Games

Ender’s Game – Good vs. Evil Writing In an epic saga capturing the struggle between two brothers, Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, Ender and Peter are constantly at each other’s throats. Ender is the better of the two brothers as throughout the book he displays noble deeds and a strong mindset. Thus being said, Peter is the lesser of the two who throughout the book is doing something of malcontent, whether it is threatening to kill, killing, or fighting.

Peter the older, power hungry brother is the evil to Ender’s good. From the beginning of the book, Anderson and Graff are, “Afraid of what (Peter) will do to (Ender). ” (Card, 9). Later in the book, around the same time as when Ender is in Flight Commander school, Valentine is disgusted with Peter when she finds a squirrel’s dead carcass, “half – skinned, spiked by its little hands and feet with twigs… She pictured Peter trapping it, staking it…how long had it taken the squirrel to die?

And all the while Peter sat nearby, leaning against the tree where perhaps the squirrel had nested, playing with his desk while the squirrel’s life seeped away” (Card, 123) Peter is a ruthless killer who even tosses the idea of, “ “whether to kill (Valentine) or what. ” ” (Card, 124) What other 12 year old child would commit such cruel acts? An evil one, one who skins animals to watch them die, one who threatens to kill it’s own sister, and one who torments all nearest to him, while acting under a blanket of innocence to hide his misgivings.

Peter is a demon of a child with a lust for evil and wrong things to commit and threaten with. Ender the good to Peter’s evil, is the “better” of the two brothers. Ender does not want to, “ (hurt) people again, just to save (himself). ” (Card, 115) Ender does not have the same lust to kill or eradicate as Peter. For instance, Graff had to trick, “ “(Ender) into (Commanding human forces to exterminate the buggers)…“It had to be a trick or (Ender) couldn’t have done it…(They) had to have a commander with so much empathy that he would think like the buggers, understand them and anticipate them. ” (Scott Card, 298) Ender had to be tricked into doing something that was against his morals for the greater good of his society, for the greater good of human existence. Even if that meant going against his personality, morality, and even his own human nature. With that the reader can promptly assume that Ender is the face on a TV ad trying to sell good. He is understanding, kind, but also will defend himself if provoked with an attack. Not to attack for the sake of attacking or attack for bloodlust, but simply as a reaction instilled in humans through the ages by the name of fight or flight.

After the comprehension and understanding of Ender’s Game the reader finds that there are two polar opposite characters, Peter and Ender, who differ from each other more and more throughout the book, Peter the evil, and Ender the good. Peter the cold, heartless, killer and Ender his brother, who is, nothing like him at all. Kind, compassionate and understanding are all choice words when describing Ender. There is an old saying that reads, “ Where there is good, there is also bad, and where there is bad, good will always triumph for it is fate. ” (Anonymous)

In his breakthrough book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann changes myths about the Pre-Columbian America into scientific facts that nobody would deny.  The book is a discussion about the scientific reality of Native American life before Columbus set foot in America.  As it turns out, this view of reality based on scientific details is completely different from what we had previously thought about Pre-Columbian America.  The thesis of Mann’s book may be summed up in his own words thus:

When I went to high school, in the 1970s, I was taught that Indians came to the Americas across the Bering Strait about thirteen thousand years ago, that they lived for the most part in small, isolated groups, and that they had so little impact on their environment that even after millennia of habitation the continents remained mostly wilderness.  Schools still impart the same ideas today.  One way to summarize the views of people like Erickson and Balée would be to say that they regard this picture of Indian life as wrong in almost every aspect.  Indians were here far longer than previously thought, these researchers believe, and in much greater numbers.  And they were so successful at imposing their will on the landscape that in 1492  Columbus set foot in a hemisphere thoroughly marked by humankind.

After introducing the main thesis of his book – that, in fact, Native Americans were far more civilized than we had previously imagined – Mann begins “Part One: Numbers from Nowhere” by dealing with New England in the 1600s, and the myth that European technology was far superior to American Indian technologies.  This myth was based on the fact that the Indians did not appreciate guns.  However, the reality is that the Indian moccasins were far more comfortable than the boots of the European; and the canoes built by the Native Americans were speedier and more maneuverable than the small boats made by Europeans.

