Changing The Competitive Landscape Of The Smartphone Industry Marketing Essay

Changing The Competitive Landscape Of The Smartphone Industry Marketing Essay Abstract Innovation can be defined as a process of converting opportunities into new ideas and of the wide application of these ideas in practice (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2005). The past decade saw constant innovations in ICT aimed at increasing self-efficacy of the end users of communication devices. Elements such as miniaturization and ubiquitous computing (Open Handset Alliance, 2007a) have literally brought the personal computer to the palm of the consumer, in the form of a smartphone. The smartphone is rich with features such as internet browsing, touch screens, mobile-camera, improved connectivity and entertainment with the capability to adopt new applications (Burgelman, Silverman, Wittig, Hoyt, 2009). Recent years witnessed an explosive growth in mobile subscribers, where in 2008 alone global shipments rose 28%, as the smartphone gained momentum in the mobile phone industry (Canalys, 2008). The next few years are predicted to show a compound annual growth rate of 13.5% in handset shi pments leading to 1.9 billion handsets at the end of 2012 compared to 1 billion in 2007 (DataMonitor, 2008). Today, due to its portability and versatility the smartphone is a key player that facilitates the integration of technology with modern consumerism as the end user is given the capability to engage many computational devices and systems simultaneously (Tsai, Wang, Hwang, 2008). Mark Weiser (1991) refers to this as Ubiquitous Computing. The demand for smartphone has been the key driver for innovations (such as the touch screen, internet browsing, Wi-Fi) in the mobile industry in the past decade and the Open Handset Alliance and the Android platform are recent products of such pursuits. This study analyses how the OHA and Android has and will alter the terms of competition in the mobile industry, with relation to Porters five industrial forces. The Smartphone Industry Industry Participants Analysing the industry value chain of the smartphone the key components can be identified as chipset manufactures (Intel) , infrastructure developers and platform manufactures (Microsoft, Palm, iPhone) who provide the hardware and software components for handset manufactures. Application developers produce the applications that run on the operating platform whereas content providers such as Google provide the information for these applications. Mobile operators such as ATT and T-Mobile distribute handsets and provide the subscribers with network connectivity. In 2006 the global handset market was an oligopoly dominated by 5 companies which accounted for 85% of the market where Nokia and Motorola together accounted for 58%. Traditionally manufacturers competed through design. The entry of iPhone 3G to the market in 2008 created a new standard by combining design, performance, utility and functionality (Burgelman, Silverman, Wittig, Hoyt, 2009). It is considered by some industry analysts to be a blockbuster where Apples market share increased from 3.6% in 2007 to 17.3% in 2008, making it the now second largest player. Googles Entry into the Smartphone Industry Established in 1996 as the brainchild of two Stanford University computer science graduates, Google is now considered to be a blockbuster concept that has expanded beyond its core business as a search engine to a portfolio of products and services (Bhattacharya, Gopal, Samad, 2009). Today, a vast majority of Googles revenue is generated through the companys advertising products, Adword and Adsense (99% in 2007 and 97% in 2007) (Burgelman, Silverman, Wittig, Hoyt, 2009) that provide targeted advertising on its search pages, by placing advertisements relevant to a search on the results page. Googles entry to the smartphone industry was facilitated by its acquisition of the start-up open source software firm, Android in 2005 (Business Week, 2005). This event was a result of Google identifying the future growth potential of the smartphone and its capacity for mobile advertising. Eric Schmidt, the Chairman and CEO of Google stated You carry your phone everywhere. It knows all about you. We can do a very targeted ad. Over time we will make more money from mobile advertising. (Schmidt, 2010). Open Handset Alliance and Android In November 2007 Google unveiled the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 34 companies in the mobile industry representing the industry value chain (Fig 1), consisting of multinational companies such as T-Mobile, HTC, Intel, Qualcomm and Motorola. The objective of the alliance was to create an Open Software, Open Device and an Open Ecosystem (Open Handset Alliance, 2009b) fostering open innovation for development of mobile technology based on the open source platform. Today the OHA has expanded its membership to 65 companies. Fig. 1: The Wireless Value Chain (Hendrix, 2009) In November 2007 OHA released Android, an integrated software pack consisting of the Operating System, middleware, user-friendly interface and applications and the Android SDK free to the development community. Open Innovation and Open Source Open innovation is innovating through the collective creative input and knowledge of internal and external resources (Chesbrough, 2003). Open source technology is one method of open innovation (von Hippel von Krogh, 2006). It grants the developer the ownership of the source code without a cost of license fee or royalties giving them the freedom to