Jr Grp Doc - Round 1 Building: Phillips Room: 108
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
State Contest Schedule 27, 2019
State Contest Schedule 27, 2019 Last Name First Name Entry # Title Time Building Room Division Category Abou- Mao Zedong and the Chinese Dahech Mohammad 18019 Revolution (2535) 10:45AM University 218 Junior Group Website The Black Death: The Fall of Catholicism and The Rise of JIE - Team Individual Acosta Kimberly 15026 Humanism (1539) 10:45AM Field House C Junior Exhibit Adams Abigail 16012 Tyrus Wong (1507) 11:45AM Field House B Junior Group Exhibit Mamie Till Mobley: A Powerful Mother Turning Her Son's Tragic Death into a Group Adams Isaac 22001 Life of Triumph (2537) 9:00AM Merrick 203 Senior Documentary Individual Adams Jaylin 27003 The Black Panther Party (1515) 9:45AM Elliott 011 Senior Website Individual Aichele Kemery 27006 The Mormon Migration (2541) 9:30AM Elliott 011 Senior Website Mary Anning: She Sells Seashells by the Seashore and Takes Science by Individual Alleman Sophia 11008 Storm (1553) 11:20AM Merrick 201 Junior Documentary Gray Group Allen Joseph 14016 Elizabeth Hamilton (1507) 10:50AM University Chapel Junior Performance Salem witch trials, innocent lives are Individual Alley Malaya 17014 lost (2509) 9:45AM Elliott 001 Junior Website Abyssinia: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cleveland Women Working in the Alonge Sophie 20017 Steel Industry during WWII (2528) 10:45AM University 203B Senior Paper Garrett Morgan: The Cleveland Individual Amos Isaac 17020 Waterworks Rescue (1533) 11:30AM Elliott 001 Junior Website 1 State Contest Schedule 27, 2019 Last Name First Name Entry # Title Time Building Room Division Category SIE - Team Individual Anderson Michael 25010 John Glenn Orbits Earth (2544) 10:45AM Field House A Senior Exhibit Amelia Earhart: Triumphant Aviator JGE Team Angle Hannah 16031 and Her Tragic Disappearance (1545) 11:00AM Field House C Junior Group Exhibit Archuleta Gabriella 18012 Loving V. -
Monopoly and Monopsony Power in a Market for Mud
Monopoly and Monopsony Power in a Market for Mud This article describes an unusual market I use in my intermediate microeconomics courses to illustrate characteristics of monopoly and monopsony power. For over sixty years the Lena Blackburne Rubbing Mud (LBRM) company has been the sole supplier of mud taken from a Delaware River tributary that is applied to all baseballs used by Major League Baseball (MLB) teams. The unique quality of the mud removes the shine and slickness of new baseballs. Students must explain why LBRM is or is not a monopoly and recognize the source of MLB’s monopsony power. Edward Scahill† †University of Scranton © 2020 Journal of Economics Teaching. All rights reserved. Scahill / Journal of Economics Teaching (2020) 1. Introduction A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service… Before and during the period of the classical economics (roughly 1776–1850), most people believed that… [the] only monopolies that could persist… were those that got the government to exclude rivals… Even today, most important enduring monopolies or near monopolies in the United States rest on government policies…Monopolies that exist independent of government support are likely to be due to smallness of markets (the only druggist in town) or to rest on temporary leadership in innovation…(Stigler) Although most students in my intermediate economics courses understand the graphical analysis of monopoly and the impact of monopoly power on economic welfare, it is a challenge to find actual examples of monopoly power that engage their interest.1 Although dominant firms in many markets have some degree of monopoly power, the number of “pure” monopolies – sole providers of a good or service that have no close substitutes - are rare. -
Process Dynamics 1 Battle of Trafalgar (1805)
