Frankenstein Kickass Paper - 2707 Words

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The daughter of an active feminist, Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley eloped with the famous poet Percy Bysshe Shelley at the age of 15, and after was continually and profoundly influenced by his words and writings. Her novel Frankenstein is named among the best written and most meaningful of the gothic works, and is one of the few still popularly read today. A precursor to the Romantic trend in art and intellect, gothic novels rejected of the precepts of order, balance, idealization, and rationality that typified Classicism in general and late 18th-century Neoclassicism in particular. The gothic tradition grew out of disillusionment with the Enlightenment and 18th-century rationalism and physical materialism.†¦show more content†¦nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mary Shelley took fragments of histories and a legend surrounding the castle Frankenstein (which she may or may not have visited) she had heard and developed them into her novel. The castle was once inhab ited by a doctor Conrad Dipple, an alchemist who claimed to have the elixir of life, and was known for graverobbing and signing his name quot;Frankenstiena.quot; She came across this information while vacationing with her husband and Lord Byron in Geneva in the summer of 1816. Mary writes in notes for an edition of her late husbands poetry that they read that summer the New Testament, Paradise Lost, Spensers Faery Queene, Montaignes Essays, and Aeschylus Prometheus, among numerous others (The Complete Poems of Percy Bysshe Shelley 575). One evening the three, along with Dr. John Polidori and Marys stepsister, Claire Clairmont, were trapped in Byrons castle as a storm raged outside. For a change from reading Coleridges vampiric poem quot;Christabel,quot; Byron suggested a ghost story competition. Out of this competition came Polidoris quot;The Vampyre,quot; Byrons quot;Manfred,quot; and Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, the idea for which came to her in a nightmare. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The setting under which the story was devised was perfect for the story itself; Frankenstein takes place in the Swiss Alps and in

Abu Hureyra Agriculture in the Euphrates Valley

Abu Hureyra is the name of the ruins of an ancient settlement, located in Syria on the south side of the Euphrates valley, and on an abandoned channel of that famous river. Nearly continuously occupied from ~13,000 to 6,000 years ago, before, during and after the introduction of agriculture in the region, Abu Hureyra is remarkable for its excellent faunal and floral preservation, providing crucial evidence for the economic shifts in diet and food production. The tell at Abu Hureyra covers an area of some 11.5 hectares (~28.4 acres) and has occupations which archaeologists call Late Epipaleolithic (or Mesolithic), Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B, and Neolithic A, B, and C. Living at Abu Hureyra I The earliest occupation at Abu Hureyra, ca. 13,000-12,000 years ago and known as Abu Hureyra I, was a permanent, year-round settlement of hunter-gatherers, who gathered over 100 species of edible seeds and fruits from the Euphrates valley and nearby regions. The settlers also had access to an abundance of animals, particularly Persian gazelles. The Abu Hureyra I people lived in a cluster of semi-subterranean pit houses (semi-subterranean meaning, the dwellings were partially dug into the ground). The stone tool assemblage of the upper Paleolithic settlement contained high percentages of microlithic lunates suggesting the settlement had been occupied during Levantine Epipaleolithic stage II. Beginning ~11,000 RCYBP, the people experienced environmental changes to the cold, dry conditions associated with the Younger Dryas period. Many of the wild plants the people had relied on disappeared. The earliest cultivated species at Abu Hureyra appears to have been rye (Secale cereale) and lentils and possibly wheat. This settlement was abandoned, in the second half of the 11th millennium BP. During the latter part of Abu Hureyra I (~10,000-9400 RCYBP), and after the original dwelling pits were filled in with debris, the people returned to Abu Hureyra and built new above-ground huts of perishable materials, and grew wild rye, lentils, and einkorn wheat. Abu Hureyra II The fully Neolithic Abu Hureyra II (~9400-7000 RCYBP) settlement was composed of a collection of rectangular, multi-roomed family dwellings built of mud brick. This village grew to a maximum population of between 4,000 and 6,000 people, and the people grew domestic crops including rye, lentils, and einkorn wheat, but added emmer wheat, barley, chickpeas, and field beans, all of the latter probably domesticated elsewhere. at the same time, a switch from reliance on Persian gazelle to domestic sheep and goats occurred. Abu Hureyra Excavations Abu Hureyra was excavated from 1972-1974 by Andrew Moore and colleagues as a salvage operation prior to construction of the Tabqa Dam, which in 1974 flooded this part of the Euphrates Valley and created Lake Assad. Excavation results from the Abu Hureyra site were reported by A.M.T. Moore, G.C. Hillman, and A.J. Legge, published by Oxford University Press. Additional research has been conducted on the massive quantities of artifacts