further develop and distribute the product free or at a fee (Open Source Initiative, 2010). The openness of the platform creates more advance and cheaper innovations with shorter time-to-value, improving RD productivity and creating better value for money for the end user (Open Handset Alliance, 2009b). The OHA was a value network fostering open innovation by pooling of knowledge and Intellectual Property of the members. Android, was its first product built on the Linux open source kernel (Open Handset Alliance, 2007a). The Competitive Industry Forces Michael Porter (1979; 2008) defines five forces that define the competitive dynamics of an industry by shaping the interactions within that industry. These forces can be defined as bargaining power of suppliers and customers; the threat if new entrants and substitutes and established industry rivals (Fig.2). These are the figures that drive the profitability of the industry in the short and long terms (Porter, 2008). Analysis of these competitive forces and their drivers will provide insight into the basis of the industrys profitability and future growth potential. The entry of Android and Google into the smartphone industry has significantly affected its competitive landscape. Through the creation of an open ecosystem and a wide developer community it has created a sustainable competitive advantage against non-Andriods. Fig 2: The Five Forces that Shape Industry Competition (Porter, 2008) The Five Forces of the Smartphone Industry Bargaining Power of Suppliers There are a number of players in the smartphone Operating Systems (OS) market, led by Nokias Symbian, followed by Apples iPhone OS X, RIMs (Research in Motion) Blackberry, Microsofts Windows mobile, Linux and Palm (Hashimi Komatineni, 2009). These OS developers charged a license fee from handset manufactures, which was usually a variable cost of $0.50 to $25.00 per handset shipped. Further, in order to build applications on a specific OS, developers required SDK (Software Development Kit) and an API (Application Developer Interface), essential support tools for which they paid expensive certification and at times high membership fees (Burgelman, Silverman, Wittig, Hoyt, 2009). Due to the high bargaining power of these OS developers the cost to handset manufacturers was significantly high. Porter (2008) identifies standardization as an avenue of reducing the bargaining power of suppliers, and it is essential for innovation in the mobile telecommunication industry (Tilson Lyytinen, 2006). In the past collaborative RD and sharing of intellectual property were means of standardization in this industry (Bekkers, Verspagen, Smits, 2002). Android was developed to achieve an industry-wide standard in open source code making it freely available to all. By establishing OHA for this purpose creates an environment for open innovation reducing development, distribution and time costs of parallel innovation. The open nature of the Android platform makes it fully adaptable on any handset which triggers a high demand for the Android OS, which in turn reduced the bargaining power of the suppliers of OS. Bargaining Power of Distributers In the smartphone industry the distributers mainly consist of the network carriers who sell the phones to subscribers as a part of a mobile service plan. The bargaining power of the distributers is high since they have a large variety of handset manufactures with different features to select from. Although the failure of the Google Android may be due to a multitude of factors one key reason was their decision to sell the phone in their own web store independent of a carrier, in an attempt to shake up handset retailing . They changed this strategy by introducing the Nexus One in Vodafone (UK) in April 2010 (Parker Waters, 2010). Handset manufactures try to gain leverage through branding, networking and advertising to generate brand loyalty. iPhone for example has a very strong brand community. However the entry of the Android phone has created a new buzz word among subscribers, which gives members of the OHA a higher bargaining power over other handset manufactures. Another key aspect that affects carriers is the new avenue of voice communication that is available in the smartphones due to the Wi-Fi capabilities and applications that are provided such as Skype and Google Voice. With time this would reduce talk time over the carriers network impacting their revenue. Recently iPhone blocked Google Voice on its platform (Menn, 2009). Through collaborative innovation OHA has built a standard platform (Cusumano, 2010) and reduced RD costs of parallel innovation and increased time efficiencies. These economies will eventually flow to the end user creating higher value for money giving Android phone makers a better bargaining power over their subscribers compared to their competition. Rivalry between Incumbents Within a few years of entering into the market the mobile phone became a commodity due to the competition in the market and the fast innovations that resulted in similar phones competing on price. When the smartphone entered the market it required a premium price for the added functionality of the phones. Now the creation of a standardized OS platform through Android has the potential to commoditize the smartphone. Since it was introduced to the market Android has emerged as a strong brand whereby every smartphone running on the Android platform is co-branded as an Android phone. The very 1st Android the T-Mobile G1, Motorola Droid and the latest HTC Magic are few such examples. This creates