Web Two Technologies And Impact On Society Information Technology Essay

Web Two Technologies And Impact On Society Information Technology Essay This paper discusses Web 2.0 technologies and their impact on society. The first section of this paper introduces Web 2.0 technologies and briefly defines them. The next sections discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Web 2.0. Next, the paper discusses the values that Web 2.0 has brought to society. Finally, we make concluding remarks about how Web 2.0 will change over time. Introduction There are many opinions as to where Web 2.0 came from, and how it will impact our lives in the future. At first, many people saw Web 2.0 as a buzzword, but not really a new concept. Web 2.0, as it is considered today, was a result of the dot-com bust in 2001. In 2001, many people began to believe that the web was overrated, and probably would not have many significant implications in the future. However, during the internet shakeout, a few people saw a promising future for web-based technologies. The Web 2.0 conference set out to find the next web technologies (OReilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is changing the way society communicates. The next generation of social networking has created endless opportunities for people to share content. Web 2.0 technologies allow for two-way interaction. Unlike updating a website, posting information about a company on Facebook allows companies to receive feedback about the products and services. The interactive nature of Web 2.0 is one of the many ways that Web 2.0 differentiates itself from Web 1.0 (Bohley, 2010). Web 2.0 allows for constant change in content. One of the best ways to explain these new technologies is through example. The creators of Web 2.0 originally thought of a list of applications that they believed represented the change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. The original list is in the following table. Web 1.0 Web 2.0 DoubleClick Google AdSense Ofoto Flickr Akamai BitTorrent Mp3.com Napster Britannica Online Wikipedia Personal websites Blogging Evite Upcoming.org and EVDB Domain name speculation Search engine optimization Page views Cost per click Screen scrapping Web services Publishing Participation Content management systems Wikis Directories (taxonomy) Tagging (folksonomy) Stickiness Syndication Source: OReilly What is Web 2.0 2005. One of the main differences between these Web 2.0 technologies is the way the content changes. Instead of having scheduled updates and maintenance, Web 2.0 is constantly changing the way people see information. For example, a Wiki user has the option of deleting, adding, and modifying information. There is no one that really controls the content on these types of applications. Because there is no one monitoring the content, there is no way of knowing whether or not the information from these sites is correct. However, these mash-up sites create opportunities for people to share content in ways that were not possible before Web 2.0 (OReilly, 2005). DoubleClick, a Web 1.0 technology differs from Googles AdSense, a Web 2.0 technology. One of the main differences between the two applications is how they go about putting ads on the web pages. While DoubleClick boasts over 2,000 implementations, the newer AdSense already has hundreds of thousands of sites to target. Since DoubleClick requires a formal contract, it mainly targets larger websites. Google realized that the bulk of the web was actually comprised of smaller websites. In order to target these smaller websites, the companies needed to find a way to integrate the ads in formats that could reach a broader base of customers. Googles AdSense can place an advertisement on virtually any webpage. The Web 2.0 difference is how applications can take advantage of a different platform in order to serve more customers (OReilly, 2005). From a business standpoint, major companies see Web 2.0 as an opportunity to expand into new markets, and reach out to people who use social networking sites. The challenge now will be for companies to find a way to integrate these technologies into a way that can promote the business. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be used as marketing tools, but only if the company knows how to make use of them. While many people understand how to use these popular sites, not many are aware of how to utilize them in a way that attracts customers and grows a business (Gilette, 2010). Companies must also beware that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter could be used against them. Social networking sites make it easy for customers to post their view of a company on a website. Someone who had a bad experience with a product could tweet about the experience, leaving the company vulnerable to these attacks. A company must pay even more close attention to the customer service aspect of the business in order to ensure that customers are not tempted to say harmful opinions about the company. As an example, a frustrated United Airlines customer wrote a song and posted it to YouTube about how the airline was careless with his luggage and broke his guitar. This is obviously not the kind of publicity that any company wants to have (Gillette, 2010). Web 2.0 requires companies to be more up to date with services and customer feedback. Advantages of Web 2.0 As the internet has become the most convenient and popular medium of communication, Web 2.0, an enhancement of the existing internet, has developed a system in which online users have become participants rather than mere viewers (Advantages and Disadvantages of Web 2.0, 2010). Based upon the interaction with online users, Web 2.0 is becoming more and more popular. Here we discuss some major advantages of Web 2.0 that can be treated as the drivers of its development. Web 2.0 created an advanced communication platform both for public and private use. For public use, it enhances the way people collect information by giving more access to information around the world. It allows the mass population to communicate with each other and spread ideas rather than receiving their information from a specific authority or a single resource. In the Web 2.0 environment, the information can flow freely and people can express their opinions without fear of repercussions. For example, Google Documents facilitates group work on projects by allowing members to create, share and update documents to