kroenke, david textbook pdf download free download using mis 7th edition by new and collectible books available now at abebooks. using mis 5e chapter 1 -. organization's goals and objectives are determined by its using mis 5e chapter 1 - columbia southern university - the importance of mis by david kroenke using. Using Mis Kroenke 5th Edition File Type Pdf - [PDF] [EPUB] Using Mis Kroenke 5th Edition. File Type Pdf Higher Education Products & Services.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|ePub File Size:||18.66 MB|
|PDF File Size:||12.69 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Using MIS (5th Edition): David M. Kroenke: Description. Using MIS, 5e (Kroenke) The International Dimension. True/False Questions. kroenke pdf i am promise you will like the [free] manual for using mis 5th edition kroenke [pdf]. you can download it to using mis 6th edition. edition pdf get free access to pdf ebook kroenke using mis 6th edition at our ebook library if you are looking for database concepts 5th edition.
Operator helps with real emergency fractions homework - Jan 25, They train for many emergency situations, homework help is not one they plan for. We don't recommend for homework help but this. Rising Food Prices Introduction: Food prices have been on the rise and have become a global issue. Prices have soared over the past year and a half and threaten to go up further if issues are not addressed immediately. Below is a look at how prices have been over the past year. High demand for food in developing countries: The growing world population is demanding more and different kinds of food.
When an interviewer asked people in a housing project where the most dangerous spot was, they mentioned a place where young persons gathered to drink and play music, despite the fact that not a single crime had occurred there. In Boston public housing projects, the greatest fear was expressed by persons living in the buildings where disorderliness and incivility, not crime, were the greatest. Knowing this helps one understand the significance of such otherwise harmless displays as subway graffiti.
As Nathan Glazer has written, the proliferation of graffiti, even when not obscene, confronts the subway rider with the inescapable knowledge that the environment he must endure for an hour or more a day is uncontrolled and uncontrollable, and that anyone can invade it to do whatever damage and mischief the mind suggests.
Patrol cars arrive, an occasional arrest occurs but crime continues and disorder is not abated. Citizens complain to the police chief, but he explains that his department is low on personnel and that the courts do not punish petty or first-time offenders. To the residents, the police who arrive in squad cars are either ineffective or uncaring: to the police, the residents are animals who deserve each other. The citizens may soon stop calling the police, because "they can't do anything.
But what is happening today is different in at least two important respects. First, in the period before, say, World War II, city dwellers- because of money costs, transportation difficulties, familial and church connections—could rarely move away from neighborhood problems.
When movement did occur, it tended to be along public-transit routes. Now mobility has become exceptionally easy for all but the poorest or those who are blocked by racial prejudice. Earlier crime waves had a kind of built-in self-correcting mechanism: the determination of a neighborhood or community to reassert control over its turf. Areas in Chicago, New York, and Boston would experience crime and gang wars, and then normalcy would return, as the families for whom no alternative residences were possible reclaimed their authority over the streets.
Second, the police in this earlier period assisted in that reassertion of authority by acting, sometimes violently, on behalf of the community. Young toughs were roughed up, people were arrested "on suspicion" or for vagrancy, and prostitutes and petty thieves were routed. This pattern of policing was not an aberration or the result of occasional excess.
From the earliest days of the nation, the police function was seen primarily as that of a night watchman: to maintain order against the chief threats to order—fire, wild animals, and disreputable behavior. Solving crimes was viewed not as a police responsibility but as a private one.
In the March, , Atlantic, one of us Wilson wrote a brief account of how the police role had slowly changed from maintaining order to fighting crimes. The change began with the creation of private detectives often ex-criminals , who worked on a contingency-fee basis for individuals who had suffered losses.
In time, the detectives were absorbed in municipal agencies and paid a regular salary simultaneously, the responsibility for prosecuting thieves was shifted from the aggrieved private citizen to the professional prosecutor. This process was not complete in most places until the twentieth century. In the ls, when urban riots were a major problem, social scientists began to explore carefully the order maintenance function of the police, and to suggest ways of improving it—not to make streets safer its original function but to reduce the incidence of mass violence.
Order maintenance became, to a degree, coterminous with "community relations. Studies of police behavior ceased, by and large, to be accounts of the order-maintenance function and became, instead, efforts to propose and test ways whereby the police could solve more crimes, make more arrests, and gather better evidence.
If these things could be done, social scientists assumed, citizens would be less fearful.
