiction, an action with bad intentions that inadvertently causes overall good is not judged so harshly. Many utilitarians argue that utilitarianism, although it is consequentalist, is not so simply restricted. While the end product of a negatively motivated action may result in good (such as the collective vigilante action to kill a paedophi le) this does not mean utilitarians promote negative or hateful actions to produce a greater good. In this sense, intentions are important to utilitarians, in as much as they tend to lead to certain actions, which themselves lead to certain outcomes. Utilitarianism can be as complex as the interpretation and thought of the individual applying it to an ethical situation. For every situation the choice between actions is straightforward, choose the action that results in the greatest utility. However determining what act will have the greatest benefit can be rather more difficult. Our perceptions of usefulness may differ, as most certainly does the individual differ in their ideas of good. Certainly a well functioning society promotes an overarching theme of what is right or good but this does not include all perspectives. Utilitarianism does not care for the minority opinion. If an action can procure greatest good for a greater amount of people but causes pain and suffering to a smaller population in the process, is it justifiable? Does the number or ratio of people pleased to dissatisfied have an effect? Can we make the value of a human life, rights, or opinion quantifiable? It is not always at the beginning of an action what the outcome will be, nor is it always feasible to accurately judge who and how it will affect people. Judging an action by the outcome is therefore hard to do before the consequences are clear; surely it seems better to judge an action by its intention, even though there are also problems with this. Furthermore the calculations required to adequately make an informed judgement based upon utilitarian ethics can be complex and time consuming. In some instances, the people making decisions based upon utilitarian ethics may have no emotional interest. Whilst from a bias point of view this would seem sensible, is it really a humane thing to calculate issues pertaining to humans without emotion? It seems to some point illogical, computerised and to some point a product of a desensitised age. In fact many individuals faced with decisions of importance may not have the ethical or moral intelligence to adequately navigate a complex issue requiring ethical deliberation; utilitarianism would be d angerous in the hands of policy makers or people of power who have limited capacity to think carefully. It can simply offer too easy a solution to a much more complex issue. In response to objections such as these, certain supporters of utilitarianism have put forth a modification of the theory. The original form of Utilitarianism that has so many flaws is to be called Act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism declares that each individual action is to be assessed directly in terms of the utility principle. A desirable and much needed improvement is rule utilitarianism where about behaviour is evaluated by rules that, if universally followed would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus, rule utilitarianism could address some of the flaws previously highlighted by using the utility principle to validate and give substance to the rules that protected essential human rights and the universal prohibition of certain actions. None the less this in turn raises problems, if the justification of the rule that protects human rights is found in the utility principle, what about the exception where breaching these rights leads to the attainment of the greatest good for the greatest number? It seems as if rule utilitarianism is no longer utilitarianism in the true sense of the word. For it to be regarded as such, it must maintain the utility principle as its definitive standard, and no rules or rights designed to protect the greatest number can stand in its way. This is where Act utilitarianism must once again be called into place, despite its many flaws. Despite the inconvenient contradiction within rule utilitarianism, a system of rules would help a majority of the time, even if they only served in an advisory capacity. It would help make choices, based upon prior occurrences, and negate the need for continuous calculations in most but not all situations. Somewhat similar to case law where one persons actions and the courts determination upon them set precedent for the next issue that similarly arises. Indeed this invokes instant opposition to the idea based upon the fact situations should be dealt with on individual merit but to proceed there must be compromises. I believe that whilst Utilitarianism is in theory understandable and rational, it is best left to the few that are capable of applying it successfully. I could not base an entire lifes decisions of the basis of utility, I would not end up a happy being, and I believe that no one could, constantly thinking of the greater good, we are selfish creatures. The thought of those in power using utilitarianism to determine appropriate courses of actions in certain ethical situations unsettles me. Especially regarding contentious issues such as asylum seekers, where the happiness or desires of the majority are not always well informed. The greatest good is rarely served accurately when the uninformed or misguided masses follow rules out of duty and leave the difficult and subtle calculations solely to those in authority. This is a dangerous attitude and far from involving or considered. There becomes too much control vested in those with positions of power and in the hands of a dictator the masses could easily suffer. In conclusion Utilitarianism as a normative code of ethics is only as useful as the person who interprets and uses it. It is but a tool to navigate ethical considerations, one that must be used knowing fully the positives and negatives to be weighed. Perhaps it is a code of ethics that is valuable but imperfect for humans; we are in our own judgement never perfect, we cannot make decisions that please everyone; this is as far as I can see in difficult situations, impossible. Instead it is in our best interests to act for the greater good, as what would be the sense in displeasing the majority unless the majority is morally repugnant and evil. Somehow this consideration scares me, for surely there will come a time where my wills are no longer in the best interests of the majority. Do my opinion and feelings no longer count to a utilitarian decision maker? This is certainly a complication, but with sound reasoning and sensible interpretation utilitarianism will work, but only for those whose intentions coincide with the majority. Utilitarianism will always be rationalised and beneficial, even if only for the greater good.

