Soccer :: Art

Soccer My favorite recreational activity is soccer. I play soccer a lot and have been playing for five or six seasons. in a game not long ago I made a hat trick , or three goals in one game. We placed second in our league this year. Their are lots of rules in soccer and they are all very important. If you don’t follow them you will pay the consequences. I’ll tell you about them in this paper. Probably the most important rule is that you can’t touch the ball with your hands. If you do you will be penalized by the other team getting an indirect kick or a direct kick. The only time it will be a direct kick because of a hand ball will be when the hand ball is in the goalie box. Another rule of soccer is that you can’t hit the other players or curse at them. If you do hit another player you will either get a yellow card or a red card depending on the severeness of the hit and if was an accident or not. A yellow card is a caution and a red card puts you out of the game. Soccer is played al over the country and all over the world. It is a sport that is in the summer Olympics. The games will be held in Atlanta this year and teams from all over the world will be playing there. Hopefully we will get tickets to one of the games because I really want to see one. Soccer is a very fun sport and is very good for me. I love it and will always play it. You should try it you have not already tried it. Bicycling Riding my bike is my favorite recreational activity. I have a haro race group 1zI. I ride every day and often ride to school. Their are many tipes of bikes for sale these days. My freinds all ride too. Sometimes we go all over town just for fun. There are many kinds of tricks you can do on bikes. Some of them are very difficult and others are very hard and take a while to learn. I can only do a few simple ones. One of the tricks is called an indo. This one I can do and quite well. It’s really pretty simple all you have to do is get going pretty slow and hit the front brakes.

The Biblical Flood of Genesis Based Upon the Flood of the Epic of Gilga

Biblical  Flood Based Upon the Flood of Gilgamesh      Ã‚  Ã‚   In the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists unearthed twelve clay tablets. Around the turn of the twentieth century, archaeologists finally managed to decipher the tablets written in Akkadian, the language of ancient royalty and diplomacy. The tablets tell of the story of Gilgamesh. (1) The eleventh tablet tells that Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality set out on a long journey to look for his ancestor, Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim was already bestowed with eternal life by the gods. Upon reaching the island of Utnapishtim's abode, Gilgamesh was told a story by his ancestor of a great flood that once swept the world. (2) The similarity between this story and that of Genesis is astounding. The table below gives a comparison of both these stories.    The Epic of Gilgamesh The Book of Genesis (Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh that he was a true worshipper of the god Ea. When the gods decided to destroy mankind by a flood, Ea warned his devotee and told him): â€Å"O man of Shurrupak, son of Ubar-Tutu, tear down your house and built a ship; abandon wealth seek after life; scorn possessions save your life. Bring up the seed of all kinds of living things into the ship; the ship which you shall built. Let its dimensions be well measured.† Genesis 6:13-14 And God said to Noah â€Å"I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them...Make yourself an ark...† Genesis 6: 17-19 â€Å"For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh...but...you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and you sons’ wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring... ... M. Readings in Ancient History: Thought and Experience from Gilganesh to St. Augustine. Third edition. Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath and Co., 1987.    Budge, E. A. Babylonian Story of the Deluge and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Montana, USA: Kessinger Publishing Co., n.d.    Gardner, John and John Maier. Gilgamesh: Translated from the Sin-leqi-unninni version. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.    Harris, Stephen L. â€Å"Gilgamesh.† The Humanist Tradition in World Literature. Ed. Stephen Harris. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1970.    Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.    Ignatius Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966.    Sandars. N. K. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York: Penguin Books, 1972.   

