Team Project Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 3

Team Project - Essay Example Popular culture comes into being as a result of the interplay of a variety of factors and sources. The primary source of birth and spread of popular culture is mass media in general and popular music, television shows, movies, video games, books, and radio in particular. Nothing has been as big a contributor toward the spread of popular culture as the Internet. Cell phones, online chatting, videoconferencing, and video calling using Skype and such other software have helped the popular culture spread with the word of mouth. Popular culture has influenced arts in a number of ways. Ever since the 20th century, artists started to use and integrate the elements of pop culture, its items and images in their art. The word used to refer to this practice is appropriation which is defined as â€Å"the process of taking symbols or systems out of their original context and putting them in new ones† (Contemporary Art Start, n.d.). The influence of popular culture on arts reached its peak as the pop art movement during the 1960s and a number of postmodern artists have continued to have this influence to date. Pop artists have challenged the separation traditionally placed between popular and high culture, suggesting that images from comic books, billboards, and grocery store shelves are capable of providing wonderful subjects for sculpture and painting. Pop artists increasingly replaced traditional raw materials used in art including stone, paint, and clay with mass-produced objects. The influence of arts on the popular culture is overarching. Popular culture has fundamentally come into being as a result of the artistic inspirations and desires of people. Performing arts’ impact on the popular culture is just as evident, if not more, as the traditional arts’ impact on it. For example, programs like the Last Comic Standing and American Idol broadcast over a majority of channels encourage the audience to participate in the shows and leave

Define The Word Digital Forgery

Define The Word Digital Forgery According to Merriam-Webster, forgery is defined as the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document (Forgery, Merriam-Webster). So therefore, digital forgery involves falsely altering digital contents such as pictures and documents. Digital forgery has occurred for many years and still remains a relevant topic today. We see it every day in newspapers, magazines, the television, and even the internet. Whether altering the way someone looks, using digital photography in a courtroom, or even bringing a celebrity back from the dead, digital photography and digital television stimulate countless questions and queries about the ethics and morals of digital forgery, with respect to todays technology, and the involvement of digital forgery in our daily lives. The questions that arise because of digital forgery can be addressed and evaluated successfully only through consideration of the history, usage, and ethics of digital forgery in order to determine how and in what wa ys restriction or limitation of digital forgery should occur. Figure Understanding the history of photography and digital forgery helps one realize exactly how digital forgery became a commonly utilized method. Photography dates back to as far as 1826 when a French inventor, Joseph Nicephore Niepce, produced the first everlasting photograph (Photograph, Wikipedia). As time went on, photography got more advanced and more complicated. Soon enough, color photographs were being produced. The first color photograph was produced by a Scottish physicist named James Clerk Maxwell (Photograph, Wikipedia). After the production of color photograph came the invention of film, which led to instant cameras, automatic cameras, and finally digital cameras. Digital photography started first in 1951 with a video tape recorder that produced live images from television cameras by altering the information into electrical impulses and then saving the data onto a magnetic tape (Inventors). Several years later, in the 1960s, NASA used similar technology when they stop ped using analog and began to utilize digital signal with their space probes to map the surface of the moon. This led to the government usage of digital technology with spy satellites and then finally led to digital photography. The first filmless camera was created by Texas Instruments in 1972 followed by the release of the first commercial electronic still camera, the Sony Mavica, in August 1981 (Inventors). The ability to create digital photographs opened up the doors for producing counterfeit images and made it easier for this to be done. However, it wasnt the first time weve seen manipulation in pictures. As a matter of fact, photo manipulation dates back to the 1860s when a picture of John C. Calhoun was edited to have his body with the head of Abraham Lincoln (Photo Manipulation, Wikipedia). Digital forgery escalated in severity during World War II when Joseph Stalin altered photographs for propaganda purposes. For instance, there was a picture taken of Joseph Stalin and NKVD leader Nikolai Yezhov. After Yezhov was executed, the picture was rereleased with Yezhov missing. The photo was manipulated using censors. Figure 1 depicts the before and after pictures regarding this instance. In another case, John Heartfield, who utilized a photo altering technique called photomontage, mocked Adolf Hilter