Cabinet Lock Controller Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Cabinet Lock Controller - Assignment Example For all that are not very conversant with whatever solution that is designed, just as the managing director who comes from a mechanical engineering background and so does not fully understand the diverese differences between the differing standards and the , real-time and strewn operating systems platform that is applied here. For puposes of these sort of people, it is hence therefore vital to elaborate give a short explanation of the specification and proper explanations of the source codes that are give an explantion of the working of the digital lock cabinet (Breitenstein & Langenkamp 2003). It has a project has been kept simple and within the constraints of efficient coding to avoid the possibility of mixing too many issues that would lead to hacking. The ideal thing that the cabinet lock would stand in prevention of is a Brute Force attack. This is the reason that this sort of solution on developed to come up with an efficient digital lock for a cabinet is that there has to be effective permutations that will make it almost impossible for an attacker. The basic cabinet lock that has been made for the company uses a set of five Digits and a further Master Lock that uses another set of 10 digits. This makes it very hard, mathematically, for any user to crack the codes. The intruders that are trying to break into the system find that they just have to have the simple pass code for them to gain access to the cabinet. The way the program has been designed to run is that, there has to be a cycle using two buttons that will come up with the codes (out of the 16 codes that ar e available), the third button will select the code from these 16 codes and a trigger will be sent and the authorization will be allowed (Al-Araji et al., 2006). The input of these codes that give the user with whatever login credentials and from any authentication levels that would be applicable per se will be captured by a keypad (a 4x3 Keypad) The

Business and society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Business and society - Essay Example It encourages operating a business in a way that meets the ethical, legal and social expectations of the society. The concept results in situations where organizations contribute voluntarily to make the society better and clean. The organizations integrate ethical values in the running and management of the company. Most business companies have the obligation of creating employment for the society members as a social responsibility. The expectations of the society have evolved over time to include the needs of all stakeholders. Corporations have the obligation of providing quality and safe products to their customers (Buchholtz & Carroll, 29). At the global level, they are required to meet the expectations of investors, human rights individuals, and environmentalists. At a country level, stakeholders include the government, employees, and suppliers among others. The government expects companies to pay taxes and provide safe working conditions for employees. The workers expect to get numerous benefits from the enterprise. These advantages include the provision of health care services for them and their families. Supplies expect ready market for the products they offer to the organization. Organizations have to commit to improving the economic development of the society by improving the lives of its stakeholders. Companies play a significant role in the enhancing the welfare of the community and its members. Stakeholder management improves the efficiency and effectiveness of research projects. Research projects are crucial to companies because they can put innovative ideas into reality. Living wages is an essential component to most corporations dealing in corporate social responsibility. Most stakeholders avoid the main aspects of social justice, and it permits them to look good without doing the public good. Firms are entitled to account

The Importance of Sport Essay Example for Free

The Importance of Sport Essay On many levels is sport very important to each and every one of us for a various number of reasons. First of all sport and fitness is what helps us keep in shape and stay healthy which is key to living a long and happy life. There are many benefits to being fit; first of all you will have much better health, and a better body image which in turn may help your self-esteem. Another major importance to sport is that there are so many career opportunities in the athletic field such as: gym teacher, pro athlete, sports analysts, physiotherapist, personal trainer, and many more. Also sports can be used as a stress relief to just get away from it all and shoot some hoops or play pond hockey. From a personal level I have made many friends from playing rep hockey 4 times a week to pick up football on the weekends and many if not all of my friends I’ve met playing sports both Rep and High school. On that note there are both positive and negative attributes of playing for your school or rep team. For school you get to play with you group of friends and represent your school, although it may not be the highest level of competition it’s great fun and a lot better than doing nothing. With playing rep you get to diversify your friend group, hopefully play at a high level but it does consume your life with your sport not leaving much room for a job or school work. Whichever one you choose it doesn’t matter you’re getting out there and doing something your love to do. To finish up I hope to be involved in sports as long as I possibly can even though I am not competing at a high level right now I hope still be playing hockey with my friends in college and after that still playing with them in a beer league somewhere, and after that possibly coach my kids sports teams as much as I can and showing them the â€Å"tricks of the trade† and isn’t that what it’s all about?