the same page and combine all the thoughts from different members at the same time. For private use, Web 2.0 helps to meet the personal needs of users for creating and sharing private information from limited users. Web 2.0 actually makes the internet more personalized by allowing each individual to have information that is tailored to their needs and interests (Advantages and Disadvantages of Web 2.0, 2010). For instance, the Gmail phone offers users the ability to enjoy free and fast online communications dedicated to traditional physical devices such as telephones and cell-phones. Web 2.0 provides a compatible interface that enables a single user to use different applications at the same time easily. Hence, we can say that Web 2.0 is actually establishing a true democratic digital system in the world of the internet (MacDonald, 2009). That is also why Facebook and Twitter have become so popular right now; they enable users to create their own online personal space in which they can make or search friends, and update their personal information. Web 2.0 also takes accessibility to the next step by letting users have the power to determine how much of their content they wish to share and in what ways. Web 2.0 lets users choose if they wish to upload content using audio, video, or text files. People can even use Facebook to arrange a date, a social party such as Halloween or any group activities happening in their social network. Users are enjoying sharing their stories and daily feelings on Facebook and Twitter instead of staying alone at home to watch television . Moreover, for some big companies such as Saleforces.com, the Web 2.0 community and social networking sites are the best places to share the success stories, efficient knowledge worker collaboration, employee satisfaction, and clients success (Therwanger, 2010). Web 2.0 facilitates people to get better access to information they need. In the environment of Web 2.0, people will be able to get better information about things happening throughout the world from multiple resources by getting rid of the limitation of government controlled media. Online web users can easily accomplish searching and recording information they need for the accumulation of their personal knowledge, which helps them make better decisions. RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds are a good example of Web 2.0 applications that help people collect the most information from the resources links they have signed up for simultaneously. People can look up the news in which they are interested in the same interface without opening multiple websites and going around different pages. Such immediate information cannot be achieved by any other means. Web 2.0 also promotes the positive business model changes in enterprises. Redaktion points out seven core benefits of Web 2.0 for businesses: 1) Core enterprise applications will become more effective through the incorporation of Web 2.0 technologies. 2) Next-generation Web platforms can be highly efficient in overall procurement and sales strategies. 3) Lessons from Web 2.0 community and social networking success stories can be leveraged within the enterprise for more efficient knowledge worker collaboration and overall employee satisfaction. 4) Semantic tagging technologies can greatly increase the navigation of internal and external information overload and increase information-based product consumption and use. 5) Web 2.0 communities can be used for new product feedback, shortening the product development time and targeting valuable marketing resources. 6) Targeting bloggers and other influential Web users can help to control an organizations image and influence publicity for the positive 7) Making Web-based marketing the norm, rather than the exception, will help optimize overall marketing spend (Redaktion, 2006). Web 2.0 promotes the development of E-Commerce. E-commerce is one of the boons of Web 2.0 innovations that have made shopping a much more simple and efficient experience on the internet (Jones, 2010). Its biggest advantage is that the providers of online services and products can offer better customer service and better interaction with their customers. Web 2.0 increases the effectiveness of marketing. Online retailers earn the benefit of marketing by communicating immediately with a prospective buyer and provide all the information and clarifications that he or she needs. For example, many of online retailing websites have applied the Web 2.0 applications such as video catalogues, instant calling options and instant message services. With the advancement of internet technology, it has become easy to display products through video coverage on the website. The video coverage can also be added in the description page with the help of websites such as YouTube.com or Photobucket.com. In such a way, the responses from the consumer side can be increased dramatically. Disadvantages of Web 2.0 Although Web 2.0 has several advantages to society, there are some disadvantages. These disadvantages include several concerns amongst users. First, companies are unsure how to use the data. Secondly, there are privacy concerns with personal information out on the web. Third, Web 2.0 content is not always reliable information because anyone can update it. Fourth, Web 2.0 is seen as a security threat to many company managers. These disadvantages are discussed in more detail below. First, companies are not entirely sure how to use these technologies in a way that benefits their business. For example, a company might decide to have a blog or a comment section added to its website. However, without careful monitoring, this could easily become an easy way for frustrated customers to express their feelings. For example, Dell opened a blog on its website in 2006, and employees found that most of the comments on the blog were negative feelings towards the company. While it did allow Dell to quickly find out what its customers concerns were, it could harm business if potential customers are only reading negative feedback about the company (Vernon, 2007). Another concern with Web 2.0 is personal privacy, especially with children. As a parent, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter can be worrisome. When a child goes online, it is easy for them to go to these social networking sites and give out personal information about themselves and their families. Many children do not realize how dangerous the