Mustang vs Camaro Essay Example for Free

Mustang vs Camaro Essay The Mustang and Camaro have been compared since the Camaro first came out in the late 1960’s. The Mustang was pretty much the only sports car that was also a muscle car. Well, of course Chevrolet had to compete with Ford so they came out with the Camaro. The release of the Mustang was followed closely by the release of the Camaro a few years later. There is no doubt about it that the team from Chevrolet had stolen a magnificent idea and plan. These two muscle cars began the path for a revolution in pony cars and racing. America fell in love with the Mustang and Camaro, which allowed Ford and Chevrolet to sell millions of them in just a few years. Ford has continuously been selling a large number of Mustangs ever since the beginning. Chevrolet had to stop their production of the Camaro. In 1961, the vice president and general manager of Ford, Lee Iacocca had a dream. He envisioned the Ford Mustang. It took several months to get approval for funding to go towards the Mustang through multiple discussions, meetings and market surveys. The funding was granted in 1962. The Mustang’s parts were mainly borrowed from the Falcon to help keep the costs of production low. The car offered a variety of options for the exterior, interior, etc. Buyers were able to choose if they wanted their mustang to be fast, fancy, economical or plain. Ford wanted the Mustang’s design to appeal to everyone and anyone. It was advertised as â€Å"the car to be designed by you†. The Camaro was based off of another Chevrolet car, the Nova. The Camaro had been designed to compete with Ford’s Mustang. Its code name was the Panther, before any information about the Camaro was ever leaked into the public. Chevrolet had wanted to keep their cars name’s beginning with the letter C. A few options for the Camaro had been Chevy II, Chevelle, Corvette, etc. Somehow they decided on Camaro, which a product manager of Chevrolet answered when asked what a Camaro is, he said â€Å"a small, vicious animal that eats Mustangs†. It was reported that General Motor researchers found in the French dictionary that Camaro was slang for friend or companion. Though is was rumored that the Ford Company had researched and discovered some other definitions to the word Camaro, such as â€Å"a shrimp-like creature† and an arcane for loose bowels. On March 9 of 1964, the first Mustang which was a white convertible with a v-8 engine came out of Dearborn Michigan. Then a month later the Ford Mustang came out in the world with its debut at the World’s Fair in Flushing Meadows, New York. The first Mustang that came out of the assembly line was in April of 1964. This first model of the Ford Mustang, which was the early 1965 or also known as the 1964  ½, was available as a convertible or coupe. It had a 170-cubic inch six cylinder engine with a three-speed floor shift transmission. A V8 engine was optional with a four-speed manual transmission or a three-speed automatic with a cruise transmission. The day of the grand opening for the Mustang over twenty two thousand were sold. Within its first twelve months, Ford sold close to four hundred seventeen thousand Mustangs. In eighteen months, roughly a million Mustangs had been sold. It was a huge hit with America. The first Camaro came out in September of 1966 but was the 1967 model, as it is referred to as. When it was first available there were hardly any extra or special options for the car. That changed within the next following years and so forth. The Camaro offered a V6 or V8 engine in convertible or coupe. When the 1969 Camaro models were introduced, the car had improved greatly. A new power option was a Z28 package which had formally been known as the RPO Z28 Camaro Special Performance Package. The Z28 was one of the first special options and it was originally designed to compete in the Sports Car Club of America, which is a racing club. There are four generations to the Chevrolet Camaro. The first generation was from 1967 to 1969. That model was offered in a coupe or convertible with the option of a 4.1 L, 4.9 L, 5.0L, 5.4L and a 5.7L in a V8 engine. The second generation was from 1970 to 1981. Chevrolet changed the styling to a wider and larger vehicle which produced a heavier Camaro. The third generation was from 1982 to 1992. They were the first model of Camaros that offered fuel injection. The fourth generation was from 1993 to 2002. It held onto the same basic characteristics as the original; a couple or convertible, rear-wheel drive and the choice of a V6 or V8 engine. For thirty five years Chevrolet had been