Next, the author gets into a discussion about the reasons for the fall of the Inca Empire.  During this discussion we learn that while the Europeans used metal to make tools, the Indians used it for tokens.  Moreover, the Europeans had used horses while invading the Inca Empire, and the Indians did not have the technology to beat the intruders on horses.  Still, the Inca Empire collapsed mainly because of disease in addition to factionalism.  There had been a civil war after the Native Americans had clashed with the Spanish.  Smallpox and various other epidemics were also responsible for the fall of the Inca Empire.

The first part of Mann’s book also tackles the controversy surrounding the number of Native Americans in Pre-Columbian America.  Scholars have disagreed on the population of the Indians.  Whereas Dobyns believed that there were around one hundred million Native Americans living before the fall of the Inca Empire; Henige argued that the population was much less.  Yet, as Mann points out, there is virtually no evidence to suggest that the population of Native Americans was little.

In addition to the above, the first part of the book deals with the Aztecs.  According to scientific evidence, the Aztecs were more sophisticated than we had previously believed them to be.  The Greek “thinker-teacher” model prevailed among them as “tlamatini.”

“Part Two: Very Old Bones” provides scientific evidence linked to the skeletons of Lagoa Santa that were found in Brazil’s caves to conclude that the Indians and the Siberians share common ancestry.  Agriculture, too, is a focus of this part of Mann’s book.  According to the author, the Indians began breeding maize right from scratch given that the crop had no “wild ancestor.”  With the development of maize, the Mesoamerican life was further advanced.  The Olmec civilization is mentioned as an example of the high culture that was promoted due to advancement in agriculture.

Mann also provides evidence that the Mesoamerican cultures made use of calendars, in addition to wheels.  However, the wheels were used only for small toys.  This is because the Mesoamericans were geographically isolated, and therefore did not have access to other people’s ideas on wheels.

“Part Three: Landscape with Figures” is where Mann brings all of his evidence together to conclude that there are things we have to learn from the Indians.  He discusses the Maya, and points out that the civilization was active in transforming land.  Additionally, the author describes the unique use of fire by the Indians in this part of the book.  Apparently, the Indians used fire to benefit the plants as well as encourage the abundance of some animals.

Mann points to the mistake of holding racist views about the Indians in understanding their unique culture given that such views cloud our receptiveness to reality.  As a matter of fact, the Indians had reached their optimal level of environment.  Before Christopher Columbus arrived on the continent, however, the Europeans had changed the landscape created by the Indians.

Analysis

Indeed, Charles C. Mann is correct in his belief that we have been collectively fed in with the myth that the Native Americans were culturally backward.  In point of fact, this myth does not surround the Indians alone.  Rather, we are made to believe that all civilizations before the major ones as we know them – the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Muslims, and the United States – were culturally backward.

We further tend to believe that it was almost impossible for the civilizations of old to perform the kinds of amazing deeds that we perform today, with respect to our technology.  And so, scholars struggled for a long time trying to understand how the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids without our present technology.  This struggle to understand was led by speculation.

However, speculation is unnecessary when scientific facts are before us.  So, we are aware that the ancient Egyptians had their own technology to build the pyramids.  We do not understand the exact nature of that technology.  We may only know from the evidence we have gathered thus far that some of the civilizations of old were far more sophisticated than we had previously imagined them to be.  This is the case with the Indian civilization.  Perhaps, this was also the case with the people of the Stone Age, who might have developed themselves in terms of philosophical thinking if nothing else.

The fact that we do not possess tomes written by people of the Stone Age or the Indians, does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that the civilizations in question were less developed or evolved than we are.  Rather, those civilizations used their intellectual capacity in a different way.  Believers in the scriptures which recount the story of Adam and Eve would all agree that the essential human being has not changed through the ages.  Based on this view, only that which civilizations focus upon in their own time is likely to vary from civilization to civilization, and the human being is the same as he was in the beginning, that is, a being that is curious and would like to see change.