Lord Of The Dead :: essays research papers

( This essay is a response to Benhabib. ) EDUCATION, DISCOURSE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY 1 In order to see some of the strengths and weakness of identity politics as an approach to thinking about education, we need to make a distinction that is implicit, but not explicit, in Seyla Benhabib’s essay. For there are at least two distinct conceptions of identity politics at work in her discussion, and criticisms appropriate to one may not apply to the other. The first perspective considers identity a rather static quality of persons, and views the process of identity formation in predominantly passive terms; the other perspective involves what Benhabib calls â€Å"the fungibility of identity,† suggesting that identities are more active and flexible constructions.2 Correspondingly, each of these views yields a different view of politics; both of which, I will suggest, can be seen as quite limited, but for different reasons. For example, many identity theorists, and postmodern feminists generally, will balk at having Catharine MacKinnon put forth as an exemplar of their views. If she is an advocate of identity politics, it is only in a very specific sense, assuming a reified identity that is decided for women, by men, who â€Å"with their foot on women’s throats† do not allow them to speak for themselves. MacKinnon also has a crude, instrumental conception of power, especially in her view of the state as monolithic and fundamentally insensitive to women’s concerns (as she says, â€Å"the state is male†3). As a result, her view of politics is strategic and somewhat opportunistic: she appears willing to forge single-issue coalitions with any group to advance her cause, as she has with right-wing groups in her antipornography crusade. MacKinnon’s expressed sympathy for Clarence Thomas in the Hill-Thomas case is rather stunning, given her larger views on sexual harassment, and Benhabib places considerable weight on these comments as representing some larger dilemma faced by postmodern feminists in that dispute; but I do not see that MacKinnon’s comments typify a position taken by postmodern feminists generally. MacKinnon is not postmodern in any sense that I can understand, and it seems rather misleading to characterize the weaknesses of identity politics and of postmodern feminism largely through her example. If she is an identity theorist, she has a quite reified and passive conception of identity, as I have said. For MacKinnon, there is no active component in the process of identity formation; identity is constructed for women, imposed from without by powerful others and by hegemonic cultural norms and beliefs.