and the Nazis in order to demoralize their misinformed purpose (Photo Manipulation, Wikipedia). The use of digital photography has made it a lot easier for one to manipulate photos today. A program that is exceptionally recognizable is Adobe Photoshop. This is the software used by Adnan Hajj, who manipulated pictures and published them during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006 Lebanon War Photographs Controversies, Wikipedia). Some of the pictures depicted an emphasis of the aftermath of an IDF attack on Beriut. Another one resembled a photograph of an IAF F-16 flying over Southern Lebanon deploying multiple missiles, when it really only deployed one missile (Adnan Hajj Photographs Controversy, Wikipedia). These pictures were removed and Hajj admitted to editing the pictures. After understanding the history and numerous uses of digital forgery, one can begin to assess the ethics involved with digital forgery.http://www.youropinionsarewrong.com/images/random/stalin-airbrush.jpg Based on the previous history and utilization of digital forgery, several relevant questions arise: What ethics are associated with digital forgery? Is digital forgery generally right or wrong? Who or what should take the blame for misleading digital forgery? Should we ever fully believe anything we see anymore in pictures? What can be done about digital forgery? Unfortunately, none of these questions have definite, factual answers. Rather, opinions permeate the essence of the responses to these questions. The significance and validity of each question and response can only be determined by the reader. With the current availability in photo-editing technology, one can alter almost anything in a picture. Often, despite the obvious ethical dilemmas that arise from digital forgery, the individual himself or herself is solely responsible for how cases of digital forgery are evaluated. However, even opinionated evaluation of digital forgery can lead to judgments, laws, rules, limitations, and restrictions on the future of digital forgery, making the ethics involved in digital forgery a necessary topic to consider. In general, is the idea of digital forgery ethically acceptable? To determine whether altering an image is right or wrong, we must establish the reason for which the image is being used. Adjusting a photo for the news, whether digitally or otherwise is most likely not ethical, even though there are understandable exceptions for alteration, such as editing a picture to brighten the details, reduce the blur of a street sign in the distance, or other similar examples. In contrast to the previous application of digital forgery, an image that serves the purpose of providing evidence regarding a crime scene or creature would preferably be void of digital forgery except to bring out inherent detail already contained in the photo. In general though, the majority of digital forgery occurs because digitally altered pictures often appeal to the viewers eyes. As long as these images are not used to mislead, then I believe that digitally altered images are ethically permissible as long as they la ck malicious intent or potential. Another fact to consider regarding this question involves the broad utilization of digital forgery in current times. Picture-editing software often comes readily installed with most current computers, meaning that most people with current computers or lap tops have access to technology for digital editing. Social networking websites, such as facebook.com and myspace.com, give users the ability to post up almost any type of picture or photo, regardless of whether the picture has undergone some type of alteration. Though often misleading, especially in the cases of digital forgery with pictures of the actual user, the question of whether the altering of the picture itself is right or wrong depends on the users viewing the image and their opinions. Depending on the intent of those who partake in digital forgery, the misleading appearances of digital forgery could potentially be detrimental to the other people. Hypothetically, a user of a social network ing website might try to establish a relationship with another user based on the viewing of digitally altered pictures or photographs of that user. What is conveyed on a computer screen with a digitally forged picture may differ greatly from the actual appearance of a user, and this will likely cause a variety of problems for users who try and establish a relationship that is even partially based on the appearance of the other user. However, the user with the altered picture benefits in the sense that he or she increases the likelihood of establishing a relationship with another person based on the digitally altered picture and not the truthful portrayal of that person in reality. Whether the previous situation is overall benevolent or detrimental for both users can only be determined by those users, and whether this application of digital forgery is generally right or wrong can only be determined by an unbiased opinion of another person. Since no test or definite way to prove wheth er an application of digital forgery is generally right or wrong, the decision regarding the ethics of such situations ultimately falls on the individual. Yet, if a ubiquitous verdict is reached conveying that some usage of digital forgery is unethical, who or what should take the blame? Almost indubitably, no individual desires taking blame for any type of