The safety features in modern cars

The safety features in modern cars There are many different types of safety feature in cars. The different safety features all have their own thing that they do. There are nine very important safety features that are needed in cars. They are seatbelts, airbags, head injury protection, head restraints, antilock brake system, traction control, all wheel drive, electronic stability control and weight. The two safety features that will be discussed in this report will be airbags and traction control. These two safety features will be found in most or even all modern cars. Airbags is a restraint that is used to prevent the driver, of the car, does not hit the dashboard and the steering wheel, which could cause serious injuries to the neck and head. Airbags will help the driver if he/she is wearing a seatbelt. â€Å"To date statistics,† in America, â€Å"show that airbags reduce the risk of dying in a direct frontal car crash by about 30 percent.† This quote is taken from How stuff Work? How airbags work? The law of motion that is used for airbags is Momentum, unless there is an outside force acting on the object. One of the main goals of airbags is to slow down the driver and its passengers motion as slowly and as evenly as possible. There are three main parts to airbags, they are; the bag, the sensor and the inflation system. In this report I will be discussing the three parts briefly. The bag is made up of a thin piece of nylon fabric, which is folded into the steering wheel, or dashboard, or the seat, or the door. The sensor is a device that allows the bags to know when it has to inflate when there is a force on the car that has a speed of 16km/h to 24km/h. There is a mechanical switch that will be flipped if there is a sudden change in mass in the vehicle. The inflation system combines to chemicals, sodium azide and potassium nitrate, to produce nitrogen gas. The hot blast of nitrogen inflates the bag. There are many safety concerns of airbags. Airbags have to work together with seat-belts because the force at which the airbags are expelled is enough to cause serious injury if the driver and the passengers arent wearing their seatbelt. The risk zone of airbags is the first 5 to 8 cm of inflation. Airbags have been known to seriously injure or even kill children that are sitting to close to it or even thrown towards the dashboard in an emergency braking. Children should sit in the back to, so that they are protected from the force of the airbags. There are some cases, in America in particular, where drivers have deactivate there airbags in certain cases because of the amount of injuries by the over-powerful force of the airbags. The driver of the car would have to get authorisation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in America, to get an on/off switch for on or both of their airbags; authorisation was only giving if you fell into one of the four categories. These categories are: ÂÅ ¸If the driver and the passenger both have a medical condition, where the risk of the inflation of the airbags exceeds the risk without an airbag. If the driver is unable to position him-/her- self the correct distance away from the dashboard and the airbag. ÂÅ ¸ There is no rear or there is not enough room in the back of the car to put a rear-facing car seat or the driver has to monitor the childs medical condition. ÂÅ ¸ If the driver has to carry children because there is no space in the back or there is no rear seats. The deactivation of airbags will not be authorised if you have certain other problems. These problems are pacemaker, eyeglasses, angina, emphysema, asthma, mastectomy, previous back or neck injury, advanced age, osteoporosis, arthritis, and/ or pregnancy. The Newtons Law that is used for airbags is Newtons first Law. Newtons first Law states that a body will continue in its state of rest or uniform velocity unless acted on by an external resultant force. This is also known as the Law of Inertia. Inertia is that of a body which must overcome in order to produce an acceleration or deceleration. The passenger of the vehicle goes forward very rapidly because it has a uniform velocity but the body is either being held back by the seatbelt and also stopped by the airbag, so this is the resultant force, body is stopped before hitting the dashboard. Traction control system helps to improve the stability of the vehicle by controlling the amount the drive wheels can slip when you apply excess power. The output of the engine power is adjusted automatically by the system. The system, in some cases, will adjust the applied braking force on selected wheels during acceleration. Traction control is a secondary function of the anti-lock braking system. This system is becoming more common in most modern cars. Traction is the friction that the car uses to stop, get going and to stay on the road. This system is like ABS but it is in reverse. ABS prevents your wheels from freezing when you are stopping which could cause you from skidding and having an accident. Traction control does a similar thing, but