2015 Practice 1 Process dynamics Process Dynamics (W.L. Luyben) Approximate description of the battle with a continuous process. Simulate the processes A, B, C, answer the questions, provide graphs. 1 Battle of Trafalgar (1805) 32 ships led by Admiral Lord Nelson against 38 ships of the line under French Admiral Pierre- Charles Villeneuve. Ship’s destruction speed during the battle is proportional to the number of enemy ships, on the average any ship can be destroyed for a half of the day. 1. battle • Write the equation. Provide solution depending on time N(t);V (t) graphically. • Who will win? (Victory if number of enemy’s vessels = 0). How many ships should be in order to win the battle? Try system with the following parameters (a12 = 2:5; a21 = 3:8), answer the questions. • How big are the losses, how long the battle lasts? • How can ships’ destruction speed change the result? • What is the process statics (equilibrium point)? • Is the process stable or not? Calculate the eigenvalues of the system. • Provide process trajectory in the state space (N, V) and several more with other initial values (in the same graph). Find eigenvalues of the system. 2 Battle of the Atlantic (World War II) Battle between German submarines (U = 247) and British destroyers (D = 132). Ship’s destruction speed during the battle is proportional to the number of enemy ships, on the average one ship destroys 0.25 of the enemy’s ship per week. Germany produces two submarines a week. • How many destroyers a week to be produced in England in order to achieve victory in the battle? • Provide the equation to solve U(t);D(t). -
Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes
Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes Kevin McDonald 1. introduction this: It happens every spring. The perennial hopefulness of opening day leads to talk of LEVEL ONE: “Justice Holmes baseball, which these days means the business ruled that baseball was a sport, not a of baseball - dollars and contracts. And business.” whether the latest topic is a labor dispute, al- LEVEL TWO: “Justice Holmes held leged “collusion” by owners, or a franchise that personal services, like sports and considering a move to a new city, you eventu- law and medicine, were not ‘trade or ally find yourself explaining to someone - commerce’ within the meaning of the rather sheepishly - that baseball is “exempt” Sherman Act like manufacturing. That from the antitrust laws. view has been overruled by later In response to the incredulous question cases, but the exemption for baseball (“Just how did that happen?”), the customary remains.” explanation is: “Well, the famous Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. decided that baseball was exempt from the antitrust laws in a case called The truly dogged questioner points out Federal Baseball Club ofBaltimore 1.: National that Holmes retired some time ago. How can we League of Professional Baseball Clubs,‘ and have a baseball exemption now, when the an- it’s still the law.” If the questioner persists by nual salary for any pitcher who can win fifteen asking the basis for the Great Dissenter’s edict, games is approaching the Gross National Prod- the most common responses depend on one’s uct of Guam? You might then explain that the level of antitrust expertise, but usually go like issue was not raised again in the courts until JOURNAL 1998, VOL. -
From Valmy to Waterloo: France at War, 1792–1815
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromsoe - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-08 - PalgraveConnect Tromsoe i - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 10.1057/9780230294981 - From Valmy to Waterloo, Marie-Cecile Thoral War, Culture and Society, 1750–1850 Series Editors: Rafe Blaufarb (Tallahassee, USA), Alan Forrest (York, UK), and Karen Hagemann (Chapel Hill, USA) Editorial Board: Michael Broers (Oxford, UK), Christopher Bayly (Cambridge, UK), Richard Bessel (York, UK), Sarah Chambers (Minneapolis, USA), Laurent Dubois (Durham, USA), Etienne François (Berlin, Germany), Janet Hartley (London, UK), Wayne Lee (Chapel Hill, USA), Jane Rendall (York, UK), Reinhard Stauber (Klagenfurt, Austria) Titles include: Richard Bessel, Nicholas Guyatt and Jane Rendall (editors) WAR, EMPIRE AND SLAVERY, 1770–1830 Alan Forrest and Peter H. Wilson (editors) THE BEE AND THE EAGLE Napoleonic France and the End of the Holy Roman Empire, 1806 Alan Forrest, Karen Hagemann and Jane Rendall (editors) SOLDIERS, CITIZENS AND CIVILIANS Experiences and Perceptions of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1790–1820 Karen Hagemann, Gisela Mettele and Jane Rendall (editors) GENDER, WAR AND POLITICS Transatlantic Perspectives, 1755–1830 Marie-Cécile Thoral FROM VALMY TO WATERLOO France at War, 1792–1815 Forthcoming: Michael Broers, Agustin Guimera and Peter Hick (editors) THE NAPOLEONIC EMPIRE AND THE NEW EUROPEAN POLITICAL CULTURE Alan Forrest, Etienne François and Karen Hagemann -