Lessons Concerning Staffing Decisions and Bringing About School Change Essay

Gary Hopkins, in his article, enumerated some of the lessons learned by principals on making staff decisions and bringing about school change. These lessons came from the principals that have learned them from mistakes made first hand. They hope to give advice to new school administrators or even those current ones in decision-making regarding staff members, hiring new ones, and making changes with school tradition or policy. Hopkins (2004), in one of his headings, said that â€Å"hiring decisions are the most importatnt decisions. One principal confessed that he had hired a teachers who should have been on an IEP (Individualized Education Program) herself. The principal confessed that he had just listened to verbal recommendations only and did not make any further background check on the teacher before hiring her. The lesson: don’t do a â€Å"reference check without asking specific, detailed questions on the performance and personality background of a potential candidate† (Hopkins 2004). Another lesson when it comes to the staff is involving them to the decision-making. Collaboration and participation is imperative,† (Hopkins 2004) according to one of the principals in Hopkins’ article. Listening to staff members will ensure their support in any decisions made most of the time, whether they agree with it or not. â€Å"People will often accept a decision or outcome contrary to what they wanted oiginally if they believe their point of view was listened to respectfully and taken into consideration,† (Hopkins 2004) that’s according to another principal in Hopkins’ article. Another principal adviced that recognizing of teachers, or just saying ‘thanks’ for any favor will pay back tenfold. In the end, she held that â€Å"what we do is all about people, not policy. This is not to say that we don’t follow policy, but we have a lot of flexibility when deciding what is best for kids† (Hopkins 2004). However, the most difficult situation that the principal may face is when proposing or deciding to change something within the school, even if it is for the best interest of the students. One principal shared that â€Å"the biggest challenge I have found is balancing the need to both honor a school’s past and move it into the future†¦ I constantly struggle with how to delicately let people know that sometimes ‘the way we’ve always done it’ is just not good enough† (Hopkins 2004). Bringing about change is really a difficult task in any field, not just with education. Even when one has already made the step to listen to the members’ opinions, people most of the times are afraid of change and will oppose it rigorously. Finding the right blend of diplomacy and chiding, professional development and empowerment, top-down delivery and delegation are just a handful of the issues principals must consider as they lead their schools toward change,† according to Hopkins (2004). What really is alarming is that some people are reluctant at improvement. One principal stated that â€Å"the biggest goof I made early in my career as a principal was believing that everyone on the staff felt the same way I did about raising standards, improving academics, and reforming schools in general† (Hopkins 2004). He specified about one of the schools this principal led: â€Å"even though our test scores were near the bottom in our school district, most staff members were content. Our drop-out rates, discipline stats, and attendance were at the bottom too. As one teacher put it to me: Well, somebody has to be at the bottom† (Hopkins 2004). Hopkins’ article is an eye-opener for the realities of school administration. Other principals surely must learn something from this, but students and their parents, and other concerned teachers and school staff may also find something to learn and act accordingly to improve education standards.

Foundations Of Mythology Essay

Foundations I think that the word myth gets used quite a bit these days, and in the wrong context. You often hear people say â€Å"it’s a myth† to refer to something that is too good to be true. Or some outlandish story such as a big fish story. Traditionally, a myth is a story that offers an explanation to something such as â€Å"enduring and fundamental human questions: How did the universe and the world come to be? How did we come to be here? Who are we? What are our proper, necessary, or inescapable roles as we relate to one another and to the world at large? What should our values be? How should we behave? How should we not behave? What are the consequences of behaving and not behaving in such ways?† (Leonard & McClure, 2004) In an academic context, according to the text, a myth is â€Å"the study of myth is a field of inquiry that ranges from the earliest known history of humanity up to and including contemporary cultures and societies and even our own individual senses of self in the world.† (Leonard & McClure, 2004) My interpretation of the definition is that they are stories that have been passed around for years about and forming our culture and beliefs. Commonalities â€Å"Some of the recurring themes include a Golden Age, a fall from a heavenly state, resurrections from death, virgin births, worldwide floods, creation stories in which â€Å"one becomes two,† and a future apocalypse.