instead it stops the wheels from freezing or locking up when you accelerate. The basic set-up of traction control system is that there is a mechanical linkage between the throttle and the accelerator pedal. Occasionally the mechanical linkage is replaced by an electronic drive-by-wire system. The electronic drive-by-wire system means that instead of having a direct link from the pedal, to the throttle. Instead it sends signals from an electrical connection to a sensor. The sensor then translates the information that the electronic connections give off, by the amount of pressure you put on the accelerator. Then the sensor passes on the information into a control unit and then it sees it the wheels are slipping or not. There are benefits to having traction control system installed in the car. The traction control works so effortlessly that you may never know that it is on. The benefits are that it lowers the risks of skidding and having a major accident when the vehicle is going around the corner when the road is wet. This system is very evident when you accelerate from a complete stop. If you didnt have this system, especially if you had a very powerful car, the vehicle and the tires will go in the direction in which they were not intended to go because of skidding. The system helps with regulating the amount of power that will be sent to tire, to prevent the skidding. Theses two safety features are very useful in the vehicle but both need the driver plus the passengers to wear there seatbelt. If the passengers and the driver dont wear their seatbelts they will still get seriously injured which could lead to death. The car need to be evaluated to see if the safety features are correctly put in and safe to use.

The Gaunilo Argument

To what extent does Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s argument succeed in demonstrating that the argument fails? Gaunilo, a Benedictine monk and contemporary of St Anselm was the first to raise objections to Anselm’s idea that God exists by definition, claiming within â€Å"On behalf of the Fool† that Anselm’s argument was not logical and needed to be discredited. Gaunilo famously claimed that Anselm’s conclusion that the non-existence of God is â€Å"unintelligible† cannot show that God necessarily exists.Firstly, Gaunilo argued that the â€Å"fool† character featured in Psalm 53:1 may have been referring not only to God but to any number of other things that do not exist in reality. Gaunilo utilizes the example of someone hearing about a person from gossip; he suggested that the gossip was unreliable and the person and event were made up to trick you. As an idea later developed by Middle Age philosophers who believed you cannot prove from what is said (de dicto) what exists in reality (de re), Gaunilo argued that you cannot define the concept of â€Å"God† into existence.The most famous argument posed by Gaunilo was that of a perfect island which can replace the idea of God in the Ontological argument. Gaunilo argued that anyone can think of the most perfect paradise island for the notion of â€Å"the most perfect island† exists as a concept in our understanding. Gaunilo developed his argument by employing Anselm’s logic to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. The island must therefore exist in reality as it cannot possess the inferiority that comes from it being only a concept if it is to be â€Å"the most perfect island†.While the most perfect island can be conceived of, this does not mean it exists; we cannot bring something into existence just be defining it as superlative. Furthermore, Gaunilo concluded that Anselm cannot demonstrate that the idea of God as the greatest possible being means that God exists in reality. â€Å"When someone tells me there is such an island, I easily understand what is being said†¦however, he does on to say†¦this island†¦actually exists somewhere in reality†¦I would think he were joking†. John Hick 1990) Despite the blatant credibility of this argument recognized by Anselm who went on to including it in later versions of his own book, Anslem was able to respond to the argument using the claim that God’s existence is necessary. Anslem argued that though Gaunilo was right in the case of the island, the same objections were not valid when the ontological argument was used of God, because the island has contingent existence, whereas God’s existence is necessary.The ontological argument remains credible, Anselm argued, because it applies only to God who exists necessarily and uniquely. Within his â€Å"Libe r Apologeticus Contra Guanilonem†, Anselm rejects Gaunilo’s argument that the island’s existence can be proved from the idea of it alone for the island is not a thing which can be conceived not to exist. Moreover, philosopher Alvin Plantinga suggested that Anselm could also argue that there is no â€Å"intrinsic maximum† to the qualities of scenery that the Gaunilo’s island could have; however great an island is, there could always be one better.Further discrediting the argument posed by Gaunilo, both St Thomas Aquinas and Kant have posed more successful