a convergence in branding between the members of the OHA further consolidating the smartphone industry through the alliance. The value network and open ecosystem that is OHA has a large potential for future developments in the smartphone industry due to the knowledge pool they have created. This is a critical asset for the members of the OHA over the other players in the industry. Further, having Google as a strong leverage in terms of branding, information and human resources adds to the benefit of the OHA. By introducing a standard platform for smartphones Android has reduced any competition between handsets over the OS, opening a new avenue of competition, which is applications. One of the key issues that arise between incumbents in the industry is the Intellectual Property violations. Apple recently sued HTC for 20 patent infringements over HTCs Android phones (Gelles , 2010). Barriers to Entry The main barrier for the smartphone industry for a new entrant was the significant fixed costs of RD and advertising. The introduction of Android has reduced these barriers significantly. First, by freely providing the SDK to the development community any new entrant can use this OS without a cost. Further the applications that are developed for the Android phones are highly adaptable and open. Therefore they can be adapted by any new entrant. Similar Apples Apps Store, there are multiple applications that are available with no cost. Further the Android brand is a powerful platform upon which new entrants can leverage their marketing. References Aguero, J., Rebollo, M., Carrascosa, C., Julian, V. (2009). Does Android Dream with Intelligent Agents. In J. M. Corchado (Ed.), International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence 2008. 50, pp. 194-204. Berlin: Springer. Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B., Smits, J. (2002). Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization: The Case of GSM. Telecommunications Policy, 26(3), 171-188. Bhattacharya, M., Gopal, B. S., Samad, S. A. (2009). Googles Android A Threat to Mobile Giants. IBS Research Center. UK: ecch. Burgelman, R. A., Silverman, A., Wittig, C., Hoyt, D. (2009). Googles Android: Will it Shake Up Wirelss Industry in 2009 and Beyond? Standford Business School. USA: ecch. Business Week. (2005, August 17). Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm Canalys. (2008, November 6). Global smart phone shipments rise 28%. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.canalys.com/pr/2008/r2008112.html Canalys. (2009, November 3). Worldwide Smartphone Market in Third Quarter. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from Canalys.com: http://www.canalys.com/pr/2009/r2009112.html Carter, N. M., Stearns, T. M., Reynolds, P. D., Miller, B. A. (1994). New Venture Strategies: Theory Development with an Empirical Base. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 21-41. Carton, P., Crumrine, J. (2010, January 4). New Survey Shows Android OS Roiling the Smartphone Market. Retrieved April 2010, 2010, from ChangeWaveResearch: http://www.changewaveresearch.com/articles/2010/01/smart_phone_20100104.html Cusumano, M. (2005, February). Google: What it is and What it is not. Communications of the ACM, 48(2), 15(3). Cusumano, M. (2010). Technology Strategy and Management The Evolution of Platform Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 32-34. DataMonitor. (2008, December). Global Mobile Phones: Industry Profile. Datamonitor. Fortt, J. (2010, March 11). Top 5 moments from Eric Schmidts talk in Abu Dhabi. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from CNN Money: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/11/top-five-moments-from-eric-schmidts-talk-in-abu-dhabi/ Gelles , D. (2010, March 2). Apple sues HTC over iPhone patents. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from The Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a49b2000-261b-11df-aff3-00144feabdc0.html Grotnes, E. (2008). Standardization as an Arena for Open Innovation. In G. Leon, A. Bernardos, J. Casar, K. Kautz, J. DeGross (Eds.), Open IT-Based Innovation: Moving Towards Cooperative IT Transfer and Knowledge Diffusion (Vol. 287, pp. 343-359). Boston: Springer. Hashimi, S. Y., Komatineni, S. (2009). Pro Android. New York: Springer-Verlag. Helft, M., Hansell, S. (2008, September 24). Google Introduces an iPhone Rival Open to Whims. The New York Times, p. C4. Hendrix, P. (2009). Research on Emerging Market and Disruptive Technology. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from IMMR Institute for Mobile Markets Research: http://www.immr.org/1/About/about.htm Menn, J. (2009, July 29). Apple Bans iPhone Applications based on Google Voice Service. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from The Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/686dc586-7bd7-11de-9772-00144feabdc0.html Nuttall, C., Waters, R. (2010, April 8). Apple to battle with Google for mobile ads. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from The Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9b1476de-434a-11df-9046-00144feab49a.html Open Handset Alliance. (2007a, November 12). Open Handset Alliance Releases Android SDK. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from Open Handset Alliance Press: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_111207.html Open Handset Alliance. (2009b, November 12). Open Handset Alliance Press. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from Industry Leaders Announce Open Platform for Mobile Devices: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html Open Source Initiative. (2010). