Friday, January 31, 2020

Network Security Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Network Security - Research Paper Example Network Security Introduction: Network security is a fairly confusing and complicated subject that has historically been tackled only by experts and experienced professionals. Nonetheless, increased wiring among people in the networked world has increased the need for people to perceive and master the fundamentals of security. This paper has been written with the basic information systems manager and computer user into focus so that they may acquire sufficient knowledge to hype in the market, identify potential threats and to tackle them appropriately. First, a bit of networking history is discussed. This discussion is followed by the introduction to internetworking as well as TCP/IP. Later, risk management, firewalls, and potential network threats will be discussed in order to elaborate the purpose of secure networking tools and devices. This paper is intended to lend the audience a broad perspective of the network security in general, and a sense to identify, manage and reduce risk s both at home and the workplace in particular. In order to sufficiently comprehend the rules and traits of network security, it is imperative that an individual has some basic knowledge of computer networks. Therefore, it is customary to briefly discuss the foundations of computer networking before moving over to the popular networks and their security. What is a Network? A network may be defined as a set in which lines that resemble a net interlink with one another. It is essentially a system of interconnected lines. Like any network, a network of computer essentially has many computers interlinked with one another. There are numerous ways to interconnect the computers. There are seven layers of communications types with interfaces according to the Reference Model of the International Standards Organization (ISO) / Open Systems Interconnect (OSI) as shown in the figure below: â€Å"The ISO/OSI Reference Model† (Curtin, 1997). Each layer is dependent upon the services of the immediately lower layer. This pattern follows until one gets on the lowest layer of physical network. This can be best understood by drawing a comparison between this model and something of everyday use like a telephone. A telephone is the means of transmittal of message between two people when they are sufficiently away to be out of each other’s earshot. Same happens at the application layer of the ISO/OSI model. The telephones serve the purpose by converting the sound into electronic pulses which may be transmitted back and forth through the wire. Layers underneath the application layer serve the very purpose. Both sets of the telephone need to be connected into a switch which is an essential component of the network of switches of the telephone system. In order to make a call, an individual needs to pick the receiver up and dial the desired extension or number. This number indicates the central office which the request goes to so that a phone from that office rings up. Th e individual at the other end picks up the receiver and the conversation begins. Computer networks have a similar way to function. Some Popular Networks: A lot of networks have been identified and employed over the last 2.5 decades or more. In this paper, two of them will be looked into. Both of the networks are public networks, that essentially means that either of them can be connected by anyone. People can

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Response to The Fish By Elizabeth Bishop Essay -- Poetry Poem Fish Eli

Response to "The Fish" By Elizabeth Bishop I chose to respond to Elizabeth Bishop's "The Fish" because the poem seems so simple, yet there is much to gather from reading it. This is a narrative poem told in the first person about a woman who catches a fish on a rented boat and, after staring at him for a while, decides to throw him back. The narrator of this poem goes through a series of stages in which she is at first detached from the fish, then intrigued by him, and then finally sympathetic towards him. In the very first lines of Bishop's poem, the narrator catches the fish and treats him as such. "I caught a tremendous fish / and held him beside the boat / half out of water, with my hook / fast in a corner of his mouth" (Bishop 665). She has just caught a fish and is in the process of bringing him onto the boat. She seems very disconnected from this fish, who is just the target of a sport--fishing. When she gets the chance to take a good look at him, it seems that her view changes from detachment to curiosity and admiration. She notices that the fish doesn't struggl...

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Prewar Marxism in Japan Essay