situation, regardless of who was responsible for any discommodity associated with the situation. So in reference to the detrimental effects of digital forgery, who or what should be at fault? To understand even the possibilities of who or what should be at fault for negative effects of digital forgery, one must consider the wide array of factors influencing that usage of digital forgery. Technology plays a pivotal role in digital forgery. Because of technology, digital forgery often lacks credibility and believability. Advancements in technology allow people today to alter almost any picture to their preferred specifications, often still believable, but untrue and therefore misleading. Technology, in many ways, provides the means by which digital forgers are capable of producing altered pictures or photographs. However, another point to consider involves the fact that human beings are responsible for these advance ments in technology that allow digital forgery to be accomplished with ease. Though maybe not directly responsible, the people who provide the software or technology for common people to digitally forge do, in a way, provide access to digital forging opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Another influencing factor to consider is societys usage of digital forgery. Magazines, newspapers, websites, and a plethora of other media portray digitally forged pictures, photographs, and images. Countless recalls and cases have formed around excessively exaggerated pictures in magazines and newspapers. Though often not intentionally detrimental, society does place pressure on individuals actions. For example, magazines influence other magazines to use digitally altered pictures. As yet another example, people often succumb to the pressures of being slim and obtaining the socially desired model bodies that society conventionally expects and conveys through magazines and othe r such media. This may cause individuals to take action by harming themselves through unhealthy weight loss practices or even partaking in digital forgery themselves. But since it is ultimately one individual or a group of individuals that are directly responsible for the digital forgery of a specific image, one must consider whether the fault of digital forgery should lie within the individual or group of individuals that directly altered the image itself. Obviously, blaming the misleading or detrimental digitally forged image itself can provide no compensation for those effected in a destructive manner, so only by placing blame on an individual, a group of individuals, technology, society, or other possible culprits can victims of the detrimental effects of digital forgery hope to acquire some type of compensation. Legal action can be taken regarding digital forgery, but the decision of the courtroom or judge can not universally determine who or what should bear the full or partia l burden of blame regarding digital forgery. Unfortunately, once again, who or what is at fault for malevolent results of digital forgery can only be determined by the individual. But disregarding who or what is to blame for digitally forged images, if so many images are truly so misleading, to what extent should people believe what they see in digital images? The existence of some guidelines for what people should believe and not believe when viewing digital images would seem beneficial. Any digital image, or even non-digital images in some cases, present details to a viewer that are not necessarily readily distinguishable from reality. Basically, an individual often finds it difficult to determine whether an image has been digitally altered or not. Very few ways exist of distinguishing a picture that has been altered from a picture that has undergone no such alteration. Because of this fact, viewers of images are often rightfully suspicious of the details conveyed by images. By being too suspicious however, one might neglect to realize the beauty or significance of an image that contains no digital alteration, and this beauty or significance might have been comprehended if one simply was not so suspicious of image details. So, once again, there exists no such guidelines in regards to the extent one should give credibility to an image oth er than the opinions and personal beliefs of the individual. I, being an individual myself, possess personal beliefs on the ethics, credibility, and accountability of digital forgery. My personal beliefs regarding digital forgery possess heavy influence from my past experiences. While pursuing my degree in computer engineering and simply experiencing the world in general, I have come to several personal conclusions about digital forgery. Regarding the ethics of digital forgery, I believe that digitally altered images that are intended to please the viewers aesthetic preferences and are generally benevolent should be ethically permissible. Images that do otherwise or basically digitally forged images that are intentionally malicious or mislead the viewer into believing a false aspect should be subject to some form of compensatory action and are unethical. With reference to who or what is to blame for the detrimental consequences of digital forgery, I feel that the person who digitally altered the image should be held accountable for his or her pessimistic intentions if it truly did result in someone being harmed through viewing that image. And considering how suspi cious or to what extent people should assign