Almost Famous essays

Almost Famous essays Directed and written by Cameron Crowe Starring Patrick Fugit, Kate Hudson, Billy Crudup, Jason Lee and Frances McDormand Cameron Crowe views his life and experiences of his mid teen years as a rock critic for Rolling Stone Magazine, whom he shows through the eyes of his alter-ego, William Miller (who is played by Patrick Fugit), in the critically acclaimed film, "Almost Famous." William follows around a "mid level band struggling with their own limitations in the harsh face of stardom." which is known as "Stillwater." This movie follows "Stillwater" showing everything William writes about and Sees, and shows the life of 70's Rock n, Roll in its last drive before being killed by disco. The Setting for the movie was in San Diego in the early 1970's. Williams's sister Anita (Zooey Deschantel) is shown as a "rebel" who believes in everything her mother is against. She causes conflict and problems at home but decides to leave home when she turned 18 to become a stewardess. Williams mother Elaine, whom is a conservative woman, also a very liberal woman, whom "decided to celebrate Christmas on a day in September when she knew it wouldn't be commercialized." Elaine is a very good mother who tries teaching William "the cliff notes on life." She supports his journey even if she didn't agree with them, and helped give an honest statement to a few of the rock and rollers a time or two. She also put William in first grade when he was five, never telling him till he was eleven. He thought he was thirteen. No wonder he had not gone through puberty yet. William, now fifteen is fully in love with the music of Rock and writes articles and submits them to "Creem Magazine" and a few underground papers. He meets up with legendary rock critic and editor of "Creem Magazine," Lester Bangs. Lester teaches William the ropes of being a rock journalist and tells him certain rules to follow and the tr ...

Free Essays on Albert Bandura

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY of Albert Bandura If you've taken an introductory course in economics, you're already familiar with the policy planner's dilemma of deciding whether to allocate limited resources for guns or for butter. The problem is usually posed to illustrate the impersonal market forces of supply and demand, profit and loss. Yet planners are people, and most individuals come to the war-or-peace decision points of life having already developed preferred responses. Northwestern psychologist Donald Campbell calls these tendencies "acquired behavioral dispositions," and he suggests six ways that we learn to choose one option over another. 1. Trial-and-error experience is a hands-on exploration that might lead to tasting the butter and squeezing the trigger, or perhaps the other way around. 2. Perception of the object is a firsthand chance to look, admire, but don't touch a pistol and a pound of butter at close range. 3. Observation of another's response to the object is hearing a contented sigh when someone points the gun or spreads the butter on toast. It is also seeing critical frowns on faces of people who bypass the items in a store. 4. Modeling is watching someone fire the gun or melt the butter to put it on popcorn. 5. Exhortation is the National Rifle Association's plea to protect the right to bear arms or Willard Scott's commercial message urging us to use real butter. 6. Instruction about the object is a verbal description of the gun's effective range or of the number of calories in a pat of butter. Campbell claims that direct trial-and-error experience creates a deep and long-lasting acquired behavioral disposition, while perception has somewhat less effect, observation of response even less, and modeling less still. Exhortation is one of the most used but least effective means to influence attitudes or actions. Stanford psychologist Albert Bandura agrees that conversation is not an effective way of altering hum... Free Essays on Albert Bandura Free Essays on Albert Bandura SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY of Albert Bandura If you've taken an introductory course in economics, you're already familiar with the policy planner's dilemma of deciding whether to allocate limited resources for guns or for butter. The problem is usually posed to illustrate the impersonal market forces of supply and demand, profit and loss. Yet planners are people, and most individuals come to the war-or-peace decision points of life having already developed preferred responses. Northwestern psychologist Donald Campbell calls these tendencies "acquired behavioral dispositions," and he suggests six ways that we learn to choose one option over another. 1. Trial-and-error experience is a hands-on exploration that might lead to tasting the butter and squeezing the trigger, or perhaps the other way around. 2. Perception of the object is a firsthand chance to look, admire, but don't touch a pistol and a pound of butter at close range. 3. Observation of another's response to the object is hearing a contented sigh when someone points the gun or spreads the butter on toast. It is also seeing critical frowns on faces of people who bypass the items in a store. 4. Modeling is watching someone fire the gun or melt the butter to put it on popcorn. 5. Exhortation is the National Rifle Association's plea to protect the right to bear arms or Willard Scott's commercial message urging us to use real butter. 6. Instruction about the object is a verbal description of the gun's effective range or of the number of calories in a pat of butter. Campbell claims that direct trial-and-error experience creates a deep and long-lasting acquired behavioral disposition, while perception has somewhat less effect, observation of response even less, and modeling less still. Exhortation is one of the most used but least effective means to influence attitudes or actions. Stanford psychologist Albert Bandura agrees that conversation is not an effective way of altering hum...

Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Law - Essay Example However, the introduction of numerous statutory instruments and the principles of Judicial Interpretation place restrictions on the use of exclusion clauses. Another aspect of legal disputes in commercial contracts involve the situation where there is damage to property that belongs to one of the parties in the contract after an order is placed. There is a question of which is liable for damage. This paper is in two parts based on the question in the scenario. The first part examines the effectiveness of a clause that AOL has integrated into the contract which excludes liability for several things and how this can be used to relieve AOL for misrepresentation. The second part examines the obligations that AOL owes to Shoeground Ltd in view of shoes that they ordered which have been damaged. PART 1 1.1 Issue The question requires that we examine the ability of Clause 3 to be used to exclude responsibility for misrepresentations. In doing this, there is the need to examine some importan t things: 1. The appropriateness of the use of Clause 3 as an Entire Agreement Clause and what intervening Statutes and Judicial practices can affect the use of the Clause to exclude liabilities for misrepresentations. ... The Misrepresentation Act of 19675, as amended by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 19776 restricts the possibility of using exclusion clauses to limit liability for misrepresentation. Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act states that if a term in a contract excludes liability for misrepresentation, any remedy available to the other party by reason of such misrepresentation, that term shall have no effect unless it satisfies the requirements of reasonableness in Section 11 (1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. This means that in an event of a misrepresentation by one party in a contract, that party cannot rely on any exclusion clause to prevent his liability for misrepresentation. In Overbrooke V Glencombe7 it was held that the need of a principal to disclose restraint of the authority of his agents were not enough to prevent him from the effects of Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act. This is because the principal stated that he was not responsible for the representations of hi s agents. The court held that the agents were acting in his name as such, the inclusion of a clause limiting their involvement did not make him exempt from Section 3 of the Act. The principal was held liable. However, in some instances, an exclusion clause for liability for misrepresentation could be accepted by the court if it is reasonable. The reasonableness test is laid out in Section 11 (1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. First of all, the exemption clause should have been reasonable enough to have intended the terms are the time of the contract8. This means that the term might have been in a way that a reasonable person could have inferred its impact and invested sufficient efforts to do diligent checks. Secondly, the exemption clause for misrepresentation