Similarities Between

The both hold prisoners the obvious similarity would be that of restricted freedom - ie: you are held in a cell. more informative might be the difference - i believe jail imposed immediately after a crime is committed for temporary duration, while prison is sentenced for a definite time period after the alleged transgression has been tried in court.

Sound intensity or acoustic intensity can be calculated from the objective measurement of the sound pressure.

The loudness is a psycho-acoustic subjective feeling, which is difficult to measure.

Legal and legal rules have the similarity is all rules are concerned with establishing codes of behaviour for people.

Glass is a clear substance, i.e. you can see through it. But it may also have germs and bits of dirt on it and therefore not be clean.

that like dogs

I don' know..Read books about

Japan/Canada.

Buy books in Chapters or Indigo.(I Think Awear has the best.Order it and

they make the perfact book ever!!)

Ok,bye!

i don't know Niggaa' Tf O.o

Both people are mostly of the Teutonic race

Both people play a lot of football

Both were mostly Roman territory 2000 years ago

Both are mostly Catholic

Both were part of the Holy Roman Empire

Both produce lots of wine

Both were unified in the 1800s

Both were axis in WWII

Both once spoke Latin

A national corporation is one that does business primarily within one country, and is headquartered in that country.

A multi-national corporation is one that does a substantial fraction of its business in many different countries.

Wyoming is quite hot and so is California. They both have capitals and they are known for their geography and diverse ethnic groups. Wyoming and California both are a part of the western region of the United States.Wyoming is quite hot and so is California. They both have capitals and they are known for their geography and diverse ethnic groups. Wyoming and California both are a part of the western region of the United States.

`i think flange is what you need son

well both the stories give us morals that we can live by and they are both fictional tales either about animal's talking or rebirth or gods

A element cannot be broken down into simpler substances by physical or chemical means....A pure substance is made up of only one substance. So the relationship is they both have one substance

-Ladiesman32-

They bother cause damage and disasters

i dont know can someone tell me

the relationship between society and education is very essential to understand.

Both influence one another in various ways; however, most importantly, education helps to transmit culture and develop the society.

In the same way, society is what forms the basis of education. Society's culture is what sets the curriculum along with the government's objectives and aims.

Advertisement is purely applicable for commercial purposes. Propaganda may be true or false which is applicable in market or society.

as on today the difference is erased from human mind.

A group that evolves out of the formal organization but is not formed by management or shown in the organization's structure.