producing the popular Camaro. Chevrolet claimed that they stopped production of the Camaro due to plant overcapacity, slowing sales, and fading market for sports coupes. Just recently in 2009, Chevrolet released the 2010 Camaro. We will see how they do this time around. The Ford Mustang currently has five generations. With each generation Ford made sure to improve the horse power. The first generation was from 1964  ½ to 1973. The second generation was from 1974 to 1978. It was originally based off of the Ford Maverick but instead they used the Ford Pinto in the end. Because of the way the economy was going at the time, Ford needed to build a smaller and more fuel-efficient Mustang. Not only did they need to do this to appeal to customers still but to also to capture people’s eye as the Energy Crisis erupted. The third generation was from 1979 to 1993. This generation model was based off of the ‘Fox’ platform. It had originally been created for the 1978 Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr. The interior of the third generation was meant to be more comfortable even though the back seats were smaller. The trunk was larger though, as well as the engine bay. This allowed the car to be easier to work on and service. The body styles were coupes, at the time was also referred to as a notchback, and a hatchback. A convertible was not available until 1983. The fourth generation is from 1994 to 2004. This generation underwent the most drastic redesign in over fifteen years. It had been code named SS-95 by Ford. It was also a more recent and updated version of the Fox platform. This new styled generation took several styles from the earlier Mustangs. A new twist was that it was the first time since 1973 that a hatchback coupe was not available. The V6 was a 3.8 engine for the models of 1994 and 1995. Unfortunately, Ford stopped using the 5.0L V8 for the GTs. The 5.0L had been used for around 40 years, it was a drastic change. But the 5.0L was used last on the 1994 and 1995 models. The new GT engine would be a 4.6L. For the 1999 to 2004 models the Mustang had a new edge styling theme for the body. It included sharper contours, creases in the bodywork and even larger wheel arches. The chassis and interior design remained the same was the previous model. And last but most definitely not least is the fifth generation which is the current generation from 2005 to present. At the 2004 North American International Auto Show, a new Mustang was introduced. It had been codenamed S-197. This new generation closely resembled the fastback Mustangs from the late 1960s. This new model was called as â€Å"retro-futurism† by Ford’s senior vice president of design. The V6 now had a 4.0L engine instead of a 3.8L engine. A brand new option that was first available for the 2009 Mustangs was a glass sun roof. The 2010 Mustang was unveiled by Ford before the Los Angeles International Auto Show. The 2010 Mustang mainly held the same look as the previous year’s model but with a modified exterior. Ford was looking for a leaner and muscular appearance for their 2010 Mustang. For the first time ever the Mustang had a reverse camera system to help drivers while backing up. Though, this feature is not available on basic V6’s. The 2011 Mustang should be out around the spring of 2010 and it is a very anticipated model. It will closely resemble the 2010 model, with perhaps some slight changes to the rear. It is hard to find information on the upcoming 2011 Mustang. One thing is for sure though, Ford is bringing back the 5.0L engine for it which excites many. Still to this day the Ford Mustang is running strong. The Mustang has even more varieties, variations and options. There is no other vehicle out there that has as many options as the Mustang does. So many different types branch off of the â€Å"Mustang†. Several examples are: Cobra, Shelby, Super Snake, Saleen, Mach 1, Fastback, California Special, Bullit, High Country Special, Boss, etc. They are never ending. There are so many differences and similarities between these two famous and popular pony cars. There is even so much more that a person can compare and contrast about Mustangs and Camaros. Not only because of the years, numerous changes, and that it is – after all – a car, but also because they have had a heated and natural rivalry since the very beginning. Oddly enough, it was rather difficult to find a lot of information and details on the Camaro, especially compared to the Mustang. The Mustang had numerous of information that was able to be found. And, remember the Mustang started it all in 1964, and has not stopped since!