reliability to images in current times, I feel that most images should simply be appreciated and not analyzed with scrutiny. The images I feel that people should be suspicious of include those conveying evidence in a crime scene, details supporting assumptions about some phenomenon, or details that persuade an individual to believe an aspect not previously assumed or proved by other corroborations or support. Of course, as in almost all cases, there remain exceptions to my beliefs depending on the details of the situation itself just as there exist exceptions to almost every rule, law, or belief of mankind. My ethical standards concerning digital forgery basically revolves more around the situation in which digital forgery was used and less on the actual digitally forged image itself. Therefore, my ethical views remain dependent on the situation itself in which digital forgery was used before I can make a finalized ethical decision, and I feel that people should adopt a similar system of perception and inspection so all that cases of digital forgery are evaluated successfully. After understanding the history, ethics, and forming well-informed opinions concerning digital forgery, the question one would likely ponder now is: What can be done to stop the unnecessary use of digital forgery? Several steps have already been taken to stop distasteful digital forgery. Webster University Journal came up with a policy for the ethical use of photographs. They published that the manipulation of photographs is commonly allowed when adjusting the brightness and contrast of the photo, burning and dodging to control the tonal range, correcting the color, cropping a frame to fit a certain layout, and retouching either dust or scratches from the photo. The policy further explains that there are certain manipulation techniques that should never be allowed. These include adding, moving, or removing objects within the frame, changing the color other than to restore what the picture originally looked like, cropping a frame in order to alter its meaning, flopping an image either left or right reversal, and finally painting a photograph in other than its true orientation (Webster). These policies are very ethical in the sense that one can still alter images as an artistic sense, but when it comes to proof, evidence, or publishing, the policies are very accurate and maintain credibility. When using a photograph in a published document, images that are manipulated are often used but should be labeled a certain way. The editor simple cannot include an altered picture and hope the readers assume the picture is edited. Altered pictures should be labeled as a photo illustration and shall never be represented as news photographs. Also, there are cameras out now with special technology to avoid digital forgery. Examples of this include cameras that digitally print a custom signature at the bottom of every picture that is taken and processed. This goal of these specially designed cameras is to stop people from not only stealing what could be copyrighted and publishe d material but also to prevent it from being manipulated and used in media and the courtroom. In fact, many courtrooms prefer evidence and take photographic evidence only with the special signature. Another example is an image authentication system the uses fingerprint technology. The creator of many imaging products today, Epson, previously created new image authentication software that was installed in many of their digital cameras. These cameras function by automatically imprinting a photo with an invisible digital fingerprint immediately after the photo is taken. Since the fingerprint is implanted in the image file, the image can then be verified as unedited and all natural by a computer with the software installed (Digital Cameras). This leads to another way to stop malicious digital forgery, with certain software. The most popular known software that lets users edit digital images is Adobe Photoshop. This software had previously been frequently brought up in scandals of images being altered as forgery. Recently, Adobe created a way for users to still use their product for artistic and personal use, but also for publishing use. They created a suite of photo-authentication tools that released in 2008. Basically, it is a plug-in that users install onto their Photoshop software that adds two photo authentication tools to the program (Wired.com). The first one is the Clone Tool Detector and it determines whether a section in a picture is too similar to another part of a picture. The other tool is the Truth Dots tool, which determines whether there are any missing pixels in a digital image. Determining if the pixels are missing results in a sign that the picture has been cropped, which cannot be noticed by that human eye (MandarinMusing.com). Of course, all these things can help in stopping digital image forgery, but pictures that have been taken without the special authentication signatures or fingerprints, or images edited without Photoshops plug-ins still l ack a system to prevent digital forgery. This can be solved with other special software that can detect digital image forgeries. Today, there are many companies who have produced software that have the ability to detect traces of digital image manipulation without relying on the signatures and watermarks. As a computer science doctoral thesis proposal, Micha Kimo Johnson, of Dartmouth College, created three digital