Poker Essay -- essays research papers

Poker: Draw Vs. Hold 'em As the room fills with smoke from cigars and cigarettes, I look across the table at the last guy in the hand. I think to myself, â€Å"Why did he just raise me?† I just raised the pot $25 on two pair. The other guy re-raised the pot another $25. My heart is beating like a freight train racing down the tracks, I’m doing everything in my power to stop from sweating and I’m trying to keep my face stone cold straight as to not give myself away. I’m pretty sure at this point that this guy is trying buy the pot, but it still makes me nervous. I decide to call his raise and when the cards are turned over I realize that I had just made the right call. I won the pot and fought off his bluff. Poker is a card game that has been around for hundreds of years. Although the origin of the game and the name itself are debatable, the game of Poker is played more than any other card game in the world. The scenario I explained took place during a game of Five Card Draw. This is a very popular rendition of Poker. Poker has evolved over the years and hence has numerous types of games that still fall under the Poker category. My favorite games are Five Card Draw and Texas Hold ‘em. Both games are similar because they derive from the original game of Poker, involves betting, and using playing cards. They also differ because of the betting, the number of cards used and the way the cards are dealt. Five Card Draw is o...

The Role of Nature in the poetry of William Wordsworth Essay -- Litera

In William Wordsworth’s poems, the role of nature plays a more reassuring and pivotal r ole within them. To Wordsworth’s poetry, interacting with nature represents the forces of the natural world. Throughout the three poems, Resolution and Independence, Tintern Abbey, and Michael, which will be discussed in this essay, nature is seen prominently as an everlasting- individual figure, which gives his audience as well as Wordsworth, himself, a sense of console. In all three poems, Wordsworth views nature and human beings as complementary elements of a sum of a whole, recognizing that humans are a sum of nature. Therefore, looking at the world as a soothing being of which he is a part of, Wordsworth looks at nature and sees the benevolence of the divinity aspects behind them. For Wordsworth, the world itself, in all its glory, can be a place of suffering, which surely occurs within the world; Wordsworth is still comforted with the belief that all things happen by the hands of the divinity and the just and divine order of nature, itself. In William Wordsworth’s poem, Resolution and Independence, Wordsworth describes the moods of the poem through the description of nature. The first appearance of the speaker, himself, is shown in (line 15); where he classifies himself as a traveler who has been seduced, as he states, â€Å"The pleasant season did my heart employ† (line 19). We see the traveler as a bright and joyful person as Wordsworth’s characteristics of nature as a means of description continues throughout the poem. As the poem progresses, the speaker’s attitude changes in (line 26), where he tells us that his mood is lowered. It is here that the speaker presents himself as â€Å"a happy child of earth† in (line 31); as once again Wordsworth... .../ Of the unfinished sheepfold may be seen / Besides the boisterous brook of Greenhead Ghyll,† showing the growth of human beings in relative notion to nature. William Wordsworth has respect and has great admiration for nature. This is quite evident in all three of his poems; the Resolution and Independence, Tintern Abbey and Michael in that, his philosophy on the divinity, immortality and innocence of humans are elucidated in his connection with nature. For Wordsworth, himself, nature has a spirit, a soul of its own, and to know is to experience nature with all of your senses. In all three of his poems there are many references to seeing, hearing and feeling his surroundings. He speaks of hills, the woods, the rivers and streams, and the fields. Wordsworth comprehends, in each of us, that there is a natural resemblance to ourselves and the background of nature.

