Emma Goldmans Speech -- essays research papers

Few people are fearless speakers. As students, we generally feel the rumble of butterflies in our stomachs, but the most we have to lose is a good grade. For Emma Goldman, the stakes were considerably higher. She had the daunting task of speaking to secure her own freedom when she was placed on trial for obstructing the draft in 1917. The country was awash in patriotism, and she was prosecuted as an enemy of the state. When preparing her speech, she realized that a seated jury would be a microcosm of the country's national spirit. Jurors may have had children or loved ones committed or lost to the Great War. Her position, though heartfelt and eloquently expressed, with an attempt to express her own patriotism, was subversive and threatening to the population. Although many of her words may have angered the jurors, Goldman made the key points of every topic that she discussed very clear and easy to understand. She was able to talk about her stances, and use powerful language and various sources to help the jury understand why she held certain ideals. When describing her opposition to war, Goldman stated that "all wars are wars among thieves who are too cowardly to fight and who therefore induce the young manhood of the world to do the fighting for them." Also, Goldman goes to great lengths to clearly depict the fact that she was not acting in a violent manner. She used imagery, such as the officers who went to arrest her finding "Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, in their separate offices quietly seated at their desks, wielding not the gun or the bomb or the club or the sword, but only such a simple and insignificant thing as a pen." Goldman also makes it very clear why she does not believe that the war should co ntinue. She claims that it is "not a war for democracy. If it were a war for the purpose of making democracy safe for the world, we would say that democracy must first be safe for America before it can be safe for the world." By repeating this idea throughout her speech, Goldman emphasizes why she behaved in the manner that she did. She also explains that "the war going on in the world is for the further enslavement of the people." Goldman works to point out that "the fight began in Australia and conscription was there defeated by the brave and determined and courageous ... ..., [and] which expresses itself in prisons." During this point in American history, where the nation's pride was sweeping the nation, the last thing Goldman should have done was criticize the United States. These accusations against the country, although they were her belief, went against the accepted norms and rules of the time. By continuing to behave in such an antagonistic manner, Goldman makes the jury feel like it needs to vindicate its country and punish her. Emma Goldman's remarks may have infuriated the jury, and this may have proved too big an obstacle to overcome. Jurors may purport to be impartial, but they carry within them a belief system that is threatened by a revolutionary perspective. Goldman's organization and logic was compelling, and her persuasive skills were impressive. It was a wise decision to portray herself as pro- America. But Goldman's failure was to underestimate the depth of commitment that Americans had at this time to the War effort. To allow Goldman's opposition to the government system of conscription would mock the sacrifices of loved ones. Despite an eloquent defense, Goldman was not able to overcome this bias.

Asexual and Sexual Reproduction in Soft Corals :: Reproduce Nature Wildlife Essays

Asexual and Sexual Reproduction in Soft Corals The battle between sexual and asexual reproduction is a competition that has been ongoing for millions of years. Somewhere along the way due to its higher level of genetic variation, sexual reproduction was able to overcome the two fold advantage of asexual reproduction, and now dominates reproduction in organisms. However, some types of organisms such as worms and corals have acquired the ability to reproduce both sexually and asexually. The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences in asexual and sexual reproduction both from a biological and an evolutionary standpoint and to explain why evolution has made it possible for soft corals to reproduce both sexually and asexually. Introduction: Soft corals are very widespread among the Great Barrier Reef and other Indo-Pacific coral reefs. On the Great Barrier Reef they may cover up to 37% of the reef area (Bastidas, et. al, 2001). Even though soft corals are abundant on the Great Barrier Reef they have been overshadowed by the study of hard corals. Very little research has been conducted on them, yet they are just as fascinating as their hard coral neighbors. The main purpose of this paper is to explain why evolution has made it possible for soft corals to reproduce both sexually and asexually. To do this I will first introduce soft corals, then explain the types of reproduction soft corals are capable of, and finally explain why evolution has made it possible for soft corals to reproduce both sexually and asexually, using numerous studies to support my claims. Most of the information on this topic was very species specific, but this paper will explain the reproductive evolution of soft corals in a broade r array that will pertain to the scientific order Alcyonacea, or all types of soft corals. What are soft corals? Soft corals are grouped in the phylum Cnidaria, class Anthozoa, and order Alcyonacea. Their distinguishing characteristic is that their polyps always bear eight tentacles which are on both edges fringed by rows of pinnules (Fabricius and De’ath, 2002). The common name â€Å"soft coral† comes from the fact that they have no massive external skeleton as compared to the more commonly studied hard corals.