Sophocles’ Oedipus Cycle †Antigone, as a Feminist Essay -- Antigone E

Sophocles’ Oedipus Cycle – Antigone, as a Feminist Throughout history, women have always stood in the shadows of men. In many cultures, the role of women has always been to be seen and not heard. As one of the first feminists in world literature, the character Antigone, of Sophocles’ Oedipus Cycle, displays fine characteristics of a great female leader in order to stand up against male dominance for her religious, political, and personal beliefs. When the king denies her brother, Polynices, proper burial, Antigone goes against state law by burying him herself in order to protect heavenly decree and maintain justice. In doing this, she steps out of her place as a woman in a male dominated society. In order to characterize Antigone as a feminist, it is important to study Antigone’s early childhood, which displays the origins of the characteristics found in her that make her a feminist. In Oedipus of Colonus, Sophocles illustrates these qualities that Antigone possesses. During the first twenty years of her life, Antigone spends her time secluded from society with her blind, exiled father, Oedipus. Sophocles sums up her childhood in the following soliloquy by Oedipus: "Since her childhood ended and her body gained its power, has wandered ever with me, an old man’s governess; often in the wild forest without shoes, and hungry, beaten by many rains tired by the sun; yet she rejected the sweet life of home so that her father should have sustenance" (Fitts 104). Because she is secluded, Antigone never has to take her place in society as a woman. Without a female role model to show her how a woman is supposed to act, there is no one to raise her as a woman. She spends her days taking care of her blind father and leading him. Sh... ...Creon, when she kills herself causing Creon to lose. Creon at this point has caved in by deciding to bury Polynices and free Antigone, but it is too late. She dies an honorable death for future feminists. Since Sophocles wrote Antigone, there have been thousands of literary works about feminists and their movement to let their voices be heard over men. Through her strong will and bravery, Antigone made her political, religious, and personal beliefs seen. She died in order to win against men even when no one else would stand up to male dominance. For these reasons, Antigone is a prime example of a great feminist in world literature. Works Cited Fitts, Dudley and Robert Fitzgerald. The Oedipus Cycle. Trans. Sophocles. Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1977. Sophocles. â€Å"Antigone.† Literature and the Writing Process 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1999.

Errors of Attribution

With reference to research discuss two errors in attributions. (22 marks) The Attribution Theory is a concept of social psychology that makes reference to how individuals feel the need to provide ‘cause to the events around us’. Fritz Heider first proposed the theory ‘The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958), which was later developed by others such as Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. The developed definition of this theory refers to the role of our minds in relation to our social behaviour. There are two main categories within this particular theory, Situational factors, which refer to how one’s environment and external circumstances can influence an individual, whilst Dispositional factors refer to our personality and our traits, factors that are to do with us as people. The Self- Serving Bias focuses on the way in which we as individuals tend to associate successes with our internal ability and characteristics and equating failures to external factors. The reason that this is seen as a common human tendency is because people acknowledge success as a way of positively influencing their self-esteem levels. This bias can affect our opportunities to learn from our mistakes and improve- by refusing to accept responsibility for our failures, our skill levels remain unchanged. Although this bias can be recognized in people throughout modern day society, Lewinsohn et al (1980) proposed that the bias will have the complete opposite effect on people who have a low self esteem or see themselves in a negative light. All successes are seen as luck rather than ability, whilst failures are seen as dispositional factors, generally seeing stupidity as the sole factor for their mistakes. Ironically, Lewinsohn suggests that depressed individuals will see themselves more realistically, making more practical attributions about their personality than a ‘normal’ person will. A study that was carried out by Johnson (1964), demonstrated a Self Serving Bias through teaching. Participants (psychology students) taught two children how to multiply numbers by 10 and 20. The study was done in two phases through a one-way intercom. The first phase was to teach them how to multiply by 10, the second, by 20. After each phase, the participants were able to access the worksheets that the children used and were told to evaluate the children’s progress. The worksheets had been constructed in such a way that pupil A gave the correct answers in both worksheets, and depending on the circumstance, pupil B either did badly in both worksheets, or did badly for the first and improved in the second. The participants were therefore asked to assess their teaching abilities based on the pupils’ results. What Johnson found was that in the situation where pupil B improved, the