Blitzkrieg Warfare essays

Blitzkrieg Warfare essays The ultimate warfare called Blitzkrieg was first used by Germany in the early twentieth century. Everyone was tired of the old trench warfare, and after World War I many speculated that a type of mobile warfare would be much more effective. The Germans tested this new-found type of combat during the Spanish Civil War (1936-38). This test proved that mobile warfare-soon known as Blitzkrieg-was a more suitable type of combat. The whole concept of Blitzkrieg is quite simple. The air force attacks their opponents front lines, rear positions, and main communication centers. Forces then plow through the weakened front-lines, and set up defenses to their rear to prevent retreat. Now, other infantry divisions will simultaneously attack portions of the front-lines preventing the enemy from knowing where the main force will attack. Their opponent is also confused because their communications have been taken out. Again, the front lines are unable to retreat because of the divisions that already broke through and set up posts behind them in their territory. The infantry divisions continue to attack the front-lines occupying them so they dont establish effective defense, and also so that the forces that have broken through can establish more defensive posts to their rear. These forces will then prepare to take their enemys artillery stores. Once this is done their enemy will definitely fall when they run out of ammunition. The infantry forces on the front lines will start to flank their enemy (to the enemys left and right) once the front lines are sufficiently weakened. Meanwhile, groups head deeper into enemy territory outflanking more enemy positions ultimately weakening even the confidence of their opponent. With everyone working together, all of the divisions eventually link up completely cutting off the enemy. This is when their opponent will surrender; everyone is taken prisoner, and any s...

Perfectly Inelastic Collision Definition in Physics

Perfectly Inelastic Collision Definition in Physics A perfectly inelastic collision is one in which the maximum amount of kinetic energy has been lost during a collision, making it the most extreme case of an inelastic collision. Though kinetic energy is not conserved in these collisions, momentum is conserved and the equations of momentum can be used to understand the behavior of the components in this system. In most cases, you can tell a perfectly inelastic collision because of the objects in the collision stick together, sort of like a tackle in American football. The result of this sort of collision is fewer objects to deal with after the collision than you had before the collision, as demonstrated in the following equation for a perfectly inelastic collision between two objects. (Although in football, hopefully, the two objects come apart after a few seconds.) Equation for a Perfectly Inelastic Collision:m 1 v1i m2 v2i ( m 1 m 2) vf Proving Kinetic Energy Loss You can prove that when two objects stick together, there will be a loss of kinetic energy. Lets assume that the first mass, m1, is moving at velocity vi and the second mass, m2, is moving at velocity 0. This may seem like a really contrived example, but keep in mind that you could set up your coordinate system so that it moves, with the origin fixed at m2, so that the motion is measured relative to that position. So really any situation of two objects moving at a constant speed could be described in this way. If they were accelerating, of course, things would get much more complicated, but this simplified example is a good starting point. m1vi (m1 m2)vf[m1 / (m1 m2)] * vi vfYou can then use these equations to look at the kinetic energy at the beginning and end of the situation.Ki 0.5m1Vi2Kf 0.5(m1 m2)Vf2Now substitute the earlier equation for Vf, to get:Kf 0.5(m1 m2)*[m1 / (m1 m2)]2*Vi2Kf 0.5 [m12 / (m1 m2)]*Vi2Now set the kinetic energy up as a ratio, and the 0.5 and Vi2 cancel out, as well as one of the m1 values, leaving you with:Kf / Ki m1 / (m1 m2) Some basic mathematical analysis will allow you look at the expression m1 / (m1 m2) and see that for any objects with mass, the denominator will be larger than the numerator. So any objects that collide in this way will reduce the total kinetic energy (and total velocity) by this ratio. We have now proven that any collision where the two objects collide together results in a loss of total kinetic energy. Ballistic Pendulum Another common example of a perfectly inelastic collision is known as the ballistic pendulum, where you suspend an object such as a wooden block from a rope to be a target. If you then shoot a bullet (or arrow or other projectile) into the target, so that it embeds itself into the object, the result is that the object swings up, performing the motion of a pendulum. In this case, if the target is assumed to be the second object in the equation, then v2i 0 represents the fact that the target is initially stationary.   m1v1i m2v2i (m1 m2)vfm1v1i m2 (0) (m1 m2)vfm1v1i (m1 m2)vf Since you know that the pendulum reaches a maximum height when all of its kinetic energy turns into potential energy, you can, therefore, use that height to determine that kinetic energy, then use the kinetic energy to determine vf, and then use that to determine v1i - or the speed of the projectile right before impact. Also Known As: completely inelastic collision

Email and Privacy and how Cyber Law Protects User Rights Research Paper

Email and Privacy and how Cyber Law Protects User Rights - Research Paper Example After the discovery of the internet, electronic communication has rapidly evolved and hence the internet has grown to a complete unregulated and an unplanned phenomenon. The inventors of the internet and the World Wide Web never anticipated that it could lead to extreme undesirable consequences (Bazelon, 2001). The growth rate of the internet has been expanding at an alarming rate where recent studies indicate that the population of internet users is doubling after every three months due to the emergence of social sites as well as development of e-commerce. Many people are turning to electronic means of communication being offered by the internet, especially e-mails which can pass, store, and retrieve information from a database provide by an Internet Service Provider (ISP). However, as the internet becomes more useful day after day, it has been blamed on various sandals of money laundering, moral decay, as well as several legal issues related to privacy and hence the emergence of cy ber laws which contain all the regulatory and legal aspects of the world wide web and the internet(Bazelon, 2001). The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution deals with the issues concerning searches and seizures which may in one way or the other compromise an individual’s privacy and one case that involved such a violation was United States v. Warshak (Trout, 2010). Warshak was enjoying the reasonable expectation of privacy of his e-mails from his Internet Service Provider, Nu Vox until government agents compromised his rights by ordering the ISP to preserve and issue his emails without first obtaining a warrant which was to be based on probable cause, thus in accordance to the Fourth Amendment, the government agents had violated the privacy rights of Warshak. However, the agents depended on good faith with reference to the Stored Communications Act even though this exclusionary rule was not applicable in such a case (Trout, 2010). In another case involving United States v. Bynum, Mr. Bynum gave his information with the expectation that ISP would protect the privacy of his int ernet and phone subscriber information. However the internet service provider violated the Fourth Amendments by releasing personal information of Mr. Bynum to the FBI without them first obtaining subpoenas (Schwartz, 2009). Another similar case involved the U.S v. Councilman, in this particular scenario Councilman retained his client’s personal information especially his competitors through Wiretap in violation of the Wiretap Act. The interception and seizure without consent of his customers was contravention of the Fourth Amendment. Thus there was an urgent need to amend the Wiretap Act to have a broad definition of the word â€Å"intercept† to include electronic communication temporary in transit because the previous definition only encompassed the e-mails on electronic storage in computers. Congress amended the definition on 22nd July 2004 (Bazelon, 2001). Discussion During the case of United States v. Bynum, 08-4207, the court failed to accept the argument from the defendant that the use of subpoenas by the government in an effort to get subscribers information from his ISP was a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of privacy (Trout, 2010). The court ruled that there was lack of evidence that â€Å"†¦the defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in his internet and phone subscriber information†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Later he voluntarily accepted that he had freely given his personal data to his ISP and phone company and as a consequence, he had assumed the risk that theses companies could reveal his information to the authorities without his jurisdiction (Trout, 2010). Additionally, the court noted that Bynum was capable of demonstrating a subjective expectation of privacy with regard to this information, and then the information was subject to reasonableness test.