Essay --

(1.) Verification and observation is not the same thing. When you verify a theory, you have at least partially found support for its truth through observation. When you falsify a theory, you have definitely found support for its un-truth, through observation. Verifiability and falsifiability are contrasting methodologies in the sense that they each emphasize different values of truth: verifiability on â€Å"truth† (at least partial) and falsifiability on â€Å"false.† Consider the classic example of the white swan. Swans in Europe were white so each separate observation of a swan came back as white. Therefore, the induction produces the conclusion that all swans are white. Seemingly giving confirmation, each separate observation verified the conclusion â€Å"all swans are white.† The evidence of course was overpowering, that is until they learned that Australia had black swans. With this singular observation, all the thousands of verifications of white swans were unconcluded. That is the strength of falsification. A singular observation or experiment can toss everything away. Both verifiability and falsifiability share the shortcoming that it can’t reach absolute truth. Verifiability can’t reach absolute truth because of the complications with induction. Falsifiability can’t reach absolute truth for a couple reasons. First, proving that a theory is false only verifies that the negation is true. That’s not much concerning scientific advancement. Second is because of falsifiability identification, with the demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science, a (supposed) true theory can’t be scientific, because it can’t be falsified. The plausibility of scientific theory in verificationism is â€Å"strong† supporting evidence. ... ...ur deficient human understanding that inhibits us from perceiving it so. The methods of holism don’t seem to be wholly at odds with the traditional scientific method. That being said, holism doesn’t strictly adhere to the scientific method notwithstanding the usage of a scientific-sounding language and can produce neither specific predictions about the natural world nor consequential insights. This reductionism seems to assume that by examining the mechanisms of nature we can predict and consequently control it. Holism does not solve the demarcation problem. A pseudo-science has the solution to everything and can never â€Å"not be true,† whereas a science doesn’t have the solution to everything and can â€Å"always be false.† Religion is only a pseudo-science when it takes itself to be resolving scientific questions; otherwise it is perfectly consequential for Popper. Essay -- (1.) Verification and observation is not the same thing. When you verify a theory, you have at least partially found support for its truth through observation. When you falsify a theory, you have definitely found support for its un-truth, through observation. Verifiability and falsifiability are contrasting methodologies in the sense that they each emphasize different values of truth: verifiability on â€Å"truth† (at least partial) and falsifiability on â€Å"false.† Consider the classic example of the white swan. Swans in Europe were white so each separate observation of a swan came back as white. Therefore, the induction produces the conclusion that all swans are white. Seemingly giving confirmation, each separate observation verified the conclusion â€Å"all swans are white.† The evidence of course was overpowering, that is until they learned that Australia had black swans. With this singular observation, all the thousands of verifications of white swans were unconcluded. That is the strength of falsification. A singular observation or experiment can toss everything away. Both verifiability and falsifiability share the shortcoming that it can’t reach absolute truth. Verifiability can’t reach absolute truth because of the complications with induction. Falsifiability can’t reach absolute truth for a couple reasons. First, proving that a theory is false only verifies that the negation is true. That’s not much concerning scientific advancement. Second is because of falsifiability identification, with the demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science, a (supposed) true theory can’t be scientific, because it can’t be falsified. The plausibility of scientific theory in verificationism is â€Å"strong† supporting evidence. ... ...ur deficient human understanding that inhibits us from perceiving it so. The methods of holism don’t seem to be wholly at odds with the traditional scientific method. That being said, holism doesn’t strictly adhere to the scientific method notwithstanding the usage of a scientific-sounding language and can produce neither specific predictions about the natural world nor consequential insights. This reductionism seems to assume that by examining the mechanisms of nature we can predict and consequently control it. Holism does not solve the demarcation problem. A pseudo-science has the solution to everything and can never â€Å"not be true,† whereas a science doesn’t have the solution to everything and can â€Å"always be false.† Religion is only a pseudo-science when it takes itself to be resolving scientific questions; otherwise it is perfectly consequential for Popper.