collected from the site since then. Sources Colledge S, and Conolly J. 2010. Reassessing the evidence for the cultivation of wild crops during the Younger Dryas at Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria. Environmental Archaeology 15:124-138.Doebley JF, Gaut BS, and Smith BD. 2006. The Molecular Genetics of Crop Domestication. Cell 127(7):1309-1321.Hillman G, Hedges R, Moore A, Colledge S, and Pettitt P. 2001. New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. The Holocene 11(4):383-393.Molleson T, Jones K, and Jones S. 1993. Dietary change and the effects of food preparation on microwear patterns in the Late Neolithic of Abu Hureyra, northern Syria. Journal of Human Evolution 24(6):455-468.Molleson T, and Jones K. 1991. Dental evidence for dietary change at Abu Hureyra. Journal of Archaeological Science 18(5):525-539.Moore, A.M.T., G.C. Hillman, and A.J. Legge. 2000. Villages on the Euphrates: The Excavation of Abu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, London.Moore AMT, and Hillman GC. 1992. The Pleistocene to Holoce ne transition and human economy in Southwest Asia: The impact of the Younger Dryas. American Antiquity 57(3):482-494.

Google Financial Analysis Free Essays

Google Competitive Strategy: Financial Analsis 5. Have Google’s business model and strategy proven to be successful? Should investors be impressed with the company’s financial performance? How does the company’s financial performance compare to that of Microsoft and Yahoo? Please conduct a financial analysis to support your position—you may wish to use the financial ratios presented in the Table 4. 1 of the text as a guide in doing your financial analysis of the company. We will write a custom essay sample on Google Financial Analysis or any similar topic only for you Order Now Throughout the course of its life thus far as an entity, Google has enjoyed great success as one of the world’s leading search engine giants. Although the company’s operations are extremely diversified, Google has taken strides since its initial offering in 2004 to establish its dominance over competitors in Internet advertising. Google continues to add products, services, and features to its arsenal, which in turn increases traffic to their websites and gives them increased opportunities to advertise. Google’s original stock price on the date of their IPO was $85, fast forward eight years and the stock currently trades at $761. 78. Steps such as the acquisition of YouTube in 2006, the introduction of the Android in 2008, their Google TV initiative, and the continuing development and sophistication of Google Apps, have all contributed to this almost 800% appreciation. While all of these strategic maneuvers have been more than satisfying for investors’ pockets, the bulk of Google’s earnings remain in advertising. In 2009, 96. 8% of Google’s total revenue came from advertising, over half of which were ads outside the United States. It is misleading to compare Google’s stock (GOOG) to that of Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) solely on the basis of price, since their prices are exponentially lower than Google’s because investors rely on dividend payouts rather than stock appreciation to provide returns. However, a more accurate depiction of pe rformance can be observed when comparing the stock value of the three firms on a percentage change basis. From January 2006 through December 2010, Google’s stock appreciated 44. 35%. Compare this to Microsoft’s 6. 5%, Yahoo’s -57. 22%, and the SP 500 index’s -0. 86%. This shows that not only did Google significantly outperform its two major competitors; it left the entire SP index in the dust as well. Some other financial measures to consider are return on equity (ROE), earnings per share (EPS), and the current ratio. Return on equity is a measure of the return shareholders are earning on their investment in the company. In 2010 Google reported ROE of 20. 8%, meaning that for every dollar of equity capital, they are earning over 20%. Compare this to Yahoo’s 9. 83% and Microsoft’s 43. 76%. Generally the higher the ROE, the happier the investors are. EPS on the other hand measures the company’s earnings for each share of common stock outstanding. In 2010 Google boasted an EPS of $26. 69, whereas Yahoo and Microsoft reported per-share earning s of $0. 91 and $2. 13 respectively. This large gap can be attributed to the fact that Google has significantly less shares of common stock outstanding than the two competitors. Finally, the current ratio is a measure of the company’s ability to pay short-term obligations with readily available assets. In 2010 Google’s current ratio of 4. 16 nearly doubled that of Yahoo and Microsoft who reported 2. 67 and 2. 13 respectively. This ratio demonstrates Google’s superior liquidity in comparison with its competitors Not only has Google dominated market share in the industry, in 2010 Google was the world’s most-visited Internet site, with close to 147 million views each month. This goes hand in hand with the fact that people â€Å"Google† things when they need an answer, they don’t â€Å"Yahoo† a question or â€Å"Bing† it. Works Cited All historical stock prices, percentages, and figures were provided by Yahoo! Finance. â€Å"AAPL: Summary for Apple Inc. – Yahoo! Finance. † Yahoo! Finance. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. â€Å"GOOG: Summary for Google Inc. – Yahoo! Finance. † Yahoo! Finance. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. â€Å"YHOO: Summary for Yahoo! Inc. – Yahoo! Finance. † Yahoo! Finance. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. How to cite Google Financial Analysis, Papers