Marxism was coined after its proponent, Karl Marx who believed that the abuses of capitalism would eventually lead to uprisings of the masses particularly of the working class. According to him, the aggrieved plight of the working class will become the key in unleashing the inevitable clashes between the classes. In his argument, Capitalism will be replaced by Communism, in which in his view, this set-up of free economy opens a gate to many inequalities in the society, making the weak and poor more vulnerable to the flaws of the system. As Uno Kozo observed in his work, The Essence of Capital, â€Å"The commodification of the labor force remains the crux of Capitalism† (SJT, pp.243). To Marx belief, Communism is the â€Å"common ownership of the means of production†. There would be public ownership of farms, factories, raw materials, and the like. To him, all means of production will be owned by the workers and all workers would eventually become workers.             In Japan, Marxism was first introduced in the late 1890’s but it was in the 1920’s that it started to catch attention and support from the people especially from the intellectuals (SJT, pp 239; Beckmann, pp. 139). The early Marxists belonged to two different groups, the reformers and the revolutionary. The reformers followed Tolstoian humanitarianism, advocated universal suffrage, and pursued reforms through parliamentary action. While the revolutionaries believed in the Materialist ideas from the German and French Marxist. They adhered to the idea of class struggle and direct revolutionary action by class-conscious workers. The revolutionaries were also attracted to the tactics of the anarcho-syndicalism (Beckmann pp. 140).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The various differences of principles of the Early Marxists in Japan had initially   signaled that a strong unified group would be quite a challenge to create a remarkable impact. In fact, at its onset Marxism was already noted with three general flaws such as its systematic character that degenerates into dogmatism; putative universality that recalls its foreign origin; and its critical modus operandi that provokes infighting and organizational fragmentation (SJT, pp241 ). But all these are generalized observations sums up probable enlightenment on why it seemed to appear that prewar Marxism was never a political success. However, it is pertinent to note that these observations envelopes one or more historical accounts and empirical evidences of the progresses and demise of prewar Marxism in Japan.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The idea of Marxism had its strong appeal in the university circle composed mainly of the professors and students. In fact, one of its early and notable supporters was Kawakami Hajime of the Kyoto Imperial University. He wrote may treatises on Marxism and provided valuable assistance to other advocates in the persons of Sakai Toshihiko, Arahata Kanson among others (Beckmann pp. 145). At that time, the battleground was published material like newspaper wherein people can be informed and get influenced at the same time. At some point, it created impact and stirred the discontentment of the people resulting to the clamor for reforms in Japanese society. This clamor was highlighted more by the onset of the Japan Modernization process in which new demands for the fundamental changes in the society is created (Beckamm pp146). To quote Beckamm, â€Å"Marxism was attractive to them because it provided the fullest explanation of the idea of progress that they had yet encountered. They were easily seduced by the Marxist proposition that through the dialectic progress was inevitable.   Dialectical materialism gave them (supporters) a scientific methodology for analyzing Japanese society, as well as general principles of strategy for effecting change†.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   But no matter how ardent the campaign was and how dynamic the intellectual debates were, history underscores that prewar Marxism fell short in achieving its much desired political change. The variables affecting this result are attributed to both external and internal difficulties encountered by the group. It is believed that too much emphasis on theoretical conceptualization has left the advocates confused on what is real and what is not. And what is real during that time, is the dominance of the conservative elite who managed to uphold Japanese value system. All important institutions of Japanese society inculcated obedience, loyalty, and status over freedom, individual rights, and equality. All these summed up to hostilities of the society to individuals who think otherwise. Thus, it resulted to numerable defection from Communism and Socialism parties. It may also be relevant to note that conservative value system of Japanese society and the so called patterns of behavior during the modernization period contributed to the prevention of basic antagonism from being open clashes. Many intellectuals may be vocal in their convictions but a greater number of them seemed anxious to join the mass â€Å"hurly burly maybe because of the behavioral patterns pervading in the society and of the enveloping obligation not to disgrace the family through deviation from the generally accepted behavior. Another pitfall of the prewar Marxism is the very nature that the ideology was alien and much worse, dependent on the support of a foreign state which is labeled as enemy and competitor of their own country. It could not simply break the much preferred paradigm of Japanese Nationalism and Confucianism. Furthermore, the movement cannot fight equally with the raw power of the state especially of its police and military predisposition. This is for the obvious reason that communists had no civil liberties to protect them. As a matter of fact, party organizations were dismantled through various man-arrest in 1923, 1928, 1929, and much frequently in the 1930s. These arrests made it difficult for the advocates to maintain a substantial number that could function effectively for its cause (Beckamm, pp 148-150)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Much had been said by the writings and works of the early believers but less had been done. In the labor movement itself, the support and participation was only a small percent of the whole sector. Many who joined the cause were in the small and medium enterprises and almost none from the large industries. A few participation reflected that many have gone disillusioned or remained uninspired by the movement due to many failures of negotiations and strikes. The same also goes for the peasants, the Japanese agricultural communities and families were unreceptive and to some measure were hostile to Communism and Socialism. This maybe because the peasant movement lacks single central leadership that could have had become an effective channel of influence (Beckamm, pp150).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Commintern Policy also posted a challenge to the thriving ideology of Marxism. It added certain degree of divisiveness among the people in the movement. Also, it provided a very good issue that kept the proponents busy in arguing as to which would be the good and effective direction to heed towards the desired impact on Japanese society. Is it the bourgeois-democratic or the proletarian revolution? Again, it brood disunity, conflict, and frustration among themselves.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The defection of Etsuzo, Sano, and Nabeyama also influenced fellow believers to defect and to condemn all together the principles and actions of the group they once pledge allegiance and commitment (Beckmann, pp160; 166).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In totality, prewar Marxism in Japan made numerous progresses and successes in bringing out brilliance among Japanese intellectuals. However, it was never translated into a political action that would have given life to the very essence of the teachings of Karl Marx. Though numerous reasons tried to explain this result, but maybe the only reason true enough to describe its failure is the one said by George Beckmann, â€Å"†¦the very nature of Japanese society made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a Communist movement to exist, let alone operate with any degree of effectiveness†¦to Marxist-Leninist terms, the objective conditions were not at all favorable. (Beckmann pp. 152)†