Homeland Security

Homeland Security Community Threat Assessment Jesse Anderson Boston University Abstract The purpose of this brief is to provide Homeland Security with a terrorist threat assessment of the local community. It is suspected that an eco-terrorist organization is forming in the area. The organization’s structure, typology and force multipliers are analyzed. The primary goal of Homeland Security as listed in the National Strategy for Homeland Security is the prevention and disruption of terrorist attacks (Department of Homeland Security, 2007, p. ). Despite the fact that the largest terrorist threat comes from Islamic extremist groups, other organizations that pose a threat to the Homeland must be monitored by federal, state and local governments as well. As a nation, â€Å"we confront an ongoing threat posed by domestic terrorists based and operating strictly within the United States. Often referred to as ‘single-issue’ groups, they include white supremacist groups, a nimal rights extremists, and eco-terrorist groups, among others† (Department of Homeland Security, 2007, p. 10).Since September 11th, radical environmental groups engaged in eco-terrorism have been identified as the leading domestic terrorist threat (Vanderheiden, 2005, p. 425). It is my opinion that this type of organization is forming in the local community. Their actions thus far fall under the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism, and their organization can be classified under a domestic geographical typology and a cause-based mode of attack typology. The organization utilizes a pyramidal structure with command, support, intelligence and tactical divisions.Technological and media force multipliers may be used to increase the striking power of the small organization. The FBI defines domestic terrorism as â€Å"the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico with out foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives† (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2005, p. v).Recently, vandalism and arson were committed at a local construction site in which trees needed to be cut down to make room for a new housing development. This unlawful use of violence in the name of an environmental cause meant to intimidate the company funding the housing development falls under the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism. According to Ash (as cited in Kegley, Jr. , 2003), there are four things to look at when deciding whether someone is a terrorist: biography, goals, methods, and context (p. 62). Graffiti at the scene suggests that the offenders are associated with the Earth Liberation Front.In the past, this organization has had similar incidents of violence and vandalism to intimidate anti-environmental compani es all over the nation. The goal of E. L. F â€Å"is to cause targeted economic harm to anti-environmental offenders in order to remove the profit motive from killing the earth and all life on it† (Vanderheiden, 2005, p. 426). This goal is achieved through property attacks using methods of vandalism, arson, and bombings. Members are not oppressed, and have the ability to air their grievances and make their cause known peacefully.Thus, instilling fear in the public through violent property attacks with the aim of achieving political and social objectives can not be justified. Therefore, using the FBI definition and through examination of biography, goals, methods and context, it is determined that the local E. L. F. group is a terrorist organization. This organization can be classified through geographical or modes of attack typologies. Since the attack was committed within this country by residents of this country, the organization is classified as domestic (Goldstein, 2008, Typologies of Terrorism section).Under the modes of attack typology, this organization is classified as â€Å"cause-based†. This is because the group is devoted to an environmental social cause, and is using violence and vandalism to â€Å"address their grievances† (Goldstein, 2008, Typologies of Terrorism section). As the case with most terrorist organizations, the group’s structure is most likely pyramidal with command, support, tactical and intelligence subsections (Goldstein, 2008, Organization of a Terrorist Group section). The person in command is at the tip of the pyramid and oversees all aspects of the operation.The support section is responsible for the materials necessary for the attacks. Surveillance, planning, and target assessment is the responsibility of the intelligence section. Finally, the tactical section carries out the actual terrorist action. Although the local E. L. F. group is estimated to be small in number, force multipliers allow for th e â€Å"increase in striking power without increasing the strength of the unit† (White, 2009, pp. 98-99). This organization will most likely utilize technology and the media as force multipliers. Eco-terrorists like the E. L. F. re careful to cause damage only to property and not people. Therefore, the use of weapons of mass destruction is unlikely. Cyberterrorism, however, is a possibility. â€Å"Cyberterrorism refers to the use of computers to attack technological targets or physical attacks on computer networks† (White, 2009, p. 101). Many companies in this area that could be targets for this local E. L. F. group rely heavily on computer networks. The use of computer viruses to attack the information structures of these companies would cause a great deal of harm, making it a very attractive option.Additionally, media reports on arsons and bombings committed by the organization gives â€Å"recognition to their causes, grievances and demands† and can also serve as a â€Å"psychological weapon† (White, 2009, p. 205). As such, the use of cyberterrorism and the media as force multipliers should be anticipated. In conclusion, Homeland Security’s dedication to preventing and disrupting terrorist attacks in America has led to an analysis of suspected terrorist activity in the local community. Islamic extremist groups may pose the greatest terrorist threat to America, but there are still domestic terrorist organizations that need to be confronted.It is suspected that an eco-terrorist organization affiliated with the Earth Liberation Front has formed in the local community. This local E. L. F. group can be determined as a terrorist organization through application of the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism and the examination of its biography, goals, context, and violent methods. The organization can be classified as domestic or cause-based under geographical or modes of attack typologies. Furthermore, a pyramid structure with command, support, intelligence and tactical subsections is most likely being used.Along with traditional modes of attack, media and technological force multipliers might be used by the organization to increase their striking power.