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Park, Y., Chen, J. V. (2007). Acceptance and Adoption of the Innovative use of Smartphones. Industrial Management Data Systems, 107(9), 1349-65. Porter, M. (1979). How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 4(2), 34(17). Porter, M. (2008, January). The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 1-18. Schmidt, E. (2010, March 11). Innovation. In Keynote Speech at the Abu Dhabi Media Summit. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMjtOSvMDsfeature=PlayListp=DC59D0AB0DDD8478playnext_from=PLplaynext=1index=53. Schmidt, E., Tseng, E., Neven, H. (2010, February 16). Googles Vision of the Mobile Future. In Speech at the Mobile World Congress. Barcelona, Spain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClkQA2Lb_iE. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation Integarating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley Sons. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. (2006). The 3G Transition: Changes in the US Wireless Industry. Telecommunications Policy, 30, 569-586. Tsai, S., Wang, C., Hwang, R. (2008). Ubiquitous Phone System. In F. E. Sandes (Ed.), Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing (Vol. 5061, pp. 201-215). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Vance, A., Bilton, N. (2010, April 12). After iPad, Rivals Offer Variations on a Theme. The New York Times, p. B6. Waters, R., Menn, J. (2010, August 2009). Googles Schmidt quits Apple board. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from The Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/33ed1d7e-802e-11de-bf04-00144feabdc0.html Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the Twenty-First Century. Scientific American, pp. 94-104. reprinted in IEEE Pervasive Computing, 19-25 (2002).

Men Makes Better Teachers Than Women

Men Make Better Teachers than women (Just for comment)The simple answer is women should teach by men teacher and boy should teach by women teacher so both are study interestingly and paying attention on their subject so students get a good marks I will discuss in general view about men make better teachers than women and in my point of view both are good and bad. There are many characteristics, techniques and other factors that make a successful and exemplary teacher. These may be varied as the teachers themselves.However, there are certain time-tested attributes, characteristics, practices and environmental actors which contribute immensely to teacher success. The main topic of today is to be categorized as Teacher-Personality and Attitude, Teacher-Student Psychology and Teacher-Institute Relationship and who can be teach better men and women? If teacher doesn’t have knowledge and clear concept of his teaching he shouldn’t teach. There are some cases that, a teacher ma y be a good student in his class but he cannot be a good teacher. Good teacher requires communication skills and Teacher-Student Psychology between students and teachers.A teacher also a good friend of you. He understand the nature of students either they are in mood of study or not and how should I convey my knowledge to students in a fun or serious, in story or in joke. That’s make the teacher best that he/she understand the student on their level and if some students asks any question he/she try to understand that what students want to say and try to clear this concept on his mind. One thing also play a big role in class, â€Å"Teacher-Personality and Attitude with students†. There are certain personality characteristics and attitude issues which will help a teacher excel at his/her work.It is widely believed that if a teacher is presentable, he/she will give a good impression to the students especially in the first few days of the class. This indicates that the tea cher is taking his/her job seriously and acting professionally and the students eventually will appreciate that. In addition to looking presentable, the teacher’s personality in class plays a big role in how efficiently the class will be conducted. It is essential that the teacher send the right signals to the students so they will understand the basic rules in the class. A teacher also should active and energetic, some teachers are good in nowledge but they don’t have much communication skills with student in the result, the students are sleeping in the class and they don’t much concentrate on that subject. According to my point of view I generally categorized the teacher in different situation that are: An average teacher just tells the students that what did they do? But, A good teacher explain the students that how did they do? And also, A very good teacher demonstrate the students that like this way they can do? And a great and best teacher inspires you, he gives motion to student to achieve the target for not be a good student but also a very good person in community.That teachers are very rare today that they sincere with their students and wish they always done a best in every field of life. A famous quote â€Å"In every successful student behind a teacher, and in failure a strict teacher† So that’s reason our villages people don’t study more because teacher treat them strictly and they prefer work instead of study. The teacher who follow these things it is a good teacher either it is women or men. But in my personnel point of view a man teacher is more best then women teacher because he behaves sometime strict and he doesn’t compromise with their students as women teacher.

