History and Features of Snooker

History and Features of Snooker Snooker: A game you will grow to love History of snooker   Ã‚   A great man named Neville Chamberlain came up with the idea of snooker in the late 19th century. He was playing a game of billiards when his opponent could not hit the shot he wanted to and Neville Chamberlain suddenly shouted out snooker. Chamberlain also made a comment about another player who missed a shot calling him a real snooker which referred to his lack of experience. From there, the exquisite, logical and composed game of snooker we have today was born. What is Snooker? Snooker is a game played by two or more players against each other. The aim is to defeat the other player by potting more balls to earn more points and subsequently win the game. Snooker involves using a white coloured ball which is known as a cue ball; this is used to strike other coloured balls with a cue stick. In snooker, there are red coloured balls which are worth 1 point and one coloured ball of each; yellow, green, brown, blue, pink and black. The coloured balls are worth different points, the red ball is worth 1 point, yellow is worth 2, green is worth 3, brown is worth 4, blue is worth 5, pink is worth 6 and the black is the worth the highest by a staggering 7 points. Quite simple to understand, no? How the game is played Each player has one turn unless they pot a ball in; then they continue until they miss a shot. The game starts off by a person opening a frame. The player does this by breaking. A break can mean two things; the first meaning of break is to start off the game at the first moment. The second meaning is when you score a break; this is when you continually start potting balls and scoring maximum breaks. The break when you start off the game is achieved by striking a cue ball to hit a red ball. If the red ball goes in, the player earns one point and does not lose his turn. If the ball does not go in, the other player is allowed to come to the table to have a go at earning some points. If the white ball goes in a pocket it is considered as a foul and the other person is awarded four points. Terms in snooker Touching ball A touching ball can only happen when the cue ball is touching a red ball. In this situation, you can hit any other coloured ball or you can hit another red ball without moving the ball the white ball is touching. If the ball moves, a foul is called and the other player is awarded four points. Then, it is up to the player who is awarded the points to choose whether they would like the player to retake the exact same shot or whether they would like to continue themselves. Some players purposefully make the white ball touch the red so the opponent has difficulty in hitting another red. Suppose you wouldnt want to be in that situation, would you? A snooker The term a snooker is when the player cannot hit the ball they intend to hit because they cannot see it. This can happen when the white ball is behind the cushion or when the white ball is behind another ball. Again, if the player misses the ball they would like to hit, it is a foul and the other person is awarded four points or more depending on which ball he intends to strike. A snooker is considered as a really high standard shot, because it can decide whether a player wins or loses the game. Worry not, this is not as daunting as it sounds. Old legends of snooker Steve Davis, a renowned legend won 28 ranking titles, just about doubling the amount Joe Davis won. He was born in 1957 and turned professional in 1978. He had made a 147-maximum break in the Lada Classic 1982. In 1980, Steve Davis won the World Championship six times in a row and was ranked World Number one for seven seasons in a row; he was invincible. Another legend worth mentioning is Alex Higgins who was born in 1949 and turned professional in 1971. He had only won the World Championship twice but that was enough for the crowd to love and cheer him on. His nickname was The Hurricane because of the speed in which pot balls. Sadly, Alex Higgins, one of snookers all-time greatest died in July 2010 after a long battle against throat cancer. His fellow companions even raised  £20,000 just so he could have a surgery to stay alive but unfortunately his time had passed. He will always be remembered as snookers greatest champion. My Favourite legend in snooker A legend I hold close to my heart has to be Alex Higgins through and through. If anyone was to ask me, who is the best player in snookers history, I will always say Alex The Hurricane Higgins. He had a real love and tangible passion for the game and he wanted to be the best and excel in every aspect. I aspire to have the same dedication and qualities of commitment that were depicted in his games. Even through the stages of fighting throat cancer, he would hold a snooker cue and would watch other children and adults playing the game he loved. This elucidates the love he had for the game. The Hurricane leaves us with great memories of his brilliance and charisma on the table and was a living embodiment of success. .