The Great Depression Essay -- essays research papers

The Great Depression was a time of sadness and poverty for many. It became an unforgettable historical time in American history. The author of the book The Great Depression, Pierre Berton gives a clear view of what happened from 1929-1941. He basically outlines the Depression event by event, explaining what happened where and who was involved. Although many books can tell stories of the depression, I think the author of this book did a good job getting all the facts and letting the reader know exactly what happened.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is easily shown that the author, Pierre Berton, didn’t show much opinion in this book. He mainly focused on just the facts. He would however give some personal views of reasons for certain things or explanations. He probably got most of his information from a textbook or actual documents. He did a good job compiling these facts into a time line of events. He explains who each important person is that was involved in the times of the depression and all important laws passed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  He began talking about the crash of the market, dubbed Black Thursday. The crash spelled disaster for the national economy. Corporations with heavy investments faced a sudden shock to their assets. This was the beginning of the depression. The national income slipped lower each year from 1929-1932, and it did not return until World War II. Unemployment became the most important problem of the depression to the people living in the US. Another major problem was that the agricultural prices were cut almost in half, and many farms foreclosed because of it. The author goes on to say that there are many different theories as to why the stock market crashed that day. One was that the attempts of the US government and the Federal Reserve Board to stop speculation caused an overreaction in the market, leading to the selling panic.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The next big event in the book was the effects the stock market crash had on America. The author did a great job by including interesting statistics and facts. In 1930, farm income had fallen to the lowest it has been since 1921. A result of this was that farmers didn’t have enough money. According to Berton 5 percent of farmers lost their land. Nowhere was it worse than in the dust bowl, a farming area in the Midwest. Many farmers were forced to move west because o... ...ever got off subject at any time. The reviewer also compliments Berton on his writing style. The way he would write was a way that he always made sense and made it interesting. I can’t disagree with that either, I found the book very interesting, it was hard to put down.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Great Depression was full of facts and interesting information, and I learned a lot from it. Pierre Berton didn’t present his information with any kind of bias, he just stated what was true. Occasionally he would add in some personal views, but they never strayed far from the truth. The book basically told the story of exactly what happened to the economy during the depression, and Berton did a great job explaining each part of it. He never tried to put in his opinions and state that they were fact. He never had an argument, he was just telling a story of the depression. Therefore there was no side he could’ve taken one way or the other. He wrote his words so that it was understandable for all. He made sure to add in some interesting facts and tell stories in order to keep the reader interested. I think Berton did a great job in summing up the cause and effects of the depression.