Wars and Battles of Modern Europe Battle Summaries Are from Harbottle's Dictionary of Battles, Published by Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1904
WARS AND BATTLES OF MODERN EUROPE BATTLE SUMMARIES ARE FROM HARBOTTLE'S DICTIONARY OF BATTLES, PUBLISHED BY SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO., 1904. War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) Seven Year's War (1752-62) French Revolutionary Wars (1785-99) Napoleonic Wars (1801-15) Peninsular War (1808-14) Italian Unification (1848-67) Hungarian Rising (1849) Franco-Mexican War (1862-67) Schleswig-Holstein War (1864) Austro Prussian War (1866) Franco Prussian War (1870-71) Servo-Bulgarian Wars (1885) Balkan Wars (1912-13) Great War (1914-18) WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION —1740 TO 1748 Frederick the Great annexes Silesia to his domains in opposition to the claims of Austria 1741 Battle of Molwitz (Austria vs. Prussia) Prussians victory Fought April 8, 1741, between the Prussians, 30,000 strong, under Frederick the Great, and the Austrians, under Marshal Neuperg. Frederick surprised the Austrian general, and, after severe fighting, drove him from his entrenchments, with a loss of about 5,000 killed, wounded and prisoners. The Prussians lost 2,500. 1742 Battle of Czaslau (Austria vs. Prussia) Prussians victory Fought 1742, between the Prussians under Frederic the Great, and the Austrians under Prince Charles of Lorraine. The Prussians were driven from the field, but the Austrians abandoned the pursuit to plunder, and the king, rallying his troops, broke the Austrian main body, and defeated them with a loss of 4,000 men. 1742 Battle of Chotusitz (Austria vs. Prussia) Prussians victory Fought May 17, 1742, between the Austrians under Prince Charles of Lorraine, and the Prussians under Frederick the Great. The numbers were about equal, but the steadiness of the Prussian infantry eventually wore down the Austrians, and they were forced to retreat, though in good order, leaving behind them 18 guns and 12,000 prisoners. -
Lord Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar
Lord Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar Lord Nelson and the early years Horatio Nelson was born in Norfolk in 1758. As a young child he wasn’t particularly healthy but he still went on to become one of Britain’s greatest heroes. Nelson’s father, Edmund Nelson, was the Rector of Burnham Thorpe, the small Norfolk village in which they lived. His mother died when he was only 9 years old. Nelson came from a very big family – huge in fact! He was the sixth of 11 children. He showed an early love for the sea, joining the navy at the age of just 12 on a ship captained by his uncle. Nelson must have been good at his job because he became a captain at the age of 20. He was one of the youngest-ever captains in the Royal Navy. Nelson married Frances Nisbet in 1787 on the Caribbean island of Nevis. Although Nelson was married to Frances, he fell in love with Lady Hamilton in Naples in Italy. They had a child together, Horatia in 1801. Lord Nelson, the Sailor Britain was at war during much of Nelson’s life so he spent many years in battle and during that time he became ill (he contracted malaria), was seriously injured. As well as losing the sight in his right eye he lost one arm and nearly lost the other – and finally, during his most famous battle, he lost his life. Nelson’s job helped him see the world. He travelled to the Caribbean, Denmark and Egypt to fight battles and also sailed close to the North Pole. -