and valid arguments in response to Anselm’s ontological argument. St Thomas Aquinas, unlike Gaunilo, seeks to undermine Anselm’s â€Å"faith seeking understanding† as he was firmly convinced of the existence of God himself. Aquinas rejected the claim that the existence of God is self-evident; human beings cannot fully understand the nature of God, thus â€Å"God exists† i s not an analytic statement.Although we are able to approach an understanding of God, God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind; â€Å"now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us, but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us† (Summa Theologiae, 1a). Aquinas used the example of the existence of truth to support his argument, suggesting that no one would be able to accept the truth of the statement â€Å"truth does not exist† unless truth actually existed.Though it is impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of truth, it is not a contradiction to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God, because people are able to, including the fool who says â€Å"there is no God†. Kant’s argument in opposition to Anslem’s ontological argument stands as more credible than that posed by Gaunilo as it successfully reputed the argument, diminishing the extent to w hich the ontological argument is arguably still valid. Kant argued that â€Å"existence is not a predicate† for it does not tell us anything about that object that would help us to identify it in any way.When we are thinking of God we are thinking of a concept and whether this concept is actualized cannot be resolved simply be adding â€Å"existence† to the different predicates ascribing to the concept. Though the argument could be responded to with the knowledge that whilst everything exists contingently, God exists necessarily and this necessary existence can only be a predicate of God, a sceptic could easily counter this argument by pointing out the circular nature of the ontological argument for we must accept that God exists necessarily in order to come to the conclusion that God exists necessarily.Though Gaunilo’s argument still holds some value as it could be employed by an atheist to support their opposition to the theory, the ease by which Anselm was ab le to counter the argument limits its success in demonstrating the failure of the ontological argument. Later arguments posed by Aquinas and Kant further limit the extent to which Gaunilo’s argument is still credible as they offer more successful and more widely accepted oppositions to the ontological argument, posing questions which could not be so easily countered by a response from Anselm. Beth Albuery

Gourmet Products Inc. Essay

Gourmet Products Inc. (GPI) is a Canadian publicly traded retailer of aged balsamic vinegars, culinary sauces, spices, herbs, and seasonings. Products are sold globally through several Internet sites created and operated by GPI. On August 15, 20X0, GPI completed the acquisition of all the common shares of Abruzzi Oils Inc. (Abruzzi), an Italian producer and retailer of specialty olive oils, for cash consideration of C$6,000,000. The acquisition cost was allocated to the fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities. The acquisition cost included a bottling machine with a book value of $400,000 and a fair market value of $750,000. However, to avoid any unnecessary reporting complications, the entire purchase discrepancy related to this machine was allocated to goodwill. GPI intends to keep the Abruzzi name and brand intact. Operations in Italy will be maintained, but GPI will import some of the olive oil production to Canada. The Abruzzi line of speciality olive oils will be featured on all of GPI’s Web sites. In preparation for ongoing operations, GPI has temporarily transferred two managers and five employees to Italy to work at the Abruzzi home office for a period of two years to ensure the transition runs smoothly and that the scale of operations can be increased to meet the forecasted sales growth. GPI is recording wages paid as consulting fees and is no longer taking source deductions. One manager has recognized that the move would cause undue stress on his family if they remained in Canada so he has decided to take his wife and children with him for the two-year period. GPI has just negotiated the purchase of a labelling machine in Italy for EUR 200,000. The equipment is expected to be useful for a period of 12 years. GPI has borrowed EUR 200,000 from the Banca Cammerata in Italy to finance  the equipment purchase. The loan, dated July 1, 20X0, is at 7% and is repayable in euros in 15 equal annual instalments, commencing August 1, 20X0. The interest is payable monthly in euros by GPI. The ownership of the labelling machine was transferred to Abruzzi on September 1, 20X0, in exchange for a EUR 200,000 note. The terms of the note are similar to the terms GPI negotiated with the Banca Cammerata, except that GPI is not charging Abruzzi any interest. The CFO of GPI stated this type of structure would minimize the foreign currency risk that GPI is exposed