The main strengths of Mann’s book are its lucid language, and the vast amount of evidence collected by the author.  Mann makes his book extremely interesting by addressing old myths, and describing the facts that must replace the myths.  The book describes unique fruits, for example, that we had previously supposed to be wild.  Even so, the unique fruits consumed by Indians were as nutritious as today’s fruits.  Mann describes interesting fruits with flavors like vanilla ice cream, for instance, and others that contained high levels of vitamin C and protein.

The discussion that this book is made up of is very valuable in helping us understand faulty perceptions.  According to the author, “Given the charged relations between white societies and native peoples, inquiry into Indian culture and history is inevitably contentious.”  To put it another way, white societies may have deliberately kept us away from understanding the significance of the Indian culture.  I believe that this is untrue, given the white societies’ emphasis on knowledge.  Moreover, I trust that the mention of racism should not have been a part of this book.  After all, the book was published in a white society to uncover the reality of the Indian civilization.  As a matter of fact, given the importance of the scientific evidence in the book, it is expected that this book will be studied in white societies for a long time to come.

Works Cited

Mann, Charles C. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York: Vintage Books, 2006.

Topic: Cause and Effect of online There are many reasons people play games: for their entertainment, relaxation, studying and burning free time. Game is a part of human creativity, it keeps people entertained, creative, figure out what to do or better at problem solving. The game can include friends so people will play together or against each other and become competitive. Other than the benefits from playing online games, there are also problems from online games. Two main causes of this addiction is the design and service of the games and the effect is that people have less time.

Online game addiction is a problem. The first cause of game online addiction is the design of game. Game designers make characters’ look and act like humans. Thus player is easily manipulated and they can play it by themself without anyone else. Characters have clothes, hairs, body like humans for example. When player click left-mouse they stand and another mouse they go at moment. Something people feel this action like they are going and doing. It is really real to see and they are interested with drag their mouse . The pictures are beautiful, natural, and it looks real making the game more fun.

The background pictures are many colors, flowers, water, gardens, trees, 3D of style for example. There are many tools and support players which makes the game exciting. This is like that there is a map load when people want to finish their task. Pop-up windows show up when people use their character to trade items with others and act everything with one option. Another cause is the service of the game. Player can exchange items easily and view all traditional items in the screen. Therefore they can save it in the store or take it out of the game.

Players keep characters in their account for the next time they will play. Thus game services attract people to upgrade level of character. There more exercise, the better the character will be compared to others. For example if people saw their character less level than their friends they feel shy and spend more time to play online games for winning in the future. Players can get virtual money in the virtual world. They can buy something in game by this money or put real money into game system. So game provider sells account cards for player check and save money or use it in the virtual world.

Many players spend a lot of time to playing online game and have too little time to exercise and study. As a result Children get bad grades, fail their exam and don’t help anything about housework for their mother. In addition, players are bad at communicating in real life because it is they can easily talk in the game and they not only act in the play but also send message for others. Player can get sick because they play too much, which means they do not get enough rest and see the computer screen a lot. Some people play action games or violent game that have a lot of strategy to kill so they act the same way in real life.

Online game addiction is a serious problem for everyone. There are benefits, but there are also problems. When players play every day, they will get addicted to online games. The design and services of the games are the reasons people get addicted, and there are negative impacts to people. I think people need to talk about children playing too many games. It is acceptable to play games, however people have to limit the time. Players should spend enough time for both games and their real lives. Thus the life is balanced, healthy and useful.

The Hunger Games- Character Paper I read the book The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. The book is about the future and how the central government overrules all of districts, Panem. The main character of the book is Katniss Everdeen. She is a teenage girl who lives in “District 12”. Her district is known for all the coal mining; she had lost her father when she was younger in mine explosion.

After this she had to step up and be the adult. She is very brave and she is very smart. Katniss, the story’s narrator and heroine, is 16 years old and has straight black hair, gray eyes, and olive skin. Her father died in a mine explosion when she is 11. Since then, to keep her family from starving in the Seam, she has had to provide for her mother and sister, using the hunting and gathering knowledge that her father taught her.

