Universal characteristics of aggressive behaviour in humans

Universal characteristics of aggressive behaviour in humans In what sense are aggressive behaviors, i.e. conflict, competition, and dominance, universal characteristics of humans? What is the evidence that in some cultures aggressive behaviors are rarely observed and strongly sanctioned? How is such an outcome achieved? Humans are innately social animals,  whose existence depends on a continued complex relationship with other human beings. Expressed aggression will inevitably lead to an individual or group as the dominator, and an individual or group as the dominated. Since human origin, individuals and groups have had continuous conflicts in search for the best economic resources, the most fertile land, and the most sustainable reproductive social group. For this reason, human history is full of aggressive conflicts and sanctioned aggressive behaviors. This essay is a brief composition summarizing the outcomes of aggressive human behaviors, specifically focusing on whether dominance, competition, conflict, and war are caused by nature, nurture, or both. This essay also presents case studies of rare amicable, nonviolent societies and their achievements of peace and human security. It is widely agreed among evolutionary anthropologists and sociobiologists that aggression is a biologically universal human characteristic (Dennen Falger 1990; Schmookler 1995; Wrangham Peterson 1996); however, many contemporary cultural anthropologists advocate that aggression is a cultural construct (Kropotkin 1914). Indeed, the historical debate between nature and nurture is vigorous, as the categories of human intrinsical, interactional, and environmental traits are blurred. Hobbes (ed. Tuck 1991) argued that war is a functional part of human nature that maintains a balance of power and solidarity. Rousseau (Jonathan 2005) defended the position that war is independent from human nature, and is therefore a dysfunctional social construct invented by states intended to protect societies. In contrast, Malthus (Pullen 1989) believed war to be a functional mechanism imparted by God to humans to reduce populations at necessary intervals through an innate expression of aggression and a need for in-group cohesion to maintain a sustainable equilibrium. The nature-nurture debate continues still, from early philosophers to contemporary scholars with no definitive answer. The debate however has recently grown more complex with a greater comprehension of biological predispositions that effect human behavior. The most compelling explanation is that many biological predispositions, like aggression and competition, can be distinguished from, but influenced by, the cultural environment (Renfrew 1997). Every living organism, Ridley (2003, p. 236) argues, is an instrument for genes to grow, feed, thrive, replicate, and die, but most importantly its primary survival function is reproduction. Reproduction undoubtedly catalyzes a competitive force to create descendants. This essay reputes the position that biological factors influence the cultural, or as Ridley (2003) describes it nature via nurture. More specifically, reproduction and aggression biologically entail phenotypic outcomes. All humans feel the need to eliminate competitors, or the offspring of competitors to protect reproductive capital such as territory and mates (Low 2000, p. 214). This can be achieved through aggressive non-violent dominance or aggressive violent conflicts. Anderson and Bushman (2002, p.28) defines human aggression as any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. This, however, does not mean that the individual has carried out the harmful conduct. It can be inferred then, that aggression is a means to create an inverse relation to achieve a goal through someone without the use of harm or violence. The definition of violence, such as war, conflict, competition, and dominance is arbitrary. For example, violence in one culture can be very different to another culture, or even to individuals of the same culture. Anderson Bushman (2002, p.29) defines violence as aggression that has extreme harm as its goal (e.g., death). When comparing the two definitions, it is clear that violence is aggressive expression but, conversely, aggression does not always lead to violence. These definitions lead to the conclusion that aggression is biological and universal among humans and furthermore, violence is nature via nurture. In fact, human expression of violence is minimal compared to aggression. Aggression can be observed in almost every human interaction in the form of non-violent dominance and competition for social capital (Dennen Falger 1990). Culture arbitrates in inverse relations with norms, mores, folkways, and taboos to prevent aggression turning into rampant violence. With the mediation of culture, aggression via violence serves multiple functions and dysfunctions within human societies (Dennen Falger 1990). Established in-out groups create and maintain group identity and boundary lines between societies. This stratification then creates reciprocal hostility between groups and creates the need for social institutions. These institutions often act as social filters preventing impulsive social conflict between in-out groups (Dennen Falger 1990). These filters also act as a mobilization mechanism, unifying the energies of group members, thus increasing group cohesion or reaffirming state sovereignty (Dennen Falger 1990). Without group unification, powerful charismatic people cannot rally a