Shareholders Concise Corporations Law †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Shareholders Concise Corporations Law. Answer: Introduction: The shareholders of the company have the explicit right of sharing the profits or the earnings of the company and this sharing is done through the dividend being paid to them (Cassidy, 2006). There are certain conditions laid down in section 254T of the Corporations Act, 2001(Cth), as per which the dividend is not to be paid till the assets exceed liabilities before the dividend is declared and where this excess is sufficient for payment of dividend without prejudicially affecting the companys capability of paying off the creditors (WIPO, 2015). Section 254W(2) of this act provides that the company may or may not pay the dividends (Austlii, 2017). Section 232 of this act provides that where the business of the company is being conducted in a manner which unfairly discriminates, or is oppressive in any capacity, particularly when this conduct is contrary to the interests of the members, then based on this section an application can be made to the court, where the court, based on section 233 of this act can undertake different actions to reverse or remedy such oppressive conduct (Boyle, 2002). Section 233 of this act provides that where an oppressive conduct is established, the court can make an order of winding up, regulate the company affairs, ask the directors or the company to purchase the shares, to change the constitution of the company, to order to do a particular act or to refrain from doing so based on discretion of the court, restrain a person from undertaking explicit behaviour or actions; authorizing an individual to transmit the shares by law or by will, and for the company to discontinue certain proceedings (Victor ian Law Reform Commission, 2017). In Wambo Coal Pty Ltd v Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd [2014] NSWCA 326 it was held that failure to pay the mandatory dividend could amount to oppressive conduct (Launders, Hogan and Randall, 2014). However, in Thomas v H W Thomas Ltd (1984) 1 NZLR 686 the court presented three conditions which had to be satisfied in order for an oppressive remedy to be allowed. So, there is a need to show that the purpose or the objective of the conducted act was to result in a condition which had been oppressive, unduly discriminatory and unjustly prejudicial; the reasonable expectations which the parties had were not met; and lastly, the use of the remedy under the pertinent sections is equitable and just (New Zealand Official Law Reports, 2017). As has already been explained, giving the dividend is a choice of the directors based on section 254W(2). Hence, Galli had the choice of giving the dividend or not giving the same. However, applying the case of Wambo Coal Pty Ltd v Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd, the failure of paying the dividend would be deemed as an oppressive conduct. But one key thing in this point is that this was not a mandatory dividend which was a requirement of this case. Further, applying the three conditions presented down in the case of Thomas v H W Thomas Ltd, the purpose of this conduct was not oppressive, but just to retain the earnings for developing the vineyard; this was not unduly discriminatory or prejudicial or oppressive as A Class shares had to be issued at discretion. And lastly, the remedies under section 233, if given here, would be unjust as there was no oppressive conduct. Stating that the shares were not paid as some of the plaintiffs were deemed as lazy and undeserving does not amount to opp ressive conduct, till the same can be conclusively establishe Buyback of shares refers to the shares of the company being repurchased by the company where the stock of the company is reacquired by them (Gibson and Fraser, 2014). The buyback of shares is advantageous for the company particular when the share prices of the company are undervalued. It also helps in increasing the ownership of the company and reducing the dilution (Latimer, 2012). It enhances the financial ratios of the company, for instance the Return of Equity, the Return on Asset and the Earnings Per Share (Kandarpa, 2016). Another benefit is that in case litigation is raised pursuant to section 232-233, buying back the shares could become mandatory for the company by court order, and if the same is done before the matter reaches court, the costs of litigation can be saved (ICNL, 2017). In Australia, the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, i.e., ASIC provide the rules and regulations for buyback of shares. Pt 2J.1 of this act, particularly its Division 2 covers the buyback provisions where the procedure which the companies need to adopt, along with the required information to be disclosed to the shareholders is covered (Federal Register of Legislation, 2017). Section 257A explicitly covers the details which have to be disclosed and Regulatory Guide 75 of the ASIC provides that an independent experts report is required for the share valuation (ASIC, 2007). In the given case study, buyback would help in avoiding the liabilities which the