Welch Case Study

This particular case discusses whether General Electric fulfilled its Corporate Social Responsibility under the leadership of Jack Welsh or if it just met basic obligations. It also displays the evolving idea of social responsibility in a corporation by contrasting the corporation’s actions during Welsh’s leadership and after Welsh retired. It is shown that Welsh had a classical economic view of social responsibility. General Electric followed a traditional business model while Welsh was working and a progressive business model after he retired. He used a cutthroat ranking system based off of social Darwinism in order to sort out the â€Å"best† of his employees. Lastly, it displays that norms and principles are always changing according to corporate social responsibility and that corporations should act in response to those changes.1. I do not believe that GE in the Welch era fulfilled their duty of corporate social responsibility. They did not avoid harming the environment because they dumped toxins into the Hudson River. During the Welch era, GE did not make any efforts to enhance any societal assets; they only supplied the minimum of what they needed to create wealth for the company. They did not try to protect their employees or go beyond what is necessary. Many pressures, including the vitality curve evaluation system, were purely performance driven.Though job cuts are necessary for the survival for a business, it seemed like they treated their employees as a resource instead of human beings. For example, the GE Pension Fund could have provided retirees and their unions with more benefits but instead Welch wanted to leave the pension plan overfunded to benefit the corporation. He failed to attribute any credit to GE’s former employees for the company’s success.General Electric’s corporate social responsibility could have been done in a much better way. First, they could aim to prevent environmental damage caused b y their company. If they could not prevent environmental damage entirely then they could at least perform actions to decrease any harm previously done. Then they change the evaluation system by â€Å"loosening the reigns† and making the system less callous. This would prevent any  unnecessary pressure from being forced onto employees. This change would improve teamwork and decrease backstabbing.It will also allow for more diversity at the top and would help prevent any once middle range managers from being cut. GE could have evaluated employees and then restructured their hierarchy by placing the more talented managers at the top instead of solely using a â€Å"firing† system. Finally, Welsh should have also kept his personal opinions separate from his business world. Though Welsh could have disliked overweight people, he should not have treated overweight people differently in the workplace.2. Yes, I think that GE under Welsh displays a view of corporate social resp onsibility that is closer to Friedman’s view. Welsh shared Friedman’s view that spending corporate funds on social projects diverts shareholder’s dollars to programs they may not even favor. Welsh consistently gave back to GE’s shareholders but neglected to create any funds for social projects. GE under Welsh’s era only focused solely on the first inner circle of responsibilities.The inner circle includes responsibility for efficient execution of the economic function resulting in products, jobs, and economic growth. GE clearly executed this inner circle of responsibility by being extremely profitable, paying taxes, enriching shareholders, and making many of its directors and managers multimillionaires in GE stock. In GE Welsh did not practice an intermediate circle of responsibility because it did not exercise its economic function with a sensitive awareness of changing values and priorities, especially in relation to environmental damage.During t his time there were many changing values of incorporating diversity in the workplace, protecting the environment and preventing damage, and the change of business ethics. The view of corporate social responsibility was changing to a model more similar to the progressive business model yet Welsh adhered to a strict traditional business model. GE especially ignored the outer circle of social responsibility because it did not try to improve the social environment by any means.3.Overall, Welsh’s GE met less than half of the general principles of corporate social responsibility. GE religiously followed the principle that corporations are economic institutions run for profit. Welsh’s highest  concern was