image analysis tools to detect digital image forgery. These consist of illuminant direction, specularity, and chromatic aberration (Network World). The illuminant direction tools focus on the light sources of the image. It looks for consistency through the entire picture and different shadows. The light source is not limited to only sun light but also light from electricity. If the sources of light in the image were not in the same direction, the tool would detect the inconsistencies. The other tool is the specularity tool, which basically analyzes the reflective highligh ts in a picture. For example, if a picture of a group of people were taken and someone was digitally added to the image, the tool would detect the reflection in the eyes of all people in the picture and identify that someone was added. The last tool is the chromatic aberration tool, which scans images based on the camera lens used. When a digital picture is taken, natural distortion occurs and is presented on the image. The tool will identify if any of the distortions do not match the surrounding and categorize the image as a forged copy (Network World). Collectively, there exist numerous ways of detecting digital forgery through the use of specialized software, which helps to inhibit the malicious use of digital forgery. Conclusively, the issue of digital forgery has caused controversy for many years, yet recent advances in technology have helped to detect and discourage unethical uses of digital forgery. Since the creation of photography, photographic manipulation started and led into the forgery of images. Digital forgery has been apparent from the time when Soviet officials would disappear from authorized photographs in World War II to current times as we commonly view countless altered pictures in magazines, depicting celebrities with flawless skin and enhanced physiques. There exist ways to prevent digital forgery, such as special cameras that add signatures and invisible fingerprints when they are digitally processed, special programs plug-ins that prevent the altering of images, and even special software that can detect whether a picture is forged or not. While complete termination of digital forgery is nearly impossible, prevention of digital forgery and its reckless usage is quite possible. However, the altering of digital images is now not only used to deceive, but it has been incorporated into an artistic movement in which people manipulate images to represent different aspects of life for non-harmful purposes. Though it might technically be classified as digital forgery, it only becomes an problem when these forged images are used for the media or as evidence in courtroom. The history, evidence, discussion of ethics, and preventative methods for digital forgery helps inspire this encompassing idea: the manipulation of digital images is not necessarily unethical because of the abundance of benevolent or neutral alteration of photos, yet digital forgery with a criminal or malicious motive can most definitely be classified as unethical, for which identification systems exist to discourage and prevent detrimental digital forgery.

Symbolic Characters in Nathaniel Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter :: Scarlet Letter essays

Symbolic Characters in The Scarlet Letter Symbolic characters are very important in most powerful novels. One classic that uses characters as symbols is The Scarlet Letter. This novel is about a woman in Puritan society, Hester, who commits adultery with her minister, Arthur Dimmesdale. She has a daughter, Pearl, and is forced to wear a scarlet letter the rest of her life. Arthur hides his sin and becomes extremely troubled. Hester's husband, Roger, takes it upon himself to judge and punish Arthur for his sin and becomes like the devil. Three characters in the novel are symbolic; Roger Chillingworth, the young woman, and Pearl. One character in the story that is symbolic is Roger, Hester's husband. He is the symbol of a life consumed with revenge. When the reader first meets Roger, he is a mostly normal man. He was small in stature, with a furrowed visage, which, as yet, could hardly be termed aged. There was a remarkable intelligence in his features... (p. 56) The only unusual trait of his is a slight deformity of the shoulder. He is an intelligent man who spends most of his time reading. When Roger finds out that Hester has been unfaithful to him, he vows to take revenge on the man who sinned with her. Later he finds out that the man is Minister Arthur Dimmesdale and meticulously plots revenge. His life becomes consumed with the carrying out of his revenge. He himself sins as he tries to destroy Arthur's soul. Roger soon comes to resemble the devil. He even notices this similarity in himself. He says, "I have already told thee what I am! A fiend!" (p. 158) Hester also says that she pities him, "...for the hatred that has transformed a wise and just man to a fiend." (p. 159) Each of them recognize that Roger's life centered around hatred and revenge have made him like the devil. The symbol working in Roger, living to destroy, shows that tearing down another person causes as much damage to one's own life. Roger is the symbol of a life consu med by desire for revenge. Another symbolic character is the kind young woman. She is symbolic of hope in the story. Surrounded by people criticizing and being self-righteous the young woman alone has kind words to say to and about Hester Prynne.