The letter R

Monica Silva Radiant R Every word in the English language derives from 26 seemingly simple letters. Each letter has gone through a unique transition in order to end up how it is today. Some letters have been erased, while some added, and others Just transformed. The complex Journey of the written language can somewhat be seen through the transition of R. The letter R is one of the letters that has been around since the very beginning of writing. R is a unique letter in its pronunciation, history and its place in cultural artifacts as well as math and sciences.While looking at the English alphabet, one would come across the eighteenth letter of the alphabet; R. R can be classified as an ancestor for written language today. While most letters have been around for a very long time, R is one that has residency and that has not had a very large change throughout history. R is a letter that has appeared in some of the oldest writings found. These include inscriptions from the Semitic cultu re. In these writings, R was represented by something that looked like a â€Å"human head in profile† (David Sacks 283) (figure 1).They called this ymbol resh, which translates to ‘head' in the Semitic language. This letter also appears in the Phoenician alphabet. At this time it still represented the word ‘head' but its shape had changed. The illustration turned from a human head profile to something that looked a lot like a modern day backwards P (fgure 2). This illustration could still be classified as a human head, Just with more defined, longer neck. As the Greeks studied the Phoenician alphabet, they took great influence on their letters and took a large part of it as basis for their own alphabet.As for the letter R, they did not hange it much from what it had originally been. They decided to only modify its name so that it would fit better into the sound of their language, thus it became rho. This had â€Å"no special meaning in Greek aside from the letter † (Sacks 285). In early Greek writing, rho could be either turned to the left or the right. It was not until about 500 B. C. that the Greeks decided to permanently have rho facing towards the right, thus making the visual practically the same as the Phoenician alphabet.They made this change because the Greek reading permanently changed from left to right. The tail that is on the R today did not appear until in was formed in ancient Rome. The tail was at first a very short line, but then developed into a complete stroke all the way to the baseline. The lowercase version of r is unique in the fact that it is the only letter that has an uppercase closed section, while its lowercase version does not. This was due to the style of handwriting in the early Middle Ages. Instead of drawing the entire loop and tail, they only drew the top of the curved line (fgure 3).They did this in order to save time and pen strokes while writing. This shortcut has been carried along all the way up to modern day writing. The letter R has a variety of different sounds depending on what word you are saying, what language you are speaking, or even what part of the country you are from due to different accents. The eight different rhetoric consonants are alveolar trill, alveolar approximant, alveolar tlap, voiced retrotlex tricative, retrotlex approximant, retroflex flap, uvular trill, and voiced uvular fricative (Wikipedia).One sound heard in English is the alveolar trill; it is described as a rolling R. Leading air ver articulator so that it can vibrate makes this sound. This sound deals with the tip of the tongue and while making this sound the vocal cords will vibrate. Another rhetoric consonant found in the English language is alveolar approximant. Narrowing the vocal tract where it articulates creates this sound and it also deals with the tip of the tongue and the vocal cords vibrate while making it as well. Another consonant found in English is retroflex approximant.Like alve olar approximant, narrowing the vocal tract at articulation creates this sound. This sound deals with the tip of the ongue as it is turned up and vocal cords will vibrate while creating this sound. The last rhetoric consonant found in English is retroflex flap. This sound is created with one contraction of the muscle, making the tongue thrown against the bottom of the mouth. Like retroflex approximant, the tongue is curled up when making this sound and the vocal cords will vibrate as well. Each of these explained sounds are oral consonants meaning that air can escape from the mouth only.They are also all central consonants meaning that the sound is produced by instructing airstream on he center of the tongue instead of to the sides of the mouth. (Wikipedia). Recordings of all eight rhetoric consonants can be found on the reference page. While making some simple R sounds you could find that if you lift up your tongue, you will then be making the sound of the letter L. This would be b ecause of the fact that R and L are phonetically sisters and they are called liquids. The term liquid consonants mean that these two letters behave in a similar way.These two letters are going to have â€Å"an effect on a vowel sound that precedes them in a word† (Sacks 280). This effect is that of drawing out the vowel's pronunciation and thus making it stronger. Some examples that Sacks gives are the words ‘pole' and ‘poke'. Saying these words aloud, one can hear how the ‘e' in ‘pole' is more prominent than the ‘e' in ‘poke'. This is unique in the fact that the only other letter that makes this effect in the English alphabet is obviously L. Phonetic writing is not the only place you will land eyes on the letter R, it has an importance in science as well as mathematics.In the sciences, the gas constant is represented by the uppercase R. The reason R was chosen to represent the gas constant is unknown but there are three ideas as to why thi s may be. The first idea is simply that it was random. The second idea is that it could possibly stand for ratio. Scientists thought this could be because of the fact that this value of R was found by calculating the constancy of the ratio over pressure and time. The third idea for this representation is that it was named after Henri Victor Regnault. Regnault was the French chemist who calculated the early value of the constant densen 2).In mathematics, the letter R represents the set of all real numbers. R was chosen because Rn refers to the Cartesian product of n copies of R. Another reason is it thought to represent all real numbers is because of the fact that the word real starts with an r (O'Connor 1). Just like R plays a role in mathematics and science, it can be caught playing a role in cultural artifacts as well. The letter R is also known as the dogs letter'. There are many people who have made a connection between the sound of r and a dog. In 1529 Geotry Tory compared the r growling sound to dogs when they are angry and about to bite each other.During the mid first century, a poet named Persius referred to R as ‘dog letter' as well. Also in the Spanish language it is called canina littera, which may be of even greater importance because in Spanish language rolled r's is a major part of their pronunciation. Another person who referred to R as the dogs letter was Ben Jonson in his book English Grammar (Sacks 280). This reference can be found in the famous Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare in Act 2, scene 4. In this part of the play, Juliet's nurse calls the letter R, the dogs name' referring to Romeo as a dog.

