How Can Science and Technology Help Fight Global Problems Term Paper

How Can Science and Technology Help Fight Global Problems - Term Paper Example If science is the base of knowledge and experiment then technology is its application which focuses more on developing a use for something. Science is more about the analysis, hypothesis, theories, and concepts whereas, the technology relies more on analysis and fusion of design. Technology is an applied science so it explains how these experiments are applicable to the species and how it controls them to adapt to its environment. We can find best examples of technology and science in daily lives of human. Firstly comes the internet, it is technology and to create it the experiments were done which is called science. Furthermore, the example for mobile phones can be taken. A mobile phone is a technology and the experiment accomplished to make it is a science. Hence, technology is incomplete without science as they both are incorporated with each other. 2) Pick one of the following natural events and describe how large events help to shape the Earth as it is today. Make sure to explain what causes the event and how scientist tries to predict such events. An earthquake occurs when two blocks of earth suddenly dislocate from one another. Fault or fault plane is the surface from where they slip or dislocate and the location below the earth’s surface where an earthquake begins is known as hypocenter and location directly above on the surface of the earth is called as an epicenter. The earthquake has three shocks: foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks. Foreshocks are the smaller earthquakes which are later followed by the larger earthquake known as mainshocks. Mainshocks are always followed by aftershocks which are, also the small earthquakes which occur at the same place and continue for days, weeks, months and years.  

Commercial Law case study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Commercial Law - Case Study Example It did not lead Rein AJ to doubt the general veracity of the plaintiff. (c) The defendant in his affidavit said nothing about having received an offer from the plaintiff for $150,000 (the plaintiff on his evidence made no such offer in the telephone conversation). It was not put to the plaintiff that he had made an offer to the defendant or that the defendant had rejected it. The defendant swore in the witness box however that it had been said in an answer in cross examination. Given that that was his explanation for why the plaintiff was not entitled as highest bidder, Rein AJ found his failure to refer to it in his affidavit surprising and his evidence on this point difficult to accept. (d) The plaintiff said that when he spoke to the defendant, the defendant told him that the Wirraway had a current airworthiness certificate. The defendant when cross examined on this said that the airworthiness certificate had expired in July 2006. He said he did not recall if he told the plaintiff that there was a current airworthiness certificate. (e) The defendant's version of events, which involved him saying that he would not agree to sell the aircraft unless the buyer inspected it, is not credible and particularly so since he listed the aircraft on eBay for sale without any indication that the buyer should inspect first. (f) Further the defendant had also listed the Wirraway on the "Buy now" section of eBay for $275,000, and claimed that had anyone clicked on that he would not have sold if the Wirraway had not been inspected (T40-T41), which further diminished his credibility. (g) The defendant himself had purchased many items (including Vintage car parts) on eBay and knew that he was entitled to the items when he had been the highest bidder, and Rein AJ found his assertion that he did not understand that he was committed to sell as somewhat surprising. Question 5: The defendant argued there was no binding and enforceable agreement, what were the components of this argument (4 marks) The defendant accepted that both he and the plaintiff accepted, by clicking on an "accept" button, the terms and conditions of eBay but the defendant's argument was that there was no binding and enforceable agreement as between the plaintiff and the defendant. To support his contention