†(â€Å"Analyzing Mythology†, n.d.). Many different cultures have some of the same stories with different details or characters. Usually they have the same outcome though. These myths help form the society and culture that they live in. It is they view certain things. According to Rosenberg, â€Å"In their theory,  innate psychological characteristics, common to all human beings, determine how people throughout the world and throughout history experience and respond to the process of living. The contents of the collective unconscious are divided into archetypes—such as the mother, the child, the hero, the trickster, and the giant—but these are simply image frameworks.† When I think of mythology and how people use them to explain the unknown or how mankind is shaped, I think of the Illiad and Odyssey, two unbelievable journeys that have lasting themes. â€Å"Many famous heroes walk through the pages of Homer’s Iliad. Achilles and Agamemnon, among the Greeks, and Hector, among the Trojans, must choose between their own desires and the needs of their people. Their war is ancient, but their agony is modern. Once again, the courage with which they meet the challenges in their lives makes them impressive, yet very human, models of behavior for all of us.† (Rosenberg, 2006) Religion and Mythology Religion and mythology share a very thin line that often intersected. Religion is in a sense the same thing as a myth; it’s a story that explains origins. Many religions were based around the mythology of the people, such as Egyptians. They had many gods and goddesses and they believed in polytheism, which allowed them to worship more than one god/goddess. There isn’t a lot of research that has a specific answer as to what is the relationship between religion and mythology. It seems to me that there would be an argument that they are one in the same, while others believe they are completely different. Since mythology is often thought to be untrue, many would not want to believe their religion has anything to do with mythology. Relevance Many of the themes that are addressed by mythology are still very relevant today. â€Å"Rather, the American mythologist always saw myth as the story of the rugged individual who realizes his true nature through heroic struggle. Archetypal symbols and universals there may be, Campbell seems to say, but mythology is ultimately and always the vehicle through which the individual finds a sense of identity and place in the world.† (Leonard & McClure, 2004) People need to believe that the struggles they go through are common.  Everyone needs to believe in something. The Trojans were tricked by a giant horse that they thought was a gift. Almost everyone out there can think of a time when they were tricked. It resonates with them. Conclusion The foundations of mythology were established many, many years ago. Almost every culture of people has their own set of myths that they believed in. While they had their own stories, many of them had the same explanation of something, such as creation. The themes were and are still today very universal. While mythology offers explanation to life’s questions, many cultures still had their own set of religious beliefs. Many of those beliefs intertwined with their mythology but not always. As mentioned before, the themes of mythology are universal. They are also quite timeless. Many of the same moral dilemmas or questions of life are the same and can still be answered by myths. References Leonard, S., & McClure, M. (2004). Myth & knowing: An introduction to world mythology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rosenberg, D. (2006). World mythology: An anthology of great myths and epics (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: McGraw Hill. Analyzing Mythology. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mythome.org/mythII.html

Ifrs 10 Application to Hyundai and Kia

————————————————- ACCT333 Advanced Financial Accounting ————————————————- Group Project Assignment (IFRS 10) Cheong Wang Shen Gordon Prepared for: Prof Bernardine Low Prepared by: Gordon Cheong Wang Shen Jason Tan Zhu En Twain Teo Wei Ren Wee Huixiang (G4) Table of Contents Question 1: IFRS 10 flowchart3 Question 25 (a) Identifying ambiguity of control5 Background5 Control issues5 Co-owning of subsidiaries5 Inter-company director relations6 Same platform manufacturing6 b) & (c) Application of IFRS 10 flowchart to determine existence of control by Hyundai7 Step 1: Determine the purpose and design of investee (Kia)7 Step 2: Determine relevant activities7 Step 3: Determination of ability to direct relevant activities8 Step 4: Determine if exposed to variable returns9 Step 5: Determine if Hyundai is a principal or an agent10 Question 310 Identification of four requirements in IFRS 10 that are challenging to interpret and apply10 Considering the purpose and design of the investee10 Determining the relative size of voting rights11Considering related parties12 Determining if investor is a principal or agent12 References14 Question 1: IFRS 10 flowchart