The Age of Elderlyin Iran is Changing - 1826 Words

Background: The population ageing phenomenon has started in many of developing countries like Iran. Most developed countries have accepted the age of â€Å"65† years as a definition of â€Å"elderly†, but some developing countries like Iran consider the age of â€Å"60†. We aimed to compare the physical and mental health of people who aged 60-64 years with those who aged 65-69 years in order to determine if the definition of elderly in our country is true. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between April to September 2011, in the west in Iran. Participants in this study are those who referred to the elderly care centers. With random sampling, 2 from 3 centers and with convenience sampling 302 peoples aged 60-69 years were selected. All participants were interviewed via face to face or with telephone using standard questionnaires including Kessler (K6) scale, psychological wellbeing scale, activities of daily living scale and sf-36 scale. The statistical differences were assessed by Pearson’s chi-square at 5% level of significance. Results: Statistical comparisons have shown that there is a significant difference among two age groups under study regarding to psychological distress scale, psychological wellbeing scale and activity of daily living scale. No meaningful difference was seen concern with physical functioning (SF-36) scale between two groups. Conclusion: Our finding proposed that age of 60 possibly is better for onset of delivering elderly care services. Other

Masculinity Gender And Sexuality - 1997 Words

Everyone who does not fit the idea of masculinity has been placed in the other category. Kids have a hard time to self-identify themselves because of all the masculine role moles that present themselves in the media. Masculinity has created a structured binary that makes their role the ideal role for society to be. That ideal role is traced back to a long history of old traditions, that society cannot look past. This ideal of masculinity has created complications within gender and sexuality that have made people hold onto heteronormative ideals. The heteronormative ideals have created a privilege society where the white males dominate the world and place everyone who does not fit in their binary into the other people category. Masculinity†¦show more content†¦This tainted image also harmed women of color because of how society treated black people. â€Å"For African American women, the forced sexual victimization of African female slaves led to the promulgation of many distorted stereotypes, created by White society in an attempt to reconcile the contradiction of this maltreatment and the espoused values of a Christian democracy†. (Greene, 241) The image of African American women being viewed as victims and slaves makes people believe that they will have tainted blood forever in them. It was easy to target black women because they have been tortured, since they were brought over. They have never had positive image about themselves because males prevented them from practicing their African Tribe traditions. Even their white women counterparts victimized women of color because they felt it was easier to oppress them and put the attention towards them instead of themselves. Men put women int o the other category and started a hierarchy where people always tried to find a way to place people in the lower category of other. Masculinity has made it hard for woman and particularly women of color to find a place in society. â€Å"White men do not have to do â€Å"dirty work,† such as housework; the most inferior group does it, usually poor women of color.† (Lorber, 58) White men have created this privilege role that makes people believe that women are always meant to stay home and do what he says. White men push for an ideal

Comparative Analysis of Operating Systems †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Comparative Analysis of Operating Systems. Answer: Introduction: Nokia was one of the largest mobile phone manufacturers of the world before selling off its business first to Microsoft at 7 Billion USD, and then to HMD for an undisclosed amount. Nokia was doing extremely well in the 80s, 90s, until the mid-2000s when things started falling off the plate for Nokia and it stumbled like a pack of cards(Laamanen, Lamberg Vaara, 2016). A lot of articles and journals have been written on what exactly went wrong with Nokia, how a company which was at the Zenith of success can dig a hole so deep in earth that it could never make a comeback from its failures. By 2007 Nokia was manufacturing more than 65% of the mobile phones sold on the planet earth with its Symbian mobile operating system and was a clear market leader in the mobile space (Sumanthi, 2017). Nokia was selling huge number of mobile phones globally due to its strong body type, longer battery life, industry experience, quality products, pricing strategy and attractive designs. It was the era p ost 2007 which saw the evolution of Application for Mobile phones which changed the entire ecosystem of the mobile phone industry. A lot of players started emerging out of nowhere; companies like Samsung, Micromax, Oppo, Intex, Huawei and many other started giving a tough fight to Nokia. The single largest trouble with the Nokia was its inability to design an operating system which could work well with the mobile application and have a seamless