A great deal was accomplished during this transition, as both police chiefs and outside experts emphasized the crime-fighting function in their plans, in the allocation of resources, and in deployment of personnel. The police may well have become better crime-fighters as a result. And doubtless they remained aware of their responsibility for order.
But the link between order-maintenance and crime-prevention, so obvious to earlier generations, was forgotten. That link is similar to the process whereby one broken window becomes many.
The citizen who fears the ill-smelling drunk, the rowdy teenager, or the importuning beggar is not merely expressing his distaste for unseemly behavior; he is also giving voice to a bit of folk wisdom that happens to be a correct generalization—namely, that serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked.
The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window. Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions.
He cannot be certain what is being said, nor can he join in and, by displaying his own skill at street banter, prove that he cannot be "put down.
If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place. Our experience is that most citizens like to talk to a police officer.
Some police administrators concede that this process occurs, but argue that motorized-patrol officers can deal with it as effectively as foot patrol officers.
In theory, an officer in a squad car can observe as much as an officer on foot; in theory, the former can talk to as many people as the latter.
Such exchanges give them a sense of importance, provide them with the basis for gossip, and allow them to explain to the authorities what is worrying them whereby they gain a modest but significant sense of having "done something" about the problem. But the reality of police-citizen encounters is powerfully altered by the automobile.
You approach a person on foot more easily, and talk to him more readily, than you do a person in a car. An officer on foot cannot separate himself from the street people; if he is approached, only his uniform and his personality can help him manage whatever is about to happen.
Moreover, you can more easily retain some anonymity if you draw an officer aside for a private chat. And he can never be certain what that will be—a request for directions, a plea for help, an angry denunciation, a teasing remark, a confused babble, a threatening gesture.
Suppose you want to pass on a tip about who is stealing handbags, or who offered to sell you a stolen TV. In a car, an officer is more likely to deal with street people by rolling down the window and looking at them. The officer says to one, "C'mere. In the inner city, the culprit, in all likelihood, lives nearby. The door and the window exclude the approaching citizen; they are a barrier. To walk up to a marked patrol car and lean in the window is to convey a visible signal that you are a "fink.
Some officers take advantage of this barrier, perhaps unconsciously, by acting differently if in the car than they would on foot. The police car pulls up to a corner where teenagers are gathered. The police cannot, without committing extraordinary resources, provide a substitute for that informal control. On the other hand, to reinforce those natural forces the police must accommodate them. Should police activity on the street be shaped, in important ways, by the standards of the neighborhood rather than by the rules of the state?
Over the past two decades, the shift of police from order-maintenance to law enforcement has brought them increasingly under the influence of legal restrictions, provoked by media complaints and enforced by court decisions and departmental orders. As a consequence, the order maintenance functions of the police are now governed by rules developed to control police relations with suspected criminals. For centuries, the role of the police as watchmen was judged primarily not in terms of its compliance with appropriate procedures but rather in terms of its attaining a desired objective.
The objective was order, an inherently ambiguous term but a condition that people in a given community recognized when they saw it. The means were the same as those the community itself would employ, if its members were sufficiently determined, courageous, and authoritative. Detecting and apprehending criminals, by contrast, was a means to an end, not an end in itself; a judicial determination of guilt or innocence was the hoped-for result of the law-enforcement mode. From the first, the police were expected to follow rules defining that process, though states differed in how stringent the rules should be.
The criminal-apprehension process was always understood to involve individual rights, the violation of which was unacceptable because it meant that the violating officer would be acting as a judge and jury—and that was not his job. Guilt or innocence was to be determined by universal standards under special procedures. Ordinarily, no judge or jury ever sees the persons caught up in a dispute over the appropriate level of neighborhood order.
That is true not only because most cases are handled informally on the street but also because no universal standards are available to settle arguments over disorder, and thus a judge may not be any wiser or more effective than a police officer.
Until quite recently in many states, and even today in some places, the police made arrests on such charges as "suspicious person" or "vagrancy" or "public drunkenness"—charges with scarcely any legal meaning.
These charges exist not because society wants judges to punish vagrants or drunks but because it wants an officer to have the legal tools to remove undesirable persons from a neighborhood when informal efforts to preserve order in the streets have failed.
Once we begin to think of all aspects of police work as involving the application of universal rules under special procedures, we inevitably ask what constitutes an "undesirable person" and why we should "criminalize" vagrancy or drunkenness. A strong and commendable desire to see that people are treated fairly makes us worry about allowing the police to rout persons who are undesirable by some vague or parochial standard. A growing and not-so-commendable utilitarianism leads us to doubt that any behavior that does not "hurt" another person should be made illegal.