Factors and Motivations That Influence Biological Warfare

Many troops during the years of World War I met their demise in what is arguable the most terrifying and inhumane of all military tactics – biological warfare. Soldiers inhaled a deadly acidic gas that burned them from the inside out, suffocating them in an excruciating and unimaginable pain. Kurth Audrey, a professor of strategy at the U. S. National War College in Washington, stated: â€Å"Science is as neutral as a knife; it may maybe a blessing or a curse depending on the heart and the mind of the man who holds it. †[1] Terrorists organizations are motivated by many factors to use biological warfare. If a terrorist organization has the concepts of science down, as a neutral knife, then they can produce weapons that can fulfill their agenda, whether it is something that has to do with reputation, politics, or religion. Many factors contribute to terrorists using this type of warfare, which stimulates the motivations of terrorist organizations. These factors range from; access to information, cost, ease of dissemination, availability, access to technology, and difficulty of detection. Biological warfare is a dangerous type of warfare, than can cause severe damage to a population of people, crops, or animals. It can also cause harm to the one that is dispersing the biological agent, which causes one to think, why would someone use this type of warfare? Biological agents are often simpler to attain and produce than chemical weapons that can cause mass destruction in a population. The material for biological agents can easily be grown or purchased. There are some agents, such as Anthrax or Brucellosis, which occur naturally in animals in certain parts of the world , and individuals can acquire these agents just by traveling the globe to where these agents grow. For an example, the Aum Shinrikyo cult was reported to have gone to Zaire, a place in Africa, to seek the strains of Ebola for its use in its bio-weapons program. [2] Until recently, anyone could order agents from supple houses around the world. In 1995, American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), a mail order company that provides biological products, shipped the bacteria, Anthrax, to Saddam Hussein's biological warfare program in Iraq. [3] Just like the increase of technology throughout the decades, there is also an increase of availability of information related to chemical and biological weapons. Information on how to create biological weapons can be taken from articles within scientific literature on a variety of topics, which only requires a trained scientist to understand. The Internet has created forums on which terrorists groups can reach out, recruit members, and spread messages. It also makes a large library of information available to just about anyone who is interested on the production of biological agents. One resource that is found online is, Bacteriological Warfare: A Major Threat to North America, which is written by Larry Wayne Harris of the Aryan Nation. 4] This manual describes the reproduction and growth of biological agents, and can be purchased for only $30. [5] Another resource available is called, Silent Death, which instructs the reader in ways to kill using chemical and biological poisons. According to the publisher of this book, it sells thousands of copies each year. [6] Bio-engineers are now armed with knowledge on how to cease biological agents, as well as the effects of the agents upon a population. According to Ken Alibek, who supervised the Soviet bio warfare program, â€Å"Although the mos-sophisticated and effected versions [of biological weapons]require considerable equipments and scientific expertise, primitive versions can be produced in a small area with minimal equipment by someone with limited training†¦ They would be relativity inexpensive and easy to produce. †[7] To produce bio-weapons, a terrorist organization must have access to a scientist with some graduate training in the fields of microbiology or genetic engineering. The political and economic situation in Russia created a supply of bio warfare scientists who were not being paid and were unable to provide for themselves or their families. Regardless of the political, moral and ethical standards of these scientists, it is reasonable to expect that many of those scientists are now working for terrorist organizations around the world. Iraq scientists discovered which strains to order by reviews in American scientific journals, which are located at American Type Culture Collection in Rockville, Maryland. For thirty-five dollars, they also picked up strains of tularemia and Venezuelan equine encephalitis once targeted for weaponization at Fort Detrick. [8] The knowledge that is learned, and the availability of the biological agents, caused the relative ease of production of the agents, storage they can be contained in, dissemination factors, increased safety for the troops handling the binary agents, and the less complicated processes of demilitarization. The cost of producing and deploying biological weapons is less expensive than chemical weapons; the materials, equipment, and production space are all so inexpensive, any terrorist organization can afford them. According to an Office of Technical Assessment (OTA) Report, the cheapest overt production of one nuclear bomb costs $200 million, with larger programs costing up to 50 times more. In contrast, a large arsenal costs less than $10 million dollars. 