integration with the mobile phone. This is touted as the biggest reason which led to the bankruptcy of Nokia and emergence of other players in the Industry (Rooij, 2015). During the era of Nokia, Apple was to be found nowhere, the company was doing its best to make products which customers would buy instinctively, but were really not able to match up to the standards of Nokia, Nokia was clearly leading the way. But, in the year 2007, Apple suddenly came in the market with its revolutionary I-phones and created a disruption in the entire market phone industry. People were seen to be standing in long queues to buy an I-phone and suddenly the wind turned the direction towards Apple, and the tech world was just talking about three things: Apple, Steve Jobs IPhones. By first quarter of 2013 Apple had captured almost 40% of the US smartphone market and over 50% of the operating profit in the global handset industry. If figures have to be believed, Apple was selling 5X phones in comparison to sale of Nokias Lumia phones. It was just a matter of time Apple and other players like Samsung, Sony, Micromax, oppo and MI took over, which was the moment of death fo r Nokia. Ios and Android by then has taken over the mobile operating software and killed Symbian and the nearly extinct Blackberry. Apple was smart to realize that it was not just the mobile phones, but it was the software which should be leveraged to create experience for the customers. Nokia has been criticized a lot by a number of Tech Bloggers, enthusiasts, industry experts and by some of its own senior leaders, the tone of the message was clear, Nokias management predicted the change in the smartphone market, but really could not come together as a team and work towards the changing landscape(Hernes Bytniewski, 2017). The company acknowledged first in 2004, in one of its media release, that the smart phone market is up for a revolution and Nokia would be leading from the front. However, nothing was done to embrace the change, on the contrary, the company refused to build partnership with emerging players who wanted Nokias expertise in their mobile phone business. It was the inability of the company to come together and develop software which would be in sync with the needs of the customer, and would have ensured sustainability for Nokia. It was the leadership which did not believe what was happening; they were in a state of shock and did not believe how every c ompany, other than Nokia would move ahead in the race (Yun, Won Park, 2016). In comparison to Nokia, team at Apple under the leadership was really looking strong. The team at Apple was playing the game by fundamentals, by analysing the need of the customers, their taste and preferences and based on the market study wanted to design a product to cater to all the needs of its customers. Steve Jobs leadership, often said as debatable, but it was his leadership which brought all the department of the companies together, and it was him who made the entire team work together, with a single vision of putting a better, smarter and a faster phone with an open system in the hands of the consumers. Nokia failed to respond to Apple, its Symbian operating system was aging and dying, but the company could not do much about it. They were really late on switching to windows for help, to revitalize their brand strategy, their operating system, by then the vote was already casted in favour of Apple and Other Android mobile phones. Another aspect of leadership which can be translated from the bankruptcy of Nokia and success of Apple phone is the inability to understand the pulse of the smartphone audience. Nokia, which was a tech giant, launched the first smartphone in the market, tested the prototype for touch screen and internet enabled phones was spending millions and millions on Research and development for the next big thing, in the process, they forgot the most important component of business, its customers(Grant, 2016).Apple leveraged its customers, its target audience, it realized the lacunae in the current smartphone providers and the needs of the customers, and it just bridged the gap and brought revolution in the industry(Holt, 2016). Nokia was at heart a hardware company and its management could not keep up with the pulse of the consumers and focus on software, the inability of its marketing department to read the consumers was another major reason for its bankruptcy. It was the management at Nokia, which turned a blind eye towards the changing ecosystem and refused to acknowledge the problem, they were of the opinion that Nokias hardware would eventually pull back all its lot customers towards the company, but it was simply not the case. By then, people had already gotten accustom to the platform which made them access application on their devices in a seamless manner, thus crushing the hopes of Nokia (Streeter, 2015). Apple was always clear about few things in perspective; they knew that Smartphone business is evolving in nature, a lot of competition will become the focal point of the industry, software will dominate, more and more application will be created to enhance the user experience and phones will get more stylish and aesthetic(Kushida, 2015). Focussing on the vision, Apple created a 5 year strategy for what kind of products it wants to create for the consumer which will benefit them the most, following the vision Apple created IPhones and took the market by