And thus many of us who watch over the police are reluctant to allow them to perform, in the only way they can, a function that every neighborhood desperately wants them to perform.
This wish to "decriminalize" disreputable behavior that "harms no one"- and thus remove the ultimate sanction the police can employ to maintain neighborhood order—is, we think, a mistake. Arresting a single drunk or a single vagrant who has harmed no identifiable person seems unjust, and in a sense it is. But failing to do anything about a score of drunks or a hundred vagrants may destroy an entire community. A particular rule that seems to make sense in the individual case makes no sense when it is made a universal rule and applied to all cases.
It makes no sense because it fails to take into account the connection between one broken window left untended and a thousand broken windows. Of course, agencies other than the police could attend to the problems posed by drunks or the mentally ill, but in most communities especially where the "deinstitutionalization" movement has been strong—they do not.
We might agree that certain behavior makes one person more undesirable than another but how do we ensure that age or skin color or national origin or harmless mannerisms will not also become the basis for distinguishing the undesirable from the desirable?
How do we ensure, in short, that the police do not become the agents of neighborhood bigotry? We can offer no wholly satisfactory answer to this important question. We are not confident that there is a satisfactory answer except to hope that by their selection, training, and supervision, the police will be inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of their discretionary authority.
That limit, roughly, is this—the police exist to help regulate behavior, not to maintain the racial or ethnic purity of a neighborhood. Consider the case of the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, one of the largest public-housing projects in the country. It is home for nearly 20, people, all black, and extends over ninety-two acres along South State Street. It was named after a distinguished black who had been, during the s, chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority.
Not long after it opened, in , relations between project residents and the police deteriorated badly. The citizens felt that the police were insensitive or brutal; the police, in turn, complained of unprovoked attacks on them. Police-citizen relations have improved—apparently, both sides learned something from the earlier experience.
Several young persons who saw the theft voluntarily passed along to the police information on the identity and residence of the thief, and they did this publicly, with friends and neighbors looking on. Some Chicago officers tell of times when they were afraid to enter the Homes.
But problems persist, chief among them the presence of youth gangs that terrorize residents and recruit members in the project. The people expect the police to "do something" about this, and the police are determined to do just that.
Though the police can obviously make arrests whenever a gang member breaks the law, a gang can form, recruit, and congregate without breaking the law. And only a tiny fraction of gang-related crimes can be solved by an arrest; thus, if an arrest is the only recourse for the police, the residents' fears will go unassuaged. The police will soon feel helpless, and the residents will again believe that the police "do nothing. In the words of one officer, "We kick ass.
The tacit police-citizen alliance in the project is reinforced by the police view that the cops and the gangs are the two rival sources of power in the area, and that the gangs are not going to win.
None of this is easily reconciled with any conception of due process or fair treatment. Since both residents and gang members are black, race is not a factor. Suppose a white project confronted a black gang, or vice versa. We would be apprehensive about the police taking sides.
But the substantive problem remains the same: how can the police strengthen the informal social-control mechanisms of natural communities in order to minimize fear in public places? Law enforcement, per se, is no answer: a gang can weaken or destroy a community by standing about in a menacing fashion and speaking rudely to passersby without breaking the law. We have difficulty thinking about such matters, not simply because the ethical and legal issues are so complex but because we have become accustomed to thinking of the law in essentially individualistic terms.
The law defines my rights, punishes his behavior and is applied by that officer because of this harm. We assume, in thinking this way, that what is good for the individual will be good for the community and what doesn't matter when it happens to one person won't matter if it happens to many. But in cases where behavior that is tolerable to one person is intolerable to many others, the reactions of the others—fear, withdrawal, flight—may ultimately make matters worse for everyone, including the individual who first professed his indifference.
It may be their greater sensitivity to communal as opposed to individual needs that helps explain why the residents of small communities are more satisfied with their police than are the residents of similar neighborhoods in big cities. Elinor Ostrom and her co-workers at Indiana University compared the perception of police services in two poor, all-black Illinois towns—Phoenix and East Chicago Heights with those of three comparable all-black neighborhoods in Chicago.
The level of criminal victimization and the quality of police-community relations appeared to be about the same in the towns and the Chicago neighborhoods. But the citizens living in their own villages were much more likely than those living in the Chicago neighborhoods to say that they do not stay at home for fear of crime, to agree that the local police have "the right to take any action necessary" to deal with problems, and to agree that the police "look out for the needs of the average citizen.