A war between the United States and Iran Essay

Preparations for a massive military strike on Iran are in full swing by the United States of America. But will these preparations convert to actual bombing on the ground? Are the two countries going to be embroiled in a war soon? These are the questions that are being asked everywhere, in hushed tones if it is the Pentagon corridors and terrified glances if it is the streets of Tehran. With Iran defying the UN’s call for restraint in its nuclear programme openly, it has only become successful in intensifying the speculations about the war. The issue here is â€Å"Is it inevitable? † Before we get in to the nitty-gritty of the Iranian crisis, let us look into the different causes of the wars that have been raged in the recent future. The twentieth century started with World War I in 1914 and since then, it is interesting to note that the wars have a particular pattern. The causes have always been dependent on three factors: Systemic factors, domestic politics and the role of the Decision maker. Hence, we would also try to view the US-Iran issue through this prism. However, comparing the pre-nuclear wars in a pre-nuclear age with wars in post-nuclear age would be a waste of space. Instead, it would do well if we look into the causes that can trigger a war in the present times where possessing nuclear power is not only a stark reality but also the bone of contention in this particular case. It is the claim by the Iranian government that they are ready to start developing nuclear weapons is what has triggered the whole issue. And ironically, it is the very reason that is playing a deterrent in the war. Remarkable is the fact that it is only America that is concerned with Iran trying to possess the deadly weapon. The first and foremost question that would help us in determining the fate of this discussion would be: Why is America so bothered? America, the self-declared big brother of all the nations on this planet, takes up the â€Å"burden† of maintaining peace on earth. To quote Eisenhower, â€Å"Freedom is indivisible.. †. America takes it as its personal duty to ensure that â€Å"Freedom† is maintained all over the world. If it was â€Å"Communism† that was a threat against â€Å"Freedom† during the cold war, today it is the irresponsible rulers of nations that possess or aspire to possess nuclear weapons that are threatening the â€Å"Freedom† in the world. And when Truman declared that â€Å"We cannot hope to maintain our freedom, if freedom elsewhere is wiped out†, he meant it. However, the reasons why Israeli attack on Palestine killing hundreds of civilians is not wiping out â€Å"Freedom† but North Korea developing nuclear capability is has interesting reasons. History has been witness to this characteristic of America where it deems it is her right to attack any country it wills to protect the attacked country’s â€Å"freedom†. According to Jutta Welders (Pg 37, culture of insecurity), the compelling reason for America to act in this fashion is to maintain its supremacy in the world. An act of aggression under the cloak of â€Å"Freedom fighters† becomes a necessity to project itself as a strong nation which can not only defend itself but protect other countries as well. A bright example would be the Cuban missile crisis. When this â€Å"crisis† occurred, many were of the view that it was quite unnecessary for America to take up such a strong and aggressive tone. However, it did do that and according to Jutta Weldes, it is the compelling reason to showcase its power that led it to act strong. In fact, Jutta Weldes considers the Cuban missile crisis as not a crisis at all. To quote her, â€Å".. crises are social constructions that are forged by state officials in the course of producing and reproducing state identity†. She is of the view that it depends on the social construction that makes us define a situation as â€Å"Crisis†. It depends on how we view a nation that determines whether it is a crisis or not. For example, Iran possessing nukes is such a big issue and is immediately converted into a â€Å"Crisis† whereas an equally notorious state like Pakistan possessing the deadly weapons is not. It has been time and again proved that large number of terrorist activities has their funds traced back to Pakistan. However, Pakistan escaped the whip but Iraq was destroyed in the name of WMDs! The only explanation for this is the prism that US uses to define its foreign policies. Attack the nations that would give it a chance to maintain her supremacy in the world. Attacking Pakistan would back fire as it has the capability to strike back. And attacking Iraq or Iran will definitely be easier as these countries have a notorious reputation which required some policing and also are comparative weaklings. Hence, the systemic reasons for US to wage a war against Iran are quite obvious: a chance to police a nation that