A Comparison between the Hindu Gods of Good and Evil Essay

In Hinduism, the primary goal of an individual is to achieve the so-called Nirvana or â€Å"becoming one with God. † Nirvana connotes the transcendence of the human spirit to the Oneness of the Divine Spirit (Hemenway, 2003). Hence, many Hindus practice a variety of evolved rituals and esoteric practices to enable their spirit to adapt to the divine essence. The hope of spiritual transcendence given by Nirvana became the basis for creation or conceptualization of many gods in the Hindu religion. These gods are basically derivatives of the â€Å"One God†; the â€Å"One God’ being represented in all aspects of nature (Hemenway, 2003). Thus, in order to simulate the specific characteristics of this God, Hindus focus on worshipping all the representations of this God. In general, the Hindu religion speaks of about 300 major and lesser gods. The primary three gods are known as the Holy Trinity. Brahma is the creator; Vishnu is the preserver (pattern-maker); and Shiva, the destroyer. The three are inseparable from each other. In order for creation to proceed, there must be a period of destruction. In order for destruction to occur, a period of preservation must happen (prior). Thus, the existence of the three gods presents a vivid description of the Hindu’s belief on the existence of man. If man is to be born, he must be preserved from the impediments of bad life and evil, and he must face the reality of death. To be born is to be created; to be preserved is to be rectified from the evils of daily living; to die is to acknowledge the origin of the human spirit. Only in this way that the human spirit would be able to achieve Nirvana (transcendence of the human spirit to the divine essence). Thus, Hindus hold on the assumption that once man is born (and reborn) in this world, there are powers who would guide and misguide him to attain Nirvana. The guiding powers are essentially the gods of good. The powers misguiding man to his true purpose are the gods of evil. This is though unlike the Christian conception of good and evil. Evil here is not seen as non-functional. Rather it serves as a manifest of test during the preservation period of man’s being; that is, the necessity to achieve Nirvana. Good here is seen something as an end; that is, the representation of Nirvana on earth. We can therefore assume that the conception of good and evil is a rectification of ideological misconceptions in the Hindu religion. The first clarification is concerning the source of good and evil. It is quite clear in Hindu religion that both good and evil gods came from the same source. Evil is the perversion of good. In order for evil to exist, good must first come into existence. The second clarification states â€Å"good gods are often transformed into evil gods as they experience strange circumstances. † The conception connotes the existence of One Divine Essence represented as both good and evil in nature. Evil is not a natural phenomenon, it springs from the Divine Essence serving as a test to humanity. Thus, when we compare Hindu gods of good and evil, take note that we are essentially talking of functional difference. This functional difference is manifested in the perceived roles of the gods in nature. The Hindu gods of good are represented in things â€Å"perceived† by the Hindus as rudiments of a â€Å"good life. † For example, Ganesha is often described as a god of good because he bestows good fortune to those seeking his favor. Specifically, he is considered the source of prosperity and wealth for Hindus. Some call Ganesha the Lord of Good Fortune and the Destroyer of Obstacles. Often, Hindus attribute their economic and social well-being to the hands of Ganesha. Added to that, because man is located in a physical world full of dangers and obstacles, he continuously provide his divine guidance to man. Hence, he is sometimes called the god of wisdom and intellect in Hinduism. Ganesha is seen as a good god who bestows his wisdom and divine intellect to man in order for him (man) to attain Nirvana. Frankly speaking, he is seen by many Hindus as the source of hope and aspiration. Besides Ganesha, there are three other gods considered to be good by many Hindus. Durga is a goddess representing the power of the Supreme Being who maintains moral order (Hindu Gods, 2005). In Sanskrit, her name means a â€Å"fort or a place that is protected. † Thus, Durga is known as the Divine Mother. In her arms, she protects the human race from evil by destroying the sources of evil. Like Ganesha, Lakshmi is considered a goddess of good-living and prosperity. In Sanskrit, her name literally means â€Å"goal† (Hindu Gods, 2005). Thus, she signifies the goals of life. These goals of life can be achieved either in the physical or spiritual realm. Most Hindus pray to her for guidance. Saraswati is the goddess of knowledge, and wisdom. She is often associated with Brahma, the creator of the universe. In Sanskrit, her name means â€Å"the essence of the self† (Hindu Gods, 2005). Hinduism puts knowledge on a higher pedestal, being the prerequisite for creation. To the Hindu worshipper, Saraswati provides guidance to humanity in accomplishing their daily tasks. Hindus believe that Saraswati, during the early part of creation, provided man with practical knowledge. This practical knowledge allowed man to create civilizations, far greater than any in the animal kingdom. In Hinduism, there are gods considered to be the source of evil in this world. In Pauranic traditions, Asuras and Devas are the step sons of Kasyapa, an unknown god considered to be the primordial source of evil. They are considered to be demon gods projected as enemies of humanity. The Asuras (this is a group of demon gods) became too proud of their ancestry and power. Thus, the Devas became enraged over the war mongering of the Asuras and decided to punish them. The punishment though was self-serving. The Devas thought by forcing the Asuras to serve them, they would be able to project themselves as rulers of the physical world. This view of the Asuras and Devas was expanded in Iranian mythology. Iranian mythology presented Asur Mazda as the embodiment of good in this world and Devas as the villain. It should be noted though that in Hindu mythology, both the Asuras and the Devas are perceived as demon