society toward a collective interest. Social order is achieved through rules and commands issued by these powerful people to maintain a normative system of society and influence the weaker people to represent their will (Dennen Falger 1990). The example of aggression (nature) via dominance (nurture) complies with the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle (Wrangham Peterson 1996; Kropotkin 1914 ). Through these two laws humans directly benefit from achieved power, status, and resources through competition; however, as a result, 60 percent of all human societies engage in warfare at least yearly (Low 2000, p. 223). War would be inevitable if the genetic basis alone dictated human action. The above arguments have uncovered that the universal character of human conflict, competition, and dominance is contingent on biological aggressive behaviors. Ethnographic records and historical accounts tell a clear story of hominid catalyzed aggression (Carmen 1997). From primate pack raiding, to Homo habilis tribal skirmishes, to Homo erectus group battles, to Neandertal societal armed conflicts, to Homo sapien civilization wars (Schmookler 1995 p. 74-87; Otterbein 2004), humans have perpetually constructed cultural systems to solve the recurrent problem of violent aggression via mutual aid and mutual struggle. Through history, humans have been actively altering their environments through problem solving to best suit intellectual development, which has caused an inevitable in-group/out-group competition (Schmookler 1995). The more humans mutually support each other, the more intellectual development occurs; conversely, the more human intellect increases, the larger civilizations become, and more blood is shed (Schmookler 1995). That is, greater levels of population pressure are associated with a greater likelihood of warfare. Furthermore, warfare is more likely in advanced horticultural and agrarian societies than it is in hunting-and-gathering and simple horticultural societies, and that it is also more likely in hunting-and-gathering and agrarian societies that have above-average population densities (Nolan  2003). Thus, the denser human population becomes, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle become more imposed. This is evidence that culture can intensify or suppress expressions of aggression. For the most part, however, culture has been unsuccessful at eliminating violence. Since mutual aid and mutual struggle has failed to resolve the problem of universal conflict, surely something must provide a solution. Kropotkin (1914, p. 74) argues that, better conditions are created by the elimination of competition by means of mutual aid, thus establishing a cultural ecology of pacificism. This argument fails because, as presented above, innate aggression induces competition for optimal human survival. To completely eliminate competition, aggression must first be entirely suppressed. Complex human culture is unable to hinder aggression to the degree of elimination, but Kropotkin inadvertently made a good point. Once competition is reduced, social disparities and meritocracy will also decrease, thus preventing the less dominant group from obtaining the subordinate position (Schmookler 1995). The latter part of this essay will draw upon case studies to argue that competition reduction has been the primary objective for many tribal societies and welfare states. Kropotkin (1914) uses numerous examples to argue that societies with intra-group cohesion rarely encounter intra or inter-group conflict. Among them is a Papuan tribe located in Geelwink Bay, studied by G.L. Blink (1888). Kropotkin (1914, p. 94) interprets Blinks account as, never having any quarrels worth speaking of and never had he any conflict to complain of which is unsupported because Blink, in his field notes writes, war prisoners are sometimes eaten. Kropotkin does not completely overlook this statement of warfare, but this case study fails to prove his point that inter-group peace is achievable. Kropotkin, therefore, makes a detrimental mistake in his argument for exemplifying paramount sociability and inter-tribal peace. It seems Kropotkin was attempting to persuade readers through an anarchist agenda by centering on the Papuan peaceful in-group relations and describing the Papuan tribe as having a primitive communist system (Kropotkin 1914, p. 93-95). By using examples of Inuit tribes, Kropotkin once again glorifies in-group mutual aid, but abandons emphasis on inter-group conflict. In summarizing Veniaminoff, Kropotkin (1914, p. 100) writes, one murder only had been committed since the last century in a population of 60,000 people, irrespective of mass infanticide to maintain a sustainable population. In truth, Inuit tribes rely heavily on cooperation and reciprocity for intra-group survival; however, they are not exempt from inter-group hostility as Kropotkin omits (1914, p. 95-104; Gat 1999, p. 26). Anthropologist Reynolds (1985, p. 24) asserts that, Eskimos had limited their aggressiveness in past fights with other Eskimos, but had been more brutal in fights with other North American Indian peoples. Although restrained and ritualized, Inuit did wage combat against each other and engaged in inter-ethnic conflict (Gat 1999, p. 26). Even Veniaminoff, whom Kropotkin (1914, p. 99) quotes, writes that for Aleoutes it is considered s hameful toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ask pardon from an enemy; to die without ever having killed an enemy. Once again, Kropotkin relates the primitive society with