Micro-Environment Essay

1.0Background Information With the advent of gene technology, it is important to understand not only the phenotype of the organism but also the genotype. Previously, you should have learnt the analysis of genetic traits and the various ways where they can be transmitted from parents to children (by phenotype analysis). Each chromosome is divided into different sections called genes. Genes are the basis of inheritance where traits like hair colour and blood type are controlled by the production of proteins by these genes. Genes contain coded instructions that the body uses to assemble hundreds of different types of proteins that make an individual unique! These amazing trait controllers (genes) are made up of molecules called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is a double-helical polymer bound together by hydrogen bonds between complementary base pairing nucleotides (A to T, G to C). A particular gene is a set of coded instructions made up of a particular order of nucleotides. The variation of which allows the myriad of codes to exist in an organism for it to be unique. This is what controls the genotype of an organism and henceforth, the extraction and isolation of an organisms DNA is imperative, in order to allow further insight into the organism using different molecular-based methods. In this experiment, you will be taking a closer look at this DNA molecule. You will be extracting your own DNA using buccal/cheek cells as the starting material. 2.1Materials Saline 15 ml centrifuge tube Paper cup Drinking water Vortex Centrifuge 10% SDS Bromelain protease (50mg/mL) Ice cold isopropanol Graduated pipettes 2.2Methods IMPORTANT NOTE: Ensure that you have not eaten in the past 1 hour before conducting this experiment (if you are the DNA donor). Ensure that gloves are worn at all times in the experiment. 1. Swish you mouth with about 100 mL drinking water, for about 20 seconds, to remove any food particles. Discard this wash into the sink. 2. Using a permanent marker pen, label your group name onto the paper cup and 15 mL centrifuge tube containing 10mL saline. 3. Pour all the 10mL saline solution into your mouth and vigorously swish for 60s. Do not discard the centrifuge tube. 4. Expel the saline mouthwash into the labelled paper cup. 5. Carefully, pour the saline mouthwash from the paper cup, back into the 15 mL centrifuge tube from step 2. Tightly cap the tube. 6. Pass the capped tubes to the laboratory technician in order to be centrifuged (4500 rpm, 5 min). 7. Upon centrifuging, you should be able to see your buccal cell pellet (the whitish lower solid layer at the bottom of the tube). Gently, pour away the supernatant (the liquid upper layer). 8. Place the tube on ice. 9. Add 2 mL saline into the tube and vortex for 5-10 seconds. 10. Add 1 mL 10% (w/v) sodium dodecylsulphate (SDS) solution (active component in detergents). 11. Gently tap the tubes several times (~8 times) to gently mix the contents. You may invert the tube twice if needed. 12. On ice, add 2 – 3 drops of the lab supplied bromelain protease enzyme into the tube. 13. Gently tap the tubes several times (~8 times) to gently mix the contents. You may invert the tube twice if needed. 14. Cap the tube and place it is a 50oC for 10 minutes. 15. With a clean pipette, gently pipette in 10 mL ice cold isopropanol (95% v/v) slowly into the tube. Tip: Place the filled pipette with its tip against the inside wall of the test tube. Slowly allow the isopropanol to dribble down the inside of the tube. 16. Cap and place the tube in a test tube rack at room temperature for 10 minutes. DO NOT mix, shake, or bump the test tube during this period. 17. The isopropanol is lighter than the contents of the tube. When added according to the directions, the isopropanol will form a clear layer ABOVE the suspension. 18. Observe the test tube for 5 minutes. The DNA will gradually separate from the suspension and rise into the isopropanol layer. Describe the appearance of the DNA. 19. Take a photo as proof of your observation. 20. To remove the accumulated DNA from the tube, follow the directions for DNA spooling as below:- a. Gently insert the glass rod through the isopropanol layer into the clumped/accumulated DNA. b. Carefully, twirl the rod between your fingers, winding the DNA strands onto the rod. c. Slowly remove the rod. Describe the appearance of the spooled DNA. d. Take a photo as proof of your observation. 0. Questions 1. Which one of the following do you think will contain DNA? Explain your reasoning. Bananas; concrete; fossils; meat; metal; spinach; strawberries. 2. What effect would the SDS have on the cell membranes and cold ethanol on DNA? 3. What type of enzyme would be needed to separate the DNA into smaller pieces? 4. Is the DNA extracted pure enough for further applications (i.e. PCR)? 5. If you were to repeat the experiment with an equal number of red blood cells, the amount of DNA collected would either: increase / decrease / stay the same (choose one). Explain your answer. Adapted from:- Bres, M., Weisshaar, A., 2008. Thinking about Biology: An Introductory Laboratory Manual. 