Question 2 (a) Identifying ambiguity of control Background The Hyundai Motor Company (hereafter referred to as Hyundai) is a multinational automaker based in Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai is one of the two best-known divisions of the global conglomerate Hyundai, the other being Hyundai Heavy Industries, the largest shipbuilder globally. A famous Korean businessman, Chung Ju-yung, founded Hyundai in 1974.Following the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, Hyundai bought over Kia Motors Corporation (hereafter referred to as Kia) in 1998, which resulted in the formation of the Hyundai Kia Automotive Group (HKAG) . It consists of multiple affiliated companies related through complex shareholding agreements, although Hyundai is taken to be the de facto representative in transactions done with HKAG. During the acquisition of Kia in 1998, Hyundai out-bidded Ford motors to acquire 51% of the company’s shareholding. After a series of divestments over the years, the total ownership of Hyundai in Kia has been reduced to only 33. 5%. Hyundai and Kia are both listed individually on the Korean Stock Exchange. In 2008, Hyundai was ranked the 8th largest automaker in the world. It was also the fastest growing automaker globally for 2 consecutive years (2010 and 2011). The chairman and CEO of Hyundai is Chung Mong-koo, one of the surviving sons of Chung Ju-yung. Control issues Hyundai currently has a 33. 75% direct shareholding in Kia, with the remaining shareholdings being presumably widely dispersed. As such, it evidently has significant influence over the operations and running of Kia’s business.However, establishing direct control between Hyundai and Kia is not as straightforward. There are a number of issues that we have to look at. Co-owning of subsidiaries Hyundai and Kia co-own a large number of subsidiaries. As evidenced by the 2010 consolidated financials of Hyundai, the global branches of the Kia Motors Group are 100% held by Hyundai through Kia themselves. Both companies also have percentage ownership in Hyundai’s various component manufacturing companies like Hyundai HYSCO Company Limited and Hyundai Powertech Company Limited.Aside from this, they also have holdings in Autoever Systems Corporation, where their main Research and Development unit is located. Inter-company director relations The current Chairman and CEO of HMC is Chung Mong-koo. He took over Hyundai in 1992 when the Hyundai Group split into its various divisions. The Hyundai group itself follows a South Korean Business form of conglomerate known as chaebol, where the unique characteri stic is that it is usually a huge family controlled corporate group.As such, it is not surprising to see that many of the third generation members of Chung Ju-yung’s family are heading many of the different divisions of the Hyundai Group. Chung Mong-koo’s only son, Chung Eui-sun was a key operating officer in various corporate planning divisions in Hyundai-Kia before eventually heading Kia as its president from 2005 to 2009. Currently, he is the vice chairman of Hyundai and is on the internal board of directors for Kia. Aside from this, Chung Mong-koo also has a 5% shareholding in Kia. Same platform manufacturingBoth Hyundai and Kia co-own manufacturing subsidiaries that produce component parts to both companies. As a result, their production facilities get the similar component parts from the same suppliers. The companies also use the same power trains (engines and transmissions) all manufactured largely from the Hyundai Powertech Company Limited. A majority of the au tomobile electronic components from both brands also come from Hyundai MOBIS Limited. Both these companies are co-owned subsidiaries of Hyundai and Kia. Both Hyundai and Kia also share design studios.In fact, the vice president of design based in HMC actually oversees the design management of both brands. The family controlled heading of both Hyundai and Kia allows us to consider the possibility of Hyundai having a controlling influence over Kia, especially with Chung Eui-sun’s dual positions on both companies’ board of directors. Furthermore, given the fact that both companies virtually sprout from the same supply chain, and control over their research and development and design of the vehicles are headed by staff based in Hyundai, we can see hat these revenue generating activities greatly affect the business operations of both companies. Even though Kia is clearly not a subsidiary at first glance, given the meagre 33. 75% ownership by Hyundai, it would appear that Hy undai may be exerting more than just significant influence over Kia through the various factors mentioned. (b) & (c) Application of IFRS 10 flowchart to determine existence of control by Hyundai Step 1: Determine the purpose and design of investee (Kia) Hyundai purchased shares in Kia for 1. 18 trillion won in November 1998.The purpose of this acquisition in Kia is for Hyundai to gain significant foothold and widen its market share in the auto industry. By taking over Kia Motor, the Hyundai-Kia group was able to forge a solid position having over 70% of domestic market share and become the 7th or 8th global automaker by combining its affiliates’ production capacity into the total volume of 2. 