If this is true, how should a wise police chief deploy his meager forces? The first answer is that nobody knows for certain, and the most prudent course of action would be to try further variations on the Newark experiment, to see more precisely what works in what kinds of neighborhoods. The second answer is also a hedge—many aspects of order maintenance in neighborhoods can probably best be handled in ways that involve the police minimally if at all.
Requiring everyone to be at the same place at the same time is expensive and aggravating. IS can greatly facilitate virtual meetings. Possibly, your default should be that all meetings are virtual.
Virtual Ethics? Ask students to assess their ethics about virtual- meeting spoofing. Address, as a class, the issue of cheating on online tests. With virtual meetings, however, it is impossible to know that only authorized people are attending the meetings and that people are who they say they are.
In most meetings, there is no deception, but the possibility exists. I believe that any deception is a violation of a commonly accepted business code and is therefore unethical. I once had a professor perform a review of a text manuscript by giving the manuscript to his college-age daughter to read and comment upon.
He made no indication that he did this. However, my editor followed up for clarification on several points, and the professor admitted that he had not read the manuscript. All of us felt deceived and cheated.
Even though his daughter had made interesting and useful comments, the editorial team felt tricked and betrayed. One could make the argument, however, that as long as the parties are better off, then spoofing is ethical. For example, if someone sends a better-qualified coworker to a virtual meeting, then one could argue everyone is better off because the team gains the expertise of the better-qualified worker.
To me, though, the deception makes the action unethical. Students should be aware that in virtual meetings every- one may not be who they say they are. Although I think actual spoofing is rare, I think it is common for people to silently attend meetings.
On any conference call or multi- party chat session, students should learn to expect that there are unannounced people in the meeting. Never criticize anyone in a conference call or chat session.
For all you know, that person may be in the meeting. Never give confidential information in such a call either. You have no way of knowing who is actually in the virtual room. And, if in fact a student truly believes that, then the matter should be brought to the attention of the professor. If everyone has a helper, then having helpers should be stated as the accepted practice, or groups should be officially allowed to take tests as a group.
However, because grades are used for competi- tive purposes, then those who use test helpers are gaining an unethical competitive advantage.
Unless group test-taking is the accepted practice, having a helper is always cheating and is unethical. It is illegal to spoof policemen, firemen, and military personnel. It is probably illegal to spoof certain professionals such as doctors, nurses, architects, and licensed engineers.
In general, however, it is not illegal to spoof someone. If the person who is being spoofed gives permission for the act, then he or she is culpable if the behavior is illegal.
Spoofing is unethical. Almost every businessperson would define deception as unacceptable. Consequently, because ethical behavior is defined as adhering to a group norm, deception in the form of spoofing is always unethical. If the person being spoofed is aware of the deception, then he or she is culpable in the unethical act. None, for the reasons described in 2. Communication among members of the group who were supposed to be in the meeting will be surreal.
Everyone will think that others know something that they do not know. The people who were at the meeting will know what transpired. They will not be expected to know anything about the meeting, yet will be the only ones who do know. This example is so overdrawn that it is almost silly. It points, however, to the communication problems that develop in organizations where deception is practiced. The only difference between text chat and speaker phones or conference calls is that it is easier to spoof 5.
Yes, we have always had these problems, and yes, they have always been unethical. Text chat makes it easier and therefore possibly more prevalent. For any virtual meeting, whether via voice or text chat, always assume that unknown, unannounced people may be on the call or in the meeting.
I think this gets into a gray area. If you are setting up the meeting and if you know that Bill has an interest in the outcome, you probably do have an ethical responsibility to invite him. However, if you have no particular responsibility to invite Bill, if Bill would not feel betrayed by you for not inviting him, then your action may not be unethical.
You do not, after all, have an ethical responsibility to bring trouble into your business life. No, not ethical. This sort of behavior has a way of coming back at the perpetrator. You can't disclaim those ideas; and if you try, you'll look even worse. It is always cheating and unethical to have a helper on an online test.
Whether such tests should be used at all depends on the importance of the grade of the test. If the test largely determines a course grade, I believe that their use should be avoided.
WRAP UP In any conference call, speaker-phone call, or multiparty chat session, assume that unannounced guests may be on the line. Govern your comments as if you do not know who is in the room, because, indeed, you do not know.
Spoofing someone is always unethical and it may be illegal, depending on whom you are spoofing. If you know that someone is spoofing you, you share responsibility for the unethical behavior. Having helpers on online tests is cheating and is always unethical.
