What is disproportionality?

What sentence has 7 syllables?

I am good at knitting wool.

The difference between a dwarf and a midget?

My search showed this info: The dwarf is a medical term for the person with an extremely short height of less than 147 cm ... Midget is a slang word used for a short person that suffers from proportionate dwarfism. Dwarfs suffer from disproportionality of body parts. Midgets only are short in height with all rest body parts in normal form.

What are the advantages of deterrence punishment?

The argued advantages of deterrence is the idea of a short sharp shock; using a disproportionate punishment could deter future offending. There is also the utilitarian argument by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that the suffering of one may prevent the suffering of many, or could bring about pleasure to many (see theories on Utilitarianism and Hedonism). However, the disadvantages/criticisms definitely outweight the advantages. There is an argument on disproportionality held by those who support retributive punishment in that the punishment should befit the crime; deterrence tends to be more severe. Also - in practice - it does not deter criminals due to reoffending rates; some evidence shows people are more likely to reoffend if they receive a detterent sentence. There are the ethical arguments on using prisoners in order to send some sort of message to others. Other methods are seen as more effective, such as rehabilitation (reform).

Are midgets a different race?

Midget is a term used to describe an exceptionally short person. The terms "midget" and "dwarf" are often used synonymously, as both terms mean someone who has been short in stature since birth, but those terms were not originally synonyms. Midget is a term that was originally coined in 1865, referring to an extremely short but normally proportioned person. P.T Barnum indirectly helped popularize "midget" when he began featuring General Tom Thumb in his circus. Dwarf was originally used to denote those with short limbs as compared to those who had proportioned limbs. Like many other older terms, "midget" has became part of popular language, it was often used in a pejorative sense. When applied to a person who is very short, midget is now often considered offensive.

Under which conditions is a nucleus unstable?

When certain combinations of protons and neutrons form an atomic nucleus, there is the possibility that the nucleus may be unstable. There may be too few or too many protons for the number of neutrons present, or there may be too few or too many neutrons for the number of protons present. In any case, if the nucleus is unstable, that nucleus is said to be radioactive. There is another case in which a nucleus can be unstable, and that is that it is simply too large to be able to stay together. Recall that nuclear binding energy holds atomic nuclei together, and it overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion of the positively charged protons to do this. But when atoms become "really big" as we see them at the top end of the periodic table, they are uniformly unstable. They are all radioactive and will eventually undergo nuclear decay of some kind. In a radioactive substance, the instability of the nuclei of the atoms will eventually "win out" over the binding energy holding the nuclei together, and the nucleus will "fall apart" or even "split" in some cases. Is there a "magic number" associated with the disproportionality that will tell us if a given atom is unstable? No, there isn't. We have to look at things on a case by case basis. Recall that atoms of the same element that have differing numbers of neutrons in them are isotopes of that element. And for a given element, some unstable isotopes exist. They may appear in nature, or we may see them in the physics lab. In addition to the existence natural or synthesized radioactive isotopes of the elements, some elements have no stable isotopes whatsoever. That means all isotopes of those elements are radioisotopes, and are radioactive. You probably recall the element technetium, which has no stable isotopes. That's an example, and we see more examples at the "top end" of the periodic table where the nuclei of the elements are huge. The binding energy or nuclear glue holding the nuclei together is losing ground to the repulsive forces of all the positively charged protons. Eventually we'll reach a point where a massive nucleus won't stay together, no matter what.

Is smashing household things and yelling a form of abuse?