participant saw this improvement as an indication of their abilities as teachers. When pupil B did not improve, the participants blamed the failure on the pupil’s lack of ability. Wolosin, Sherman and Till (1973) is another classic example of a study examining the self-serving bias. Participants in this study partook in a decision-making activity, in which they chose geographical locations where they believed they were most likely to meet a friend. In the first phase, the participant was performing the task whilst co-operating with another individual. The second phase consisted of the participant competing against the individual. After these two experiments were completed, the participants were given feedback. In the co-operative phase, the participant assumed more responsibility when they received positive comments, in contrast with the participants who received negative or neutral feedback. This again reiterates the point that individuals will exhibit self-biased attributions, whilst in circumstances of failure; they will provide situational factors for their lack of success. Although there is evidence to support this error of attribution, there are also contradictions to the theory. Zuckerman (1979) argued that this bias depends on our desire to maintain our self-esteem. He reasons that it we attribute our successes to dispositional factors it improves our self-esteem, whilst if we deny responsibility to failure, we are protecting our self-esteem, therefore suggesting that it all depends on the individual. Cross-cultural examination also shows that the bias is consistent. Heine (1999) and Kashima & Triandis (1986) used studies to support the theory. They found that in collectivistic cultures such as Japan, members are far less likely to attribute success to dispositional factors compared to individualistic cultures such as the US or the UK. Kashima & Triandis found that when Japanese and American participants were asked to remember slides from unfamiliar countries, Americans tended to attribute success towards their ability, whilst the Japanese attributed failure to lack of ability. This study therefore shows that there is definitely a link between maintenance of self-esteem and self-serving bias, in individualistic cultures. Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) refers to the tendency for individuals to view behaviour as a significant factor. Therefore, we tend to overestimate dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors when attempting to explain behaviour in a member of society. The reason for this attribution error, is because generally, we focus more on the individual in the specific situation, which leads to us making judgments and decisions relating to their personality- internal attributions, simply because we do not have enough information on their character to make a balanced assessment. Lee Ross first introduced this term in 1977 defining it as ‘The tendency to underestimate the importance of situational determinants and overestimate the degree to which actions and outcomes reflect the actor’s dispositions. Napolitan and Goethals (1979) examined the theory by asking student participants to talk individually to a woman told to behave either aloof and critical or friendly and warm. The first batch of participants were told that she was acting spontaneously, whilst the other half was told that she was instructed to behave in a certain way towards them. Interestingly, the knowledge of her instructions versus spontaneity had no effect on the participants, all of whom attributed her behaviour to internal dispositional factors rather than situational. Another classic demonstration of the study was by Jones and Harris (1967). They hypothesized that people would attribute apparently free-chosen behaviour to disposition and instructed behaviour to situational factors. This was investigated by asking participants to read a series of Fidel Castro essays, some of which were pro and others were anti Fidel Castro. After reading these essays, the subjects were asked to rate the attitudes of the writers. When the subjects believed that the writers had chosen freely on their position on Castro, the participants naturally assumed that the essays reflected the genuine attitude towards Castro. However, even when the subjects were told that the writers had no choice, they still believed that the essays reflected their actual views on Castro. This supports the error of attribution because despite the fact that the participants knew that the writers were heavily constrained by the situation, the subjects still chose to attribute their views to dispositional factors. Cultural variance may affect the Fundamental Attribution Error, as members from individualistic culture have a higher tendency to commit this error compared to members from a collectivistic ulture that are less prone to it. Miller (1984) supports this argument as he found that children from western cultures make dispositional attributions whilst children from India make situational attributions, particularly when explaining the actions of someone who has done wrong. Moghaddam (1998) also stated that the FAE was due to ‘pervasive individualism' of modern western culture. Reference: http://education. calumet. purdue. edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy5/edpsy5_attribution. htm http://changingminds. org/explanations/theories/attribution_theory. tm http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology) http://changingminds. org/explanations/theories/fundamental_attribution_error. htm http://changingminds. org/explanations/theories/self-serving_bias. htm http://ibpsychologynotes. files. wordpress. com/2011/02/04-discuss-two-errors-in-attributions. pdf http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://ion. uwinnipeg. ca/~clark/teach/1000-050/Ch18-social. pdf http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Self-serving_bias http://www. psychwiki. com/wiki/Self-serving_bias