The History of Napoleon Buonaparte
THE HISTORY OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE JOHN GIBSON LOCKHART CHAPTER I BIRTH AND PARENTAGE OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE—HIS EDUCATION AT BRIENNE AND AT PARIS—HIS CHARACTER AT THIS PERIOD—HIS POLITICAL PREDILECTIONS—HE ENTERS THE ARMY AS SECOND LIEUTENANT OF ARTILLERY—HIS FIRST MILITARY SERVICE IN CORSICA IN 1793. Napoleon Buonaparte was born at Ajaccio on the 15th of August, 1769. The family had been of some distinction, during the middle ages, in Italy; whence his branch of it removed to Corsica, in the troubled times of the Guelphs and Gibellines. They were always considered as belonging to the gentry of the island. Charles, the father of Napoleon, an advocate of considerable reputation, married his mother, Letitia Ramolini, a young woman eminent for beauty and for strength of mind, during the civil war— when the Corsicans, under Paoli, were struggling to avoid the domination of the French. The advocate had espoused the popular side in that contest, and his lovely and high-spirited wife used to attend him through the toils and dangers of his mountain campaigns. Upon the termination of the war, he would have exiled himself along with Paoli; but his relations dissuaded him from this step, and he was afterwards reconciled to the conquering party, and protected and patronised by the French governor of Corsica, the Count de Marbœuff. It is said that Letitia had attended mass on the morning of the 15th of August; and, being seized suddenly on her return, gave birth to the future hero of his age, on a temporary couch covered with tapestry, representing the heroes of the Iliad. -
The Professional and Cultural Memory of Horatio Nelson During Britain's
“TRAFALGAR REFOUGHT”: THE PROFESSIONAL AND CULTURAL MEMORY OF HORATIO NELSON DURING BRITAIN’S NAVALIST ERA, 1880-1914 A Thesis by BRADLEY M. CESARIO Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2011 Major Subject: History “TRAFALGAR REFOUGHT”: THE PROFESSIONAL AND CULTURAL MEMORY OF HORATIO NELSON DURING BRITAIN’S NAVALIST ERA, 1880-1914 A Thesis By BRADLEY M. CESARIO Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, R.J.Q. Adams Committee Members, Adam Seipp James Hannah Head of Department, David Vaught December 2011 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT “Trafalgar Refought”: The Professional and Cultural Memory of Horatio Nelson During Britain’s Navalist Era, 1880-1914. (December 2011) Bradley M. Cesario, B.A., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. R.J.Q. Adams Horatio Lord Nelson, Britain’s most famous naval figure, revolutionized what victory meant to the British Royal Navy and the British populace at the turn of the nineteenth century. But his legacy continued after his death in 1805, and a century after his untimely passing Nelson meant as much or more to Britain than he did during his lifetime. This thesis utilizes primary sources from the British Royal Navy and the general British public to explore what the cultural memory of Horatio Nelson’s life and achievements meant to Britain throughout the Edwardian era and to the dawn of the First World War. -
Rivista Dell'arbitrato 1-15
ISSN 1122-0147 ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANA PER L’ARBITRATO Pubblicazione trimestrale Anno XXV - N. 1/2015 Poste Italiane s.p.a. - Spedizione in a.p. D.L. 353/2003 (conv. in L. 27/02/2004 n° 46) art. 1, comma 1, DCB (VARESE) RIVISTA DELL’ARBITRATO diretta da Antonio Briguglio - Giorgio De Nova - Andrea Giardina ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANA PER L’ARBITRATO Pubblicazione trimestrale Anno XXV - N. 1/2015 Poste Italiane s.p.a. - Spedizione in a.p. D.L. 353/2003 (conv. in L. 27/02/2004 n° 46) art. 1, comma 1, DCB (VARESE) RIVISTA DELL’ARBITRATO diretta da Antonio Briguglio - Giorgio De Nova - Andrea Giardina comitato scientifico GUIDO ALPA - FERRUCCIO AULETTA - PIERO BERNARDINI - PAOLO BIAVATI - MAURO BOVE - FEDERICO CARPI - CLAUDIO CONSOLO - DIEGO CORAPI - FABRIZIO CRISCUOLO - GIORGIO GAJA - FRANCESCO PAOLO LUISO - RICCARDO LUZZATTO - NICOLA PICARDI - CARMINE PUNZI - LUCA