3rd Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey, USA. Pg. 333 – 338. Teaching AS Biology Practical Skills. University of Cambridge: International Examination. Pg. 74 – 78. 43 Practical 10 Digestion of Lambda (ÃŽ ») DNA with a Restriction Enzyme (EcoR I endonuclease) 1.0Background Information Restriction enzymes (nucleases) are enzymes that cleave the phosphodiester bonds on the sides of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). These nucleases recognize specific DNA sequences in the double-stranded DNA, which is usually a four to six base pair sequence of nucleotides, and digests the DNA at these sites, resulting in the DNA becoming fragmented into various lengths. Some restriction enzymes cut cleanly through the DNA double helix while some produce uneven or sticky ends. By using the same restriction enzyme to cut DNA from different organisms, the sticky ends produced will be complementary and the DNA from the two different sources can be recombined. In humans, no two individuals have the exact same restriction enzyme pattern in the DNA except for identical twins. Restriction enzymes are named based on a system of nomenclature where the first letters represents the genus name of the organism whereas the next two letters come from the species name. If there is a fourth letter, it stands for the strain of the organism. Finally, if there are Roman numerals, it represents whether that particular enzyme was the first or second etc. isolated in that category. FIGURE 10.1 Cartoon of how EcoR I recognises the restriction site and cleaves the DNA. The second technique used in this practical is the separation and analysis of DNA fragments. Agarose gels are commonly used for this where the  gels that have been prepared with a suitable nucleic acid stain in it, have wells for the samples of DNA to go into. The agarose gel is covered in a suitable buffer so that the DNA is in a neutral pH solution. That way, the DNA moves one direction because of its charge. Since the phosphate groups on the skeleton of DNA are negatively charged, the whole molecule takes on the negative charge. Hence, when the DNA is placed inside the gel and the electricity is turned on, the poles are drawing the DNA toward the positive side, where it will then move through the gel and separate according to the size of the fragments. This technique is called electrophoresis. Results are obtained with the help of UV light that is refracted by the nucleic acid stain that sticks onto the DNA fragments. In this experiment, you will be using the EcoR I restriction endonuclease to digest a known DNA called phage lambda (ÃŽ ») and analysing your sample using agarose gel electrophoresis. 2.1Materials Pre-laboratory work Computer/laptop LambdaDNA.docx (Word document file) Laboratory work Micropipette Sterile pipette tips Microcentrifuge tube (1.5 mL capacity) EcoR I (20 U/ µL) and buffer Distilled deionised sterilised water Agarose gel (prestained with EtBr) 1x TAE buffer Agarose gel electrophoresis set UV Transilluminator

Into the Wild/as You Like It

Texts may show us that a sense of belonging can emerge from connections made with people, places and the larger world. To what extent do the texts you have studied support this idea? ‘Happiness is only real if shared’. This insightful quote from Sean Penn’s 2007 film Into the Wild shows that any sense of belonging must arise through connection we make with others and the wider world. Shakespeare’s play As You Like It also demonstrates this, and shows that belonging is a natural instinct and one fundamental to a meaningful life. The setting of As You Like It plays a crucial role in shaping the idea of belonging in the play. Like the typical pastoral, the beginning of the play is set in court, a place established as a hub of corruption and political tension. Orlando’s house is described as a ‘butchery’ as his brother plots to kill him, ‘[Rosalind] is banish’d’, and Duke Senior calls courtly life ‘painted pomp’. The combination of images suggests estrangement and not belonging. By contrast, Arden is a free, untainted setting where characters are able to develop relationships without conforming to rigid social constraints. Also, the transition from the high density of formal verse in the opening scenes to the more frequent use of prose, signifying acceptance and familiarity, towards the end reinforces this transition from tension and not belonging to unity. This harmonious ending is epitomized in the final scene in which ‘these eight†¦take hands’. That the characters do form relationships there in which they belong is a clear indication that belonging is an innate part of the human condition. In essence, through the natural setting of the play, Shakespeare emphasises that belonging is a natural state of humanity. Similarly, Into the Wild contains pastoral elements that contribute to belonging in the film. Like the ‘painted pomp’ of the court in As You Like It, Penn portrays society as ‘oppressive’, employing dark metaphors of warfare to reinforce this; fence-posts are ‘black