9 million units in 1999. Step 2: Determine relevant activities Activities| Does it significantly affect investees’ returns –> relevant activities? | Example of decisions about relevant activities| How decisions about relevant activities are made? Research and development| Y es| Reduce the number of platforms to 718 by the end of 2005, in order to save the costs of product development and manufacturing and produce a variety of car models having differing external styling and interior options for the brands of Hyundai and Kia| Decisions are made by a joint R&D Division led by the Chief Technology Officer (for Hyundai and Kia combined)| Auto-assembly| Yes| Which type of vehicle that each plant should produce? Whether Hyundai and Kia should share power-train parts (i. e. engine and transmission) to be supplied to assembly plantsWhether Hyundai and Kia should share production technology| Decisions are made by top management of the Hyundai-Kia group, where the de facto representative is Hyundai| Auto parts supply| Yes| Which vendor should supply auto parts to the companies? How many vendors should they engage? | Decisions are made by Joint Material Handling Division that Hyundai and Kia set up| Marketing and competition| Yes| Whether to focus on price or non price competition such as customer service and product quality| Decisions are made by top management of the Hyundai-Kia group|Step 3: Determination of ability to direct relevant activities Hyundai owns 33. 75% of the shares in Kia Motors. In addition, Chung Eui-sun, the son of the Hyundai Motor Group Chairman, owns another 1. 73% of the shares. This presumably gives Hyundai control of 35. 48% of Kia Motors, which is significantly less than the 50% shareholding that would give Hyundai the majority of the voting rights. However, we are unable to find any evidence that anyone has control of a large proportion of the remaining shares, and thus we feel that the assumption that the rest of the shares in Kia are highly dispersed is a reasonable one.If that is the case, then it is almost impossible that all these shareholders will collectively outvote Hyundai when a decision needs to be made, so Hyundai can be said to have power over the relevant activities. Another factor to consider is t hat Mr Chung is both the vice chairman of Hyundai and an internal director of Kia. As Mr Chung sits on Kia’s board, he should have a certain amount of influence over Kia’s decision-making process. This factor, coupled with Hyundai’s holding of voting rights, lend much weight to the claim that Hyundai can direct the relevant activities.Last but not least, we notice from the table above that the Hyundai and Kia managements jointly make most decisions regarding relevant activities. In fact, Hyundai and Kia share almost the same supply chain. Many companies in the supply chain are subsidiaries or associates co-owned by these two parents. However, because Hyundai owns a larger portion of shares, and hence voting rights, in most of these entities, Kia is understandably at risk if it goes all out to oppose Hyundai in some way or another.It can be seen that when decisions are made, Hyundai is better represented because of both the presence of its management and its voti ng rights, and Kia would tend to concede ground to Hyundai when there are disagreements. So, even though Hyundai owns less than 50% of the shareholding in Kia, they probably still have enough power to direct the relevant activities. Step 4: Determine if exposed to variable returns If Hyundai has actual control of Kia, they will be exposed to returns, which can be positive, negative or both.Also these returns must be variable rather than fixed. The returns that Hyundai is exposed to can be classified into two categories: 1) Returns not available to other interest holders. This refers to cost savings and synergies that arise from Hyundai owning Kia, which other shareholders in Kia would not be entitled to. In this case, they are mostly in the form of cost savings, due to the similar operations of the two companies. Consolidation of R&D centres of Hyundai and Kia, sharing of R&D centres allowed both companies to lower costs by reducing number of employees in the R&D centres * Products share similar core platforms leads to savings and economies of scale * Sharing of factories leads to further specialisation, for example, Kia’s Kwangju plant was designated as a specialised assembly plant for small-sized commercial vehicles for both Hyundai and Kia, leading to cost reduction * Sharing auto-part suppliers to apply greater pressure on suppliers for cost savings on supplies 2) Dividends Kia paid out 96 billion won in dividends in 2010 * Hyundai’s ownership of common stock entitles them to receive dividends from Kia. Thus, it can be seen that Hyundai meets all our requirements that would allow it to classify Kia as a subsidiary. Our last step would be to ensure that Hyundai is acting in the capacity of a principal, rather than that of an agent, which is holding delegated power. Step 5: Determine if Hyundai is a principal or an agentIn determining whether Hyundai is acting as