A Kindergarten Lesson Plan on Addition and Subtraction

In this sample lesson plan, students represent addition and subtraction with objects and actions. The plan is designed for kindergarten students.  It requires three class periods of 30 to 45 minutes each. Objective The objective of this lesson is for students to represent addition and  subtraction with objects and actions to understand the concepts of adding to and taking from. The key vocabulary words in this lesson are addition, subtraction, together and apart. Common Core Standard Met This lesson plan satisfies the following Common Core standard in the Operations and Algebraic Thinking category and Understanding Addition as Putting Together and Adding To and Understand Subtraction as Taking Apart and Taking From sub-category.   This lesson meets standard K.OA.1: Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings, sounds (e.g., claps), acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions or  equations. Materials PencilsPaper  Sticky notesCereal in small baggies for each childOverhead projector Key Terms AdditionSubtractionTogetherApart Lesson Introduction   The day before the lesson, write 1 1 and 3 - 2 on the blackboard. Give each student a sticky note, and see if they know how to solve the problems. If a large number of students successfully answer these problems, you can begin this lesson midway through the procedures described below. Instruction   Write 1 1 on the blackboard. Ask students if they know what this means. Put one pencil in one hand, and one pencil in your other hand. Show students that this means one (pencil) and one (pencil) together equal two pencils. Bring your hands together to reinforce the concept.Draw two flowers on the board. Write down a plus sign followed by three more flowers. Say aloud, â€Å"Two flowers together with three flowers make what?† The students should be able to count and answer five flowers. Then, write down 2 3 5 to show how to record equations like this. Activity   Give each student  a bag of cereal and a piece of paper. Together, do the following problems and say them like this (adjust as you see fit, depending on other vocabulary  words you use in the math classroom): Allow the students to eat some of their cereal as soon as they write down the correct equation. Continue with problems such as these until the students feel comfortable with addition.Say 4 pieces together with 1 piece is 5. Write 4 1 5 and ask the students to write it down too.Say 6 pieces together with 2 pieces is 8. Write 6 2 8 or the board and ask the students to write it down.Say 3 pieces together with 6 pieces is 9. Write 3 6 9 and ask the students to write it down.The practice with addition should make the subtraction concept a bit easier. Pull out five pieces of cereal from your bag and put them on the overhead projector. Ask students, â€Å"How many do I have?† After they answer, eat two of the pieces of cereal. Ask â€Å"Now how many do I have?† Discuss that if you start with five pieces and then take away two, you have three pieces left over. Repeat this with the students several times. Have them take out three pieces of cereal from their bags, eat one and tell you how many are left over. Tell them that there is a way to record this on paper.Together, do the following problems and say them like this (adjust as you see fit):Say 6 pieces, take away 2 pieces, is 4 left over. Write 6 - 2 4 and ask the students to write it as well.Say 8 pieces, take away 1 piece, is 7 left over. Write 8 - 1 7 and ask the students to write it.Say 3 pieces, take away 2 pieces, is 1 left over. Write 3 - 2 1 and ask the students to write it.After the students have practiced this, it’s time to have them create their own simple problems. Divide them into groups of 4 or 5 and tell them that they can make their own addition or subtraction problems for the class. They can use their fingers (5 5 10), their books, their pencils, their crayons or even each other. Demonstrate 3 1 4 by bringing up three students and then asking another to come to the front of the class.  Give students a few minutes to think of a problem. Walk around the room to assist with their thinking.Ask the groups to show their problems to the class and have the seated students record the problems on a piece of paper. Differentiation In step four, separate students into tiered groups and adjust problems based on complexity and number of steps. Support struggling students by spending more time with these groups and challenge advanced students by asking them to experiment with different types of counting, such as with their fingers or even with each other. Assessment   Repeat steps six  through eight together as a class at the end of math class for a week or so. Then, have groups demonstrate a problem and do not discuss it as a class. Use this as an assessment for their  portfolio or to discuss with parents. Lesson Extensions   Ask students to go home and describe to their family what putting together and taking away means and what it looks like on paper. Have a family member sign off that this discussion took place.