Her best friend and hunting partner is Gale, and, while they spend a great deal of time together, Katniss is sure that she doesn’t see him in a romantic light, something that comes into deep question when she is District 12’s Hunger Games tribute and must work hard to maintain a star-crossed-lovers facade with Peeta Mellark. Throughout the novel, she remains a hunter and a survivor, “the girl on fire,” but she is also a girl who is very confused about her emotions concerning Peeta and Gale.

Katniss must also remember to hide her true emotions about the Capitol: She loathes the Capitol and its tyrannical rule, but to rebel openly is to ask for punishment, oftentimes death. She is brave and daring and returns home from the Games a beloved star to her district but a menace to the Capitol dictators in charge of Panem. Katniss is very relatable to young girls because of her confusion with boys. This makes Katniss a great main character for the book because who doesn’t love a science fiction book with a relatable main character?

DuPont Analysis: Playing The Numbers Game! The summary of this case is that a newly joined CFO of a company, Plastichem Inc. , was able to turn the company’s unfortunate situation around when he first arrived. Yet, five years later, Plastichem has gone through some difficult times including their stock price/ratings severely dropping with no understanding as to why. The case ends with the CFO attempting to figure out what went wrong with the numbers he was given. To determine the liquidity, we used the quick ratio, current ratio, and interest coverage ratio.

From these equations, the higher the ratios meant the better of the company’s financial condition, or more liquidity. The acceptable ratios vary from different industries. In general, company’s quick ratio should be 1 or higher, and its current ratio should be above 1. 5 to be considered liquid. In the comparison between two companies’ ratios, DCM Molding has shown a better financial condition on average in the past four years, and Plastichem has barely met the acceptable average or is below the average in the past four years. Quick Ratio = (Cash and marketable securities + A/R + Other Current Asset)/ Current Liabilities | Year| 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| 0. 86| 1. 141| 1. 039| 0. 826| DCM Molding| 0. 99| 0. 93| 1. 114| 1. 568| | Year| | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| 1. 301| 1. 523| 1. 462| 1. 309| DCM Molding| 1. 632| 1. 518| 1. 826| 2. 095| | Year| | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| 0. 763| 1. 9113| 1. 962| 2. 442| DCM Molding| 4. 667| 1. 217| 4. 217| 8. 6| To measure the leverage, we calculated the debt-equity ratio. Plastichem had a relatively high Debt-Equity Ratio, which indicated that Plastichem was using many debts to finance its growth.

High Debt-Equity Ratio also indicated that Plastichem bore more risk because the cost of debt (interest). The company would make more profit if the incremental profit exceeds the incremental cost of debt; however, the company may lose more money/ make less money if the incremental profit is less than the incremental cost of debt. | Year| | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| -19. 331| 5. 076| 4. 862| 1. 355| DCM Molding| 1. 192| 1. 477| 1. 274| 0. 714| To determine the profitability, we calculate the Profit Margin, ROE, and ROA. By looking at the ratios, Plastichem’s profit has dropped in the past four years.