his anarchical communist agenda to prove in-group solidarity and peace is achievable, but avoids out-group enmity. Specifically, Kropotkin takes a Rousseauean social Darwinist stance on aggression and conflict by arguing that humans are innately peaceable and cooperative. Nevertheless, Kropotkin shares a commonality with Rousseau, Malthus, and Hobbes; each has constructed two functional and universal explanations for aggression and conflict (Dawson 1996, p. 7). Firstly, interspecific aggression occurs when one group attempts to exclude another group through competitiveness and dominance. This can be achieved with or without violence and is distinguished from predation, when an individual or group dominates the other for the economic gain of a food source. Secondly, group cohesion results in a synergistic in-group relationship, consequently producing an ethnocentric view of superiority toward other groups (Pope 2000, p. 161; Dawson 1996, p. 7). Although Kropotkin downplayed group ethnocentrism and rallying, he realized it is inevitable, as explained above. Indeed, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle universally obligate humans. As explained above, innate competition and group solidarity has, throughout the history of man, led to conflicts. With the rise of large-scale societies, these conflicts evolved into primitive warfare. During the early Paleolithic, H. s. sapiens began to spread rapidly across the earths surface (Dawson 1996, p. 26). Fissionings and fusions occurred often, and competition intensified because of seasonal scarce resources. According to Dawson (1996, p. 26) all theories of primitive warfare have recognized that whether or not it [war] is innate it has to be triggered by competition. Warfare is certainly not innate, but it may account for the wide dispersal of early Paleolithic humanity. Conversely, it would have limited the possibilities for offensive/defensive competition because early humans most likely fought for land and resources and the winner would assume ownership, while the other group found new economic capital (Dawson 1996, p. 26). This method would prove effective until group s could no longer diffuse due to a limit of land and resources. At the beginning of the Neolithic culture, large groups could no longer easily avoid neighboring groups by seeking new land, therefore resource limitations compelled people to live in larger, more cohesive societies (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). Dense populations compelled groups to become territorial, with semi-permanent settlements. Human societies, consequently, were forced to create caches of food to survive. In order to protect these caches, defensible resources became a defensive strategy against raiding groups, especially for agricultural societies (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). Defensive logistics were designed to deter war but, according to the archeological evidence, war was more often and more brutal (Dawson 1996, p. 26-27). As a result of militarism, the individual became an expendable resource for the good of the group. The democratization of warfare among states is the current solution to the consistent and universal competitive strive for dominance. The democratic model originated during the French Revolution, when states were not yet nation-states and nationalism had not yet developed as a significant political force (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008, p. 546). For the first time, humanity mustered an enormous and unprecedented amount of human energy into one single national service and mutual protection (Schmookler 1995, p. 99-100, 287-288; Baylis et al. 2008, p. 546). When France democratically handed over this vast army to Napoleon, neighboring nations were compelled to enhance and enlarge their military to deter domination. However, Napoleon was able to dominate Europe because of the newly devised national political system, enabling him to conjure unequalled armies (Schmookler 1995, p. 99-100, 287-288; Baylis, et al. 2008, p. 546). Once again, the laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle intertwine. In conclusion, Hobbes, Malthus, Rousseau, and Kropotkin all had a static view of competition. Competition inevitably leads to war and peace. The laws of mutual aid and mutual struggle are innate, universal, and are not mutually exclusive. They secure orderliness and allow humans to act freely to preserve their genes, however, the knowledge and values shared by a society influence and, to some degree, determine the thoughts and actions of an individual to behave synergistically and symbiotically (Schmookler 1995, p. 13). Through time, humanity has used solidarity, anarchy, fissioning, defense, militarism, social institutions, and democracy to sanction or repel conflict and violence with no prevail. In each case study presented, intra-group solidarity brought on inter-group competition and conversely, inter-group conflict caused intra-group solidarity. Because humans are social creatures and are dependent on each other for culture, conflicts are inevitable. The laws of mutual struggle and mutual aid operate within the law of natural selection gene survival of the fittest individual or group. In/out groups will always be present; however, conflict and war are not innately biological. They are an outward expression of acculturation. That is, human biological aggression is stimulated by cultural norms, mores, folkways, and taboos. A groups cultural sanctions determine the social consequence for overt aggression.