a principal or an agent, we need to consider four factors: 1) Scope of decision ma king authority * Unable to find information proving that Hyundai has any limits to the decisions it can make for Kia * Presumably, Hyundai can make most decisions for Kia 2) Rights held by other parties * No evidence of rights held by other parties 3) Exposure to variability of returns from investees * High cost savings due to economies of scale Many of Hyundai’s subsidiaries depend on Kia for revenue * Affected by dividends paid out by Kia 4) Remuneration * Almost solely dependent on dividends, which are highly variable * No actual fixed remuneration In consideration of all the four factors, Hyundai is most likely a principal and not an agent. Hence we can reasonably conclude, after thorough application of the framework, that Kia is a subsidiary of Hyundai. Question 3Identification of four requirements in IFRS 10 that are challenging to interpret and apply Considering the purpose and design of the investee Paragraph B5 of IFRS 10 explains that â€Å"when assessing control o f an investee, an investor shall consider the purpose and design of the investee in order to identify the relevant activities, how decisions about the relevant activities are made, who has the current ability to direct those activities and who receives returns from those activities†.Paragraphs B51-B53 then goes on to explain the factors to be considered when determining the purpose and design of the investee. However, IFRS 10 does not explain how the purpose and design of the investee can be used to â€Å"identify the relevant activities, how decisions about the relevant activities are made, who has the current ability to direct those activities and who receives returns from those activities†, which paragraph B5 suggested. A simplistic scenario is given in paragraph B6, whereby the investee is controlled by means of equity investments.Beyond this straightforward case, paragraph B7 directs readers back to the factors listed in B3 to determine control (relevant activities , ability to direct relevant activities, variable returns and ability to use power over investee to affect returns). Furthermore, the factors provided in paragraphs B51-B53 are hard to determine and require much professional judgment. For instance, paragraph B51 states that in the process of assessing the purpose and design, we â€Å"evaluate whether the transaction terms and features of the involvement (at investee’s inception) provide the investor with rights that are sufficient to give it power†.No conclusive elaboration is provided by IFRS 10, and it is uncertain whether being involved in the investee’s inception signifies control. This creates much ambiguity and inconsistent interpretation across firms. Rather than making it seem like an isolated step with little purpose, IFRS 10 should provide clearer guidance for the objective of determining the purpose and design of the investee. Clearer linkages, between the consideration of purpose and design of invest ee and the other factors to be considered when determining control, could also be provided to improve the flow of IFRS 10.Furthermore, more comprehensive and conclusive guidelines could be included to standardise the interpretation of the purpose and design of the investee. Determining the relative size of voting rights According to paragraph B42, an investor can consider the size of its holding of voting rights relative to the size and dispersion of other holdings of the other vote holders to determine whether its rights are sufficient to give it power. However, because relativity encompasses the use of personal judgement, this section may be open to manipulation.In Hyundai’s case, it holds around 35% of the voting rights, including those held by its vice chairman, Chung Eui-sun. If the rest of the voting rights are very widely dispersed, with nobody else holding more than 1%, Hyundai can say that it has control because it is very improbable that all the other parties will c ome together to collectively outvote Hyundai. On the other hand, Hyundai can also claim that there is still a possibility that the other shareholders will collectively vote against Hyundai if it introduces a policy that does not benefit them, so in that case, Hyundai does not have control.We notice that the voting structure remains the same, yet different interpretations can be derived. Paragraph B42 also says that other circumstances, such as voting patterns at previous shareholders’ meetings, can be considered, but it is hard to say if the historical patterns are able to predict the future. Shareholders might not have voted in previous meetings because there were no major decisions that affected them, but if Hyundai intends to propose something revolutionary, the voting situation will definitely change.IFRS 10 can provide more detailed guidance to ensure that this section is applied appropriately and consistently. For example, when determining how widely dispersed the rest of the voting rights are, an investor should consider only the next 10 largest shareholders. If their combined holding is larger than that of the investor, then the investor does not have control based on this