The high leverage may have enlarged the loss of the company. On the other hand, DCM Molding has shown a steady income/profit over the years. | Year| | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| -24. 14%| 0. 68%| 3. 45%| 5. 65%| DCM Molding| 5. 91%| 6. 19%| 5. 37%| 5. 09%| | Year| | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| ? | 3. 53%| 6. 38%| 17. 30%| DCM Molding| 17. 76%| 18. 64%| 17. 44%| 10. 95%| | Year| | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Plastichem| -26. 90%| 0. 58%| 1. 09%| 7. 34%| DCM Molding| 8. 10%| 7. 53%| 7. 66%| 6. 39%| A common size balance sheet is a different type of balance sheet that hows each dollar amount in a form of percentage of a common number from the actual balance sheet. Common size balance sheet is useful in comparing companies that have a different scale of operations. This type of balance sheet helps in observing at the firms as a common sized and it also helps in comparing the changes in various segments over a period of time. PLASTICHEM INCORPORATED| | | | | Annual Income Statements (Value in Millions)| | | | | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Sales| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| Cost of Sales| 74. 81%| 62. 76%| 63. 39%| 65. 04%| Gross Operating profit| 25. 19%| 37. 24%| 36. 61%| 34. 6%| Selling, General & Admin. Expenses| 13. 27%| 18. 54%| 18. 66%| 20. 73%| EBITDA| 11. 92%| 18. 71%| 17. 95%| 14. 23%| Depreciation & Amortization| 6. 16%| 5. 51%| 5. 82%| 4. 41%| EBIT| 5. 76%| 13. 20%| 12. 12%| 9. 82%| Other Income, Net| -0. 17%| 0. 20%| 0. 12%| 0. 08%| Total Income Avail for Interest Exp. | 5. 59%| 13. 40%| 12. 24%| 9. 90%| Interest Expense| 7. 54%| 6. 90%| 6. 18%| 4. 02%| Minority Interest| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Pre-Tax Income| -1. 95%| 6. 50%| 6. 06%| 5. 88%| Income Taxes| 0. 03%| 0. 71%| 2. 61%| 0. 23%| Special Income/Charges| -22. 15%| -5. 10%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Net Income from Cont.

Operations| -24. 14%| 0. 68%| 3. 45%| 5. 65%| Net Income from Discont. Opers. | 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Net Income from Total Operations| -24. 14%| 0. 68%| 3. 45%| 5. 65%| Normalized Income| -1. 99%| 5. 78%| 3. 49%| 5. 65%| Extraordinary Income| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Income from Cum. Eff. of Acct. Chg. | 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Income from Tax Loss Carryforward| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Other Gains| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| -2. 02%| 0. 00%| Total Net Income| -24. 14%| 0. 68%| 1. 43%| 5. 65%| PLASTICHEM INCORPORATED| | | | | Annual Balance Sheets (Values in millions)| | | | | | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001|

ASSETS | | | | | Current Assets| | | | | Cash and marketable securities| 1. 20%| 1. 40%| 1. 47%| 0. 60%| Accounts receivable| 17. 34%| 17. 33%| 14. 74%| 21. 03%| Inventory| 10. 31%| 7. 01%| 7. 44%| 12. 88%| Other Current assets| 1. 54%| 2. 21%| 2. 03%| 0. 40%| Total Current Assets| 30. 40%| 27. 94%| 25. 68%| 34. 91%| | | | | | Non-Current Assets| | | | | Property, Plant & Equipment, Gross| 35. 44%| 28. 70%| 25. 85%| 47. 99%| Accumulated depreciation & Depletion| 14. 41%| 9. 13%| 8. 15%| 19. 42%| Property, Plant & Equipment, Net| 21. 03%| 19. 57%| 17. 71%| 28. 57%| Intangibles| 45. 67%| 50. 07%| 53. 53%| 33. 0%| Other Non-Current Assets| 2. 90%| 2. 41%| 3. 09%| 3. 52%| Total Non-Current Assets| 69. 60%| 72. 06%| 74. 32%| 65. 09%| Total Assets| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| | | | | | LIABILITIES AND EQUITIES| | | | | Current Liabilities| | | | | Accounts payable| 7. 71%| 6. 92%| 6. 03%| 9. 76%| Short Term Debt| 2. 48%| 1. 63%| 1. 03%| 3. 92%| Other current Liabilities| 13. 17%| 9. 80%| 10. 50%| 12. 98%| Total Current liabilities| 23. 36%| 18. 35%| 17. 56%| 26. 66%| | | | | | Non-Current liabilities| | | | | Long-term debt| 80. 96%| 64. 35%| 65. 38%| 30. 89%| Deferred Income Taxes| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 0%| Other Non-Current Liabilities| 1. 13%| 0. 84%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Minority Interest| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Total Non-Current Liabilities| 82. 09%| 65. 19%| 65. 38%| 30. 89%| Total Liabilities| 105. 46%| 83. 54%| 82. 94%| 57. 55%| | | | | | Shareholder’s Equity| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Preferred Stock Equity| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Common Stock Equity| -5. 46%| 16. 46%| 17. 06%| 42. 45%| Total equity| -5. 46%| 16. 46%| 17. 06%| 42. 45%| | | | | | Total liabilities and Stock Equity| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 340| 100. 00%| DCM MOLDING| | | | | Annual Balance Sheets (Values in millions)| | | | | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| ASSETS | | | | | Current Assets| | | | | Cash and marketable securities| 0. 33%| 1. 25%| 0. 47%| 8. 06%| Accounts receivable| 19. 87%| 18. 36%| 20. 31%| 19. 44%| Inventory| 14. 32%| 13. 34%| 14. 69%| 10. 83%| Other Current assets| 1. 89%| 1. 48%| 2. 19%| 4. 72%| Total Current Assets| 36. 40%| 34. 44%| 37. 66%| 43. 06%| | | | | | Non-Current Assets| | | | | Property, Plant ; Equipment, Gross| 47. 28%| 42. 08%| 43. 44%| 56. 39%| Accumulated depreciation ; Depletion| 17. 20%| 12. 66%| 11. 09%| 10. 83%| Property, Plant ; Equipment, Net| 30. 08%| 29. 42%| 32. 34%| 45. 56%| Intangibles| 33. 0%| 35. 46%| 28. 44%| 5. 28%| Other Non-Current Assets| 0. 22%| 0. 68%| 1. 56%| 6. 11%| Total Non-Current Assets| 63. 60%| 65. 56%| 62. 34%| 56. 94%| Total Assets| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| | | | | | LIABILITIES AND EQUITIES| | | | | Current Liabilities| | | | | Accounts payable| 7. 66%| 8. 10%| 8. 28%| 5. 56%| Short Term Debt| 7. 44%| 6. 61%| 4. 22%| 7. 50%| Other current Liabilities| 7. 21%| 8. 10%| 8. 28%| 7. 50%| Total Current liabilities| 22. 31%| 22. 69%| 20. 63%| 20. 56%| | | | | | Non-Current liabilities| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Long-term debt| 28. 63%| 31. 93%| 29. 22%| 15. 00%|