The Nobel Prize and The Bluest Eye :: Bluest Eye Essays

The Nobel Prize and The Bluest Eye Toni Morrison's Nobel prize acceptance speech has many interesting parallels between that and her novel The Bluest Eye. The speech opens up new ideas and interesting correlations between the address and the story. In this paper, I will document how parts of Morrison's speech uses situations in The Bluest Eye. The first being that of the story about the blind woman and the bird. Morrison says, "Her answer can be taken to mean: if it is dead, you have either found it that way or you have killed it. If it is alive, you can still kill it. Whether it is to say alive, it is your decision. Whatever the case, it is your responsibility." The characters in the novel are also responsible for their own actions, regardless if situations happen beyond their control. Meaning that the characters in the novel cannot lament their life because things got away from them. While there is incest and a subsequent pregnancy involved, it is possible that the character is able to reach beyond the path set for them and exceed anyone's expectations. By talking about responsibility, Morrison is able to make people think about their lives and make them realize that it is possible to have things be better. "Sexist language, racist language, theistic language all are typical of the policing languages of mastery, and cannot, do not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas." This quote by Morrison seems rather unusual, considering that she did incorporate some of these ideas into her work. It sounds as though in this quote that by using such characteristics in a work, it somehow loads it down with extraneous details. However, in Morrison's The Bluest Eye, it only enhances the reading and furthers the reader's understanding of the time. In accordance with the understanding of the reading and the enhancement of the words on the pages, Morrison fulfills the obligation of the following quote in The Bluest Eye: "The vitality of language lies in its ability to limn the actual, imagined and possible lives of its speakers, readers, writers.

Culture, Nature & Freedom: Treating Juvenile Offenders. :: essays research papers

Culture, Nature & Freedom: Treating Juvenile Offenders.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Groneman   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Argiro, T.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  W. Civ. 205   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  December 12,1996 In Kansas, Juvenile offenders are sent to â€Å"Youth Centers†. These are merely Child prisons, lockdown facilities for kids. This style of treatment goes against every idea of growth put forward in this class. In this paper I will try to justify the use of residential treatment schemes through the ideas found in several of this semesters authors; including T.Huxtley, Rousseau, DuBois, Freud, A.Huxtley, and Mill. The Ideals set forth by these intellectuals should be the basis for all treatment, to better the individuals and society. First, We can look to DuBois. He believes that people can change their own consciousness. He shows this through his Immersion narrative. This can't work in a youth center. The only cultural ideal here is the Master/slave dialectic between staff and youth. The sides work apart. The two can't join because one does not experience the other. There is no way to be â€Å"above the veil† of their status. In a residential treatment modality, Relationship building is key to success. The youth need to feel the veil has been lifted. It allows them to explore safely and see the world in a greater view. The view as other is removed and a true balance displaces the master / slave one. Next, we can look at Mills Ideas on culture. He would like to elevate the morals of the human mind. To do this, we must continually test the standard. New ideas must be able to circulate freely. We must weigh how all actions effect others. This can not be done in these Youth centers as well. They have very specific codes and any questioning is reprimanded. Cultural influx is at a standstill and Censor ship is at it's highest possible level. A residential treatment modality gives all ideas a free shot. Self Government, A system used by the youth assures a safe environment to share all feedback and new ideas openly, to non judgmental ears. it looks at how one's action are related to others and provides a ‘safe place' for all expression. Allowing ideas to stay fresh and moral stability and growth to flourish. This leads us directly to the dehumanization described by T.H. Huxtley. First, we have the effects of Social-Darwinism. We are using our own projections of nature for a model. These children are being culturally pushed aside for progress, stuck in mini prisons. Where, rather than fix problems, we push them into suffering so that we may achieve gains. Then there is the idea of the gospel of wealth. Why help these kids?