Current Definition Of Recklessness Within Criminal Law Law Essay

Current Definition Of Recklessness Within Criminal Law Law Essay Recklessness is a problematic area of the criminal law, since there is no strict definition of what constitutes it. Statutes make provision for the presence of recklessness, but have yet to define it strictly, thus it falls on the hands of the judges to interpret what is meant by recklessness. It is therefore most easily delineated via case law. Judges have had to rely on explanations in important case reports in order to decide what amounts to recklessness. This has meant delving through colossal number recklessness cases in order to find out whether the case in question falls within the confines set out there. Realising this is challenging, the Law Commission have sought to remedy the situation, by releasing several working papers on the issue. One of them gives the following explanation: a person acts recklessly [if] he is aware of a risk thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦exists or will exist [or] à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦when he is aware of risk thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦will occur and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.  [1]   This assignment will start by putting forward a concise history of intent in recklessness. The development of the law in this area will be looked out with the aid of case law such as Cunningham [1957] Caldwell [1982] and RvG [2003]. This paper will provide an evaluation of the current definition of recklessness within criminal law. In order to identify and understand the concept of recklessness, intention needs to be discussed. The 19th century criminal legislation required that defendants had to have acted `maliciously and `unlawfully when committing an offence. The accused will act unlawfully if he fails to present a lawful reason for his act, he would be considered acting maliciously once he satisfies the level of Mens Rea required for the Actus Reus. The word `malicious introduces the requirement of Mens Rea. The statutory definition of `malice is, requiring an actual intention to do a particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not. The accused has foreseen that particular harm might be done, and has gone on to take the risk. The word `maliciously means in relation to the law of England and Wales `an intent or recklessness  [2]  . Intention is the highest level of Mens Rea. Mens Rea means `guilty mind in Latin. Intention differs from recklessness; intention commands a severe penalty within the criminal justice system, morally intent is considered objectionable, adjacent to recklessness. Recklessness was first used within criminal statute with conjunction to the Motorcar Act 1903. Professor C S Kennys opinion of recklessness required actual awareness by the defendant of the likelihood of the particular harm. Kenny considered it an element additional to awareness of risk, indifference whether the foreseen harm occurred or not. Another view is that an individual is reckless if he takes a known risk, even if he ardently trusts the foreseen harm, will not occur  [3]  . In 1957 the case of Cunningham transformed the interpretation of Recklessness. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas meter to steal the money contained within the meter. Gas seeped from the broken pipe and into the house next door, where Ds mother-in- law was sleeping. The mother-in-law became so ill, that her life was endangered. D was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously administering a noxious thing as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under S.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Cunninghams conviction was quashed because of misdirection of the trial judge as to the meaning of maliciously.   The Court of Appeal held that malice must not be taken as to mean wickedness, but as requiring either (1) an intention to do the particular harm that was done, or (2) reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not  [4]  . Recklessness in this sense means foreseeing that harm might occur, and going ahead with the act anyway. This is called a subjective test, i.e. the accused is reckless if he realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Prof. Kenny wrote in his first edition of `outlines criminal law that, intent or recklessness had to be proved, as mentioned previously, he also stated that ` it neither limited to, nor does it indeed require any ill-will towards the person injured  [5]  . For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk, he must realise that there is a risk involved. However, if he continues to carry on with his conduct, he is then reckless. The case defined a type of recklessness that the knowledge of appreciation of the risk of some danger must have entered the defendants mind even, though he may have suppressed or driven it out  [6]  . Cunningham is considered the first limb of recklessness the second limb arises from the case of MPC v Caldwell (1982). The second test of Recklessness, Caldwell created a new and wider test. D was an ex-employee of a hotel and held a grudge against its owner. He started a fire at the hotel, which caused some damage D was charged with arson. The old Cunningham test of recognising theres a risk and going ahead anyway, was extended to include a second limb; namely that the D does an act which creates an obvious risk and, has not given any thought as to the possibility of there being such a risk  [7]  . The Caldwell test for recklessness is objective, i.e. the risk must be obvious to the reasonable man, in that any reasonable man would have realised it if he had thought about it. Although, it need not be obvious to the defendant: Elliott