web can be, and how many people can access the information that they put online. There are several cases in which adopted children have been stalked by their birth parents that used Facebook to find them. Most adoptive parents want communication to be through a social worker or other intermediary, and worry about the childs birth parents having unwanted communication with their child. This is becoming a growing concern for parents of adopted children as Web 2.0 social networking applications such as Facebook makes it easier than ever to find information about people. Families find themselves in a difficult situation when it is hard to monitor their childs internet activity and contact with birth parents. This has been a controversy for both birth and adoptive parents (Macdonald, 2010). Additionally, Web 2.0 content is not a reliable source of information. Web 2.0 allows anyone to be in charge of the content. For example, Wikipedia is an online site that allows anyone to add information or take information out of each page. While this may be a good way to encourage data collaboration, this makes it difficult to monitor the quality of the content presented in the wiki. Consequently, Web 2.0 sites are not a reliable form of information. There is no way to be able to tell whether or not someone has made up the content or actually used legitimate sources. Even on social networking sites such as Myspace, it is estimated that forty percent of the content is untrue information about the person. While these sites are able to guess how much of the content is not correct, it is impossible to know what information is accurate (Vernon, 2007). Web 2.0 also poses a security problem for a companys most valuable information. While there have always been problems with viruses on computers, Web 2.0 allows for even more opportunities for hackers. This has become even more apparent as companies have noticed an increased number of worms that have been attacking company data. One survey found that security threats were a concern of nearly fifty-two percent of executives surveyed when asked about whether or not they would want their employees using Web 2.0 applications. Many companies feel that if they allow their employees to use Web 2.0 technologies at work, they may be putting the companys secure data at risk (Watson, 2008). The disadvantages to Web 2.0 show that it is important to realize that not all new technologies have positive effects on society. Web 2.0 brings to light a host of new problems that many people have not had to worry about in the past. Knowing that there are some problems with Web 2.0, it is important for users to be aware of what could happen if content is posted online using one of these applications. It is important to realize that any information that is posted to the internet using a Web 2.0 application is available somewhere for someone to see and that this data is not as secure as many would initially think. Value of Web 2.0 Web 2.0 certainly has dramatically changed the way we use the internet today and is revolutionary in the way web developers and web companies make their websites. Its responsiveness and ability to create social and collaborative web environments has made Web 2.0 an important development for the internet. One important question that arises from the development of Web 2.0 is what values do Web 2.0 technologies bring to businesses, communities and our society. Web 2.0 has had a major impact on all three of these groups which results in major impacts on our daily lives. The major implication of Web 2.0 technologies on our society is that our human society is merging with a network of computers (Nations, 2010). We used to just use the internet as a tool for information for anything we needed, such as sports, entertainment, academics, etc. Web 2.0s interactive capabilities and enormous network have made it almost an imperative to be connected in this network for various social reasons. It is almost like we have both a human state of being and a network being at the same time. With our dependence (or possibly addiction) on this technology, these networks are becoming a necessity in other technologies like cell phone applications and smaller laptops. Whether or not this is a positive impact on society is debatable. Certainly proponents of technology and innovation support Web 2.0 technologies as an improvement in communications around the world. Opponents do not seem to be as strong in their stance, but there are those that argue that peoples privacy is at risk and that Web 2.0 is another tool for western globalism. Anybody who watches the news witnessed the major impact Web 2.0 can have on societies in the last couple of years. The 2009 presidential election in Iran that resulted in the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmandinejad sparked in a fury of protests and riots that shook the nation to its core. The reason for the protests was the widespread feeling that the election was corrupt and Ahmandinejad was not the real winner of the election. In Iran, an Islamic republic, protestors are often treated with contempt from the police, the military and the government. Although it is called a republic, the nation is governed by a supreme leader (The Office of the Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Khamenei, 2010). It is thought by many that the elections in Iran are fixed and go to the candidate favored by Khamenei. Web 2.0 became a great opportunity for these protestors to show the rest of the world the injustice that was going on in their country (Weaver, 2010). The protestors posted photos, videos and blogs on s ites such as Facebook and Twitter, which gave the rest of the world a glimpse into what was happening in Iran. People from around the world saw this protest, saw the police response and became sympathetic to the cause of the protestors. Although Ahmandinejad has yet to step down as President of Iran, the protestors got the attention and sympathy of the rest of the world and have weakened diplomatic power for the Iranian rulers. This could have a major impact on their society as they try to move their society towards a secular democracy rather than an Islamic fundamentalist nation. Web 2.0 has become a necessity in the business world in many ways and has even impacted the way our government performs its duties. In todays world, businesses certainly have to keep up with what is going on with Web 2.0 in order to compete in