Of course it is a form of abuse.The abuser acts unpredictably, capriciously, inconsistently and irrationally. This serves to render others dependent upon the next twist and turn of the abuser, his next inexplicable whim, upon his next outburst, denial, or smile.The abuser makes sure that HE is the only reliable element in the lives of his nearest and dearest ? by shattering the rest of their world through his seemingly insane behaviour. He perpetuates his stable presence in their lives ? by destabilizing their own.One of the favourite tools of manipulation in the abuser's arsenal is the disproportionality of his reactions. He reacts with supreme rage to the slightest slight. Or, he would punish severely for what he perceives to be an offence against him, no matter how minor. Or, he would throw a temper tantrum over any discord or disagreement, however gently and considerately expressed. Or, he would act inordinately attentive, charming and tempting (even over-sexed, if need be).This ever-shifting code of conduct and the unusually harsh and arbitrarily applied penalties are premeditated. The victims are kept in the dark. Neediness and dependence on the source of "justice" meted and judgment passed ? on the abuser ? are thus guaranteed.Based on my book "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"(c) 2003 Lidija Rangelovska Narcissus PublicationsAnswerAbsolutely its a form of abuse.In addition to the verval abuse he is physicaly threatening you with these outburst.this will cause you great concern and make you wonder and concluded that it was YOU the cause. sadly this is also emotional abuse and will leave you scarded if you allow it to continue and enable him to think its acceptable behavior. stop it now or he will continue making your life a fearfull drama that with you as the receptor of his abuse. AnswerYes, this is abuse. He needs to get into counseling for his anger. He can be helped to learn to control it. You also need to get into counseling. And the two of you together. He can't destroy things and go into a rage just because he is angry. If you have kids now or if you have them in the future do you want them to be a part of that? Get counseling or get out right away. AnswerAbsolutely. I know 3 year olds who are not permitted to even answer their mother's in a disrespectful tone let alone throwing a tantrum like the person you're referring to - whom I'm assumming is an 'adult'. Leave now and don't look back. This is not a person the Lord Jesus wants you hanging with. Answerof course it is AnswerYes it is. I was in a relationship for 2 years with someone who I thought I loved with all my heart. It starts with small things , he always said to me its your fault and smash things and he said watch while I smash this and see how u make me feel. Then it gets to bigger things like throwing remote controls over your head and pushing u around. Get out , as much as it may hurt , get out. U don't want to be where I am now. Our breakup is recent and I am in so much pain , but the only way I think I can get over it is that I am relieved that I got out when I did otherwise it could have been so bad it could have resulted in so much harm.I have lost all self confidence and am pulling through it now. He does not have any respect for you and don't believe his sorries because it will happen again.If u need someone to chat to Email me if u like.I am still only 19 but have been a victim for a good year and half. I will be okay though despite the fact that he is calling me day after day begging me to come back. But why do i want to go back to someone that smashes down everything we build together, calls me names and does not respect me. It hurts but it would be for the best. Im here to chat. xx AnswerAnything that makes you hesitate, get scared, or in any other way not feel free is abuse...a cutting look....banging fists on the table, making a gun with his fingers and even pointing to his own head, stomping around, slamming doors, it could even be sucking his teeth if they only do it before they blow. They intimidate. They can control you from across the room and no one else will know. Intimidation is abuse. AnswerYEP! and you will not change him. Sorry, get out or keep ruining your life and the life of your children. AnswerYES!!!! This is one of the very first signs that you realise years later were the alarm bells. You are doing the right thing by seeking advise now, please talk to women that have stories of violent abusive histories with men and think carefully about what you want to do. Ask them the question... What would you of done differently when they were where you are now? AnswerYes but notice if the coward smashes any of his things. My ex would do that but I began to notice he never smashed anything important to him. Its just another way to take away anything that is yours whether it be material, spiritual, emotional and physical. AnswerYes. He's trying to terrorize you. You don't know when he's next going to go on a spree of yelling and smashing things up; you don't know what he's going to destroy next and surely there's always going to be the worry that before long he'll be violent to you, not just to things. AnswerNO. It is therapy, albeit a rather ineffective and ugly therapy. They are not nessecarily doing it for your sake but perhaps rather their own. If they are doing it for your sake, then it is abuse. If they do it alone or are simply intending to satiate their own furor then it is merely irrational. If this person cursed profanity and punched a pillow it would seem like they are blowing off steam, correct? A display like this shows a loss of ethical and rational boundries and a bad sense of taste. However unless it is done with a will to inflict terror, then it is not abuse in the traditional sense of the word. I would still advise against allowing this person near an antiques parlor or a china shop.AnswerYou should get plastic cups and plates at this stage so they won't break.

What day did the Great Depression start?