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

The Texas Revolution and the Republic of Texas

The Texas Revolution (1835–1836) was a political and military insurrection by settlers and inhabitants of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Texas against the Mexican government. Mexican forces under General Santa Anna attempted to crush the rebellion  and had victories at the legendary Battle of the Alamo and the Battle of Coleto Creek, but in the end, they were defeated at the Battle of San Jacinto and forced to leave Texas. The revolution was successful, as the present-day US state of Texas broke off from Mexico and Coahuila and formed the Republic of Texas. The Settlement of Texas In the 1820s, Mexico wished to attract settlers to the vast, sparsely populated State of Coahuila y Texas, which consisted of the present-day Mexican State of Coahuila as well as the US State of Texas. American settlers were eager to go, as the land was plentiful and good for farming and ranching, but Mexican citizens were reluctant to relocate to a backwater province. Mexico reluctantly allowed Americans to settle there, provided they became Mexican citizens and converted to Catholicism. Many took advantage of colonization projects, such as the one led by Stephen F. Austin, while others simply came to Texas and squatted on vacant land. Unrest and Discontent The settlers soon chafed under Mexican rule. Mexico had just won its independence from Spain in 1821, and there was much chaos and infighting in Mexico City as liberals and conservatives struggled for power. Most Texas settlers approved of the Mexican constitution of 1824, which granted many freedoms to states (as opposed to federal control). This constitution was later rescinded, angering the Texans (and many Mexicans as well). The settlers also wanted to split from Coahuila and form a state in Texas. The Texan settlers were initially offered tax breaks which were later taken away, causing further discontent. Texas Breaks from Mexico By 1835, troubles in Texas had reached a boiling point. Tensions were always high between Mexicans and American settlers, and the unstable government in Mexico City made things that much worse. Stephen F. Austin, long a believer in staying loyal to Mexico, was jailed without charges for a year and a half: when he was finally released, even he was in favor of independence. Many Tejanos (Texan-born Mexicans) were in favor of independence: some would go on to fight valiantly at the Alamo and other battles. The Battle of Gonzales The first shots of the Texas Revolution were fired on October 2, 1835, in the town of Gonzales. The Mexican authorities in Texas, nervous about the increased hostility with the Texans, decided to disarm them. A small squad of Mexican soldiers was sent to Gonzales to retrieve a cannon stationed there to fight off Indian attacks. The Texans in the town did not allow the Mexicans entry: after a tense standoff, the Texans fired on the Mexicans. The Mexicans swiftly retreated, and in the whole battle there was but one casualty on the Mexican side. But the war had begun and there was no going back for the Texans. The Siege of San Antonio With the outbreak of hostilities, Mexico began making preparations for a massive punitive expedition north, to be led by President/General Antonio Là ³pez de Santa Anna. The Texans knew they had to move quickly to consolidate their gains. The rebels, led by Austin, marched on San Antonio (then more commonly referred to as Bà ©xar). They laid siege for two months, during which time they fought off a Mexican sally at the Battle of Concepcià ³n. In early December, the Texans attacked the city. Mexican General Martà ­n Perfecto de Cos conceded defeat and surrendered: by December 12 all Mexican forces had left the city. The Alamo and Goliad The Mexican army arrived in Texas, and in late February laid siege to the Alamo, a fortified old mission in San Antonio. Some 200 defenders, among them William Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett, held out to the last: the Alamo was overrun on March 6, 1836, and all within were slain. Less than a month later, about 350 rebellious Texans were captured in battle and then executed days later: this was known as the ​Goliad Massacre. These twin setbacks seemed to spell doom for the nascent rebellion. Meanwhile, on March 2, a congress of elected Texans officially declared Texas independent from Mexico. The Battle of San Jacinto After the Alamo and Goliad, Santa Anna assumed he had beaten the Texans and divided his army. Texan General Sam Houston caught up to Santa Anna on the banks of the San Jacinto River. On the afternoon of April 21, 1836, Houston attacked. Surprise was complete and the attack turned first into a rout, then into a massacre. Half of Santa Annas men were killed and most of the others were taken prisoner, including Santa Anna himself. Santa Anna signed papers ordering all Mexican forces out of Texas and recognizing the independence of Texas. The Republic of Texas Mexico would make several half-hearted attempts to re-take Texas, but after all Mexican forces left Texas following San Jacinto, they never had a realistic chance of re-conquering their former territory. Sam Houston became the first President of Texas: he would serve as Governor and Senator later when Texas accepted statehood. Texas was a republic for almost ten years, a time which was marked by many troubles, including tension with Mexico and the US and difficult relations with local Indian tribes. Nevertheless, this period of independence is looked back upon with great pride by modern Texans. Texas Statehood Even before Texas split from Mexico in 1835, there were those in Texas and the USA that were in favor of statehood in the USA. Once Texas became independent, there were repeated calls for annexation. It wasnt so simple, however. Mexico had made it clear that while it was forced to tolerate an independent Texas, annexation would likely lead to war (in fact, the US annexation was a factor in the outbreak of the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War). Other sticking points included whether slavery would be legal in Texas and the federal assumptions of Texas debts, which were considerable. These difficulties were overcome and Texas became the 28th state on December 29, 1845. Resources and Further Reading Brands, H.W. Lone Star Nation: the Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence. New York: Anchor Books, 2004.Henderson, Timothy J. A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the United States.New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.