economic and he was not afraid to suffer short run costs to society if they promised long-term benefits.The only aspect they did not meet for this principal is that they did not seek ways to solve social problems at a profit. They simply did not seek to solve any social pr oblems at all. The only principle that was generally highlighted by GE was that managers should try to meet legitimate needs of multiple stakeholders. The corporation always tried to bring in the largest gains for their shareholders.Welsh’s GE failed to follow the principles of multiple bodies of law, act ethically, to correct adverse social impacts they caused, to vary social responsibility according to company characteristics, to comply with a social contract, or to be transparent and accountable. GE encountered a pattern of criminal cases during this time and therefore did not follow multiple bodies of law, act ethically, or be transparent and accountable. Since GE caused the pollution to the Hudson River and Welch refused to fund the dredging, they did not correct adverse social impacts they caused. Welsh neglected to comply with the social contract because he did not treat retirees or employees fairly and acted as if they were a disposable component of the corporation us ed solely to bring in profits.Lastly, GE did not vary its social responsibilities with the company characteristics. GE was a very large corporation and because of that they should have rewarded their retirees and employees generously with benefits. Because they were a very large corporation that can affect the environment, they should have tried to prevent any damage done to the earth.4.The pros of ranking shareholders over employees and other stakeholders would be that there is more money and profits. Because Welsh had a classical economic view of corporate social responsibility, the shareholders were his primary concern. The cons would be that employees and other stakeholders would become discouraged due to the shareholders being put first and ultimately they would not want to be associated with that company. If the employees feel worthless to the company then they could become unmotivated and hurt GE’s profits. Another con would be that they are not fulfilling their underl ying social contract and could lose the public’s  support.I do not think that it is specifically wrong to view employees as costs of production, because technically they are a resource to the company and are contributing human and physical capital. On the other hand, I believe that â€Å"these sources of capital† should be handled with care and that the employees should be seen as human beings as well. Ignoring the fact that employees are human beings could lead to unethical acts and violation of GE’s social contract. Overall, it is okay to view employees as costs of production, but acting unethically because of this belief is wrong. I think that GE should have rebalanced some of its priorities.They should have viewed their shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders with equal importance. Their employees and other stakeholders should not be viewed as less significant in the company because they represent a large portion of it. Even though they do not dire ctly bring in as much money as GE’s shareholders, they deserve to be treated fairly and ultimately help create profits in the long run.5. GE was much more socially responsible in the Immelt aftermath. The Immelt era offered more benefits to society. Immelt benefitted the environment enormously in comparison to Welch by agreeing to a clean up of the Hudson River, by cutting GE’s emissions, and by launching GE’s â€Å"eco-imagination† initiative.Immelt also benefitted his employees and society much more than Welsh. He loosened Welch’s guidelines for the ranking process, putting less unnecessary pressure and stress on employees. He also showed appreciation for diversity in the top management positions by promoting the progress of women in management through research on sexism. He was more responsive to GE’s social and environmental impacts and the company became the second most socially responsible company under his leadership.One advantage tha t Welch had over Immelt was his popularity with the shareholders. Though shareholders viewed Immelt’s leadership negatively at first, in the end they still gained on their investments throughout the course of 9 years. It was not a large amount of growth but it was 82 percent better than GE’s return alone. This showed that GE could be lead differently, without the use of Welch’s harsh tactics, and still continue to profit.