storm. Apples product are known to be mans best friend and addictive, the style, designing, attention to details, camera quality and its subtle branding makes it one of the most comprehensive smartphones in the industry which was struggling with innovation and were unable to feel the pulse of the people(Lorange Rembiszewski,2016). There were a lot of people who said that IPhone was an overnight success, but in actual it was the hard w ork of the team standing resolute behind the genius mind of Steve jobs, they all believed in the vision of its leader and were determined to design something so beautiful and useful that it brings a disruption in the entire industry. It was Apple who was pioneer in creating full display touch phones with great pixel resolution and sleek design. Apple not only focussed on one of few aspects which make a smartphone really smart, on the contrary it went a step ahead and focussed on all the aspects of the mobile phone to make The ultimate device for the users (Apple, 2016).Another brilliant thing which the team at Apple executed and has been criticized initially was its exclusive closed Apple store for Application and other things. People did not understand the purpose of doing so, but later realized company did so to provide the user best experience and not allow the viruses to enter the great device. Nokia failed miserably because it did not have what Apple had, a clear mission and vi sion and great leadership (Mitchell, 2014). The leadership at Nokia was not future looking, they were focussed more on what they have been doing in the past and wanted to replicate the same strategy for the business sustainability. Although, there were some really cool products which company created, stylish looks, longer battery and strength in the mobile phones, sadly, it was not enough for the market. Management at Nokia was spending good amount of money into their research and development wing, but they were not investing much in marketing research. This was one of the major issues why the company failed to create products for the future and improve the lives of people. It was like missing a big piece from solving a puzzle, the missing piece being marketing research. Marketing research helps to identify the needs and preference of the customers, their aspirations, their feedback, their utility for a product and many more; all these features are greatly useful for creating the ri ght product for them (Kaur Sharma, 2014). It was a complete failure of the management to assess the external environment which ultimately led to failure of the 150 years old company leading to sell off its assets to Microsoft and later to HMD. Another important aspect which is a critical success factor for the success of Apples product is its strategy of continuous innovation. As explained earlier, Steve jobs was a visionary and an exemplary leader, he had this unique gift of quickly picking up the smart things in the room and his ability and passion to create product from a basic idea and sell it further. It was his intuitive thinking; balanced calculation to mitigate the risks associated with new products that him the biggest innovator on planet earth (Wang, 2015). If one has to analyse the product of Apple, it can be found how hard the team worked in collaboration towards sustained innovation. Every person who was employed at Apple was appreciated from bringing innovation on the table; innovation was the undying spirit at Apples office in Cupertino, California. People were seen discussing ideas, talking of new things, how to offer something unique to the customers and how to create products which have never been created . It was the culture of innovation which was one of the driving factors of success for the company; it was innovation which changed the entire ecosystem of mobile phones for the best (Divya Kumar, 2015).Innovation at Apple was pivotal in driving a lot of innovation in the industry by other players as well. Apple had set an example in front of mobile companies on how to build products which have actual benefit for the customers. During the era of 2007-13, a lot of innovation was happening in the mobile phone industry and the front runner leading the innovation was Apple. On the other end of the spectrum was Nokia, which was not even remotely close to bring innovation in its product, a lot of experts said that Nokia accepted defeat very early and stopped innovating knowing android and IOS has taken over the market(Basole, 2016). Its marriage with Microsoft to build Lumia Phones happened at the time when major share was divided between Apple and other android players, leaving very lit tle for the new products of Nokia. The innovation took backseat at Nokia, or it can be said that team at Nokia took too long to innovate which ultimately caused the debt ridden company to sink in the waters. Satya Nadella, the then CEO of Microsoft in one of his earlier interviews acknowledged that they failed to understand the pulse of the customers and miserably failed to innovate, they were relying on the earlier proven success strategies of Nokia, and continued with them, leading to grand failure of the company(Chung Park, 2017). More so, the team at Nokia felt defeat at the hands of Apple and other android players and they gave up, they failed to acknowledge that if they roll up their sleeves and start innovating and put all their efforts on making phone both a utility and an engaging