Regulating Inventory - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2058 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/09/22 Category Advertising Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? Regulating Inventory – An Examination of AASB 102 â€Å"Inventories† Inventories are in essence what organisations hold with an intention to sell, however directly or indirectly. For most businesses, this is how their profits are made, and it is reasonable to assume that these items account for much of an organisation’s activities. Such a big influence on indicators of financial performance and position warrants an equally large need for regulation to ensure that users of the financial statements are given a clear picture of the state the organisation is in. The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) is responsible for developing the standards that govern the way reporting entities disclose their accounting figures. Despite much international debate, the regulation of inventories has changed over the years, and problems that appear in even the current regulations make it likely that more changes are to come. The standards governing inventories ar e contained in AASB 102 â€Å"Inventories. Paragraph 6 of this standard defines inventories as assets held for sale in the ordinary course of business, in the process of production for such sales, or held in the form of materials or supplies to be consumed in the production process or rendering of services (2009). In order to give more conservative figures for the value of inventories held, they are to be valued at the â€Å"lower of cost and net realisable value† under paragraph 9, net realisable value being defined in paragraph 7 as the net amount expected to be realised from the sale of the inventory in the ordinary course of business. The â€Å"cost† of inventories is defined as â€Å"all costs of purchase and conversion, and other costs incurred in bringing the inventories to their present location and condition,† in paragraph 10. Paragraphs 11-15 define the three elements of this cost. The â€Å"cost of purchase† includes in addition to the purc hase price, any costs incurred in the acquisition of the finished goods less any discounts or rebates. Conversion costs† includes costs incurred in the production of the finished goods, such as direct labour. In compliance with paragraph 6 of AASB 102, paragraph 12 states that fixed production and manufacturing overheads, such as factory depreciation or rent, must also be allocated to the cost of inventories as they are incurred as conversion costs to the same extent as direct labour and other variable costs (Deegan, 2010, pp. 227). This is done using the â€Å"absorption costing† method, the method required by AASB 102, although â€Å"standard costs,† that is predetermined product costs based on prior planning, can be used where they can be attained realistically and reviewed regularly. In order to provide consistent cost figures, paragraph 13 prescribes that costs be allocated based on â€Å"normal capacity,† the production expected to be achieved based on the average production of past periods, and taking into account diminished production levels resulting from planned maintenance. However actual production levels may be used if they approximate normal capacity. Additionally AASB 102 allows different methods of measuring cost for service providers, agricultural produce harvested from biological assets, and retailers. Paragraph 19 requires that service providers include labour, other costs of personnel directly engaged in providing the service, and attributable overheads. In administering the measurement of agricultural inventories, paragraph 20 makes reference to another standard AASB 141, which requires that the cost harvested inventories be measured at their fair value less the costs to sell at the point of harvest. The retail method is set out in paragraph 22, and requires the cost of inventory to be determined by reducing the sales value of the inventory by an average gross margin (i. e mark-up) percentage for each relev ant department, taking into account any mark-ups or mark-downs applied. |Cost ($) |Cost relating to | | | |inventory | |Rent – administration building |20 000 | | |Rent – factory building |25 000 |25 000 | |Office stationery |500 |- | |Salaries – administrative staff |30 000 |- | |Salaries – factory staff |20 000 |20 000 | |Raw materials |5 000 |5 000 | |Freight n of raw material |1 000 |1 000 | |Freight out to customers |1 000 |- | |Depreciation – plant |1 500 |1 500 | |Depreciation – office furniture |1 000 |- | |Late payment expense on raw materials |500 |- | |Total |105 500 |52 500 | |Table 1. 