RADICATI DI BROZOLO - PIETRO RESCIGNO - GIORGIO SACERDOTI - LAURA SALVANESCHI - FERRUCCIO TOMMASEO - ROMANO VACCARELLA - GIOVANNI VERDE - VINCENZO VIGORITI - ATTILIO ZIMATORE. già diretta da ELIO FAZZALARI. direzione: ANTONIO BRIGUGLIO - GIORGIO DE NOVA - ANDREA GIARDINA. MARIA BEATRICE DELI (direttore responsabile). redazione ANDREA BANDINI - LAURA BERGAMINI - ALDO BERLINGUER - ANDREA CARLEVARIS - CLAUDIO CECCHELLA - MASSIMO COCCIA - ALESSANDRA COLOSIMO - ELENA D’ALESSANDRO - ANNA DE LUCA - FERDINANDO EMANUELE - ALESSANDRO FUSILLO - DANTE GROSSI - MAURO LONGO - ROBERTO MARENGO † - FABRIZIO MARRELLA - ELENA OCCHIPINTI - ANDREW G. PATON - FRANCESCA PIETRANGELI ROBERTO VACCARELLA Segretari di redazione: ANDREA ATTERITANO - MARIANGELA ZUMPANO. La Direzione e la Redazione della Rivista hanno sede presso l’Associazio- ne Italiana per l’Arbitrato, in Roma, Via Barnaba Oriani, 34 (c.a.p. 00197) tel. 06/42014749 - 06/42014665; fax 06/4882677; www.arbitratoaia.org e-mail: [email protected] L’Amministrazione ha sede presso la Casa Editrice, in Milano (c.a.p. -
The Battle of Trafalgar
The Battle of Trafalgar When was the Battle Of Trafalgar? It happened on 21 October 1805 off Cape Trafalgar on the coast of south west Spain. Who was involved? The battle was between the Royal Navy and a force made up of Spanish and French ships. The Royal Navy, under the command of Admiral Horatio Nelson, had 27 ships. The French and Spanish forces, under Admiral Pierre de Villeneuve, had 33 ships. Why did the battle take place? The French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte was gearing up to invade England. He had already taken over other parts of Europe and wanted to expand his empire. The two sides were in hot pursuit of each other, then they met up at Trafalgar. What happened at the battle? The French and Spanish ships were lined up in a row. Instead of lining up against them, Nelson decided to Nelson's flagship, HMS Victory attack them by forming two columns of ships, with the aim of pushing through the enemy lines and separating their ships into smaller groups. As the battle started, Nelson made a signal, using flags, to his men from his ship, HMS Victory. It said: "England expects that every man will do his duty'. He later followed that with: "Engage the enemy more closely'. The Royal Navy succeeded in piercing the enemy line. By 4.30pm, the battle was over as the last of the French and Spanish forces surrendered or were overwhelmed. What happened to Nelson? It was a great victory for the Royal Navy, but they lost the man who had led the attack. -
Calculus Challenge #14 Calculus at the Battle of Trafalgar
Calculus Challenge #14 Calculus at the Battle of Trafalgar The summer of 2005 marked the 200th anniversary of the British naval victory over a combined French and Spanish fleet in the waters off Cape Trafalgar. During the Napoleonic wars, naval warfare followed certain rules that seem rather formal to us today. The ships in each fleet lined up in a row sailing parallel to its opponent and fired as they sailed past each other (see Figure 1). This maneuver was repeated until one fleet was disabled or sunk. This is known as the directed fire model or conventional combat model. Figure 1: The White Fleet takes a beating In such an engagement, the fleet with superior firepower will inevitably win. To model this battle, we begin with a system of differential equations that models the interaction of two fleets in combat. Suppose we have two opposing forces, fleet A with A0 and fleet B with B0 ships initially, and A(t) and B(t) ships t units of time after the battle is engaged. Given the style of combat at the time of Trafalgar, the losses for each fleet will be proportional to the effective firepower of the opposing fleet. That is, dA dB =−bB and =−aA, dt dt where a and b are positive constants that measure the effectiveness of the ship’s cannonry and personnel and A and B are both functions of time. These equations indicate that the rate at which one navy lost ships depended only on two things: the number of ships in the opposing fleet and the effectiveness of the opposition fire.