to. On the basis of an extensive review of the relationship between GPI and Abruzzi, Abruzzi has been classified as a foreign operation in accordance with IAS 21. In accordance with IFRS, Abruzzi revalued its land and building asset grouping to fair market value, resulting in an increase to the land and building account of EUR 20,000. Abruzzi’s accountant recorded the offsetting credit as a gain in profit and loss. A revaluation loss of EUR 5,000 had been recognized for land and buildings in the previous year. The corporate tax rate in Italy is considerably less than Canada’s combined provincial and federal rates. Both GPI and Abruzzi have a September 30 fiscal year end. GPI’s usual wholesale markup on its product imported is 60%; however, GPI has been acquiring goods from Abruzzi at 150% above Abruzzi’s cost. The decision to use 150% above Abruzzi’s cost was made by the CFO. As a result, GPI has had a very low profit margin on its retail sales of Abruzzi olive oils. You are Asif Majarani, a senior audit manager working in the assurance department of Majarani Associates, CGAs, a CGA firm in Winnipeg. Majarani Associates has three other specialized departments — advisory, taxation, and transaction services — with three other partners, one managing each  department. Your firm has been engaged to prepare the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 20X0, for GPI. This is the third year the firm has been engaged by GPI. You recently met with Ed Moore, CEO of GPI, on October 15 to obtain additional information. Moore mentioned that he had some concerns about the upcoming project of converting the existing payroll system to a new technology platform. A new payroll software system has been purchased since the payroll system currently in use is designed for a small company. GPI’s growth has strained the payroll system’s ability to provide timely payroll processing. Delays in payment of payroll have caused frustration for employees, although this does occur on an infrequent basis. The IT director is strongly suggesting that a direct cutover conversion approach be taken so that the new system can be used as soon as possible to realize the benefits. It is also the least expensive approach. Moore is concerned that this is a risky approach and he believes that a parallel conversion would be a better option. He is particularly concerned since he has heard that other companies have found errors during the implementation of this specific software system, although these errors are easily resolved once identified. Furthermore, since this is the first time GPI has been required to prepare consolidated financial statements for its shareholders, Moore is concerned about how the users will be able to differentiate between the financial positions and results of operations for the two separate entities. Required a) In your discussion group, analyze the case as a whole and identify all the issues to be included in the report to the CEO.  Note: Candidates must participate in the online discussion. Failure to post in the online discussion and respond to the posts of others will result in failing the discussion-based communication competencies. b) Prepare a report to the CEO (900 to 1,100 words), listing the adjustments that should be considered in preparing the consolidated statements. You should also address any other issues raised in the case. Complete this report independently of your group and submit it as a hand-in assignment.

States Where Recreational Marijuana Use Is Legal

Eleven states have legalized  recreational marijuana use  in the United States. They are Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.  Washington, D.C., also allows the recreational use of marijuana.   They are among 30 states that allow the use of marijuana in some form; most others allow for use of the substance for medicinal purposes. The eleven states where recreational use is legal have the most expansive laws on the books.   Here are the states in which marijuana use is legal. They do not include states that have  decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana  or states that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. It is also important to note that growing and selling marijuana is illegal under federal law, though that rule is not enforced by the U.S. attorney general. 1. Alaska Alaska became the third state to allow recreational marijuana use in February 2015. The legalization of marijuana in Alaska came by a ballot referendum in November 2014, when 53 percent of voters supported the move to allow use of the substance in private places. Smoking pot in public, however, is punishable by a modest fine of $100. Private use of marijuana in Alaska was first declared a right in 1975 when the state Supreme Court ruled that possessing small amounts of the substance was protected under the state constitutions guarantee of the right to privacy. Under Alaska state law,  adults 21 and older can carry up to an ounce of marijuana and possess six plants. 