requirement alone. When assessing previous voting patterns, the investor should only look at shareholders’ meetings where issues of similar impact were raised.If previous meetings did not encompass such issues, then the voting patterns for those meetings cannot be considered. Considering related parties Paragraph B18 states that an investor can consider whether the investee’s key management personnel are related parties of the investor when determining if the investor has the practical ability to direct relevant activities unilaterally. However, it does not specify how much influence the related parties must have over the investee, so this may not always be a good indicator of power.For example, Hyundai’s vice chairman, Chung Eui-sun, is also on Kiaâ€℠¢s internal board of directors. According to paragraph B18, this should provide evidence that Hyundai has power over Kia. But in order to determine whether Hyundai can direct relevant activities through Chung Eui-sun, we must also consider the amount of influence that he has over Kia’s decision-making process. Kia has 9 directors on its board, of whom two are also presidents in the company, so Chung Eui-sun may not always have his way. If the investor does not take this into consideration, then the determination of control would be flawed.In that sense, this requirement would be more complete if guidance on the influence commanded by related parties was given. Instead of only determining whether there are related parties in the investee’s governing bodies, the investor should also take into account the role and power of the related parties. If the related parties have the final say when it comes to decision-making over relevant activities, then this factor can conclusi vely determine that the investor has power. But if the related parties do not have the final say, then only a minimal weight should be placed on this factor.Determining if investor is a principal or agent Being able to determine if the investor is a principal or an agent is crucial to determining whether the investor has control over the investee. A principal would have power over the investee, but an agent would only have delegated power. Delegated power is held on behalf of a third party who ultimately controls the investee. The method prescribed in IFRS 10 for determining if a decision maker is an agent is the consideration of the factors listed in paragraph B60.Upon further elaboration of the factors, IFRS 10 provides certain cases where the investee is definitely a principal or an agent. For example, paragraph B70 states that â€Å"a decision maker cannot be an agent unless the conditions set out in paragraph B69 (a) and (b) are present. † However, if none of these extre me conditions are met, we must assume that we would have to take all five conditions into account when trying to decide if the investor is an agent. However, there is no prescription in IFRS 10 about how to consider these conditions.In a situation where some of the conditions point towards the investor being an agent and some point towards them being a principal, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in whether the investor should be classified as a principal or an agent. This gives the company some leeway in choosing the decision that would reflect a better financial position of the firm. This could lead to reduced accuracy of financial statements and less comparability among financial statements of different companies.To make this requirement easier to interpret and apply, IFRS 10 should clearly state the relative importance of each factor. For example, the factors which are given a higher relative importance would have a higher influence on whether the company is a principal or an agent, as compared to those with a lower importance. As such, in ambiguous cases, companies will know which factors should be considered first. Given this, all companies will have more similar definitions of principal/agent, thereby reducing the ambiguity and increasing comparability among different financial statements.References 1) Hyundai 2010 Annual Report http://worldwide. hyundai. com/company-overview/investor-relations/financial-information-Annual-Report-view. aspx? idx=13&&nCurPage=1&ListNum=11 2) Kia 2010 Annual Report http://www. kmcir. com/eng/library/annual. asp 3) Merger and Reconfiguring of Hyundai-Kia (Byoung-Hoon Lee, Sung Jae Cho) http://gerpisa. org/rencontre/9. rencontre/S13Lee-Cho. pdf 4) HYUNDAI MOTORS’ DE-CHAEBOLIZATION EFFECTS (Hyunjoong Jun) http://gerpisa. org/rencontre/9. rencontre/S13Jun. pdf

Computer Network and Intense Financial Pressure