A Comparison of W.K Clifford and William James’s Arguments

Clifford and James Summaries of W. K. Clifford and William James’s arguments for belief | In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W. K Clifford’s (1879) argument on the ethics of belief, followed by a summary of William James’ (1897) argument on the right to believe, and finally, provide an argument for why W. K Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger by highlighting its strengths while simultaneously arguing against William James’ (1897) argument. According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy – one where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled with innocent men, women, and children. Prior to its departure, doubts had been brought to his attention regarding its condition and the possibility of a failure to complete the voyage. The ship-owner, now in a dilemma , successfully convinces himself that because the ship had weathered so many storms and successfully completed so many voyages, it was fit to believe that the ship was fit to sail.He acquired a sincere belief that the ship would successfully complete the voyage despite its apparent faults. Eventually, the ship sank. Clifford (1879) argues that the ship-owner is responsible for the death of those innocent men and women – not only did the ship-owner ignore the doubts regarding the ship’s capabilities, but he acquired a false belief by simply stifling his doubts. Yes, he felt sure about the ship’s capabilities; but, he only acquired such a conviction by allowing himself to believe it, and not based on sufficient evidence.Clifford (1879) also argues that in the event the ship had not sank and had completed the voyage, the ship-owner â€Å"would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. † (498) In essence, Clifford (1879) argues that the o utcome has no effect since the origin of his belief was flawed and based on whims rather than evidence. In another analogy where a group of men are accused for manipulating children, Clifford (1879) argues that those who accused the innocence of the men based on self-propagated beliefs are not â€Å"honourable men,† (499) regardless of whether the accused were guilty.He illustrated the ideology that no accusation can be made unless there is sufficient evidence to supplement it; if sufficient evidence cannot be found, then the individual loses the right to believe that certain belief, as he will harm himself and humanity. Clifford (1879) argues it is right and necessary to examine evidence on both sides of any belief with patience and care. Right, because when a man is so consumed by a belief so as to not entertain other grounds, he can still choose the action stemming from that belief – thus, he has a duty to investigate â€Å"on the ground of the strength of his conv ictions. (499) And necessary, because those who become consumed by their self-sponsored beliefs must have a rule to deal with actions stemming from those beliefs. Clifford (1879) argues no one belief is isolated from the action that follows, and no belief is ever truly insignificant. No individual can judge the validity of his beliefs in an unbiased manner; thus, the actions following beliefs, regardless of being true or false, can have strong implications on our future if not corrected now. Clifford (1879) argues it is essential to continuously judge our beliefs and validate them based on sufficient evidence.Finally, Clifford (1879) argues our beliefs are not personal property; rather, â€Å"our words, our phrases and processes and modes of thought are common property. Belief†¦ is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity. † (500) Because our actions – which stem from our beliefs – affect those around us, Clifford (1879) deems it a universal duty to constan tly doubt our closely held beliefs. Although â€Å"we naturally do not like to find that we are really ignorant and powerless,† (500) Clifford argues it would be a crime and a sin on humanity to acquire a sense of power when the belief has not been sufficiently investigated and earned.Clifford (1879) is a strong proponent of proof-based beliefs and of the continuous criticism of beliefs held backed by loose evidence. In order to advance as a fair and just society, our beliefs must be evaluated and supported by evidence which is fair and just, and not by apparent truisms which satisfy our personal power struggles, insecurities, and lack of interest. William James (1897), on the other hand, attempts to define the permissible cases in which it is intellectually respectable to believe without sufficient evidence.James (1897) begins by providing three criterion for judging beliefs: either beliefs are 1) living or dead; 2) forced or avoidable; or 3) momentous or trivial. A live hyp othesis is one where the hypothesis appeals to the existing beliefs of the individual; a forced hypothesis is one where one must choose between alternatives, and cannot proceed without doing so; and finally, a momentous hypothesis is one where there is a lot at stake and/or when the decision is irreversible. James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence.He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions hold varying meanings and importance to different individuals; it is individuals’ pre-existing beliefs which form future beliefs once further information is received. James (1897) acknowledges the fact that many beliefs are pre-supposed and wit hout sufficient evidence.To challenge Clifford (1879), he says â€Å"our belief in truth itself†¦ that there is a truth†¦ what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire,† (505) effectively questioning Clifford’s (1879) double-standard; if Clifford (1879) requires sufficient evidence for beliefs, where is the sufficient evidence to support the belief of truth held by scientists and philosophers alike? Then, James (1897) extends the argument to say we want to have a truth – it is our will which pushes us to believe in a truth and â€Å"puts us in a continually better and better position towards it. (505) In discussing telepathy, James claims scientists do not want to consider the evidence for telepathy because â€Å"they think†¦ that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed†¦ It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pur suits. † (505) James argues that â€Å"[the] very law which the logicians impose upon us†¦ is based on nothing but their own natural wish to exclude all elements for which they†¦ an find no use. † (506) Thus, James effectively argues that even the scientists’ passionate convictions and prejudices form their beliefs, as we see in the case of telepathic research. Finally, in this section, James (1897) argues such behaviour re-inforces Pascal’s Wager – a pre-existing belief can generate further beliefs, and that logic alone is not enough. Then, James (1897) takes two approaches in looking at the â€Å"duties† in matters of opinion – that we must know the truth, and we must avoid error.James (1897) argues it is impractical and unrealistic to know the truth while simultaneously avoiding error; â€Å"it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may in escaping B fall into believing other falseh oods, C or D, just as bad as B,† (506) says James (1897). Then, James (1897) argues that the risk of being wrong or in error is