the market. Many businesses now have Facebook pages and Twitter accounts so they can market to consumers and to do market research on these social networks. Also, businesses use this technology to improve information flows and knowledge management on technologies like wikis or blogs (Schneckenberg, 2009). This can have positive impacts on the business as well as increasing networking opportunities for co-workers. As mentioned earlier, our government is also getting involved with social network technologies. The Department of Defense is using technologies such as blogging, wikis, and RSS feeds among others in order to share knowledge with the military and intelligence agencies (Web 2.0 Guidance Forum, 2010). Using this technology gives us a possible upgrade in security in our country as well as major advantages for us overseas. Web 2.0s impact on our government does not end with bureaucracies. Politicians are using these technologies more and more to give them an edge with their constituents for elections (Hoffman, 2008). One politician who was able to effectively use Web 2.0 technologies was Barack Obama, who used Facebook and Meetup to connect with voters. With the growth of Web 2.0 networks, the importance of this technology on our nations political process will also grow and have long-term impacts on how our society views candidates and their legislative ideas. Certainly, if Web 2.0 is having major impacts on our societys business and governmental entities, Web 2.0 is going to impact our lives in some way daily. Conclusion Web 2.0 is vastly changing the way information is spread throughout the world. Like any technology, there are both advantages and disadvantages of using it. Web 2.0 can be used to help promote a companys business, but it can also be a means for customers to complain about the companys service. Web 2.0 allows for a faster way of spreading information in the form of Twitter and Facebook, but these sites also raise privacy concerns. Web 2.0 allows for more opportunities for people to share information on the internet. More peoples opinions will be online, and there is no way of guaranteeing what others will do with this information. As we mentioned, there have been some problems with adoptive parents finding out that their children are talking to their birth parents without their consent. These types of problems will continue to rise in the future. Web 2.0 will ultimately grow and continue to impact our lives. Web 2.0 has brought many values to our society. For example, President Barack Obama was able to use Facebook to communicate with potential voters. Web 2.0 certainly had an impact on the support he was able to obtain throughout the presidential election. Politicians will eventually need to further utilize these technologies in order to gain a competitive edge in elections. Web 2.0 also facilitated the fast spread of information about the corruption associated with the Iranian elections. Web 2.0 will continue to affect important issues like this in the future.

Is Parliamentarism Conducive to Better Political Outcomes Than Presidential Systems? Essay

Is Parliamentarism conducive to better political outcomes than Presidential systems? My interpretation of the question leads me to believe if parliamentary systems are better than presidential systems in deriving better political outcomes. By better political outcomes this implies not only ease of making political decisions but also the manner in which the two systems function and which is better, and whether or not this leads to favourable political outcomes. Issues that I am going to discuss in this essay are going to include the functionality of both systems, the differences between the two systems and whether or not the system provides and facilitates good political outcomes. According to Bagehot â€Å"a Presidential system endows the incumbent with both the ceremonial functions of a head of state and the effective functions of a chief executive.†(Bagehot) In a Presidential system the executive branch exists and resides outside of the legislature. The executive branch does not purpose legislature but have the power to veto them. â€Å"The president has a fixed term in government and it is usually a difficult process trying to eliminate the president.†(Verney) The executive branch controls their cabinet and does not members of the cabinet serve at their will, this means the President can hire or fire anyone from the cabinet. According to Verney â€Å"Parliamentary system, consists of the head of government that are dependent on the confidence of the legislature and can be dismissed by a legislative vote of no confidence.†(Verney) There are two main types of parliamentary democracy which consist of the ‘Westminster system’ and the ‘Consensus system’ but there is also a hybrid of the presidential and parliamentary system which is called the semi-presidential system. The Westminster system derives from the UK and can be found in many of Britain’s ex-colonies such as India and Canada. The Westminster system tends to be a more adversarial style of debating. The consensus system can be found in Germany and Spain and tends to be more consensus style of debating system. Firstly, legislation is always a key factor to answering the question as to which of the following systems is conducive to better political outcomes. Linz argues that â€Å"in a Presidential system both Legislature and the executive can claim legitimacy since both drive their power from the votes of the people in free competition among well-defined alternatives, a conflict is always possible.†(Linz)This occurs because a Presidential system adopts the separation of powers format. Presidential systems usually but not exclusively reside in Federal countries. This allows for a separation of powers between the legislature and executive. This separation can be looked at in different forms, some advantageous and hinders to political outcomes. For example an advantage of having the separation of powers in the Presidential system is that it does not create a dictatorship type of government. The separation of powers means that in the Presidential system the executive as well as the legi slature are can both claim legitimacy, which in turn means that they can both cancel each other out. Presidents cannot impose laws and legislature cannot interfere with presidential powers. In the United States there is a supreme court that decides whether or not the legislature or the President are acting unconstitutional and thus act as a referee in the debating between the two factions of government. The presidential system is seen to be more democratic because of the conflict between the two factions of government. The congress in the US represent the different views of the people in different states and the president represents the US as a whole thus a conflict between the two bodies shows a more democratic process. The Presidential system also has fixed term elections, this is a key argument used by pro-presidential academics, and Horowitz argues that fixed term elections leads to better democratic outcomes. The reason for this thinking is because, â€Å"Fixed terms does not produce winner takes all outcomes as there is conflict between legislature and executive.