Introduction: CareGroup was established in 1996 from a three-way merger of several hospitals in the eastern Massachusetts area. The merger was driven by the intense financial pressure and competitiveness in the healthcare community. CareGroup was the second largest hospital group in the area, and was a force to be reckoned with in the war of medical costs that included healthcare providers and employers. Problem: On Nov 13, 2002, a researcher executed an application without terminating it, which caused huge data communication traffics and led to a network crash. The network crash could not be fixed internally and the CIO at CareGroup had to call experts from Cisco for help the next day. While Cisco engineers were fixing the problem, CareGroup employees resorted back to paper based forms as a costly and unorganized replacement to their networked computers. The network was restored five days after the crash and post-crash repairing commenced to help recovery and further potential crashes. Problem Analysis: The source of the collapse was an â€Å"out of spec† network. CareGroup integrated its multiple operating systems into a state-of-the-art IT system. However, not well managed were the incremental changes to the network. This lack of control compromised the paths over which data flowed. That, combined with an experimental application that had been left unmonitored in a production environment, were the underlying causes for the network failure. CareGroup lacked a standardized operational flow to streamline, control, monitor, and document activities of users and researchers. There was little control and IT governance on common users to access or make changes to the network configuration. Right after the outage, several changes were made by various users without synchronization and documenting, which worsened the outage situation. Solutions: The following are the proposed options to help solve the aforementioned problem: 1. CareGroup can implement a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) and Contingency Plan (CP). The DRP describes the road map through which CareGroup must deal with unpredictable, unpreventable, or potential catastrophic events. the contingency plan acts as backbone for disaster recovery and allows for a complete recovery cycle. CP would require careful preparation and planning in order to allow CareGroup the ability to get back to a working state of affairs. 2. CareGroup should redesign the company network infrastructure to employ Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). A multi- VPN approach would enable CareGroup to maintain independency (separate virtual LANs) for their business partners. 3. Combine both options 1 and 2. 4. Outsourcing the network services. Recommendation: I recommend that CareGroup implement a disaster recovery plan, as well as adopt formal oversight of network changes and a prohibition against developers testing in a production environment.

Book Report The Corona Project by Curtis Peebles

CORONA Project: Curtis Peebles, the first US spy satellite, provides readers with new decoding information on how the first American satellite was used for information gathering. Through his book Corona Project: America 's First Spy Satellite, the author provides details on the birth of the satellite program by observing the Corona project from the late 1940' s until project declassification and project exhibition. information. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Curtis Peebles starts with the basics and makes it easier to understand somewhat complicated programs by building readers' knowledge about what is currently shown in the text. It is not just a corona project. From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Peebles led readers to the government sector to undertake an internal review of the decision-making process of the President and other major public directors. One of the most impressive parts of this book is reference to Peebles' long-standing personal memos and dialogue by project personnel. A hand-held snapshot collected by the author, depicting individual engineers and other persons involved in the project. More personalized accessories for project related personnel Curtis Peebles provides readers with new decryption information on how to use the first US satellites for information gathering. Through his book Corona Project: America 's First Spy Satellite, the author provides details on the birth of the satellite program by observing the Corona project from the late 1940' s until project declassification and project exhibition. information. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. The main driving force of the project came from the launch of Sputnik I. As the Soviet Union seems to be far away, the authors explain how the project was robbed by the Air Force. They did not use WS - 117L for the development of corona satellites and handed the duties to the CIA It was. The goal that Peebles break the history of Corona project was achieved. I have foun d that this information is very rich and sometimes a bit overwhelming, but it is not difficult to understand. From various camera lenses to the overall success of the Corona project, the author has successfully demonstrated the detailed history of the project and the tasks performed by the satellite. As an image analyst, I found that the information provided by the satellite function is completely attractive. Only one runway can be identified from the start of the plan, and just ten years later you can count the aircraft on the runway. The big achievement of this project over the 12 years is definitely improved resolution from 40 feet to 6 feet (though it will be 2 feet). This kind of progress, nearly 300% improvement has never been experienced in such a short time.