Deffered Income Taxes| 0. 11%| 0. 57%| 0. 00%| 3. 89%| Other Non-Current Liabilities| 3. 33%| 4. 45%| 6. 09%| 2. 22%| Minority Interest| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Total Non-Current Liabilities| 32. 08%| 36. 94%| 35. 31%| 21. 11%| Total Liabilities| 54. 38%| 59. 64%| 55. 94%| 41. 67%| | | | | | Shareholder’s Equity| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Preferred Stock Equity| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Common Stock Equity| 45. 62%| 40. 36%| 43. 91%| 58. 33%| Total equity| 45. 62%| 40. 36%| 43. 91%| 58. 33%| | | | | | Total liabilities and Stock Equity| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| DCM MOLDING| | | | |

Annual Income Statements (Value in Millions)| | | | | 2004| 2003| 2002| 2001| Sales| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| Cost of Sales| 66. 83%| 64. 85%| 64. 76%| 62. 96%| Gross Operating profit| 33. 17%| 35. 15%| 35. 24%| 37. 04%| Selling, General & Admin. Expenses| 17. 23%| 18. 65%| 19. 60%| 22. 22%| EBITDA| 15. 94%| 16. 49%| 15. 64%| 14. 81%| Depreciation & Amortization| 4. 61%| 4. 40%| 4. 32%| 4. 86%| EBIT| 11. 33%| 12. 09%| 11. 32%| 9. 95%| Other Income, Net| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| -0. 12%| -0. 23%| Total Income Avail for Interest Exp. | 11. 33%| 12. 09%| 11. 20%| 9. 72%| Interest Expense| 2. 43%| 2. 16%| 2. 0%| 1. 16%| Minority Interest| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Pre-Tax Income| 8. 90%| 9. 93%| 9. 10%| 8. 56%| Income Taxes| 2. 99%| 3. 75%| 3. 73%| 3. 47%| Special Income/Charges| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Net Income from Cont. Operations| 5. 91%| 6. 19%| 5. 37%| 5. 09%| Net Income from Discont. Opers. | 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 35%| 0. 00%| Net Income from Total Operations| 5. 91%| 6. 19%| 5. 72%| 5. 09%| Normalized Income| 5. 91%| 6. 19%| 5. 37%| 5. 09%| Extraordinary Income| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Income from Cum. Eff of Acct. Chg. | 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Income from Tax Loss Carryforward| 0. 0%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Other Gains| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| Total Net Income| 5. 91%| 6. 19%| 5. 72%| 5. 09%| We can see that the cost of the sales has been increasing for both the companies. But, the cost of goods sold for DCM is less that than of Plastichem. This indicates that DCM has been better at controlling their cost so they have a higher gross margin as compare to Plastichem. This reduction in the gross profit has lead to the reduction on the expenses occur due to selling the goods, but since DCM has a higher gross profit than Plastichem, they can also spend more in selling their goods.