this is not fun

For every dimension of interest and specific question or set of questions, there are a vast number of ways to make questions. Although the guiding principle should be the specific purposes of the research, there are better and worse questions for any particular operationalization. How to evaluate the measures? Two of the primary criteria of evaluation in any measurement or observation are: # Whether we are measuring what we intend to measure. # Whether the same measurement process yields the same results. These two concepts are validity and reliability. Reliability is concerned with questions of stability and consistency - does the same measurement tool yield stable and consistent results when repeated over time. Think about measurement processes in other contexts - in construction or woodworking, a tape measure is a highly reliable measuring instrument. Say you have a piece of wood that is 2 1/2 feet long. You measure it once with the tape measure - you get a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. Measure it again and you get 2 1/2 feet. Measure it repeatedly and you consistently get a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. The tape measure yields reliable results. Validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). To continue with the example of measuring the piece of wood, a tape measure that has been created with accurate spacing for inches, feet, etc. should yield valid results as well. Measuring this piece of wood with a "good" tape measure should produce a correct measurement of the wood's length. To apply these concepts to social research, we want to use measurement tools that are both reliable and valid. We want questions that yield consistent responses when asked multiple times - this is reliability. Similarly, we want questions that get accurate responses from respondents - this is validity. Reliability refers to a condition where a measurement process yields consistent scores (given an unchanged measured phenomenon) over repeat measurements. Perhaps the most straightforward way to assess reliability is to ensure that they meet the following three criteria of reliability. Measures that are high in reliability should exhibit all three. == When a researcher administers the same measurement tool multiple times - asks the same question, follows the same research procedures, etc. - does he/she obtain consistent results, assuming that there has been no change in whatever he/she is measuring? This is really the simplest method for assessing reliability - when a researcher asks the same person the same question twice ("What's your name?"), does he/she get back the same results both times. If so, the measure has test-retest reliability. Measurement of the piece of wood talked about earlier has high test-retest reliability. == This is a dimension that applies to cases where multiple items are used to measure a single concept. In such cases, answers to a set of questions designed to measure some single concept (e.g., altruism) should be associated with each other. == Interobserver reliability concerns the extent to which different interviewers or observers using the same measure get equivalent results. If different observers or interviewers use the same instrument to score the same thing, their scores should match. For example, the interobserver reliability of an observational assessment of parent-child interaction is often evaluated by showing two observers a videotape of a parent and child at play. These observers are asked to use an assessment tool to score the interactions between parent and child on the tape. If the instrument has high interobserver reliability, the scores of the two observers should match. To reiterate, validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). How to assess the validity of a set of measurements? A valid measure should satisfy four criteria. == This criterion is an assessment of whether a measure appears, on the face of it, to measure the concept it is intended to measure. This is a very minimum assessment - if a measure cannot satisfy this criterion, then the other criteria are inconsequential. We can think about observational measures of behavior that would have face validity. For example, striking out at another person would have face validity for an indicator of aggression. Similarly, offering assistance to a stranger would meet the criterion of face validity for helping. However, asking people about their favorite movie to measure racial prejudice has little face validity. == Content validity concerns the extent to which a measure adequately represents all facets of a concept. Consider a series of questions that serve as indicators of depression (don't feel like eating, lost interest in things usually enjoyed, etc.). If there were other kinds of common behaviors that mark a person as depressed that were not included in the index, then the index would have low content validity since it did not adequately represent all facets of the concept. == Criterion-related validity applies to instruments than have been developed for usefulness as indicator of specific trait or behavior, either now or in the future. For example, think about the driving test as a social measurement that has pretty good predictive validity. That is to say, an individual's performance on a driving test correlates well with his/her driving ability. == But for a many things we want to measure, there is not necessarily a pertinent criterion available. In this case, turn to construct validity, which concerns the extent to which a measure is related to other measures as specified by theory or previous research. Does a measure stack up with other variables the way we expect it to? A good example of this form of validity comes from early self-esteem studies - self-esteem refers to a person's sense of self-worth or self-respect. Clinical observations in psychology had shown that people who had low self-esteem often had depression. Therefore, to establish the construct validity of the self-esteem measure, the researchers showed that those with higher scores on the self-esteem measure had lower depression scores, while those with low self-esteem had higher rates of depression. So what is the relationship between validity and reliability? The two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. At best, we have a measure that has both high validity and high reliability. It yields consistent results in repeated application and it accurately reflects what we hope to represent. It is possible to have a measure that has high reliability but low validity - one that is consistent in getting bad information or consistent in missing the mark. *It is also possible to have one that has low reliability and low validity - inconsistent and not on target. Finally, it is not possible to have a measure that has low reliability and high validity - you can't really get at what you want or what you're interested in if your measure fluctuates wildly. For every dimension of interest and specific question or set of questions, there are a vast number of ways to make questions. Although the guiding principle should be the specific purposes of the research, there are better and worse questions for any particular operationalization. How to evaluate the measures? Two of the primary criteria of evaluation in any measurement or observation are: # Whether we are measuring what we intend to