trivial compared to the possibility of stumbling upon real knowledge and of â€Å"indefinitely guessing true. † (506) In his opinion, it is better to continue to guess or hope for the truth than to continuously deny certain beliefs until sufficient evidence surfaces.He believes it is better to be light-hearted in the regard of accepting certain beliefs than to constantly question and doubt. James (1897) argues that in most matters, the decision to choose between various options is not so momentous and urgent that a false belief to act on is better than no belief at all. He says â€Å"seldom is there any such a hurry†¦ that the risks of being duped by believed a premature theory need be faced. † (507) James (1897) then goes on to state that modern science’s â€Å"nervousness† and yearning to technically verifying the tr uth may â€Å"cease her to care for truth by itself at all. (507) In extending this argument, he states that although technical evidence is strong and important, human passions are stronger. He then poses his final question – that of weighing the perils and benefits of waiting with â€Å"impunity† until the sufficient evidence is found. In essence, he asks if there are forced options in man’s already speculative questions, and whether it is wise to continue to wait until â€Å"sufficient† evidence arrives. In leading up to his conclusion, James (1897) argues that the desire for a certain truth can help bring about its existence; so, desire or the will to discover a fact can help create the fact.He infers this to mean that the beliefs conjured and held by our passionate minds may prove to be instrumental in providing the sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs. In conclusion, James (1897) argues that because religion is forced and momentous, we canno t remain skeptical and continue to wait, as we will lose the good provided by religion if we continue to wait in the same fashion that we choose to disbelieve in the first place – James (1897) argues that it is better to risk the chance of error than the loss of truth.Finally, James (1897) argues that to believe in religion or God with the notion of being right is the prerogative of the individual and is undertaken at his own risk – if the individual wishes to put himself in the best position possible to enjoy the fruits of the after-life, then society and/or science’s imposed rules and laws of requiring â€Å"sufficient evidence† for the verification of that God or religion is unjustified. It is the individual’s personal decision and he alone assumes the risk – as such, his right must be respected.James argues that individuals have a right to believe without sufficient evidence so long as the belief is live, momentous and is forced. He argu es that it is impractical to continue to wait for sufficient evidence to surface while the chance to believe gradually dissipates. Now that I have summarized Clifford (1879) and James’s (1897) articles, I would like to elaborate further as to why Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger than James’s (1897) in the area of religious belief.In his article, James (1897) made a number of references to the apparently frivolous actions of scientists and their narcissistic habits of â€Å"waiting† for sufficient evidence. However, his rendition of live hypotheses still does not give sufficient reason to believe in a certain belief without first establishing a basis for its verification. First, in any experiment, â€Å"sufficient evidence† is to be based on objective proof which can reasonably prove that the latter cannot hold truer than the former. However, when beliefs are formed based on passion and human emotion, how can one achieve any objectivity?How ca n there be fair grounds for comparison? How can one individual, who, in his own right, is passionately convinced of his belief – based on nothing more than emotion – convince the other that his belief is superior when the other individual believes on the same token? Second, James (1897) continually criticizes scientists for their ways and states science’s search for â€Å"technical verification† is a shun for the truth; however, would modern science have discovered the cure of diseases and made significant inroads in the field of medical research had it stuck with one belief and not explored other avenues of growth?Is it, then, morally right to continue to hold certain medical hypotheses valid while simultaneously rejecting other possibilities when such an act could concern the lives of millions? Should there not be room for a reasonable amount of doubt and criticisms within one’s beliefs to continually improve, rather than degrade, as James (1897) suggests? Yes, James suggests that evidence should be required when the matter at hand is a significant one – but who can be a fair judge on the magnanimity of such a topic?Thus, although it may be tedious and inconvenient to continually question and doubt one’s basis for belief, it is necessary and categorically the right thing to do. We owe it to ourselves and to mankind to be honest with one another, and not believe just to satiate our personal thirst for power. Finally, James (1897) asks that those who believe – regardless of whether they have evidence or not – must be left alone and have the right to â€Å"live and let live. † I vehemently disagree.As Clifford (1879) suggested, beliefs turn into actions, and by the time we realize the action undertaken was an immoral one, it is usually too late. We are all connected – any thoughts in my mind, or yours, can affect others in an infinite number of ways. As James (1897) stated, most everyd ay beliefs will not affect others drastically; however, there is a fraction of beliefs which can turn actions affecting many people or any one person in profound ways, either negatively or positively.In such a scenario, do we want to leave open the possibility of unfounded beliefs adversely affecting some person’s life? Do we want to run the risk of hurting a loved one and/or our reputations because we were too lazy or did not find the issue momentous or live enough to gather sufficient evidence for a belief? Thus, although Clifford’s (1879) proposition may seem, again, tedious or time-consuming, it is the only way of ensuring we close the cracks and do our best to ensure a fair society.After all, in the presumption of innocence, our legal system works in a similar way – the legal system ensures every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, regardless the magnitude of the verdict, because it knows the implications of sending an innocent man to prison. Thus, every belief by the prosecution and defence must be backed by sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. After analyzing the summaries of the respective philosophers – W. K.Clifford (1879) and William James (1897) – I hope it has become evident that sufficient evidence to support beliefs is not only right and necessary for us, but for humanity as a whole. As a society, we cannot shun substantive, technical evidence because we are satisfied with our pre-existing beliefs. To advance as a society, it is our universal duty to continually question our beliefs and search for sufficient evidence in forming our new beliefs. References Pojman, Louis, & Rea, Michael. (2012). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Boston: Clark Baxter.