0 – Example of costs | An example of a set of costs can be found in Table 1. 0. In this example, AASB 102 requires that the purchase and freight of raw materials be included as costs of purchase as they are directly attributable to the acquisition of finished goods. The rent and depreciation of the factory and salaries of factory staff are t o be included in the cost of inventories as costs of conversion as they are incurred in the process of converting the materials into finished goods. Under paragraph 16, the salaries of administrative staff, rent of the administration building, and depreciation of office furniture are not included as they are not incurred in bringing the inventories to their present location. Freight out to customers does not take place in the process of acquiring finished goods or converting materials and so is not included, and although the late payment expense seems to be incurred in the process of acquisition or conversion, it is more a consequence of the mismanagement of accounts payable (Deegan, 2010 pp. 227), and therefore not included in the cost of inventories. After the application of paragraph 10 of AASB 102, the total cost of inventories is $52 500. If for example the normal capacity for production were 10 000 units, the cost per unit of inventory would be $52 500 ? 10 000, or $5. 2 5. The net realisable value of the inventory will be equal to the selling price, for example $15 per unit, less the estimated cost of completion and cost necessary to make the sale (say, $5. 30 per unit), which is $9. 70 per unit. In accordance with paragraph 9, the lower of the two values is the one that should be used for reporting, which is the cost of $5. 25 per unit. To negate the impracticality of valuing each individual item of inventory, AASB 102 allows assumptions to be made regarding the cost-flow of inventories and valuation of ending inventory. Aside from the â€Å"specific identification† method, where cost is assigned to each individual item, paragraph 25 sets out that the cost of inventories may also be assigned by the â€Å"weighted average† and â€Å"first-in-first-out (FIFO)† methods. The International Accounting Standard IAS 2 allowed another method known as â€Å"last-in-first-out (LIFO),† but the standard was amended in 2004 to pro hibit it due to it being used to obtain lower tax obligations. Paragraph 25 states that an entity should use the same cost method for all inventories similar in nature and purpose. The weighted-average approach adds the period’s cost of goods to the opening inventory cost and divides the result by the total number of inventories acquired. Ending inventory is valued using this average price. The FIFO method assumes that the first goods purchased are the first goods to be sold. Under this method, the ending balance is valued based on the costs of more recent purchases. The LIFO method is the opposite of FIFO, where the ending balance is valued based on the costs of earlier purchases (Deegan, 2010 pp. 234). As far as reporting is concerned, if the physical inventories follow the same assumptions the selected cost-flow method uses, no material problems arise. However, problems become more apparent when the cost-flow method is only reflected by accounting figures and not by act ual inventory flow. Where prices normally increase over time due to inflation, the LIFO method assumes that more recent purchases, which are more expensive, are sold first. This results in a higher cost of goods sold which equates to a lower profit, and an understatement of ending inventory if the newest physical goods were not the first goods actually sold. This lower profit is one of the reasons LIFO was a popular tool for reducing income tax. LIFO can also distort major ratios such as the current, debt-to-equity, and turnover ratios. Another limitation of LIFO is that the valuation process cannot be run smoothly throughout the year; In essence, it is a year-end calculation more information relies on forecasts of future prices instead of the inventory lready on hand (Gibson, 2002), which results in an increased need for adjustments, a higher possibility of errors occurring, and higher costs to oversee the system. Such problems have seen LIFO eventually being prohibited by the International Accounting Standards Board in 2004. |[pic] | |Graph 1. 0 – Profit differences of LIFO FIFO | The FIFO method reflects the actual inventory-cost-flow of most entities (especially those trading perishable items) and is favoured by the IASB and AASB over the prohibited LIFO. However, even the FIFO method is also far from flawless. With prices usually rising, the assumption that the first goods purchased are the first to be sold results in the reported figure for profit being inflated (as shown in Graph 1. 