measure. # Whether the same measurement process yields the same results. These two concepts are validity and reliability. Reliability is concerned with questions of stability and consistency - does the same measurement tool yield stable and consistent results when repeated over time. Think about measurement processes in other contexts - in construction or woodworking, a tape measure is a highly reliable measuring instrument. Say you have a piece of wood that is 2 1/2 feet long. You measure it once with the tape measure - you get a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. Measure it again and you get 2 1/2 feet. Measure it repeatedly and you consistently get a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. The tape measure yields reliable results. Validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). To continue with the example of measuring the piece of wood, a tape measure that has been created with accurate spacing for inches, feet, etc. should yield valid results as well. Measuring this piece of wood with a "good" tape measure should produce a correct measurement of the wood's length. To apply these concepts to social research, we want to use measurement tools that are both reliable and valid. We want questions that yield consistent responses when asked multiple times - this is reliability. Similarly, we want questions that get accurate responses from respondents - this is validity. Reliability refers to a condition where a measurement process yields consistent scores (given an unchanged measured phenomenon) over repeat measurements. Perhaps the most straightforward way to assess reliability is to ensure that they meet the following three criteria of reliability. Measures that are high in reliability should exhibit all three. == When a researcher administers the same measurement tool multiple times - asks the same question, follows the same research procedures, etc. - does he/she obtain consistent results, assuming that there has been no change in whatever he/she is measuring? This is really the simplest method for assessing reliability - when a researcher asks the same person the same question twice ("What's your name?"), does he/she get back the same results both times. If so, the measure has test-retest reliability. Measurement of the piece of wood talked about earlier has high test-retest reliability. == This is a dimension that applies to cases where multiple items are used to measure a single concept. In such cases, answers to a set of questions designed to measure some single concept (e.g., altruism) should be associated with each other. == Interobserver reliability concerns the extent to which different interviewers or observers using the same measure get equivalent results. If different observers or interviewers use the same instrument to score the same thing, their scores should match. For example, the interobserver reliability of an observational assessment of parent-child interaction is often evaluated by showing two observers a videotape of a parent and child at play. These observers are asked to use an assessment tool to score the interactions between parent and child on the tape. If the instrument has high interobserver reliability, the scores of the two observers should match. To reiterate, validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). How to assess the validity of a set of measurements? A valid measure should satisfy four criteria. == This criterion is an assessment of whether a measure appears, on the face of it, to measure the concept it is intended to measure. This is a very minimum assessment - if a measure cannot satisfy this criterion, then the other criteria are inconsequential. We can think about observational measures of behavior that would have face validity. For example, striking out at another person would have face validity for an indicator of aggression. Similarly, offering assistance to a stranger would meet the criterion of face validity for helping. However, asking people about their favorite movie to measure racial prejudice has little face validity. == Content validity concerns the extent to which a measure adequately represents all facets of a concept. Consider a series of questions that serve as indicators of depression (don't feel like eating, lost interest in things usually enjoyed, etc.). If there were other kinds of common behaviors that mark a person as depressed that were not included in the index, then the index would have low content validity since it did not adequately represent all facets of the concept. == Criterion-related validity applies to instruments than have been developed for usefulness as indicator of specific trait or behavior, either now or in the future. For example, think about the driving test as a social measurement that has pretty good predictive validity. That is to say, an individual's performance on a driving test correlates well with his/her driving ability. == But for a many things we want to measure, there is not necessarily a pertinent criterion available. In this case, turn to construct validity, which concerns the extent to which a measure is related to other measures as specified by theory or previous research. Does a measure stack up with other variables the way we expect it to? A good example of this form of validity comes from early self-esteem studies - self-esteem refers to a person's sense of self-worth or self-respect. Clinical observations in psychology had shown that people who had low self-esteem often had depression. Therefore, to establish the construct validity of the self-esteem measure, the researchers showed that those with higher scores on the self-esteem measure had lower depression scores, while those with low self-esteem had higher rates of depression. So what is the relationship between validity and reliability? The two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. At best, we have a measure that has both high validity and high reliability. It yields consistent results in repeated application and it accurately reflects what we hope to represent. It is possible to have a measure that has high reliability but low validity - one that is consistent in getting bad information or consistent in missing the mark. *It is also possible to have one that has low reliability and low validity - inconsistent and not on target. Finally, it is not possible to have a measure that has low reliability and high validity - you can't really get at what you want or what you're interested in if your measure fluctuates wildly. For every dimension of interest and specific question or set of questions, there are a vast number of ways to make questions. Although the guiding principle should be the specific purposes of the research, there are better and worse questions for any particular operationalization. How to evaluate the measures? Two of the primary criteria of evaluation in any measurement or observation are: # Whether we are measuring what we intend to measure. # Whether the same measurement process yields the same results. These two concepts are validity and reliability. Reliability is concerned with questions of stability and consistency - does the same measurement tool yield stable and consistent results when repeated over time. Think about measurement processes in other contexts - in construction or woodworking, a tape measure is a highly reliable measuring instrument. Say you have a piece of wood