9] Kathleen Bailey, found through interviews with professors, students, and scientists, that all that was needed to create a biological weapons program capable of producing large amounts of agents, would be several biologists with $10,000 worth of equipment – all of which who could fit into the same room. [10] This then causes many terrorists organizations to actually be capable of producing a biological agent. Dissemination of biological agents can be simple and inexpensive. There are a variety of different ways they can be de livered. The simplest methods of dissemination are through the contamination of food products or water. This method only requires direct access to any food product or water- preferably during the purification stages of that food product or of that water. Biological agents can also be dispersed through the contamination of agriculture, indirect transmission through animals, and direct contact, such as the assassination of Georgi Markov in 1978 through a ricin- containing pallet that was shot into his thigh. Dissemination through aerosol or vapor into an enclosed area or the open air is more complex than just through food products or water. Biological agents released into the air, such as through the release of vapors from a crop duster, are subject to biological decay, physical decay, atmospheric thermal stability, wind speed, and dimension of the land surface. The dissemination of agents is more predictable in rural areas than urban regions. The agents must be able to withstand the stress of the dissemination, environmental factors, and physical obstructions. Researchers have found, however, that dissemination of agents at night or enclosed dark areas, such as subways or tunnels, can be particularly effective. [12] Biological agents can be extremely lethal, some biological agents create more deadly affects than others, such as Anthrax. According to the Department of Defense, ten kilograms of Anthrax can cause more damage than a ten kiloton nuclear weapon. [13] This form of warfare can lead a military down by 90% through the intentions of militarization, by giving the military that dispensed the biological agents a form of character. Since most individuals are not vaccinated for different types of diseases, such as smallpox, it can lead to millions of people dying. Small pox is an example of a bacteria that can cause up to 2 million people, if being exposed to a society, to die because of the complete absence of prevention and control measures since 1970, because people do not believe that this disease will emerge again. It has such a high mortality rate (one in three people die) and infectiousness (on average, one person will infect three additional people). Politics seams to be the cause of many disasters from the corrupt French government in 1740 which led to the brutal French Revolution, to the rebellions of Aum Shinrikyo, which formed their own structure based on the Japanese government. Aum Shinrikyo attracted followers that opposed the Japanese government, in the late 1980's and 1990's, which caused their group to become larger. Their goal was to pursue terrorist violence in competition with rival groups that Shoko Asahara, the leader of this violent group, feared would attract support away from Aum Shinrikyo. Their next goal was to take over the Japanese government. On March 1194, Aum Shinrikyo tried to assassinate the leader of a rival religious sect, the Soka Gakkai, but failed because the spraying system mounted on a van malfunction and contaminated its operators. However, the second attempt occurred in Mastumoto on June 27th, 1994, the members working with the biological agents of Aum Shinrikyo, improved the spraying system, which targeted three judges who were expected to rule against the sect in a land dispute. This later resulted in the injuries of 500, including the three political judges they were after. In September 1984, Rajneeshee religious cult the Dalles, Orgeon grew Salmonella typhimurium to manipulate the results of the November 1984 election. They planned to buss homeless people into their commune and register them as voters, and make the opposing voters sick and unable to vote. They then poisoned to county commissioners by using the method of dissemination of contaminating water with salmonella typhiurium, which caused both the commissioners to become sick. The cult then contaminated ten Dallas restaurants, which opened up 751 cases of salmonella. 16] The uses of these pathogens by both these two different groups, had the attentions of manipulating whatever they deemed was politically corrupted. Biological agents can be small and easy to transport. William Patrick, who left the US biological Weapons Development Program around 1969, regularly carries a vial containing a stimulant for anthrax, just to test whether or not it will be detected. In 1999, he brought the vial with him into a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence without being detected and claimed to make the same move at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. 