Themes in Sonnys Blues by James Baldwin Essay -- American Literature

Themes in Sonny's Blues by James Baldwin After reading the short story "Sonny's Blues" by James Baldwin, I find there are two major themes that Baldwin is trying to convey, suffering and irony. The first theme that he brings out and tries to get the reader to understand is the theme of suffering. The second theme that the author illustrates is the theme of irony. James Baldwin writes about two African-American brothers growing up in Harlem, a black ghetto in New York, during the 1950's. During this time black people were forced to live in a world of prejudice, discrimination, poverty and suppression. The life of a black person was very difficult; many opportunities afforded to whites were not afforded to blacks. Sonny and his brother lived in the projects and had many obstacles to overcome that white people didn't have to. Sonny chose music to outwardly express his suffering, his brother chose to bottle it up and keep it inside, but this is the common thread they both shared. Suffering is also shown in the story when Baldwin says "it came to me that what we both were seeking through our separate cab windows was that part of ourselves which had been left behind" (P 47). I think this quote means that both Sonny and his older brother want to retrieve some of their past so that it can help them cope with what has happened in their lives. If Sonny and his brother can both cope with what has happened in their lives and get over it, I think t they both can start moving forward and putting this behind them. I feel having Sonny's brother narrate the story in the first person is Baldwin's way of telling us that Sonny's brother is also suffering but inside, unlike Sonny who takes drugs and sings the blues. Sonny's ... ...s and work together to form a loving relationship. In conclusion, the short story "Sonny's Blues" by James Baldwin brings out two main themes: irony and suffering. You can actually feel the pain that Baldwin's characters experience; and distinguish the two different lifestyles of siblings brought up in the same environment. The older brother remaining nameless is a fabulous touch that really made me want to read on. This really piqued my interest and I feel it can lead to many discussions on why this technique was used. I really enjoyed this story; it was a fast and enjoyable reading. Baldwin keeps his readers thinking and talking long after they have finished reading his stories. His writing technique is an art, which very few, if any, can duplicate. Works Cited: Baldwin, James. "Sonny's Blues" in Vintage Baldwin. New York: Vintage, 2004.

An unsuccessful learning experience

My unsuccessful learning experience was when I was 16 and starting my Maths A level. We had 2 teachers who split the course material between them, one taking pure maths and the other applied maths. The teacher in charge of the pure maths, which had enjoyed up to A level and received an A for (in the days before A* existed, so top marks in other words), was a young man who had just qualified from his PGCE and came to teach us A level maths.The main problem wasn't the teacher's age, I'm sure plenty of young teachers are very capable, the issue was more that he didn't have the self confidence to stand up to the more lively characters in the class. He didn't know how to respond when a pupil would try and disrupt the class by talking about something irrelevant, like last nights television, therefore that pupil would carry on talking and valuable lesson time would be wasted. Even when he did ask people to be quiet a fair amount of disruption had already been made.The other issue was that h e didn't know his subject, in this case pure maths, well enough. I remember clearly one day the entire class followed him working out a complicated equation, writing down his calculations as we went along. After using up two blackboards worth of calculations he came to his answer, only for one of the pupils to check the answers in the back of out text book and announce it was the wrong answer. By then he had erased half of his calculation and he couldn't go back to see where he had made a mistake.It wasn't the only time his calculations were wrong or he was unsure of his subject, which made the pupils very nervous. The short term result was that my class was time-tabled extra maths lessons to try to cover for this teacher's lack of covering his subject, with the other maths teacher working longer lesson hours to try to get us through the exam. The longer term result was that the Pure maths results for that year were far lower than expected and the teacher was moved down to teaching 11-12 year olds maths.

Did Microsoft Violate Antitrust Policy?