Understand the risks to organizational data when data is shared with nonemployee personnel. The more people who have access to data, the greater the likelihood of data loss. For example, if the probability that any single person uses data in only authorized ways is 0. However, if the group has 50 people, the probability that everyone in the group uses data in authorized ways falls to 0. This change occurs simply because with more people there is more chance that someone will use the data inappropriately.
Now, there is always risk in sharing data. If I attach a document with confidential data to an email and send it to a large group of people, I am exposing that confidential data to considerable risk.
However, it is just one document. Suppose, instead, that I place numerous documents, schedules, tasks, and sketches on a Windows Live SkyDrive site and open that site to a large number of people.
I am exposing that semantically linked group of documents to considerable risk. In some ways, the risk of sharing a SkyDrive site is greater than sharinga file server.
Most file servers have so many documents that it can be difficult to find everything about some topic. All of the documents on a team site, however, contain data of interest to the purpose of the team.
Critical documents have been centralized in one spot. If you are looking for a good book to start researching the Terra Nova Expedition, I suggest starting with this book and admiring these photos that, thanks to the author and his team behind the book, will live on in history forever. If you are someone interested, as I am, in the heroic age of Polar exploration, this book is for you. The photos are huge and beautifully reproduced.
If you have read Scott's journal or Huntford's book or Crane's or Cherry-Garrard's, you have formed an image in your mind of what it must have looked like to be at Hut Point or starting the trek up the Beardmore Glacier or pulling a heavily-laden sledge. This wonderful book gives you exactly what it looked like: You need not delve into the controversy concerning Scott's leadership; just immerse yourself in the immense whiteness that those intrepid men entered into of their own free will, and be amazed that ANY of them lived through it.
Short of going there yourself, there is nothing like this book. The photos are supplemented by numerous excellent, detailed maps, better than I have seen in any other book, that give the reader a very good idea of where the photos were taken. The accompanying text is generally helpful, though it begins and ends with a strange attempt to impose a supernatural "camera as Jonah" silliness on the photos that I found very distracting.
Other than the words of the explorers themselves, this is the most valuable book I have seen about Scott's last expedition.
I have been fascinated by the Antarctic since a little boy and Scott and his four comrades is still regarded as the epitome of British endeavour. This book only assists in this manner. This beautifully complements Scott's diaries "The Last Expedition" not only through the photographs themselves, but by the details and maps in Wilson's narrative. Scott has been cruely used and maligned-first by the establishment who used his death to inspire similar acts of sacrifice for the country in the first world war, and then maliciously slandered by Roland Hartford who attempted to portray Scott as an ignorant buffoon whose ineptitude led to his own and his companions deaths.
Both are wrong and have served only to airbrush from history how important a scientific exploration Scott's was,and how first rate he was as an explorer. Wilson puts both of these abuses of Scott's legacy in the graves they deserve and reveals Scott the man and naturalist explorer. That Scott endured freak weather conditions known now to occur very rarely;Hartford and co all ignore this and the fact that in ,very little was known at all about Antarctica;Scott studied and used all the known data from Cook to Ross to Shackleton's early south pole expedition;none foresaw temperatures of f for over a month plus associated blizzards.
It was known as a safe period,with temperatures of -4f to f. That Amundsen had all the luck Scott didn't is hardly a reason to damn him, and by common consent,Amundsen's expedition was worthless;no scientific data was collated-even his route wasn't mapped!.
As Scott said,it was simply bad luck and down to providence and was used by people for their own ends war propaganda or-in Hartfords case, easy money by slandering the dead really shouldn't rubbish Scott as a great man. The poignancy of these photographs that are of a doomed set of people easily equals the poignancy of Scott's diaries.
Verified download. This provides a very interesting additional perspective on Scott's Terra Nova Expedition. Although it is quite a large format, the publishers have seen fit to print some pictures so large that they require two pages.
Whilst I understand the desire to provide greater magnification, I wish that they'd left these images whole and uninterrupted on a single page. Still, worth owning.
I bought this book as a Christmas present for my husband who enjoyed it immensely. It has now become a "coffee table" book and everyone who has seen it has enjoyed it. The pictures are great as is the accompanying printed matter. Anyone who knows this story will find the book entrancing and those who don't know it will find it equally fascinating. Wonderful, wonderful pictures. Captain Scott amazing photos The quality of the photos is incredibly. See all 59 reviews.