†(Horowitz) A fixed term also links into the previous mentioned point about reducing the chances of an elective dictatorship as there would eventually have to be a set date for an election and thus if either the executive or the legislature has proven to be unpopular they would get voted out of office. However there are disadvantages to the presidential system in terms of fixed terms and conflicts with legislature. One key disadvantage is that the conflict between the president and the legislature produce political gridlock within the system, â€Å"the separation of powers of a presidential system frequently creates undesirable and long-term political gridlock and political instability whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties.†(Linz) Linz â€Å"argues that this inherent political instability can cause democracies to fail, as seen in such cases as Brazil and Chile.†Linz believed that political gridlock can prove to be costly in the forging of governments because it hinders the speed and decisiveness of democracy and thus cause democracies to fail like he mentioned in South America. Also a separation of powers in the presidential system leads both the president and the legislature to become less accountable. Both the executive and the legislature can shift blame upon each other and thus leads to less accountability come election time to the vote rs. Parliamentary systems on the other hand have their government intertwined with the legislature and government is formed form the legislature. In the UK, the Westminster model forms government form the winning party in parliament. So in a parliamentary system there is no separation of powers. The advantages of this are that it reduces the likeliness of political gridlock. Linz argues that â€Å"Parliamentarism imparts flexibility to the political process, presidential makes it rigid.†(Linz). As the government would expect to have backing from their party they have the ability to pass through legislations quicker with less hassle than a presidential system may incur. This is an advantage over the presidential system the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. In this form it can be said that Parliamentarism is conductive to better political outcomes than the presidential system. The passing of legislature is an important task for any government as it shows strength and can make or break a government’s reputation. In respect to this I feel that the presidential system may be lacking in terms of being able to pass legislation as it may not be able to react quick enough to changing events or situations, this is where a parliamentary system seems to be more adequate, however a parliamentary system could become gridlocked if there is a minority government with low discipline so the element f political gridlock is not only exclusive to Presidential systems. However the issue of legitimacy in the Presidential systems has the ability to cause numerous problems in the terms of legislation passing. But it can also be argued in the case for support of the Presidential system it can be argued that Prime ministers are constrained to the need of The House of Commons and thus do not act as fast as expected. An example of this is taken from John F. Kennedy work where he states, â€Å"Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the Commons.†(Kenned y) In the need for confronting German military build up before the outbreak of the Second World War. Another issue to contend with is how the governments are elected. In a Parliamentary system, the government is elected through the party system and thus the winning party forms government through having a simple majority in the parliament. In the presidential system, the executive is elected by the public and is directly elected. This difference between the two systems is seen in both an advantage and disadvantages. In a presidential system Voters know who they are voting for and accountability resides within the President. Horowitz states â€Å"Voters have a clear choice of Ideology to pick from.†(Horowitz) This means that there is no only the one straight choice and thus it is clear to voters who they are picking and what type of ideology this is going to represent. However a disadvantage of this is that direct election creates a zero-sum game. This is that there is only one winner and all other votes do not amount to anything and thus no coalition can be made with the oppos ition. This is seen has undemocratic and a hindrance to better political outcomes. An example of this is seen with the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000, where Bush won the election by 271 to 266. In such a close competition, where arguably almost half of the country voted against him. It seems undemocratic to have Bush becoming the President; this can lead to the polarisation of politics within that country. This is because when a president wins an election he is the head of state as well as the representative of a nation but he stands for a clearly partisan political option. But Presidential system has one up on its parliamentary counterpart as the â€Å"voters know and are in control of who they are voting for to be president, while in a parliamentary system voters vote for their constituent MP and the party decides who is Prime minister,† (Riggs) this can be seen as hindering democracy and could not be conductive to better political outcomes. However the Parliamentary system can be an advantage because it leads to power sharing and coalitions, thus it is argued makes politics more representative. An example of this is mentioned by Lijphart, â€Å"Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divid ed. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to classical parliamentarianism.†(Lijphart) However it can be argued that a parliamentary form of government leads to the personalisation of power by the prime minister or an ethnic group in the country. As there is no fixed terms is in the Parliamentary style of government it is argued that if a prime minister was to get voted in with a large majority, with the whip system in place, where all party members will obey the party line the government is capable of introducing any legislature, without any issue. This can be seen as being undemocratic as it would lead to an elected dictatorship. This was the case in Nigeria during the 1960s, â€Å"Under the Westminster model, during the 1960s, groups in the North managed to secure a majority in Parliament and began to seize power and excluded everyone else from power. This lead to an ethnic authoritarian rule of the country, and was the main factor for the Nigerian Biafrican War and countless military coups.†(Horowitz) This shows that Parliamentarism is just as harmful as presidential system in stifling democracy. Horowitz makes the comment â€Å"It is possible that Presidential systems helped stifle democracy in Latin America, Parliamentary systems have helped stifle democracy in Africa.†(Horowitz) To conclude, the Presidential system has its advantages to conducive a better political outcome, such as having fixed terms, direct elections and separations of power however these advantages can also act as disadvantages when viewed in another way. The parliamentary system too has its advantages to creating a better political outcomes, its advantages such as likeliness of coalition, being supposedly more representative and being more responsive in creating a stronger government also can be seen as a disadvantage when looked at in a different light. Dahl states â€Å"claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns.† This in effect argues the point that parliamentary systems have been more successful in terms of having peaceful transition from colonialism to democracy but although presidential system may not have had a successful transition to democracy but parliamentary system has not had a 100% success rate and thus we cannot say for definite if it is better than presidential system we can only assume. My research in this essay has led me to believe that the both system are conducive to better political outcomes in their own way, theoretically they are both capable of producing democratically stable countries and environments with better political outcomes, however in practice this is not always the case and thus I feel that my research has led me to be inconclusive and i have to sit on the fence when trying to realise which one cre ates a better system. Bibliography Bagehot W, (1867) The English Constitution, MacMaster University Dahl, R (1989) Democracy and Its Critics- – Yale University Press Horowitz, Donald L. (1990) Comparing Democratic Systems- The Johns Hopkins University Press Kennedy. John F. (1940)- Why England Slept?, Macmillan Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Linz, Juan J. The Perils of Presidentialism – The Johns Hopkins University Press Riggs, Fred. (1988) The Survival of Presidentialism in America International Political Science Review Verney

Overview of Ames Test

The AMES test also known as bacteria reversed mutation assay is used to evaluate the mutagenic properties of test articles. The test was first developed by Bruce Ames in 1974 (Krebsfaenger). The amino acid dependent strain of S. typhimurium and E. coli are used in this experiment where in the absence of the external histidine source, the cells cannot grow to form colonies. Specifically these strains of Salmonella are defective in 1. ) Repair of mutations (uvrB) and 2. A rfa mutation (eliminating a portion of lipolysaccharide (a coating of outer bacterial surface)). The rfa mutation here fulfills two purposes: 1. ) Helps Salmonella in growing in presence of sodium desoxycholate or crystal violet. and 2. ) Increases the cell permeability allowing more mutagen to enter the cell. The lack of uvrB gene in the decreases the rate of repair mechanism of mutations occurring resulting in the increased incidences of occurring mutations. These auxotrophic strain cannot grow on the media without histidine and biotine (due to uvrB).If these organisms are allowed to grow on the media lacking both of these, the strain get converted to prototroph resulting the organisms to grow on the mutagenic chemicals to be tested in the media. If the chemical being tested is mutagenic, the organisms will grow as some substance are capable of causing mutations in the cells at same site or at nearby sites resulting in restoring gene's function and these mutations in the cells can revert back the gene regaining its function (Tejs).These revertant cells are then able to grow on the media which does not contain histdine as it can now synthesize histidine on its own. This mutation causes the cells to divide continuously. If there is no further mutation occurring in the cell, the cells will die out like normal cell. But if any further mutation occurs which allows the cells to grow for many generations, then the cancerous cells will be formed. The principle of Ames test is specifically based on the hypothesis that any substance that is mutagenic for the bacteria used in this test may also turn out to be carcinogenic (compound causing cancer).The most important limiting points of the Ames test includes first an assumption that though Ames test is being tested on prokaryotic microorganisms, it will detect the mutagens or cancer causing agents in human beings. (Though this test uses rat liver enzymes, Ames test is not able to serve the perfect model for human beings. ) Secondly, mutagens found by this test might not be carcinogenic i. e. further test may be required. also all carcinogens are not mutagens ( i. e. Ames test is unable to find such agents eg: asbestos).Third, some nitrate containing compounds lie nitroglycerine can cause false positive production by producing nitric oxide. ? Works Cited 1. Krebsfaenger, Niels. â€Å"AMES TEST: Bacterial Reversed Mutation Assay. † Genpharmtox, Assay Sheet AMES TEST. Gen Pharm Tox, n. d. Web. 21 Nov 2012. . 2. Tejs, Sebastian. â€Å"The Ames Test: A methodological Short Review. † Environmental Biotechnology. Environmental Biotechnology, University of Warmia and Mazury, n. d. Web. 27 Nov 2012. . 3.

