Wednesday, January 29, 2020
History of Gladiatorial Games Essay History of gladiatorial games Origins Early literary sources seldom agree on the origins of gladiators and the gladiator games. In the late 1st century BC, Nicolaus of Damascus believed they were Etruscan. A generation later, Livy wrote that they were first held in 310 BC by the Campanians in celebration of their victory over the Samnites. Long after the games had ceased, the 7th century AD writer Isidore of Seville derived Latin lanista (manager of gladiators) from the Etruscan word for executioner, and the title of Charon (an official who accompanied the dead from the Roman gladiatorial arena) from Charun, psychopomp of the Etruscan underworld.  Roman historians emphasized the gladiator games as a foreign import, most likely Etruscan. This preference informed most standard histories of the Roman games in the early modern era. Reappraisal of the evidence supports a Campanian origin, or at least a borrowing, for the games and gladiators. The earliest known Roman gladiator schools (ludi) were in Campania. Tomb frescoes from Paestum (4th century BC) show paired fighters, with helmets, spears and shields, in a propitiatory funeral blood-rite that anticipates early Roman gladiator games. Compared to these images, supporting evidence from Etruscan tomb-paintings is tentative and late. The Paestum frescoes may represent the continuation of a much older tradition, acquired or inherited from Greek colonists of the 8th century BC. Livy dates the earliest Roman gladiator games to 264 BC, in the early stages of Romes First Punic War against Carthage. Decimus Iunius Brutus Scaeva had three gladiator pairs fight to the death in Romes cattle market Forum (Forum Boarium) to honor his dead father, Brutus Pera. This is described as a munus (plural: munera), a commemorative duty owed the manes of a dead ancestor by his descendants. The gladiator type used (according to a single, later source), was Thracian. but the development of the munus and its gladiator types was most strongly influenced by Samniums support for Hannibal and subsequent punitive expeditions by Rome and her Campanian allies; the earliest and most frequently mentioned type was the Samnite. The war in Samnium, immediately afterwards, was attended with equal danger and an equally glorious conclusion. The enemy, besides their other warlike preparation, had made their battle-line to glitter with new and splendid arms. There were two corps: the shields of the one were inlaid with gold, of the other with silverThe Romans had already heard of these splendid accoutrements, but their generals had taught them that a soldier should be rough to look on, not adorned with gold and silver but putting his trust in iron and in courageThe Dictator, as decreed by the senate, celebrated a triumph, in which by far the finest show was afforded by the captured armour. So the Romans made use of the splendid armour of their enemies to do honour to their gods; while the Campanians, in consequence of their pride and in hatred of the Samnites, equipped after this fashion the gladiators who furnished them entertainment at their feasts, and bestowed on them the name Samnites. (Livy 9.40) Livys account skirts the funereal, sacrificial function of early Roman gladiator combats and underlines the later theatrical ethos of the gladiator show: splendidly, exotically armed and armoured barbarians, treacherous and degenerate, are dominated by Roman iron and native courage. His plain Romans virtuously dedicate the magnificent spoils of war to the Gods. Their Campanian allies stage a dinner entertainment using gladiators who may not be Samnites, but play the Samnite role. Other groups and tribes would join the cast list as Roman territories expanded. Most gladiators were armed and armoured in the manner of the enemies of Rome. The munus became a morally instructive form of historic enactment in which the only honourable option for the gladiator was to fight well, or else die well.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
International Software Piracy Disclaimer The ideas and arguments presented in this paper are provided solely for purposes of academic discussion. The author wishes to make it clear that he neither condones nor promotes software piracy in any form, and that he encourages all software practitioners to familiarize themselves with the relevant intellectual property laws of their respective countries and to adhere to the highest level of ethics in the conduct of their professional duties. I. Background Software piracy has been around since the beginnings of personal computing. The first paper tape of a BASIC compiler passed from one hobbyist to another was essentially pirated software, although, at the time, it may not have been recognized as such, and in fact, may not even have been illegal. The extension of copyright protection to software coincided with an explosive proliferation of low-cost computers and an expanding market for software packages that went beyond the hobbyist and into the commercial and mass consumer segments. As the software market matured and software vendors became multi-billion dollar enterprises, concern about piracy and the resultant lost revenue increased. The proliferation of Information Technology (IT), fostered in part by the Internet, have made piracy a global issue, with one estimate placing the loss to business world-wide in a single year at over $13 billion . Though illegal in most countries, the rate of piracy world-wide remains high, even in developed countries with established traditions of protecting intellectual property (IP). For example, the United States has one of the lowest piracy rates in the world, and yet its piracy rate remains at 23%. Countries with the highest p... ...lt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/02/14/pirate_plays_third_world_card/>. Salon, Profits from piracy, 2002, www.salon.com, 4-May-2004, . ZDNet, Microsoft slashes Windows XP price to fend off Linux, 2003, 11-May-2004, . USA Today, Software piracy takes toll on global scale,2001, 20-May-2004, . Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Academics, The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000) 55. Nader, Ralph, Consumer Harm in the Microsoft Case: Address to The Bazaar - An Open Source Software Event, 1999, 3-Jun-04, .