gods; that is, gods that would take all hope from humanity in the attainment of the Nirvana. The term Asuras, unlike the terminological evolution in Iranian mythology, came to signify in later times (in Hinduism) as the representation of evil; demon itself. In Hinduism, there are gods considered evil precisely because they are perceived to be enemies of the â€Å"good gods† and humanity in general. Vritra, for example, is a serpent god often called as the â€Å"enemy of the gods† (The Complete Book of Devils and Demons, 2005). His favorite animal, the serpent, carries the scent of death to those who would call his name. Yama is a Hindu god considered to be the lord of death. His two dogs drag humanity into the fervor of spiritual death; the essence of which is the loss of spiritual transcendence to the Divine Essence. The same is true for Ravana, the Demon King (The Complete Book of Devils and Demons, 2005). He is seen as the incarnation of evil in this world. At times, he would lure humans into his trap, forcing them to pledge loyalty to his evil will. There are also evil creatures considered to be the direct descendants of the evil gods. Kasyapa, the primordial source of evil (and the father of both the Asuras and the Devas) gave birth to the Daityas. These are unpleasant demons who roamed the physical world to destroy man’s sacrifices to the good gods. The good gods are therefore their natural enemies. Kasyapa also gave birth to the Danavas (The Complete Book of Devils and Demons, 2005). These are creatures often disguised as man to motivate man to rebel against the good gods. These creatures (who at times became demon gods) possessed powers of persuasion and bad luck. They often seduce man to covet the properties of the gods and to stop offering sacrifices. Added to that, they also offer their services to the primary â€Å"evil gods† in their fight against the good gods. The good gods are sometimes forced to seek refuge to other places in order to avoid the rage of these demonic creatures. In the end, however, the good gods succeed in defeating these evil creatures (in alliance with the evil gods). There are also other â€Å"entities† described as evil in the Hindu religion. The Darbas are destructive that â€Å"tears† human flesh (hence the name, â€Å"tearers†). The Rakshasas are goblins and ghouls which descended from the foot of Brahma. They can be titans or as little as a cat that haunt cemeteries and other religious places. They disturb sacrifices, animate the dead, eat people, and spread disease and disorder. These creatures often serve the evil gods in their fight against the good gods. In sum, evil goods in the Hindu religion are either the enemies of the gods and humanity or those which prevent humanity from attaining Nirvana. These gods descended from the three primary gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva). At times, they trace their ancestry to good gods. This explains the proposition stated earlier that the â€Å"good is the prerequisite of evil. Added to that, some evil Hindu gods (like the Asuras and the Devas) in Hinduism present their identity as the result of perversion on the part of the good gods. Take note that the â€Å"good gods† are not by nature good. Like in Greek mythology, Hindu gods are often involved in intrigues that affect their functions as gods. At times, even the good gods struggle against each other for supremacy. Only when the threat of evil becomes preeminent, the good Hindu gods join forces to defeat the evil gods. Most of the time, they achieve success. At some time, they flee from the hordes of the evil gods. We come now to the discussion of the primary differences of Hindu gods of good and evil. As stated earlier, the main difference between these gods can be derived from the concept of functionality. Hindu gods of good are represented as the â€Å"good rudiments† of nature (and man’s guidance in attaining Nirvana). Hindu gods of evil are essentially the symbols of a corrupt humanity. This corruption is the ultimate obstacle (and often irreversible) of man in attaining Nirvana. There are though specific differences between these sets of deities. Here are as follows: ) Culturally speaking, the Hindu gods of good are often associated with the mystical founders of Hindu civilization (Hemenway, 2003). For example, in the Vedic manuscripts the ancient founders of the Indus civilization are often given divine attributes. These gods are the progenitors of practical and divine knowledge to the people. The evil gods are often associated with the invaders; that is, the barbarians who destroyed the Indus civilization and established the caste system (note that the caste system is functional in the eyes of a Hindu – this connotes that evil itself is functional in some ways); ) The good gods are often represented as the symbols of perpetuity and healthy living (Hemenway, 2003). Animals such as the elephant, cow, and rat are associated with the good gods because of their dual symbol of power and humility: the very virtues that humanity adheres to. The evil gods are represented by serpent, monkey (symbol of arrogance and maliciousness), and in some cases the vulture: symbols of decay and corruption of the human spirit. Take note however that these creatures are respected in the Hindu religion because evil is seen as a manifest test of humanity in achieving Nirvana; ) Lastly, the good gods are usually are represented as bringers of justice and love to humanity. The eight arms of Ganesha symbolize love for humanity. The swords loaded to arms of Ganesha symbolize justice and his will to protect humanity from evil powers. The evil gods carry weapons that aim to destroy and misguide humanity. We must though take note that there is no sharp demarcation between good and evil (Abhedananda and Math, 2007). In Vedanta philosophy, there is no such thing as a natural good. Any action can be viewed as either good or bad depending on the one who views it. Thus, it can be said that â€Å"every action, whether backed by good or bad motives, is covered with its opposite, as fire is enveloped with smoke† (Abhedananda and Math, 2007). Thus to assume that the good gods in the Hindu religion are naturally good is a misconception. It is often noted some â€Å"good gods† gave birth to evil ones. This instance indicate that evil is the offspring of good.