Enron Corporation

The â€Å"crisis of confidence† on the public accounting profession was not something that happened overnight and it is not the fault of one group of people or individuals. The accounting profession is partly to blame for this crisis, as the necessary rules, regulations and guidelines were not in place to hold companies and accounting firms responsible for their actions. The lack of regulations also allowed companies to partake in misleading transactions. These transactions were perfectly legal at the mime, Just not necessarily ethical.Companies did not have to be 100% honest when sharing earning results and company structure with shareholders. Arthur Anderson & Co. Was also to blame as they were the accountants for Enron. They were the ones with the expertise who should have known better and looked to fully explain and disclose what they knew. Andersen's commitment is to the shareholders, not to their client and they needed to act in a way and present the statements fairly so that a user could make an informed decision and that the statements presented fairly.Enron is also to blame. They were focused on profits – which is not necessarily a bad thing, except for the fact that they were not forthright In how they were getting there. 5. I believe there has been a shift in regards to the concept of professionalism in relation to public accounting. After the Enron crisis, people began to second guess accountants and their work. There was fear that many other scandals and crises would occur. Because of this, the accounting profession had to be much more cautious and proactive In their approach.They have to err much more on the side of caution and pay close attention to ensure they are always acting ethically, responsibly and In the financial statement users' best Interest. This Is where SOX and other acts of Congress come Into play. It Is not to punish the auditors, but to help them and other accountants keep their reputation and ensure that firms are acting appropriately. It limits the engagement between and auditor and client and helps to ensure all understand the laws and expectations that are relevant to each arty.People are paying attention to auditing and audit firms now more than ever, the auditors and accountants know this and must be more diligent and professional than ever so that another scandal Like Enron does not occur. 6. I believe quarterly financial statements should be audited as a company could be deceiving shareholders for a full year prior to an auditor uncovering something. In the case of public companies, auditors are probably do some type of audit work year round so that would be rare, but Is possible.Currently auditors do not have any responsibility regarding quarter end financial statements as they are unedited and an auditor Is always only responsible for the fairness of audited statements not the statements themselves. I do not believe users of statements can make the best decision based on unedited fig ures. Thing, except for the fact that they were not forthright in how they were getting there. Cautious and proactive in their approach. They have to err much more on the side of responsibly and in the financial statement users' best interest.This is where SOX and other acts of Congress come into play. It is not to punish the auditors, but to than ever so that another scandal like Enron does not occur. 6. I believe quarterly financial statements should be audited as a company could be deceiving that would be rare, but is possible. Currently auditors do not have any responsibility regarding quarter end financial statements as they are unedited and an auditor is themselves. I do not believe users of statements can make the best decision based