Pasar Conjugation in Spanish, Translation and Examples

The Spanish verb pasar  is often translated to English as its cognate to pass. Pasar  is a regular  -ar  verb, like  ayudar,  tratar  or  parar. This article includes  pasar  conjugations  in the present, past and future indicative, the present and past subjunctive, as well as the imperative and other verb forms. In Spanish, pasar  has many different meanings and uses. One of the most common uses is to say to occur or to happen. For example, if you wanted to say What happened? in Spanish, you would say  ¿Quà © pasà ³? Pasar Present Indicative Yo paso I pass Yo paso por tu casa todos los das. T pasas You pass T pasas la sal durante la cena. Usted/l/ella pasa You/he/she passes Ella pasa mucho tiempo estudiando. Nosotros pasamos We pass Nosotros pasamos la frontera en carro. Vosotros pasis You pass Vosotros pasis tres semforos en el camino. Ustedes/ellos/ellas pasan You/they pass Ellos pasan hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Preterite  Indicative There are two forms of the past tense  in Spanish, the preterite and the imperfect. The preterite is usually translated to English as the simple past, and it is used to talk about completed or punctual events in the past. Notice that the last vowels of the  yo  and  usted/à ©l/ella  forms in the preterite carry  an accent mark. Yo pas I passed Yo pas por tu casa todos los das. T pasaste You passed T pasaste la sal durante la cena. Usted/l/ella pas You/he/she passed Ella pas mucho tiempo estudiando. Nosotros pasamos We passed Nosotros pasamos la frontera en carro. Vosotros pasasteis You passed Vosotros pasasteis tres semforos en el camino. Ustedes/ellos/ellas pasaron You/they passed Ellos pasaron hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Imperfect  Indicative The imperfect tense can be translated to English as was passing or used to pass.  It is used to talk about background events, ongoing or habitual actions in the past.   Yo pasaba I used to pass Yo pasaba por tu casa todos los das. T pasabas You used to pass T pasabas la sal durante la cena. Usted/l/ella pasaba You/he/she used to pass Ella pasaba mucho tiempo estudiando. Nosotros pasbamos We used to pass Nosotros pasbamos la frontera en carro. Vosotros pasabais You used to pass Vosotros pasabais tres semforos en el camino. Ustedes/ellos/ellas pasaban You/they used to pass Ellos pasaban hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Future  Indicative Yo pasar I will pass Yo pasar por tu casa todos los das. T pasars You will pass T pasars la sal durante la cena. Usted/l/ella pasar You/he/she will pass Ella pasar mucho tiempo estudiando. Nosotros pasaremos We will pass Nosotros pasaremos la frontera en carro. Vosotros pasaris You will pass Vosotros pasaris tres semforos en el camino. Ustedes/ellos/ellas pasarn You/they will pass Ellos pasarn hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Periphrastic Future  Indicative Yo voy a pasar I am going to pass Yo voy a pasar por tu casa todos los das. T vas a pasar You are going to pass T vas a pasar la sal durante la cena. Usted/l/ella va a pasar You/he/she is going to pass Ella va a pasar mucho tiempo estudiando. Nosotros vamos a pasar We are going to pass Nosotros vamos a pasar la frontera en carro. Vosotros vais a pasar You are going to pass Vosotros vais a pasar tres semforos en el camino. Ustedes/ellos/ellas van a pasar You/they are going to pass Ellos van a pasar hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Conditional  Indicative The conditional  tense can be used to talk about possibilities or conjectures, or about things that would happen. The à ­ in the conditional endings always carries an accent mark. Yo pasara I would pass Yo pasara por tu casa todos los das si tomara otro camino. T pasaras You would pass T pasaras la sal durante la cena si le hiciera falta sal a la comida. Usted/l/ella pasara You/he/she would pass Ella pasara mucho tiempo estudiando si quisiera mejorar sus notas. Nosotros pasaramos We