In F#, I NEED TO IMPLEMENT A FUNCTION THAT :

• Returns a list of all numbers less than n that are divisible by 3 or 5.
• Returns a list of the first n numbers in the Fibonacci sequence.
• Returns the sum of the digits in a number. 5342 should return 14.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

In Fall 2016, you are hired as Controller of the Medical Device division of Virtek. You report to Steve Slack, the General Manager of the division. Virtek has annual sales of approximately $1.7 billion. The Medical Device Division annual sales are approximately $170 million, about 10% of Virtek’s total annual sales. The Medical Device Division had a very good 2016. As you close the books for 2016 in January 2017, you are reporting a net profit of $21.6 million, well above the 2016 target profit of $20 million for the division. After reviewing the preliminary 2016 financial statements, Steve Slack says,

“We get our bonuses as long as we meet or exceed our $20 million target for net profit. It doesn’t help us to exceed the target by more than one and a half million, that will only encourage corporate to make our target that much higher for 2017. I want you to develop a rational for increasing our reserve for inventory obsolescence that will reduce our 2016 net profit to just over $20 million.”

By taking a pessimistic view of future market prospects, you are able to identify $1.25 million worth of inventory that under those market conditions could be justifiably fully reserved (written off) using conservative accounting. Steve Slack is pleased with the results you reported to him. He said,

“That’s very good! I’m fairly confident we can sell all that inventory in 2017 without offering any more than a small discount off our regular price. That will boost our 2017 net profit by nearly $1 million. With that extra cushion, we’re almost certain to achieve our 2017 earnings targets and our bonuses. I want you to book that adjusting entry to increase our inventory reserve for obsolescence. Oh, by the way, are you sure you can’t find another $200,000 or so of inventory we could write off in the same manner? It wouldn’t hurt to have even more of a cushion.”

You were a little uncomfortable reviewing inventory for obsolescence with a specific target value in mind, and following the meeting with Steve Slack, you decide that before you book the adjusting entry to increase the inventory reserve for obsolescence as he instructed, you want to review the entire situation before proceeding.

Required memo to Steve Slack in good form. Your memo should:

1. Identify the ethical issues you both face.
2. Identify the major stakeholders involved and state how the stakeholders would be affected by the course of action ordered by Steve Slack.
3. Explain why you believe the course of action proposed by Steve Slack (identifying inventory that can be written down for 2016 that will likely be sold at no more than a small discount to normal prices in 2017) is ethical or unethical.
4. Regardless of whether you believe the course of action proposed by Steve Slack is ethical or unethical, identify an ethical alternative to his proposed course of action. Recommend one course of action, and explain and support your recommended choice.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

In February 2017, Dr. Christopher Duntsch became the first surgeon in American history known to be sentenced to prison for botching a patient surgery. A licensed neurosurgeon, Duntsch left a string of deaths and maimed bodies in his wake: He was accused of causing the death of two surgery patients and leaving 33 others permanently damaged. His patients left their lives in his hands; he left them paralyzed or dead.

The checks and balances that were supposed to contain Duntsch failed utterly. His medical school licensed him but didn’t require the preparation necessary to instill competence. Hospitals suspended him but didn’t report him. The medical board could do nothing without forms filed against him. Patients were left without recourse.

When checks and balances fail, damage is usually the result.

That’s why when it came to our system of government, the founders were so focused on creating gridlock. They recognized that in a system in which legitimacy sprang from popular support, the easy path to perdition lay in popularly backed centralized power — tyranny could spring just as easily from a popular majority as from a king or despot. The founders didn’t trust individuals with authority, and they didn’t trust human beings to delegate authority to mere individuals.

But popular governments have always bucked against such limitations. 

The majority of Americans always want action, on some grounds or others. That leads to an eternal drive to grant unchecked power to some institution of government. As Alexis de Tocqueville writes in his 1840 “Democracy in America”: “It may easily be foreseen that almost all the able and ambitious members of a democratic community will labor without ceasing to extend the powers of government, because they all hope at some time or other to wield those powers. … Centralization will be the natural government.”

We’re now seeing the consequences of such centralization on two separate fronts: the president’s authority to declare a national emergency and the FBI’s investigations into the president. Proponents of President Trump would like to see power centralized in the presidency; antagonists of President Trump would like to see power centralized in the FBI.

President Trump’s allies seem eager for Trump to declare a national emergency in order to appropriate funds for a border wall. The law cuts against such a declaration: The National Emergencies Act was written to curtail presidential authority, not increase it. No matter how much border hawks (including me) want a border barrier, the proper method is to request funds from Congress.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s enemies are celebrating reports this week that the FBI investigated Trump as a possible Russian agent after his firing of then-FBI director James Comey. Trump had authority under the Constitution to fire Comey, and there’s no actual evidence that Trump is an agent of the Russians. But Trump’s enemies want the legislature to step in and attempt to protect the FBI from executive branch checks on it.  

We’re now seeing the consequences of such centralization on two separate fronts: the president’s authority to declare a national emergency and the FBI’s investigations into the president. Proponents of President Trump would like to see power centralized in the presidency; antagonists of President Trump would like to see power centralized in the FBI.

President Trump’s allies seem eager for Trump to declare a national emergency in order to appropriate funds for a border wall. The law cuts against such a declaration: The National Emergencies Act was written to curtail presidential authority, not increase it. No matter how much border hawks (including me) want a border barrier, the proper method is to request funds from Congress.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s enemies are celebrating reports this week that the FBI investigated Trump as a possible Russian agent after his firing of then-FBI director James Comey. Trump had authority under the Constitution to fire Comey, and there’s no actual evidence that Trump is an agent of the Russians. But Trump’s enemies want the legislature to step in and attempt to protect the FBI from executive branch checks on it.

Scott Morefield

All of this is foolish. It’s good that the legislative branch checks the executive branch, and it’s good that the executive branch must remain in control of executive branch agencies. Here’s the easy test: How would you feel if the situations were reversed? How would Republicans feel about an emergency declaration from a Democratic president to shift funds to leftist priorities? How would Democrats feel about Republican attempts to seize control of the FBI for purposes of investigating a Democratic president?Nobody ought to trust institutions enough to grant them unchecked power. And no one ought to trust the people enough to allow us to do so.

Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

In February, Fire Services Pty Ltd, an Australian company, agreed to sell an airfield fire truck valued at AUD $150,000 to Harrow International Airport, an English company. The sale was on FOB (Melbourne) terms. Harrow International Airport organised transport from the Port of Melbourne to the Port of London with an Australia shipping company, Ocean Carriers.

Despite Ocean Carriers carrying out checks on the holds and stowing systems in the cargo holds prior to the journey, during a storm in the North Pacific a lashing belt snapped causing significant damage to the front of the truck.

After arriving at the Port of London the truck was further damaged as it was being unloaded. The stevedore operator employed by the carrier was inexperienced having only recently gained the appropriate high-risk work licences required to operate a vehicle-loading machinery with a capacity of 10 metre tonnes. The operator forgot to ensure that the hoisting gear was properly engaged before attempting to life the truck from the deck of the ship. As the truck was hoisted up in the air and was approximately 2 meters above the deck, the hoisting gear uncoupled and the truck crashed back onto the deck, the ship then lurched violently and the truck rolled over and off the side, crashing onto the dock. The truck was almost completely destroyed.

Has Ocean Carriers breached any of its obligations under the Modified Hague Visby Rules? In your response remember to consider both the carrier’s obligations and available defences under the Rules. 

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"