“the Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profit”

Businesses have many responsibilities, the primary role being, to make profit and then in turn grow and expand as a business in the hope that they increase profits. After all, not many people want to be in the business of losing money, it is simply the function of a business †¦ to make money. However, in saying that, I would disagree in saying that this is entirely a â€Å"social† responsibility. Businesses have a responsibility to their stakeholders and/or their shareholders to increase profits, but socially they are required to do so much more. In terms of â€Å"social† responsibility, in this current day and age, businesses have a responsibility to society. I believe consumers are generally not concerned about the profit businesses makes, they are more concerned about the quality, service and value they receive from dealing with a business, and more importantly whether the success of the business was gained by them following socially and ethically responsible business practices. In the past, businesses would forfeit their social responsibility at the cost of increasing profit. A good example of this is multinational conglomerate, Proctor & Gamble, identified by PETA as a corporation that actively participates in animal testing1 to ensure that their products are safe for people to use. Yes, they are fulfilling their â€Å"social† responsibility in ensuring that their products do not harm their consumers, but now society and organisations are pointing the finger and actively boycotting companies such as Proctor & Gamble, for ignoring their social responsibility. Businesses have had to turn things around to adapt to the views of changing society. Being socially responsible is now a costly exercise. Due to their previous poor business ethics, they have to date invested almost $250 million in alternative testing methods in an effort to abolish all forms of animal testing. 2 Not only now is it socially unacceptable to practice â€Å"bad† business ethics, but it is socially unacceptable for businesses that make too much money to ignore the needs of the needy. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft together with the efforts of his wife Melinda have established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation donates millions of dollars every year, aiding many projects with their slogan being â€Å"all lives have equal value†. It is now the duty of businesses and many large corporations to be socially responsible and contribute to society on a larger scale. It is simply incorrect to say that increasing profit is the sole responsibility of a business. It is the social responsibility of a business to be socially responsible, in all facets. Portraying a ‘socially responsible’ image is detrimental to increasing profits, this has not always been the case, many companies that were once selfless entities who’s only mission was to profiteer at any cost have realised that with the changes in society, they have had to change the way they conduct their business. Sadly, many businesses and corporations participate in â€Å"socially responsible† activities for the purpose of increasing profit, businesses are not changing their packaging to pink to ‘secretly’ support breast cancer, they do so, so that you and I know about it. These so called acts of social responsibility are a form of advertising and they are done to show consumers just how â€Å"good† they can be. It is not the social responsibility of businesses to increase profit, but it is the social responsibility of companies to be socially responsible to increase profit.

R. R. Donnelly & Sons: the Digital Division

R. R. Donnelly & Sons: The Digital Division (Case Synopsis) R. R. Donnelley & Sons was suffering with an ad-hoc technology development process. Once this process had to be changed and new technology development process had to be brought in. R. R. Donnelley & Sons with 6% share of the $80 billion print market is certainly the market leader. But the level of competition was rising rapidly as well. The printing market was going online and electronic with the online service providers and software packages were making four color images available electronically.Smaller printing companies were also building alliances with firms that had high-capacity networks for transmitting files. Despite digital division being a good idea, it was essentially outside their core business. All divisions knew the potential of digital technology but did not know enough about the markets and were scared of unproven technology. The biggest issue faced by the Digital Division was whether they would be accepted o r not by other divisions in the organization itself. The company knew that digital technology was the future.And that the company needs to improve on demand printing and delivery on time as well. But the problem was convincing the other divisions. They could not do it with their arguments or with the incentives they gave. The solution would be to accept the advantages of the digital technology by the CEO, john Walter not as a different division. This is done so that the profitability and the existence of other divisions are not affected. It should benefit the organization not as a separate division. All the divisions in the organization must work together as one to contribute to the organizational goals and growth.