sword-tips’ and red tiles ‘hardened blood’. The dinner scene is muted, with the use of shaky hand-held camera emphasizing the tension and estrangement. By contrast, the wilderness acts as a catalyst for belonging in which he realizes the significance of onnections with people to happiness. All scenes of him in the wild are shot in rich natural light, as opposed to the exaggerated florescent lighting used in the civilized scenes. This contrast in lighting suggests that both Arden and the wild are places of healing where characters learn about the nature of belonging and the importance of connections. As You Like It shows that belonging can arise through connections with o thers. There are many ways to be accepted and Shakespeare reflects this in his use of diverse characters. Rosalind takes a more sensible, realistic approach than Orlando, stating that ‘men have died from time to time†¦but not for love’. Orlando is much more the petrachan lover, vowing to ‘live and die’ her slave. Celia and Oliver’s relationship is a more spontaneous connection, ‘whoever loved that loved not at first sight? ’ whereas Touchstone and Audrey simply see marriage as a natural part of life ‘as the ox has his bow, so wedlock does come nibbling’. The contrast between these couples combined with the comedic ending shows that belonging can arise through variety of relationships and connections. The Rainbow Fish similarly demonstrates that belonging can arise from a variety of relationships. The fish depicted in the book are of different shapes and sizes, and are even joined intermittently by other creatures; a starfish, an octopus, a shark, suggesting implying a diversity of connections that can lead to belonging. Also, the Rainbow fish’s scales are a combination of all the colours of the other monochromatic fish. Through this Pfiser is implying that we have something in common with everyone, and so connections with others are not limited to a certain type. The correlation between connections with people and belonging is perhaps seen most clearly in As You like It through the contrast between Rosalind and Jacques, the brooding melancholic. Shakespeare juxtaposes the two characters to make the point that belonging arises primarily from connections. Where Rosalind has many friends such as her ‘dear coz’ Celia, Orlando and Touchstone, Jacques is alone and friendless, reveling in his melancholy which he ‘loves better than laughing’. He chooses not to belong, symbolized in his refusal to partake in the final dance, despite being beseeched by the Duke to ‘stay, Jacques, stay! ’ Where Jacques rejects connections in favor of ‘matter to be heard and learned’, Rosalind embraces them, and as a result is the happier, more fulfilled character. Shakespeare’s use of contrast clearly shows that belonging, and hence happiness, is an intrapersonal phenomenon. In many ways, Chris of Into The Wild mirrors Jacques. He refuses to belong, striving after Platonic ideals similarly to how Jacques seeks learning. He explicitly says that ‘rather than love†¦give me truth’, paralleling Jacques preference for knowledge over belonging. Unlike Jacques however, he regrets his decisions towards the end, seen through the director’s use of the diary to convey his thoughts. In an extreme close up, he writes ‘lonely’ slowly and deliberately, and underlines it to highlight the intensity of his feeling of isolation. The music is sad and haunting, emphasizing his regret over his alienation. Further to this, the final scene consists of a series of rapid flashbacks depicting characters with which he formed relationships. The voiceover is in second person ‘what if I were smiling and running you’re your arms? ’, with the use of the conditional tense highlighting his regret at his rejection of connections. This use of voice over combined with positive cumulative images ending in a still shot of Chris, suggests that our sense of belonging is important to both happiness and a sense of self. Like Chris, the Rainbow Fish ultimately realizes the value of belonging. Initially he was a character like Jacques; when offered by the others to ‘come join in’ he would glide past, ‘proud and silent’. However, in the end he chooses to share his ‘shimmering scales’, a recurring motif symbolizing love and friendship. This transition from isolation to belonging is further emphasised by the positioning of the fish in the book. On the first page, he is depicted alone in the centre, with his back to the other fish. As he learns to belong, he begins to turn towards others, eventually ending face to face as he gives away the first scale. His change of attitude is also reflected in the shift in colour scheme, from cooler hues of blue to warmer purples. This suggests happiness and love, again implying that a sense of belonging is vital to happiness. Both As You Like It and Into the Wild show that belonging may, and does, arise out of the connections we make with other people. These connections are a natural part of the human condition and can take many shapes and forms, but they are essential to happiness as it is a shared phenomenon.