v C [1983] and R v Coles [1994]. Lord Diplock stated that the definition of recklessness in Cunningham was too narrow for the Criminal Damage Act 1971, recklessness, should not only include the Cunningham meaning. Lord Diplock stated that a person is reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged if; he does an act, which in fact creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed, or damaged. Additionally when the act is committed he has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, alternatively, he has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it  [8]  . Hence, for Caldwell recklessness to be satisfied, D does not have to foresee a risk, nevertheless takes a risk that would have been obvious to a reasonable prudent man. The It was deemed that after Caldwell whenever the term reckless was involved, an objective approach would be applied to the case. However this changed with the decision in RvG, as a subjective test was applied, instead of an objective test. It was deemed that a subjective test would be applied because the Caldwell test was seen to be a model direction which contained inconsistencies and lacked precision  [9]  . The RvG case reinstated the subjective test from R v Cunningham  [10]  (Cunningham) and clarified the law on recklessness by overruling the objective test in Caldwell. Additionally one can note that from RvG, this subjective definition of recklessness would be applicable in all statutory offences of recklessness and not the definition which was illustrated in the Cunningham case. The House of Lords decision in RvG enforcing this definition of reckless, illustrated a significant impact by eradicating the definition of recklessness in Cunningham. One can note that this impact of the decision conveyed the problems with the definition of recklessness under Cunningham. For example, within the Cunningham definition, the test only refers to taking risks as a result and makes no mention of taking risks as to a circumstance. However the law commission draft criminal code adds an additional restriction on finding the term reckless. Additionally, under the draft criminal code there is the additional requirement of the awareness of the risk and that the actual damage caused might occur. Thus the reformed definition of subjective recklessness conveys a more acc urate and broad scope of the meaning of recklessness, compared to the Cunningham definition of subjective recklessness. As a result of this reform, a subjective approach will be incorporated when assessing the term recklessness. Consequently it can be seen that the House of Lords in G and another did in fact adopt the better test in terms of policy and principle. Also English law has progressed to the point where there is, almost certainly, now only one test of recklessness  [11]  which is of a subjective nature. Additionally from the Cunningham case, the expression Maliciously was replaced with the expression reckless in RvG by Lord Bingham in the House of Lords. Maliciously was an expression which was formerly recognisable within the House of Lords. This proposal was changed because the term maliciously was seen to be too narrow and with limited scope. However, the expression reckless is considered to have a wider capacity for interpretation. Therefore this modification of expressions portrays a positive impact of the decision of the House of Lords in RvG. The reasonable adult was an issue raised in RvG from the objective approach in the Caldwell test. The issue of a reasonable adult was challenged in a previous case known as Elliott v C  [12]  . This case highlighted the negative aspects of objective recklessness as the person in question was fourteen years of age with learning difficulties. Evidently the risk must be obvious to the reasonably prudent person, and not necessarily obvious to the defendant. Therefore this conveys the problems within the Caldwell test as it does not cover everything, including individual characteristics. In this case the fourteen year old girl was guilty of criminal damage as she failed to consider the risk which would have been obvious to a reasonable person. In Hardie,  [13]  which came after Elliott v C, contradicted the judgement of the latter. Hardie became intoxicated after taking valium, believing them not to be dangerous. While under this influence, he set fire to his ex-girlfriends house, with her in it. Originally convicted, Hardie appealed and his conviction was quashed on the grounds that in itself, the taking of valium was not reckless. This is contradictory because his actual mental state was considered, which was not the case in Elliott v C. Subsequently this issue was raised in RvG, where within the trial, Lord Diplocks direction in Caldwell was used and disagreement occurred as the issue of the reasonable adult was accepted in being aimed at the children of ages eleven and twelve. From this trial, the case went onto the House of Lords, which unanimously answered the conflict of this question. The impact of the House of Lords decision in RvG illustrated great criticisms on the Caldwell test, in where it was noted that the Caldwell case was based on fragile foundations because the law commission report was not referred to  [14]  and subsequently was referred to in RvG. Additionally this impact of criticism upon Caldwell was heavily enforced by other law lords, for instance, Lord Hutton illustrated his criticism nature by expressing Experience suggest that in Caldwell in law took a wrong turn  [15]  and agreeing with Lord Bingham. Therefore conveying Lord Diplocks decision in the Caldwell case was incorrect. Furthermore Lord Diplocks decision in the Caldwell case has been criticised by many academics who have described the decision to be Pathetically