would pass Nosotros pasaramos la frontera en carro si no fuera peligroso. Vosotros pasarais You would pass Vosotros pasarais tres semforos en el camino si vinierais por esta ruta. Ustedes/ellos/ellas pasaran You/they would pass Ellos pasaran hambre durante la guerra, pero estn recibiendo ayuda. Pasar Present Progressive/Gerund Form For regular -ar verbs, the present participle or gerund  is formed with the ending  -ando. This verb form can be used as an adverb or  to form  progressive tenses, such as the present progressive. Present Progressive of Pasar està ¡ pasando  She is passing   Ella està ¡ pasando mucho tiempo estudiando. Pasar Past Participle For regular -ar  verbs, the past participle is formed with the ending  -ado.  This verb form can be used as an adjective or  with an auxiliary verb to form compound tenses  like  the present perfect.   Present Perfect of Pasar ha pasado  She  has passed Ella ha pasado mucho tiempo estudiando. Pasar Present Subjunctive The subjunctive mood  can be  used to talk about emotions, doubts, desires, possibilities, and other subjective situations.   Que yo pase That I pass Tu hermano quiere que yo pase por tu casa todos los das. Que t pases That you pass Tu madre pide que t pases la sal durante la cena. Que usted/l/ella pase That you/he/she pass La maestra espera que ella pase mucho tiempo estudiando. Que nosotros pasemos That we pass La ley permite que nosotros pasemos la frontera en carro. Que vosotros pasis That you pass Carla espera que vosotros pasis por tres semforos en el camino. Que ustedes/ellos/ellas pasen That you/they pass El presidente no quiere que ellos pasen hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Imperfect  Subjunctive The imperfect subjunctive functions like the present subjunctive, but in situations that took place in the past. There are two different ways of conjugating the imperfect subjunctive, shown in the tables below. Option 1 Que yo pasara That I passed Tu hermano quera que yo pasara por tu casa todos los das. Que t pasaras That you passed Tu madre peda que t pasaras la sal durante la cena. Que usted/l/ella pasara That you/he/she passed La maestra esperaba que ella pasara mucho tiempo estudiando. Que nosotros pasramos That we passed La ley permita que nosotros pasramos la frontera en carro. Que vosotros pasarais That you passed Carla esperaba que vosotros pasarais por tres semforos en el camino. Que ustedes/ellos/ellas pasaran That you/they passed El presidente no quera que ellos pasaran hambre durante la guerra. Option 2 Que yo pasase That I passed Tu hermano quera que yo pasase por tu casa todos los das. Que t pasases That you passed Tu madre peda que t pasases la sal durante la cena. Que usted/l/ella pasase That you/he/she passed La maestra esperaba que ella pasase mucho tiempo estudiando. Que nosotros passemos That we passed La ley permita que nosotros passemos la frontera en carro. Que vosotros pasaseis That you passed Carla esperaba que vosotros pasaseis por tres semforos en el camino. Que ustedes/ellos/ellas pasasen That you/they passed El presidente no quera que ellos pasasen hambre durante la guerra. Pasar Imperative   Verbs conjugated in the imperative mood are used to give direct orders or commands. There are both positive and negative commands. For  negative commands, add the adverb  no  before the command. Notice that there are some differences in the positive and negative commands for  tà ºÃ‚  and  vosotros. Positive Commands T pasa Pass! Pasa la sal! Usted pase Pass! Pase mucho tiempo estudiando! Nosotros pasemos Lets pass! Pasemos la frontera en carro! Vosotros pasad Pass! Pasad por tres semforos en el camino! Ustedes pasen Pass! Pasen hambre durante la guerra! Negative Commands T no pases Dont pass! No pases la sal! Usted no pase Dont pass! No pase mucho tiempo estudiando! Nosotros no pasemos Lets not pass! No pasemos la frontera en carro! Vosotros no pasis Dont pass! No pasis por tres semforos en el camino! Ustedes no pasen Dont pass! No pasen hambre durante la guerra!