17] Many have traveled through airports, with high-tech security, around the world carrying equipment for deploying these biological agents through the air and never were stopped to explain the purpose for the equipment. The first signs of an attack may not even come until weeks after the agent has been deployed. Thus, by the time the authorities determine an attack has taken place, the perpetrators could be anywhere in the world, trying to escape what they have done. Biological attacks can be mistaken for naturally occurring disease outbreaks. Because of the difficulty in detecting a biological weapons attack, it is almost impossible to lay blame on a particular group or individual for the outbreak. As technology, and information on the biological fields of science increase, so do the potential threats of this type of warfare. It has been examined closely to how the factors help contribute to this type of warfare, as well as how motivation leads for this type of warfare to become some-what successful. The main major factor of groups to use this type of warfare would be religion. Religion plays a tremendous role in human misery, from wars, such as the crusades, to the use of biological weapons targeted at specific religious groups. When terrorism is involved in the name of religion, such as Al-Qaida, it is often motivated by violence that is regarded as â€Å"divine duty† which justifies bloodshed. One of the hallmarks of a religious terrorist is the unquestioned willingness to kill a large number of people without conscience behind their agendas. Since biological warfare is very effective in killing mass number of people, many religious extremist groups use this form of warfare to justify their actions, and views on religion. Terrorists groups have reputations that attract many people. Acquiring such massive biological weapons, or producing such complicated weapons, brings the terrorist group a high-rank reputation as well as to be seen as having no boundaries. It then makes it easier for the terrorist group to achieve their agendas. Aum Shinrikyo cult is an example that uses both of these motivations. Their attack in the subway system in 1995 not only caused the successful attack of fifty-five hundred people, according to their agenda, but had gotten people to realize their dangerous element; the involvement of highly intelligent and educated people, in which some are considered to be Japan's brightest scientists, computer technicians, and trained professionals. Even by the standards of cults, the Aum were a strange bunch. Among other things, members believed in the virtues of levitation and coffee enemas. They also wore elaborate radio sets on their heads so as to better hear the thoughts of their Leader. Despite their unusual ideas, the cult attracted a number of educated followers with scientific and technical abilities. It is a discouraging fact: religious cults may be strange and oblivious, but that doesn't prevent them from attracting capable intelligent followers – or to pursue their doomsday agendas. This type of warfare is an inhumane, dangerous type of warfare, that has killed dozens of people. If we actually take the factors into consideration, than we can lower the motivation and the prevent the further productions of these biological weapons. Bibliography http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_AUM01.htm

Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt A Good Idea - 972 Words

Analysis of Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea Many people would love to have their student loans debt forgive but do not believe it will happen. So Kayla Webley decided to write an article about student loan forgiveness, at the time Webley wrote the article she was the education correspondent for Time magazine. Now she is currently a staff writer for the same magazine. In her article, she claims that the student loan dilemma that is facing a lot of Americans is a problem for your country and needs to be addressed, but the current idea for solutions is not feasible and new ideas need to be raised. In her article, she argues against solutions people have put forward and also counter argue the claims they make in their solutions. When talking about student loan forgiveness many arguments can be made and, Webley acknowledges a few of them in her article. She argues that the proposal that Robert Applebaum made about the one-time bailout, that it may come across as a very exp ensive proposition, but it has been done before in your country history, when the government bailout out the banks and automakers, so why not a college graduate. She also, argues that most borrowers can not afford to pay off their student loans and the ones that can do not feel like handing the money over every month. With that being said, she believes that everyone would take the bailout if it was offered to them. Webley as argues that the current model on how higher education in the UnitedShow MoreRelatedIs Forgiving Student Loan Debt A Good Idea?1009 Words   |  5 Pagesnew media, Kayla Webley, in her essay â€Å"Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea?† states Robert Applebaum’s solution for student loan debt is a â€Å"radical and wildly unfeasible solution† in both economically and politically. Applebaum’s proposal is to â€Å"provide a one-time bailout of student debt†¦as a way to stimulate the still-limping economy.† However, W ebley counters the solution has to have â€Å"the purported benefited and fairness of a one-time student loan bailout.