2. California California state lawmakers legalized the recreational use of marijuana with the passage of  Proposition 64 in November 2016, making it the largest state to legalize pot. The measure had the support of 57 percent of the legislature. Sale of marijuana became legal in 2018. Cannabis is now legal in the most populous state in the country, dramatically increasing the total potential size of the industry while establishing legal adult use markets across the entire US Pacific Coast given the legalized states of Washington and Oregon, stated New Frontier Data, which tracks the cannabis industry. 3. Colorado The ballot initiative in Colorado was called Amendment 64. The proposal passed in 2012 with support from 55.3 percent of voters in that state on Nov. 6, 2012. Colorado and Washington were  the first states to legalize recreational use of the substance. The amendment to the state constitution allows any resident over the age of 21 to possess up to an ounce, or 28.5 grams, of marijuana. Residents can also grow a small number of marijuana plants under the amendment. It remains illegal to smoke marijuana in public. Also, individuals are not able to sell the substance in Colorado. Marijuana is legal for sale only by state-licensed stores similar to those in many states that sell liquor. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, officially proclaimed marijuana legal in his state on Dec. 10, 2012. If the voters go out and pass something and they put it in the state constitution, by a significant margin, far be it from myself or any governor to overrule. I mean, this is why it’s a democracy, right? said Hickenlooper, who opposed the measure. 4. Illinois The states General Assembly passed the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act on May 31, 2019, and it was signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on June 25. The law goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. It allows Illinois residents at least 21 years old to possess up to 30 grams of marijuana. The limit is 15 grams for non-residents. 5. Maine Voters approved the Marijuana Legalization Act in a 2016 referendum. Individuals can possess up to 2.5 ounces (71 grams)  of cannabis, up to three mature plants, 12 immature plants and an unlimited number of seedlings. The state did not, however, begin issuing commercial licenses to sell the drug immediately because state lawmakers could not agree on how to regulate the industry. 6. Massachusetts Voters legalized recreational marijuana in November 2016. Individuals can possess up to one ounce of cannabis and grow up to six plants at their homes. Homes with more than one adult can grow up to 12 plants. Pot must be locked up and not visible in cars, and smoking while driving or in public is illegal. The states Cannabis Advisory Board continues to work on regulations but is reportedly planning to allow use of the substance in retail spaces, unlike most other states.   7. Michigan Voters legalized the recreational use of marijuana in November 2018. The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act allows individuals to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana outside their home and 10 ounces inside their home. Up to 12 plants per household  are allowed. Licensed retail businesses can grow up to 150 plants for sale. 8. Nevada Voters passed Question 2 in the 2016 election, making recreational marijuana legal as of 2017. Adults ages 21 and older can possess up to one ounce of cannabis and up to an eighth ounce of concentrate. Public consumption is punishable by a $600 fine. The measure had support from 55 percent of voters. 9. Oregon Oregon became the fourth state to allow the recreational use of marijuana in July 2015. The legalization of marijuana in Oregon came by ballot initiative in November 2014, when 56 percent of voters supported the move.  Oregonians are allowed  to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in public and 8 ounces in their homes. They are also allowed to grow as many as four plants in their homes. 10. Vermont The state legislature passed HB511 in January 2018, which allows an individual to possess one ounce of cannabis and two plants. No commercial sales are allowed. The law took effect on July 1, 2018. 11. Washington The ballot measure approved in Washington was called Initiative 502. It was very similar to Colorados Amendment 64 in that it allows state residents ages 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational use. The measure passed in 2012 with the support of 55.7 percent of voters in the state. The Washington ballot initiative also put in place substantial tax rates imposed on growers, processors, and retailers. The tax rate on recreational marijuana at each stage is 25 percent, and the revenue goes to state coffers. District of Columbia Washington, D.C., legalized the recreational use of marijuana in February of 2015. The measure was supported by 65 percent of voters in a November 2014 ballot initiative. If youre in the nations capital, youre allowed to carry up to 2 ounces of marijuana and grow as many as six plants in your home. You can also gift a friend up to an ounce of pot.