device for the consumers, it would have been just a matter of time that they would have tasted success. The lack of motivation in the workplace and the team was again one of the prime reasons tha t the company could not get back on its feet and accepted the defeat very soon (Yadav Maheshwari, 2016). Towards the end, it can be said that Apple was clear with its vision, which was built on sustained innovation and the entire company was motivated to drive change in the mobile phone industry. The KRA of all the employees at Apple was based on creating brilliant products for its target audience. Employees were motivated to bring this change and be a part of the revolution, the leadership at Apple did a brilliant job by hiring the best talent, manage them effectively, keep them motivated and align their individual goals with those of the organization. In comparison, Nokia was unable to manage its employees; there was the problem of turnover in the company fuelled by their continuous product failure and failure to innovate. It was the inability of the management to keep the talent at Nokia motivated and their failure to manage them was a great contributor for its failure. The vision of Nokia was to connect people and build products for them which would reap benefits for them; however t he same was not translated in form of goals and objectives of the organization. At one point it was seen that the leadership and the employees were absolutely at loggerheads which worsened the situation for the failing Nokia. Hence, in a company which is unable to harvest a good culture, motivate its employees, keep them engaged, shape their attitude and push them to think of new ideas, the failure of such a company was inevitable. The essay can be concluded by saying that the strategy at Apple, ideology of the leadership and the ability to predict the future of mobile phone followed by innovation were some of the reasons of its success, back then and even now. On the other hand, the inability of Nokia to detect the pulse of its audience, inability to predict the change in the mobile industry, inability to manage its workers and manage them and at last inability to innovate better products for the customers was primarily responsible for the bankruptcy of Nokia. References Laamanen, T., Lamberg, J. A., Vaara, E. (2016). Explanations of success and failure in management learning: What can we learn from Nokias rise and fall?.Academy of Management Learning Education,15(1), 2-25. Rooij, A. (2015). Sisyphus in business: Success, failure and the different types of failure.Business History,57(2), 203-223. Yun, J. J., Won, D., Park, K. (2016). Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change.Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,2(1), 7. Grant, R. M. (2016).Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition. United States: John Wiley Sons. Zierer, K., Hattie, J. (2017).10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success.United Kingdom: Routledge. Lorange, P., Rembiszewski, J. (2016).From Great to gone: why FMCG companies are losing the race for customers.United Kingdom: Routledge. Kushida, K. E. (2015). The politics of commoditization in global ICT industries: a political economy explanation of the rise of Apple, Google, and industry disruptors.Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade,15(1), 49-67. Streeter, T. (2015). Steve Jobs, romantic individualism, and the desire for good capitalism.International Journal of Communication,9, 19. Holt, D. (2016). Branding in the age of social media.Harvard business review,94(3), 40-50. Basole, R. C. (2016). Topological analysis and visualization of interfirm collaboration networks in the electronics industry.Decision Support Systems,83, 22-31. Chung, S., Park, J. (2017). The influence of brand personality and relative brand identification on brand loyalty in the European mobile phone market.Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration,34(1), 47-62. Yadav, A., Maheshwari, S. (2016). A comparative scrutiny of smartphone Operating Systems.International Journal Series in Engineering Science (IJSES)(ISSN: 2455-3328), 15-25. Divya, K., Kumar, V. K. (2016). Comparative Analysis of Smart Phone Operating Systems Android, Apple IOS and Windows.International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Applied Science (IJSEAS),2(2), 432-439. Wang, H. J. (2015). A new approach to network analysis for brand positioning.International Journal of Market Research,57(5), 727-742. Mitchell, W. (2014). Why Apples product magic continues to amazeskills of the worlds# 1 value chain integrator.Strategy Leadership,42(6), 17-28. Kaur, P., Sharma, S. (2014, March). Google Android a mobile platform: A review. InEngineering and Computational Sciences (RAECS), 2014 Recent Advances in(pp. 1-5). IEEE. Apple, M. W. (2016, April). Introduction to The politics of educational reforms. InThe Educational Forum(Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 127-136). United Kingdom: Routledge. Hernes, M., Bytniewski, A. (2017, April). Towards Big Management. InAsian Conference on Intelligent Information and Database Systems(pp. 197-209). Springer, Cham. Sumathi, R. (2017, May). Analysis and verification of key performance parameters of cellular network on CEMoD portal. InRecent Trends in Electronics, Information Communication Technology (RTEICT), 2017 2nd IEEE International Conference on(pp. 2095-2100). IEEE.