† In Webley’s essay, in the sixthRead MoreIs Forgiving Student Loan Debt A Good Idea?1227 Words   |  5 Pagesnew media, Kayla Webley, in her essay â€Å"Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea?† states Robert Applebaum’s solution for student loan debt is a â€Å"radical and wildly unfeasible solution both economically and politically. Applebaum’s proposal is to â€Å"provide a one-time bailout of student debt†¦as a way to stimulate the still-limping economy.† However, Webley counters that the solution has to have â€Å"the purported benefited and fairness of a one-time student loan bailout.† In Webley’s essay, in the sixthRead MoreIs Forgiving Student Loan Debt A Good Idea?970 Words   |  4 PagesMONEY In the article â€Å"Is forgiving student loan debt a good idea† by Kayla Webley, a writer for Time, Webley feels that from a human standpoint forgiving student debt holds some appeal (2). Kayla Webley refers to Robert Applebaum who started a petition in 2009 with a petition of nearly 670,000 signatures. The comments from persons posting the petition are quoted as â€Å"guessing this will never happen but it can’t hurt to sign on† (1). Burdened with an estimated $88,000 in debt, Applebaum’s proposal isRead MoreForgiving Student Loan Debt Essay examples822 Words   |  4 Pagesamount of student loan debt have an effect on the economy? If so would forgiving student loan debt help lower the national debt or would it just increase it? According to Mary Claire Fischer, a writer for Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine, â€Å"two-thirds of students who receive bachelor’s degrees leave college with debt in tow† (Fischer). Among these studen ts, the average amount owed is twenty-six thousand dollars (Fischer). There is a six month grace period after graduation to allow the student timeRead MoreStudent Loan Is A Terrible Idea1308 Words   |  6 PagesStudent loan forgiveness is a terrible idea. Sure, in an idealistic world it would be great if the country could forgive all student loan debt and thus bring relief to all students across the nation. Realistic? Not necessarily! Instead of the fairytale notion of student loan forgiveness being the answer to all the problems, America would fair better in taking the initiative in making reforms to the educational loan system that are a bit more realistic. Student loans are a massive predicament in theRead MoreEssay on Student Loan Debt Should be Forgiven1256 Words   |  6 PagesDoes the amount of student loan debt have an effect on the economy? If so would forgiving student loan debt help lower the national debt or would it just increase it? According to Mary Claire Fischer , a writer for Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine, â€Å"two-thirds of students who receive bachelor’s degrees leave college with an average debt of twenty-six thousand dollars† (Fischer). This means that the average student debt has doubled since 2007 (Ross 24). The total student loan debt is $1.2 trillionRead MoreStudent Loan Loans Should Not Be Forgiven938 Words   |  4 Pages Should student loan borrowers be forgiven for their debt? The cumulative total of student loan borrowing has already reached $1 trillion dollars already make up more than half of what Barack Obama is pushing to cap the amount any borrower must pay back and forgive outstanding debt after 20 years, even so calling to forgive some or all of the debt that is escalating. Robert Applebaum, the Author behind the Student Loan Forgiveness Act, believes that student loan should be forgiven to highlight anRead MoreIn The Short Essay, â€Å"Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt A Good807 Words   |  4 PagesIn the short essay, â€Å"Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea?† by Kaya Webley, she illustrates through validations that student debt is a problem, but Applebaum’s proposal brings about political and economic problems. One of her validations is that most people can afford their student loans. She also states that only a small handful of graduates leave school with an unbeara ble student debt. Webley touches upon programs that are already in place to help pay off college debt. Another one of her validationsRead MoreShould Student Loan Debt Be Forgiven?1344 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿Student Loan Debt: Should We Forgive? EN1123 Most Americans would agree that higher education is important. Compared to years ago, when a high school education was acceptable in most jobs, a college degree is now required in the majority of positions. But what if you can’t afford to get a degree? What then? For many, student loans are the only way to finance one’s education. Paying out of pocket simply isn’t a reality for most, so they rely on state and national government to provide them theRead MoreStudent Loan Debt Has Become A National Problem With No Solution2311 Words   |  10 PagesIntroduction: According to CNN, â€Å"Almost 19% of student loan borrowers owe more than $50,000.Only 6% of borrowers had that much in 2001.† (Gillispe, 1). Why has student loan debt increased so much? Student Loan debt has become a national problem with no solution. Many students are borrowing more money to keep up with the rising cost of tuition in universities, leaving themselves with thousands of debt after graduation. Students after gaining this debt, have to find jobs to support it which can come