0), due to the cost of goods sold remaining at a historical level, although the cost to replace that good has risen (Miller, 2004). Although paragraph 32 and 33 of AASB 102 allows adjustments to be made to the values of inventory, these only include write-downs of net realisable value, and the reversal of such write-downs. The Framework of the AASB for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements sets out the objective of financial statements as be ing to provide understandable, relevant, reliable, and comparable information that is useful to a wide range of users in the course of making economic decisions (AASB, 2004). AASB 102 tries to establish understandability by requiring financial statements to disclose the accounting policies adopted in measuring the inventories including the cost formulas and methods used, as well as the total carrying amount of inventories and the carrying amount in classifications appropriate to the entity, the carrying amount of inventories carried at fair value less costs to sell, the amount of inventories recognised as an expense during the period, and the circumstances, results and reversals of any write-downs carried out under paragraphs 32 and 33 (2009). The characteristics â€Å"comparability† and â€Å"reliability† are perhaps the most troublesome in terms of standardisation and regulation. As different organisations may have different needs in terms of inventory management, it may be possible that methods other than the specific-identification, weighted-average, and FIFO methods may provide a more comparable view of their performances and positions, however it is clear that regulators face a situation where the risks of easy embezzlement must be weighed against the goal of easy and absolute comparability. The components of comparability and reliability are dealt with in paragraphs 9 to 22, where the methods of inventory measurement are set out, and paragraphs 23 to 33, which set out the methods of inventory valuation. In order to help prevent profit manipulation, the standard precludes LIFO from its list of inventory valuation methods. The issue of reliability is also raised in paragraph 13, which requires that total inventory costs be allocated on the basis of â€Å"normal capacity,† which is a average figure of expected production. In a case of low or idle production, unit costs would appear to be higher due to the inclusion of fixed produ ction cost. This is dealt with by allowing the figure for normal capacity to take into account any decreased production due to planned maintenance. In a perfect standardised environment, only one set of methods would be sufficient but for now, the AASB has settled for allowing three methods of inventory valuation, and five techniques for measuring inventories. These provisions encompass a wide array of business types which allows a comfortable degree of comparability in financial data. However, the freedom given in the valuation and measurement of inventory in order to encourage better comparability comes at the price of the possible problems arising from inconsistencies between accounting practices and physical inventory movement. These inaccuracies can lead to profit and asset balances grossly over or under-stated, giving users a tainted picture of an organisation’s condition. While covering a lot of ground, it is quite clear that the current standards governing inven tory reporting have room for improvement. References Australian Accounting Standards Board (2009, November 2). AASB 102 Inventories. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from https://www. aasb. com. au/admin/file/content105/c9/AASB102_07-04_COMPjun09_01-09. pdf Australian Accounting Standards Board (2004, July). Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from https://www. aasb. com. u/admin/file/content105/c9/AASB102_07-04_COMPjun09_01-09. pdf Deegan, C. (2010). Australian Financial Accounting (6th ed. ). North Ryde, NSW: McGraw Hill Gibson, S. C. (2002, October). LIFO vs FIFO: a return to the basics. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from https://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_m0ITW/is_2_85/ai_n14897182/ Miller, P. B. W. (2004, June 1). Its time to get rid of LIFO conformity: IASBs move to ban LIFO deserves a thoughtful response. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from https://www. allbusiness. com/government/business-regulations/171735-1. html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sub-period No. Sales Price LIFO Profit FIFO Profit Cost Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Regulating Inventory" essay for you Create order