Poetic Devices Used by Seamus Heaney in Blackberry-Picking Essay

Blackberry-picking is a retrospective and recollecting poem by Seamus Heaney. In it he mentions one of his childhood incidents. The poem is sensuous and appeals to the five senses. He uses various poetic devices to depict a memorable picture in our minds. Usage of the five senses is very important to the success of treating a picture in our minds about what the experiences of blackberry-picking must have been like for Heaney. He writes about the sight of the blackberries, the fell of then, how they tasted, the sound of the blackberries when they hit the bottom of the cans and finally the smell of rot when the blackberries go rotten. These uses of the senses are used very well, so well in fact that you can imagine being there with Heaney. There are many uses of senses in the poem, for example he uses sight more than smell and touch. A few examples of the uses are when Heaney use sight at the start of the poem describing the blackberries as ‘a glossy purple clot’. This describes the color of the berry and is referring it to a blood clot which is quite gleefully gory and imaginative and therefore childlike. He also described the shape of the blackberries like a clot, and possible the fell of it too, rather soft and juicy. Heaney also describes the berries taste in these lines, â€Å"You ate that first one and its flesh was sweet, like thickened wine; summers blood was in it†. In these lines Heaney, describes the taste and color of the berries by using the simile, â€Å"like thickened wine† and metaphor, â€Å"summers blood was in it†. The impressions of the taste is very sweet and fleshy, you can almost imagine the juicy fleshy berry in you mouth, tasting the sweet flavor. Heaney also describes the sound of the berries as they hit the bottom of the tins he describes the sound as ‘tinkling’ using onomatopoeia, another poetic device. Then Heaney goes on to describe the feel of the juice on his hands by saying, â€Å"our palms sticky as Bluebeards†. He was comparing the berry juice to the blood on Bluebeards hand. Bluebeard used to be a murderer and his hands would have been sticky with the blood of his victims. Heaney ends the poem by describing the smell of the berries once they have gone rotten by saying, â€Å"juice was stinking too† and â€Å"lovely canfuls smelt of rot†. When describing the smell he is very blunt and basic and he has chosen to do this to sort of show his disgust of how the berries have spoiled. Along with onomatopoeia, Heaney uses other poetic devices to help us create a picture on our minds about the experience, Heaney uses similes and metaphors like â€Å"like a plate of eyes†. Here Heaney is describing how the berries look, as they lay oiled up in the tins, looking like a plate of eyes, again, his thoughts quite childish and gory. Heaney use of metaphors is good as well. He says, â€Å"Like thickened wine, summers blood was in it†. Heaney is describing the sight of the berry, red like wine. He also may be comparing the taste of the berries to the taste of wine. The over all effect of the poem is quite impressive and appealing. The colorful recollecting memories of childhood give and impression of nostalgia of the poet.   Heaney uses a variety of poetic devices, metaphors, similes, personification, onomatopoeia, word choice and rhyming to create a vivid image of his childhood experience of blackberry picking as a child, this makes the poem. Works Cited Seamus Heaney: Blackberry-Picking: Accessed on April 04, 2008 from http://www.eliteskills.com/c/5597

Meaning and Origin of the Surname Chavez

Chaves is an ancient Portuguese surname that literally means keys, from the Portuguese Chaves  and Spanish laves (Latin  clavis). Often an occupational surname was given to someone who made keys for a living. Chavez is also an alternate spelling of the Chaves surname, which in Portugal was often a  habitational name from the town of Chaves, Tras-os-Montes, from the Latin acquis Flaviis, meaning [at the] waters of Flavius.   Chavez is the 22nd most common Hispanic surname. Surname Origin:  Spanish, Portuguese Alternate Surname Spellings:  CHAVEZ Famous People With the Surname Cesar Chavez: American civil rights leaderHugo Chavez: President of VenezuelaNicole Chavez: Hollywood celebrity stylist Where in the World Do People With the Surname Live? According to surname distribution data from  Forebears, Chaves is the 358th most common surname in the world—found most commonly in Mexico, with the highest density of the surname present in Peru. Chavez is also a common last name in Bolivia, where it ranks 18th most popular in the nation, as well as Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Philippines, Honduras, and Nicaragua.  WorldNames PublicProfiler  also has the surname as most common in Argentina, especially Northwest and Gran Chaco, as well as New Mexico in the United States, and southwest Spain (Andalucia and Extremadura provinces). Genealogy Resources for the Surname CHAVES Family DNA ProjectA Y-DNA project focused on family and genetic relationships between the various Chaves families around the world. This includes the Chavez and Caceres surnames of Spain. Chavez Family Crest - Its Not What You ThinkContrary to what you may hear, there is no such thing as a Chavez family crest or coat of arms for the Chavez surname.  Coats of arms are granted to individuals, not families, and may rightfully be used only by the uninterrupted male-line descendants of the person to whom the coat of arms was originally granted. Source: Cottle, Basil.  Penguin Dictionary of Surnames. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1967. Dorward, David.  Scottish Surnames. Collins Celtic (Pocket edition), 1998. Fucilla, Joseph.  Our Italian Surnames. Genealogical Publishing Company, 2003. Hanks, Patrick, and Flavia Hodges.  A Dictionary of Surnames. Oxford University Press, 1989. Hanks, Patrick.  Dictionary of American Family Names. Oxford University Press, 2003. Reaney, P.H.  A Dictionary of English Surnames. Oxford University Press, 1997. Smith, Elsdon C.  American Surnames. Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997.