Plastichem also has more debt compare to DCM, due to which they have a higher interest expenses compare to DCM. A DuPont analysis helps us better understand the changes in return on equity (ROE). DuPont analysis tells us that three things affect ROE: operating efficiency, asset use efficiency, and financial leverage. Therefore we break up ROE into its components: ROE = Profit Margin (PM) * Total Asset Turnover (TAT) * Equity Multiplier (EM) | 2004| Return on Equity| Net Profit Margin| Total Asset Turnover| Equity Multiplier| | | | | | | Plastichem| 0. 00%| -24. 07%| 1. 12| 0. 00|

DCM| | 17. 76%| 5. 91%| 1. 37| 2. 19| | 2003| | | | | | | | | | | Plastichem| 3. 53%| 0. 68%| 0. 85| 6. 08| DCM| | 18. 64%| 6. 19%| 1. 22| 2. 48| | 2002| | | | | | | | | | | Plastichem| 6. 38%| 1. 47%| 0. 74| 5. 86| DCM| | 17. 44%| 5. 72%| 1. 34| 2. 28| | 2001| | | | | | | | | | | Plastichem| 17. 30%| 5. 65%| 1. 30| 2. 36| DCM| | 10. 95%| 5. 32%| 1. 20| 1. 71| If we look at the figures we find that the reduction in ROE for Plastichem is mainly due to the drop in net profit margin. Plastichem increased their use of debt, which resulted in a higher EM, but poor PM ensured the fall of ROE.

For DCM, on the other hand, we see that it has been fairly constant as well as ROE components. Some of the limitations regarding the various financial analyses above are: Many companies near the year or quarter end improve the appearance of their figures presenting them in the most attractive way possible. The miss misrepresentation of numbers makes the analysis more difficult. The analysis may also be unclear by inflation as general price levels for goods and services go up and subsequently purchasing power goes down, which makes comparison difficult over time.

Many firms also use different accounting methods which make comparing of different companies difficult for instance there are two primary accounting methods used in USA, cash and accrual accounting. Cash accounting reports income and expenses are reported in the year they are received and paid; accrual accounting reports income and expenses in the year they are earned and incurred. Again making it very difficult to analyze different companies. Some additional data Jay and Jack need in order to improve their finding would be to look into the companies accounting practices and see if any off balance sheet items are present.

From there they need to make sure the off balance sheet items are converted to in the balance sheet items to have an appropriate comparison. A statement of cash flows would also useful in analysis, as it would allow in determining the short-term viability of a company, particularly its ability to pay bills. A statement of cash of cash flows also allows us to view cash and cash equivalents coming in and out of company, giving better understanding as to where money is going and coming from.

Also although looking at numbers may allow analysis to quickly spot differences in financials, I believe you must research companies in how they are run and if they are consistently making good business decisions. After collecting, compiling, and analyzing data we have come to conclusion that DCM Molding has shown a better financial condition on average in the past four years, and Plastichem has barely met the acceptable average or is below the average in the past four years. The Plastichem had a relatively high Debt-Equity Ratio, which indicated that was using many debts to finance its growth.