company would have to face in case, somehow, the oppressive conduct case is deemed as successful. So, apart from the advantages stated above, this is the key point which should lead Maria and Nick Gallii to buy back the shares. And in this regard, the provisions stated above have to be followed. The independent expert report is amongst the requirements stated above. The reduction of share capital refers to the procedure whereby the shareholder equity in the company is reduced, in the methods which have been prescribed under the law (Dagwell, Wines and Lambert, 2015). This not only helps in increasing the value of the shareholders but also produces a capital structure which is more efficient (Nanda, 2015). The company can reduce its share capital only when it is deemed as fair and reasonable for shareholders in entirety, it would prejudicially affect the repayment to creditors and it has been approved by the shareholders of the company, pursuant to section 256C of this act. The capital of the company can also be reduced by adopting section 245J to 254K where the redeemable preference shares are redeemed; by buying back the shares pursuant to section 257A; and by prescribing the share capital reduction in form of cancelling the forfeited shares based on section 258A to section 258F (ASIC, 2014). Under section 254Y of this act, there is a need to f ile an application to the ASIC in Form 484 within a period of one month of share cancellation, clearly providing the details of the shares which have been cancelled (Australian Government, 2013). In this regard, the company can opt for cancellation of the A Class shares and in this regard, they would need the consent of the shareholders of the company and would have to show that the capital reduction is fair, would not prejudicial to the ability of company to repay the creditors and would follow the procedure laid down under Corporations Act. Conclusion Hence, the company should opt for share cancellation so that no disputes arise for the company in future and also, because the same would have the approval of the shareholders. References ASIC. (2007) Share buy-backs. [Online] ASIC. Available from: https://download.asic.gov.au/media/1240127/rg110.pdf [Accessed on: 01/10/17] ASIC. (2014) Reduction in share capital. [Online] ASIC. Available from: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/running-a-company/shares/reduction-in-share-capital/ [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Austlii. (2017) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] Austlii. Available from: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/ definitions [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Australian Government. (2013) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] Australian Government. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00605 [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Boyle, A.J. (2002) Minority Shareholders Remedies. Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Cassidy, J. (2006) Concise Corporations Law. 5th ed. NSW: The Federation Press. Dagwell, R., Wines, G., and Lambert, C. (2015) Corporate Accounting in Australia. NSW: Pearson Australia. Gibson, A., and Fraser, D. (2014) Business Law 2014. 8th ed. Melbourne, Pearson Education Australia. Federal Register of Legislation. (2017) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] Federal Register of Legislation. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00605 [Accessed on: 01/10/17] ICNL. (2017) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] ICNL. Available from: https://www.icnl.org/research/library/files/Australia/Corps2001Vol4WD02.pdf [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Kandarpa, K. (2016) What is the Purpose of a Share Buyback and How can Shareholders Benefit from it?. [Online] Wise Owl. Available from: https://www.wise-owl.com/investment-education/what-is-the-purpose-of-a-share-buyback-and-how-can-shareholders-benefit-from-it [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Latimer, P. (2012) Australian Business Law 2012. 31st ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited. Launders, R., Hogan, J., and Randall, S. (2014) When will a dividend be mandatory?: Wambo Coal Pty Ltd v Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd [2014] NSWCA 326. [Online] Lexology. Available from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e32fb35d-7227-428d-a2d9-435d0e07a28e [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Nanda, D.S. (2015) Reduction in share capital: Analysis. [Online] Corporate Law Reporter. Available from: https://corporatelawreporter.com/2015/02/23/reduction-share-capital-analysis/ [Accessed on: 01/10/17] New Zealand Official Law Reports. (2017) Thomas v H W Thomas Ltd - [1984] 1 NZLR 686. [Online] New Zealand Official Law Reports. Available from: https://www.lawreports.nz/thomas-v-h-w-thomas-ltd-1984-1-nzlr-686/ [Accessed on: 01/10/17] Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2017) The oppression remedy in the Corporations Act. [Online] Victorian Law Reform Commission. Available from: https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/content/3-oppression-remedy-corporations-act#footnote-135972-53-backlink [Accessed on: 01/10/17] WIPO. (2015) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] WIPO. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=370817 [Accessed on: 01/10/17]