â€Å"The US complaint has been filed by a Tangent, a small Burlingame, California-based hardware vendor that says it is a Microsoft certified partner, but has still been â€Å"caused significant harm† by â€Å"Microsoft's exclusionary and restrictive practices†[1]The Northern California Company Tangent, who is also a Microsoft Certified Partner, has claimed that Microsoft has caused them â€Å"significant harm† through â€Å"exclusionary and restrictive† practices.[2]In its complaint, Tangent describes patterns of anticompetitive practices by Microsoft.     The activities listed by Tangent incorporate the procedure of no-option bundling of Outlook (electronic mail software) with Office (a suite of word processing, financial, media and various business software) and Active Directory (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol which provide central authentication and authorization services for Windows based computers) with Windows Server (host integration). The forced process under the bundling system also includes the Windows Media Player (a software application player and library for digital media) and Windows Media Server (advanced live video and audio streaming functionality) along with the desktop personal computer and the server operating system, e.g. XP, Vista, etc.Tangent attorneys’ stated in the law suit, â€Å"Microsoft's exclusionary and restrictive practices†¦have caused significant harm to (Tangent) by increasing, maintaining or stabilizing the price it paid for Microsoft's operating system software above competitive levels,† [3]In a filing with the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Tangent’s resident territory and the right of the plaintiff to file locally, is in the clear supportive position to show cause of how Microsoft has historically continued to engage in anticompetitive conduct and practices. Thereby causing irreparable financial and market damages by directly man ipulating by different means in a number of forms the price Tangent has paid for Microsoft's operating system software.   Clearly upon comparison and review the prices are openly above competitive degrees.Tangent has been able to list in the detail the historical relation of the personal computer and the Microsoft factor.   They contend that Microsoft, in the letter of the law as well as the spirit, has still failed to operate within number of instruction guidelines and continues to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.,  §2.Tangent has taken on the interesting position of requesting a jury to hear the case instead of a judge.   Clearly, the intent is to appeal to peers or citizens who will hear testimony as to the unfair practices of Microsoft.   There is the grave risk on the part of the Tangent argument that the issues are very complicated and so technically that only engineers or legally trained experts can decided on the case.   It can be equally promised that Microsoft lawyers will attempt to convolute the issue to a level of complicate techno speak in order to confuse the jury and possible deadlock or mistrial.   Either way, the path for appeal is being paved.Without the normal constraint of frank competition in the marketplace and also because of â€Å"exclusionary practices† invoked by Microsoft as a standard practice, Microsoft has been able to perform in a way that the increases the â€Å"playing field† edge in its favor. Additionally, this method employed by Microsoft works to preserve or artificially maintain prices at anti-competitive conditions that cause harm to vendors and business partners. [4]In essence, Tangent has charged that Microsoft has artificially inflated prices for the cost of the operating system software for certified partners who have no other choice in the matter thus injuring Tangent.One of the strongest positions taken by Tangent against Microsoft is that the Microsoft server OS (operatio n system) includes specific, unique, undocumented programs and screens (interfaces) accessed and employed by its servers to communicate seamlessly and tacitly with one another.   Primarily, the use of several servers (server farm) is within a multiple network server community.â€Å"Tangent alleged further that Microsoft entered into restrictive agreements with OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and system builders, limiting or eliminating their ability to feature non-Microsoft products.† [5]Cleary, the most important aspect of the Tangents argument, which in this case can be asserted by any plaintiff, is for Microsoft to cease marketing products under the guise that the uniformity of it’s software is standardize and practical.   This is not the case nor has it been in quite a while.   The position by Microsoft does not give rise to a supportive community of certified partners.   Candidly, it causes a minor panic.Microsoft’s secretive and clandestine modus operand lends it self to a sense of obvious guilt.   The resistance to the release of the source code for any of it’s of its operating systems underlies its non-competitive practices.Demonstrating no lack of indignation, Microsoft has chosen not to respond to any comments on this complaint or that fact any other.   Their practice has been to only to acknowledge that the case is being reviewed.Tangent is based in the San Francisco Bay Area city of Burlingame and builds custom configured-to-order desktops, notebooks, thin clients and servers primarily for educational institutions, government agencies, business markets and proprietary enterprises.   The company is using the Microsoft Operating Systems. [1]   -Microsoft faces fresh US and EU antitrust complaints 23rd February 2006 [2] http://wowtechminute.com/93/antitrust-lawsuit-antithesis/ Antitrust Lawsuit Antithesis Posted by Brent Norris Technology News March 2006 [3] http://news.com.com/Computer+maker+files+an titrust+suit+against+Microsoft/2100-1014_3-6041788.html By Ina Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: February 21, 2006, [4] http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=29797 Off at a tangent By INQUIRER staff: Monday 20 February 2006, 10:10 [5] http://www.channelinsider.com/article/Tangent+Suit+Claims+Microsoft+Soaked+Partners/171923_1.aspx   Tangent Suit Claims Microsoft Soaked Partners DATE: 21-FEB-2006 By John Hazard

Domain Name Essay

Browsing through different domain servers, I would suggest a well known and established company. I would suggest the use of GoDaddy. com. I have personally used the service and can attest to their customer service available 24/7 via telephone and live chat. The provider also offers free personalized email, DNS control and status alerts for the page. The prices are competitive with other companies with assistance in not only hosting the site, they will assist in the building and maintenance of the site. As far as domain name, at the time of searching the domain name of FreeFluShotsForElderly. org is available. I would suggest the use of a . org vs another due to the public misconception of their view towards the extensions. A normal individual may recognize a . org extension as a non-profit vs if it was a . com and not believe it to be non-profit. The name, while long, also would be easily memorable in terms of the elderly as well as being easily located with search engines as well. Another possible alternative is to continue with a purchase like this and purchase similar domain names along the same lines and with different extensions for a cheaper price. With the purchase of the additional domain names, you can reroute users from those sites to your â€Å"trunk† site that is being maintained. Not only would this assist with individuals typing in the wrong address, it would assist with people who are looking for different sites that are mistakenly brought to this organization’s site.