The high Debt-Equity Ratio also indicated that Plastichem bore more risk because the cost of debt (interest) making things difficult. The cost of the sales for both the companies have increased. But, the cost of goods sold for DCM is less that than Plastichem. This indicates that DCM has been better at controlling their cost so they have a higher gross margin as compare to Plastichem. This reduction in the gross profit has lead to the reduction on the expenses occur due to selling the goods, but since DCM has a higher gross profit than Plastichem they can also spend more in selling their goods.

So in comparison we see that DCM Molding is doing far better with its figures showing much better results than Plastichem. Recommendation that Jack would be justified in making in his report to Andrew would be Plastichem needs to increase profit margin after looking at the figures we find that the decrease in return on equity for Plastichem is mostly due to the drop in net profit margin. Plastichem increased their use of debt that resulted in a higher equity multiplier, but poor profit margin ensured the fall of return on equity.

Plastichem had a relatively high Debt-Equity Ratio, which indicated that Plastichem was using many debts to finance its growth. It should be treated as a serious problem being that Plastichem’s main rival is rated as a strong buy while their stock is rated as a hold. The strong drop in price will create fear for potential and current shareholders. If that fear continues, Plastichem’s shareholders might sell their stock at a decreasing rate, causing more issues for the company.

The CFO should do a comparison between Plastichem and DCM’s numbers, and find the strengths and weaknesses amongst his company, in particular within its management teams. He should also begin finding ways to pay off Plastichem’s debt as well as not accumulating anymore, being that Plastichem is already seen as risky. The CFO should also find a tighter way to control the company’s costs. The analysts are very accurate in their recommendations to the two firms. DCM Molding figures showed far better results and stock should rise; While Plastichem might consider selling stocks, if financial performance continues to worsen.

“Do Video Games Kill? ” Since the released of a video game called Doom in 1993, certainly one of the most popular first-games shooters games. It is like a double-edged sword, because it does not help video gaming grow into a multibillion dollar industry, but is would teach kids how to kill. In “Do Video Games Kill? ” sociology professor Karen Sternheimer talked about that the “video game explanation” for kids violence has become more pervasive. In this article, the author talked about politicians and 199 newspaper articles think that the video games teach young people how to kill and are the culprit.

They blame video games. However, the author dose not think the video games are negative products. Because she thinks that guns, poverty, families, and the organization of schools may also influence youth violence. When we want to understand why young people, particular in middle-class or otherwise stable environments, become homicidal, we need to look at what the games they play. “While all forms of media merit critical analysis, so do the supposedly ‘good’ neighborhoods and families that occasionally produce young killers”(244).

Politicians and other moral crusaders created a name for video game, called “contemporary folk devils”, because they seem to pose a threat to children. Newspaper articles proposed that the video games are constructing culpability, and they are the culprit. But in author’s mind, she does not think the video games are not only way to teach young children how to kill. This is the biggest problem with media-effects research that “Poverty, neighborhood instability, unemployment, and even family violence fall by the wayside in most of these studies.

Ironically, even mental illness tends to be overlooked in this psychologically oriented research” (16). For instance, African-American young people are involved more than twice as often as white in the juvenile justice system. So the author thinks poor males of color be killers easier than others. For example, many people now can not find job, so they just feel sad and lost their mind. They think it is unfair, so decided to kill others. So the video games are not only ways to teach killed. On the other hand, the author thinks playing video games can improves spatial skills and reaction time.

When we play the video game, we need to improve our attention, and to decided some decision immediately, so playing the video games actually can improve our intelligence. She found evidence about the video games do not increase aggression. She uses some reports quotation to contract and then points out video games does not increase aggression. For example, “ The Boston Herald quoted a clinical psychologist who said, ‘ Studies have already shown that watching television shows with aggressive or violent content makes children more aggressive’’(15). So the media effects are clear, consistent and conclusive.

But the author thinks that news reports do not use academic sources to do the media effects research. In conclusion, the video games are not only ways to teach youth how to kill. They killed maybe because of poverty or families, because of unemployment or neighborhood. There are many other facilities to lead youth people kill. And the video games also have some positive sides, like it can improve the spatial skills. So it is not just like politicians and news articles thinking, the video games are not folk devils and are not culprit. ———————– 1