The Great Depression started in about 1929, official start date of it considered as Black Tuesday on October 29, 1929.The Great DepressionThe Great Depression (also known in the U.K. as the Great Slump) was a dramatic, worldwide economic downturn beginning in some countries as early as 1928. The beginning of the Great Depression in the United States is associated with the stock market crash on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday. The depression had devastating effects in both the industrialized countries and those which exported raw materials. International trade declined sharply, as did personal incomes, tax revenues, prices, and profits. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by 40 to 60 percent. Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as farming, mining and logging suffered the most. At the time, Herbert Hoover was President of the United States.The Great Depression ended at different times in different countries; for subsequent history see Home front during World War II. The majority of countries set up relief programs, and most underwent some sort of political upheaval, pushing them to the left or right. In many states, the desperate citizens turned toward nationalist demagogues like Adolf Hitler, and António de Oliveira Salazar, setting the stage for World War II in 1939.A downward spiralThe Great Depression was not a sudden total collapse. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below of peak in September 1929. Together government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the prior year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the northern summer of 1930.In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worst in farming areas where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the American economy was the motor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, like the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, helped to strangle global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.CausesBusiness cycles are thought to be a normal part of living in a world of inexact balances between supply and demand. What turns a usually mild and short recession or "ordinary" business cycle into a great depression is a subject of debate and concern. Scholars have not agreed on the exact causes and their relative importance. The search for causes is closely connected to the question of how to avoid a future depression, and so the political and policy viewpoints of scholars are mixed into the analysis of historic events eight decades ago. The even larger question is whether it was largely a failure on the part of free markets or largely a failure on the part of governments to prevent widespread bank failures and the resulting panics and reduction in the money supply. Those who believe in a large role for governments in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that exacerbated the problem.Current theories may be broadly classified into three main points of view. First, there is orthodox classical economics: monetarist, Austrian Economics and neoclassical economic theory, all which focus on the macroeconomic effects of money supply and the supply of gold which backed many currencies before the Great Depression, including production and consumption.Second, there are structural theories, most importantly Keynesian, but also including those of institutional economics, that point to underconsumption and overinvestment (economic bubble), malfeasance by bankers and industrialists or incompetence by government officials. Another theory revolves around the surplus of products and the fact that many Americans were not purchasing but saving. The only consensus viewpoint is that there was a large scale lack of confidence. Unfortunately, once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could make more money by keeping clear of the markets as prices got lower and lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods.Third, there is the Marxist critique of political economy. This emphasizes contradictions within capital itself (which is viewed as a social relation involving the appropriation of surplus value) as giving rise to an inherently unbalanced dynamic of accumulation resulting in an overaccumulation of capital, culminating in periodic crises of devaluation of capital. The origin of crisis is thus located firmly in the sphere of production, though economic crisis can be aggravated by problems of disproportionality between spheres of production and the underconsumption of the masses.There were multiple causes for the first downturn in 1929, including the structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression and the way in which the downturn spread from country to country. In terms of the 1929 small downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like massive bank failures and the stock market crash, while economists (such as Peter Temin and Barry Eichengreen) point to Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre-World War I parities (US$4.86:£1).DebtDebt is seen as one of the causes of the Great Depression. (What follows relates to the USA.Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Arthur Cecil Pigou and Irving Fisher: in the 1920s, American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the later for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged.Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. (US) Banks which had financed this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent these types of panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets.The debt became heavier, because prices and incomes fell 20-50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By 1933, depositors had lost $140 billion in deposits.Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending. Banks built up their capital reserves, which intensified deflationary pressures. The vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression.Inequality of wealth and incomeMarriner S. Eccles who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November, 1934 to February, 1948 detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951): As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation s economic machinery. Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped. That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929. The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment. Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population. This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.PS this isn't an original answer

What is disproportionality?

Add your answer:

What has the author Jeffrey M Jenson written?

What sentence has 7 syllables?

The difference between a dwarf and a midget?

What are the advantages of deterrence punishment?

Are midgets a different race?

Under which conditions is a nucleus unstable?

Is smashing household things and yelling a form of abuse?

What day did the Great Depression start?

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company