has a history of supporting the biggest threat world faces today, that is, terrorism and simultaneously reaffirm its image as the superpower which it seems to be losing to China. If attacking Iran salvages some pride for US, the role of domestic politics in the whole affair plays another important role. US, the strongest nation in the world today, are also the most vulnerable to attacks by various terrorist outfits. After 9/11, it has taken its goal of fighting terrorism quite seriously. However, the path it has chosen to fight it is not very often appreciated. The aftermath of 9/11 saw it attacking Afghanistan and driving out the Taliban ruthlessly. Afghanistan was the target because it sheltered the most dangerous terrorist outfit in the world, Al-Qaeda. Their slogan was a regime change is essential for to â€Å"smoke out† the terrorist and the whole war was essentially to capture one man – Osama Bin Laden. The attack resulted in the killings of thousands of innocent Afghanistan who were already tired by the war torn politics of Taliban. America could never capture the villain. However, it overthrew Taliban and today, a â€Å"democratically† elected government exists in place of it. Is Afghanistan a changed country today? Has America finally left its shores after the war? Both the answers are No! Terrorism has been controlled and yes, America is still â€Å"guarding† Afghanistan with its air raids on civilians. The failure of capturing Osama in Laden was quite frustrating for the Bush administration and it was in search for a new scapegoat. And they found the perfect one in the form of Saddam Hussain. Suddenly, Iraq, the starving nation which was already bogged down by various sanctions and its citizens further troubled by the tyrannic rule of Saddam Hussain finds itself in the line of fire. The reasons given are quite fishy. America is suddenly in possession of confidential information that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussain should be relieved of his responsibility of taking care of them! The reasons were uttered in the same chilling tone of how Iraq, which can’t survive without taking aid from UN, poses the danger of destroying the whole world. The solution that is needed is again a â€Å"Regime Change†. America reasoned introduction of democracy in the country will solve the problem. Thus, despite the worldwide protests that marked the growing contempt against America and the UN Security Council voting against a military attack, America single-handedly went about with its â€Å"war on terrorism†. After 3 years of war, a executed Saddam Hussain, uncountable civilian deaths and threats of civil war ( not to forget the daily suicide attacks by shiities), no one found alleged WMDs. Today, it has been almost accepted that the report on WMD was wrong! The flak US received for the irresponsible behavior is enormous and its image in the middle east has gone for a beating as today, many believe that US is waging war on Islam rather than Terrorists. Its belief that a regime change is the only solution that can solve the problems of the world is quite naive. It proposes the same thing when it comes to Iran. Seymour M. Hersh, in journal â€Å"Fact: Annals of national security† had mentioned his conversation with Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been supporter of President Bush, who clearly spoke of regime change the ultimate solution. He said, â€Å"So long as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely. The key issue is therefore, how long will the present regime last? † This archaic view that regime change or toppling of government in another country and forcing them to â€Å"democracy† has never worked in bringing the much desired goal of the war – peace. In fact, statistics have shown that the transition period from any kind of rule to democracy has always been bloody and nations become quite war-prone (Democratization and war). The most recent examples are, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq, which are facing gruesome infighting among themselves. So why is America so bent upon making a regime change in those countries? Apart from the apparent reasons of dismantling the network of terrorism, experts are of the view that it is also the question of who controls the oil in the future that has been a major driving force behind the American policy. Middle East is the home for oil throughout the world and it is the control of oil that is US after. With its fast disappearance and soaring prices (reasons partly because the war that US is waging), the control of the oil fields will definitely be beneficial for America. In fact, the one who controls oil in the future is the undisputed king. This goes in line with the policy of US for whom displaying its authority is very important as it seems to be losing the crown to the exponential growth of China. Therefore, attacking Iran is also a desperate