Free Essays on SAN Benefit Analysis

SAN Benefit Analysis Executive Summary Over the last few years the open systems portion of ENTER_NAME_HERE’s Data Center has shown tremendous growth, in both the number of applications supported, and the amount of servers required to support the additional demands. In order to efficiently support our current environment, and be positioned for future growth, deploying a SAN (Storage Area Network) is necessary. A SAN is a high-speed network that joins together storage systems and servers utilizing a fiber backbone with switches and hubs. Once deployed, SANs operate as a utility making additional storage accessible to resource and application servers as needed, routing data to servers on demand, and routing data from disk to tape servers for archiving. A SAN is an alternative to traditional server-attached storage. High-performance SANs utilize fiber optic network connections routed by a switch, often dedicated to guarantee quality of service. Additionally, storage can be managed more efficiently, allocating add itional storage requirements on-demand, instead of dedicating â€Å"stranded storage† to particular servers, thus the ability to consolidate storage pools. Storage consolidation makes good business sense. It can help dramatically reduce the high maintenance cost of proliferated storage, more fully utilize storage assets, and improve the quality of storage services that Distributed Technology offers to the enterprise. Migrating to consolidated storage architecture will allow Distributed Technologies to provision more storage for less cost. Efficient and flexible storage systems have a direct impact on key business indicators. Consolidated storage systems reduce indirect costs, which are well known to be onerous in IT infrastructure investments. These systems are designed to provide the availability and scalability that keep enterprise business systems up and running through periods of growth and retreat. Addition... Free Essays on SAN Benefit Analysis Free Essays on SAN Benefit Analysis SAN Benefit Analysis Executive Summary Over the last few years the open systems portion of ENTER_NAME_HERE’s Data Center has shown tremendous growth, in both the number of applications supported, and the amount of servers required to support the additional demands. In order to efficiently support our current environment, and be positioned for future growth, deploying a SAN (Storage Area Network) is necessary. A SAN is a high-speed network that joins together storage systems and servers utilizing a fiber backbone with switches and hubs. Once deployed, SANs operate as a utility making additional storage accessible to resource and application servers as needed, routing data to servers on demand, and routing data from disk to tape servers for archiving. A SAN is an alternative to traditional server-attached storage. High-performance SANs utilize fiber optic network connections routed by a switch, often dedicated to guarantee quality of service. Additionally, storage can be managed more efficiently, allocating add itional storage requirements on-demand, instead of dedicating â€Å"stranded storage† to particular servers, thus the ability to consolidate storage pools. Storage consolidation makes good business sense. It can help dramatically reduce the high maintenance cost of proliferated storage, more fully utilize storage assets, and improve the quality of storage services that Distributed Technology offers to the enterprise. Migrating to consolidated storage architecture will allow Distributed Technologies to provision more storage for less cost. Efficient and flexible storage systems have a direct impact on key business indicators. Consolidated storage systems reduce indirect costs, which are well known to be onerous in IT infrastructure investments. These systems are designed to provide the availability and scalability that keep enterprise business systems up and running through periods of growth and retreat. Addition...