Nationalism Inherently Expansionist and Destructive Force Essay Example

Nationalism: Inherently Expansionist and Destructive Force Paper The most notable way in which Nationalism is a truly expansionist and destructive force is through its tendency to create a them and us with regard to other nations. Within expansionist Nationalism, for example, there are examples of a kind of perceived chauvinist superiority, one which is seen to justify the concept of imperialism, seeing colonisation as a moral duty. It is intrinsic then, to some branches of the ideology, that there is a necessity for expansionism. This area in particular is firmly rooted in militarism (a destructive force in itself) and has, in the past evolved such concepts of Pan-Nationalism, which views the concept of expansionism as a necessary and more importantly unifying force. The unification of the nation is something which is fundamental to all nationalists, something which in this case has been taken to the point of expansionism to adhere too, and so can be viewed as a motivation for such destructive ideas. Similarly, Nationalism has a tendency to breed within nations themselves, an intolerance based on race. Some branches of chauvinistic nationalism view multi racial nations to be weak, often creating a hierarchy among those who belong to them. There is also a mistrust of democracy, as it is believed this hands far too much power to the minorities, and so thus often lead to inevitably destructive dictatorships. At the most extreme level it is perceived as being important that minority races to not dilute the purity of the nation with multiculturalism, often with a national hatred catalysed through massive amounts propaganda and national historical pride. In cases such as Nazi Germany and Serbia these kind of nationalist ideas have led to genocide with the murder of millions based solely on race. These ideas stem primarily from the nationalist ideas of patriotism being extended to a hysterical level, and from the need to make the nation (which of course takes precedence) to become as st rong as possible. We will write a custom essay sample on Nationalism: Inherently Expansionist and Destructive Force specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Nationalism: Inherently Expansionist and Destructive Force specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Nationalism: Inherently Expansionist and Destructive Force specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer It could also be argued that nationalism is a potentially self destructive force when applied on a universal level. Firstly, the fact that there is no limit placed on the fragmentation of nation, in that there is no natural minimum size on which independence can be claimed. On a universal level then, it would be impossible to assume that all the nations in the world would not feel different cultural or ethnic separatism within itself. Their loyalties would not necessarily lying with the main nation, but could instead be with another smaller nation within this. Similarly there is the ever present problem of divided loyalties within the nation. This means that some people may feel a stronger loyalty toward their religion or ethnic background than toward the nation. In multiethnic nations (such as those in middle east; Iran, Afghanistan etc) where different loyalties are forced to coexist nations can often be on the brink of civil war because the subjective loyalty to the nation above all else is absent. For this reason artificial nations can be assumed to be ineffective, with the idea of nationalism only being effective if there is significant subjective loyalty. Nationalism is however, not necessarily a strictly destructive force. The idea of Anti Colonialist Nationalism is something which, while still embodying the ideals of nationhood is used for a goal of national liberation. It is an anti oppressive branch of nationalism which embodies a somewhat socialist opposition to inequality and exploitation within the ideas of community and cooperation. This is an example of nationalism being used to unite people (or a nation) under a common goal of liberation and anti oppression, and in opposition to the militarist expansionist branches of the ideology. This demonstrates two things. Firstly that that western nationalism, in the expansionism brought with them the seed of their own destruction, with those in the developing world using their own nationalist ideals in retaliation to unify themselves in opposition. Secondly that nationalism is not inherently destructive and expansionist, as its fundamental ideas can be used in ways that are liberating and essentially good. This idea is similarly reflected in the early forms of liberal nationalism. Early nationalism was focused less on expansion and militarism more on concepts within the nation, such as the defence of popular sovereignty and national freedoms and liberties. As liberalism itself was written in the language of rights it is inivitable that Liberal nationalism would seek not to destroy but to internally protect the rights of the nation and so those within it. Liberal Nationalism, like Anti Colonial Nationalism, opposes all forms of foreign domination and oppression, and perhaps more significantly pulls focus away from the unification or independence of the nation. These two concepts are often at the heart of the need to expand or rather more obviously purify a nation, and so can be assumed to be much of the destructive force behind nationalism. Nationalism as an ideology, is one which is divided along different extremes, and so as a result cannot realistically be inherently anything. While the cases which have seen nationalism become expansionist and destructive (such as Nazi Germany) were fundamentally based on the nationalist ideals of patriotism, strength and prominence of the nation, it is the individual interpretation of these ideals taken to massive extremes that resulted in their destructive nature. It clear however that the idea of the nation and, more importantly its rights is present in many areas of the ideology, from the early liberal ideals, to later with the anti-oppressive Anti Colonial Nationalism, something which suggests that its ideas (at a basic level at least) can fundamentally be good and anti destructivist.