attempt by US to reiterate that it is America that is still calling the shots. However, attacking Iran has its own dangers. The most important and the immediate is the image of US in the Islamic world. Its continuous attacks on Islamic nations has made it poised against Islam and has become quite unpopular in the Middle East. If not anything else, America through these attacks is only getting successful in inviting the wrath of the people living there. In a conversation with Seymour M Hersh, Richard Armitrage was echoing the same sentiments – â€Å"What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally – that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China and the U. N Security Council? † Yet how many in Washington will consider these questions? According to Seymour, there are people out there who believe it is the way to operate! If domestic politics are reasons enough to wage war, the role of the decision maker is of paramount importance. It is the head who declares wars and in this case Bush has quite a penchant for declaring wars. It is widely believed that Bush will declare war against Iran before leaving the White house. In fact, President Bush believes that â€Å"He must do what no democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his legacy†. The personal ambition of Bush also seems to make the fear of turning Teheran in to a sea of fire in to reality. Moreover, with the failure of Iraq where they achieved instant victory but not a decisive one, Bush administration is looking out for scapegoats in a large way. Iran with its close proximity with Iraq is believed to be a supplier of arms and ammunitions to the Shiite attackers in the troubled Iraq. Those attacks are not only killing innocent Iraqis but also resulting in the death of hundreds of American troops out there. In short, it is a personal failure for Bush as a president as he forced his military in to war for no reasons. It becomes very important for him to fathom some pride and Iran seems to be a ripe case. One House member told Seymour when speaking of Bush â€Å"The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision†. Therefore, you have President Bush waiting to bomb Iran at the slightest pretext. But how can attacking Iran solve the Iraq problem? The strategy that is being followed by the Americans is to start infighting in Iran and force it to take some irresponsible action like an up in the activities along the Iraqi border. The first response to any of American disturbance in Iran is believed to be given across the Iraq border which presently houses many American troops. The white house hopes to take advantage of that situation and make it an excuse to attack Iran. This reason is widely believed to work as the blame of first strike can always be switched to Iran and America will only be fighting for â€Å"Safeguarding† its citizens. Combining the above reasons, America declaring war on Iran seems to be a matter of time. The systemic, domestic politics and decision maker reasons a need for another war. The attack on Iran will accomplish three important factors for America. 1. America is believed to be the favorite target for the terrorists and its war on terrorism is necessary to protect itself as a nation. Moreover, this would give the image of the departing super power the much needed boost. An attack on Iran will give the masculine quality to the nation that it believes will spread â€Å"awe† across the world. 2. The second and more compelling reason for the attack is the role that domestic politics plays in this issue. Attack on Iran will bring about a regime change which will help America post â€Å"Freedom† there. This in other words means another puppet government that would act on the whims of US. This is quite beneficial as this gives it direct control over the oil fields of Iran along with Iraq’s, thanks to the WMD ghosts. So, that means with a single strike, not only do they believe that terrorism and nukes will be taken care of but also the oil fields. 3. The third reason is President Bush. His stint as President of America has mainly been marred by Wars. If in the past it was Afghanistan, now it is Iraq. Apparently, both have them have been failures as there have been no decisive victories. The victories have only been fast as is expected from a war between the super power and a starving nation. Iran war will give him the much needed boost to his image as this war can be a golden opportunity to pass the blame on Iran for the Iraq fiasco. Taking all these reasons into considerations, attack by America on Iran for possessing Nukes is quite imminent. Experts say Iran is still five to ten years away from developing any kind of weapon. However, America is bent upon going ahead with its plans. Therefore, nukes or no nukes, Iran is the golden opportunity to accomplish a lot many tasks. Nuclear disarmament is just one of the small ones.