Monday, January 13, 2020
Influential Leaders: Julius Caesar vs. Mahatma Gandhi Julius Caesar and Mahatma Gandhi were both leaders from different countries and time periods. Based on the play, Ã¢â¬Å"Julius CaesarÃ¢â¬ by William Shakespeare, and the movie, Ã¢â¬Å"Mahatma GandhiÃ¢â¬ directed by Richard Attenborough it is apparent that these two men were in some way very several similar and in other ways very different characteristics. Both were prominent people and lived lives of great importance and leadership. They both died in similar ways as well. But during their lives each man worked for completely different purposes. Julius Caesar and Mahatma Gandhi were both very influential people during their lives. Caesar was one of the top three men who had power in Rome. Many people respected and trusted Caesar as a leader. Caesar was even offered the crown many times but he refused it. GandhiÃ¢â¬â¢s influence extended beyond the borders of India and reached out to the whole world. GandhiÃ¢â¬â¢s philosophies inspired millions of people. Both menÃ¢â¬â¢s lives have ended in similar ways; they were assassinated. Julius Caesar was lured to the Roman Senate and murdered by several conspirators including his good friend Brutus. Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu fanatic who disagreed with his tolerance of Muslims. Caesar and Gandhi were both very courageous men. They stuck their necks out when they knew there were dangers out there. And the fact that they both were murdered shows how real those dangers actually were. Even though both Caesar and Gandhi were influential leaders, they each had very different views, ideas, and ways of going about doing things. Caesar was an important figure in his society and even had his own army to back him up. CaesarÃ¢â¬â¢s solutions to problems were solved by fighting, such as the time he fought Pompey and became victorious. Gandhi was different. He had no official political title, he did not command any army, and he did not amass any great wealth. GandhiÃ¢â¬â¢s philosophy of non-violence incorporated civil resistance. He believed that non-violent civil resistance, not war, was the way to handle things. He also felt the only solution to hatred, ignorance and fear was love, truth and forgiveness. CaesarÃ¢â¬â¢s and GandhiÃ¢â¬â¢s beliefs were quite different. Both men were assassinated in the middle of their lives, but for very different reasons. Caesar was killed because he was too powerful, and Gandhi was killed because he was too good. Caesar was tooÃ powerful because he was a very ambitious man who was power mad. He even set himself up as dictator for life. Caesar wanted the power for himself, while Gandhi wanted the power for the people. Caesar was constantly living in fear of his life. He was superstitious and seemed on edge in several instances. Gandhi was thrown in jail and beaten numerous times and yet stayed persistent and determined despite all the unfair treatment he had suffered. Gandhi believed in Civil Rights and Democracy, which was the complete opposite of what Caesar wanted. Caesar always thought of himself as perfect and decisive. He loved to be in control and have all the power to himself. He enjoyed feeling higher and better than everyone else. He proved this by ignoring the warnings of the Soothsayer before arriving at the Senate. Gandhi was never an arrogant man as Caesar was. He always thought of himself as an equal, no better that anyone else. He dedicated his whole life to helping others. Gandhi exhibited his leadership by wearing homespun cloth that provided employment for poor people and revived the village economy. Gandhi was a very honorable man. Julius Caesar and Mahatma Gandhi were both very influential and important leaders. They both worked hard at the goals they hoped to achieve. Caesar and Gandhi shared a few character traits but also possessing several different traits, viewpoints, and ideas. Both men made impacts on history during their lifetimes and will be remembered for years to come as brave leaders who risked their lives to achieve their goals.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
As an aspiring professional counselor, it is important to have a solid understanding of the growth and development of children can be affected by attachment to primary caregivers within the first years of life. Attachment theory, which was developed by Erikson and Bowling, describes how the first year of interactions with caregivers serves as model, which heavily influences how children navigate in the world, even into adulthood (Broderick Blewitt, 2015). In this weekÃ¢â¬â¢s assignment, we are challenged to think through the implications of attachment theory as it relates to children who are adopted and children who are raised by their biological parent(s). With the help of various research articles, textbook readings, and case studies, IÃ¢â¬ ¦show more contentÃ¢â¬ ¦Interestingly, none of the children who were institutionalized showed signs of avoidant attachment, even though it would be normal to observe such with children who are raised by their biological mothers (Marcovitch et al., 1997). Although the study is thorough in describing findings among those who are adopted from institutions, specifically orphanages, the study falls short of describing attachment patterns with children who are adopted at birth and had no experience with institutions. Therefore, I do not believe that the study conducted by Marcovitch et al. (1997) describes attachment among all adopted children, but it does describe how children who spend a considerable amount of of their first year of life in orphanages are more likely to have issues later in life since attachment theorist believe that attachment or lack thereof can affect cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development (Broderick Blewitt, 2015). In fact, the outcomes of children who spend a majority of their early years in an institutional setting can be attributed to the Ã¢â¬Å"lack of an attachment figureÃ¢â¬ (Marcovitch et al., 1997, pp. 19). Initial Thoughts Based upon my understanding of the findings from the aforementioned research, I believe that attachment patterns of adopted children and their mothers would be very similar to mothers who are raising their biological children. The reason why I believe this is