that is 2 1/2 feet long. You measure it once with the tape measure - you get a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. Measure it again and you get 2 1/2 feet. Measure it repeatedly and you consistently get a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. The tape measure yields reliable results. Validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). To continue with the example of measuring the piece of wood, a tape measure that has been created with accurate spacing for inches, feet, etc. should yield valid results as well. Measuring this piece of wood with a "good" tape measure should produce a correct measurement of the wood's length. To apply these concepts to social research, we want to use measurement tools that are both reliable and valid. We want questions that yield consistent responses when asked multiple times - this is reliability. Similarly, we want questions that get accurate responses from respondents - this is validity. Reliability refers to a condition where a measurement process yields consistent scores (given an unchanged measured phenomenon) over repeat measurements. Perhaps the most straightforward way to assess reliability is to ensure that they meet the following three criteria of reliability. Measures that are high in reliability should exhibit all three. == When a researcher administers the same measurement tool multiple times - asks the same question, follows the same research procedures, etc. - does he/she obtain consistent results, assuming that there has been no change in whatever he/she is measuring? This is really the simplest method for assessing reliability - when a researcher asks the same person the same question twice ("What's your name?"), does he/she get back the same results both times. If so, the measure has test-retest reliability. Measurement of the piece of wood talked about earlier has high test-retest reliability. == This is a dimension that applies to cases where multiple items are used to measure a single concept. In such cases, answers to a set of questions designed to measure some single concept (e.g., altruism) should be associated with each other. == Interobserver reliability concerns the extent to which different interviewers or observers using the same measure get equivalent results. If different observers or interviewers use the same instrument to score the same thing, their scores should match. For example, the interobserver reliability of an observational assessment of parent-child interaction is often evaluated by showing two observers a videotape of a parent and child at play. These observers are asked to use an assessment tool to score the interactions between parent and child on the tape. If the instrument has high interobserver reliability, the scores of the two observers should match. To reiterate, validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). How to assess the validity of a set of measurements? A valid measure should satisfy four criteria. == This criterion is an assessment of whether a measure appears, on the face of it, to measure the concept it is intended to measure. This is a very minimum assessment - if a measure cannot satisfy this criterion, then the other criteria are inconsequential. We can think about observational measures of behavior that would have face validity. For example, striking out at another person would have face validity for an indicator of aggression. Similarly, offering assistance to a stranger would meet the criterion of face validity for helping. However, asking people about their favorite movie to measure racial prejudice has little face validity. == Content validity concerns the extent to which a measure adequately represents all facets of a concept. Consider a series of questions that serve as indicators of depression (don't feel like eating, lost interest in things usually enjoyed, etc.). If there were other kinds of common behaviors that mark a person as depressed that were not included in the index, then the index would have low content validity since it did not adequately represent all facets of the concept. == Criterion-related validity applies to instruments than have been developed for usefulness as indicator of specific trait or behavior, either now or in the future. For example, think about the driving test as a social measurement that has pretty good predictive validity. That is to say, an individual's performance on a driving test correlates well with his/her driving ability. == But for a many things we want to measure, there is not necessarily a pertinent criterion available. In this case, turn to construct validity, which concerns the extent to which a measure is related to other measures as specified by theory or previous research. Does a measure stack up with other variables the way we expect it to? A good example of this form of validity comes from early self-esteem studies - self-esteem refers to a person's sense of self-worth or self-respect. Clinical observations in psychology had shown that people who had low self-esteem often had depression. Therefore, to establish the construct validity of the self-esteem measure, the researchers showed that those with higher scores on the self-esteem measure had lower depression scores, while those with low self-esteem had higher rates of depression. So what is the relationship between validity and reliability? The two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. At best, we have a measure that has both high validity and high reliability. It yields consistent results in repeated application and it accurately reflects what we hope to represent. It is possible to have a measure that has high reliability but low validity - one that is consistent in getting bad information or consistent in missing the mark. *It is also possible to have one that has low reliability and low validity - inconsistent and not on target. Finally, it is not possible to have a measure that has low reliability and high validity - you can't really get at what you want or what you're interested in if your measure fluctuates wildly.

Igneous rocks are called fire rocks and are formed either underground or above ground. Underground, they are formed when the melted rock, called magma, deep within the earth becomes trapped in pockets. As these pockets of magma cool slowly underground, the magma becomes igneous rock . Igneous rocks are also formed when volcanoes erupt, causing the magma to rise above the earth's surface. When magma appears above the earth, it is called lava. Igneous rocks are formed as the lava cools above ground.

Metamorphic rocks are rocks that have "morphed" into another kind of rock. These rocks were once igneous or sedimentary rocks. How do sedimentary and igneous rocks change? The rocks are exposed to great heat and pressure from depth of burial or exposure to tectonic forces, and this causes them to change. The change is reflected in the recrystallization of certain mineral crystals, or even the disappearance of some minerals and the appearance of new minerals. Metamorphic rock often displays foliation, in which the minerals are aligned in bands or thin layers perpendicular to the force that was applied in their metamorphosis. Igneous rocks do not display layering.

Aristotle was a long term pupil of Plato and was greatly influence by him. Though they disagreed on many points, they both believed that knowledge must be based on what is real