Why do women live longer than men Does the answer lie in biology, Essay

Why do women live longer than men Does the answer lie in biology, nutrition, psychology or sociology - Essay Example This has been attributed to various behavioral and biological reasons. Research indicates a decrease in mortality rates among women in 20th century. The life expectancy gap between various races and people has narrowed significantly, with the gender gap becoming wider. This affects sex ratio, and social and demographic factors like marriage and valuation of pension plans (Reijo & Chen 2013, p. 118). Men are believed to die younger due to stressful lives than women. If this was true, the gap could be decreasing significantly as more women assume jobs that were previously believed to be for men. Also, women get stressed as they work outside home on top of the stresses at home. However, despite women living longer than men, they are less healthy than men at old age. Biologically, women are considered to be more fit than males due to the hormonal and genetic differences (Eskes & Clemens 2007, p. 126). Theoretically, aging results from the gradual accumulation of the tiny faults and damages to cellular components like DNA and protein. Women are believed to have the biological advantage as due to their involvement in reproduction. Women are involved in reproduction for longer than males. Also, it is argued that iron may cause early deaths. The only way to lead out the iron is through blood, which is normally an advantage in females as a result of menstrual cycles. High accumulations of iron raise the toxic level as iron is an oxidizing element that has potential of increasing the heart diseases and risks of cancer (Ginter & Simko 2013, p. 45). Women have 2 X-chromosomes and men have X and Y chromosomes. The second X chromosome in women acts as a backup after the other gene becomes damaged. Recent hypotheses indicate that Y gene is normally toxic and acts as a source for other gene products accelerating aging. Specifically, women have microRNA and X chromosome in their ribonucleic acid. Most microRNA is found in X chromosome,

Individual assignmentnew rules of globalization Essay

Individual assignmentnew rules of globalization - Essay Example n reasons for guarded globalisation is the fact that policy makers in various markets create policies as well as international laws that put the local businesses at an advantage while creating more hurdles for international companies. Cases where the government regulates the wealth of the markets as well as the economic development of the country through some form of State capitalism in the emerging markets and recently in the developed markets have brought changes to the free markets and consequently changed globalization. Business that originate in the western world and operate in the emerging market progressively need to compete with the local business that have financial and political support while at the same time having to prove their strategic value in the host market. Regardless of this bleak picture, foreign corporations still have a chance of succeeding in local markets (Freinkman, 2002, p. 79). For instance, in the new phase of globalization, the industries that were initially out-of-bounds may be the best source of strategically important opportunities. In the process of this new phase of globalisation, the foreign businesses can stay at home and increase their strategies at home, get and increase the support of the host as well as the home government, foster alliances with the host countrys businesses and develop more diversity. International economic rules symbolise the standards of behaviours associated with governments, organizations as well as citizens, and they represent a type of self-commitment in such a system (Peil and Staveren, 2009, p. 186). Thus in relation to any system of rules, a negative index can be detected in the form of a sequence of limitations on the behaviour of countrywide governments. These constraints are aimed at a safeguarding international division of labour against conflicting interests from various national governments and the self-commitment of the states also acts as a shelter against the power of protectionist groups

Hacking for Dummies Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Hacking for Dummies - Assignment Example Other alternatives include 1password, LastPass, KeePass, Roboform, Password Keeper and Norton Identity Safe (Beaver 108). Â  It is vital to note that the use of a password safe or the other alternative tools offers immense pros to an organization or individual. Firstly, this tool plays a huge role in ensuring that all user passwords are encrypted in a safe area free from any third party access. It also provides a backup area for one to recover a forgotten password, along with ensuring that it encourages users to create strong passwords that are always very hard to crack. Lastly but certainly not the least, a password safe provides a convenient way for one to organize the passwords (Beaver 2). Â  In contrast to the pros, is a significant set of cons that are brought about by the use of a software password safe. This includes loss of all passwords particularly when a computer is unused. Additionally, a software password safe is always an obvious target by most hackers thus, when one accidentally breaks (gets the master password) into the software, then all-vital information about a user can get lost.