inadequate, slap happy and profoundly regrettable  [16]  . Therefore the decision in the House of Lords in RvG illustrated these criticisms by rejecting the Caldwell recklessness approach. On the other hand, one can note that the decision in RvG in the House of Lords has had significant criticism on the basis of the outcome of the case. Academics have criticised RvG that the decision of the case should have been different. For example, Professor Keating criticised the decision of RvG by where in his investigation, he revealed 69% of members of the public do regard behaviour such as that of the boys as criminally blameworthy  [17]   thus illustrating that the boys between ages eleven and twelve in RvG were old enough to appreciate the risks involved. Additionally, the House of Lords decision in RvG has conveyed an impact of a criticising nature. It can be seen that as a result of RvG, there are critics that illustrate that it will be too easy for a defendant to state that they have not considered a risk to others and therefore may by acquitted at their case. On the contrary, the House of Lords have reasserted the subjective test instead of the objective test seen in Caldwell and have also established that if the defendant is voluntary intoxicated, they can be convicted without the awareness of the risk present. In the RvG case, the House of Lords conveyed this to be seen as a special exception in accordance with crimes concerning intoxicated individuals. Evidently this conveys how the House of Lords in RvG took into account of refining the Caldwell test due it being unfair, and achieving justice by taking into consideration, individual characteristics which werent present before in the Caldwell test. As mentioned above, one can note that the House of Lords decision in RvG illustrated criticism thus conveying a negative impact of the case. This can be seen as the RvG case only overrules the objective test in criminal damage, therefore the Caldwell test still applies today in certain cases after RvG, this can be seen in R v Castle (Mark Anthony)  [18]  , in where both the RvG and Caldwell tests were applied. Additionally Simester and Sullivan, both academics argue that Caldwell reckless could still be applied in some offences  [19]  , an example in where Caldwell has been applied can be seen by the Data Protection Act 1998  [20]  . Alternatively, one can suggest that there has been a positive impact of the House of Lords decision in RvG. This can be conveyed by where the courts no longer have to distinguish what type of recklessness has to be applied and the House of Lords in RvG has illustrated that the subjective one will be upheld in future cases concerning recklessness. Therefore this has allowed the courts to scrutinize the expression reckless more easily than seen in cases before RvG. An illustration of this can be seen in Eliot v C as noted above. In addition one can note that RvG case has ruled out a clear distinction between negligence and recklessness. It can be illustrated by previous cases that before the decision in RvG, there was not a clear distinction between both concepts. An example of a case is Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmen  [21]  . Within this case, it was deemed that a person who stops to think will still be liable if he realised there was some risk. Therefore this case illustrates that the Caldwell test made individuals guilty who previously were not guilty due to them being careless, but now after RvG are reckless. Overall, one must appreciate the House of Lords decision in RvG, which has allowed a subjective test to be reasserted when referring to recklessness and introduced a reformed definition of subjective recklessness. Additionally the decision has allowed a clear distinction to be applied when assessing negligence and recklessness cases. Moreover, the Caldwell test has been overruled in relation to criminal damage. Furthermore it can be identified above that there are both positive and negative impacts which have departed from the RvG decision in the House of Lords. Having analysed all of the above facts and cases, it is clear that the law on recklessness has been problematic, and often contradictory in the past. However the case of RvG has gone somewhat to remedy this issue and can be said to have succeeded in many respects. But there is still room for a statutory reform even though it may be vastly difficult to make statutory provision for all potential problems within recklessness. However, in the long run, statutory definitions of all that constitutes recklessness, and explanations of issues surrounding the topic, would be most useful, and save the judiciary time and money. Booth v Crown Prosecution Service (2006)

The Communications Decency Act :: essays research papers fc

The Communications Decency Act The U.S. Government should not attempt to place restrictions on the internet. The Internet does not belong to the United States and it is not our responsibility to save the world, so why are we attempting to regulate something that belongs to the world? The Telecommunications Reform Act has done exactly that, put regulations on the Internet. Edward Cavazos quotes William Gibson says, "As described in Neuromancer, Cyberspace was a consensual hallucination that felt and looked like a physical space but actually was a computer-generated construct representing abstract data." (1) When Gibson coined that phrase he had no idea that it would become the household word that it is today. "Cyberspace now represents a vast array of computer systems accessible from remote physical locations." (Cavazos 2) The Internet has grown explosively over the last few years. "The Internet's growth since its beginnings in 1981. At that time, the number of host systems was 213 machines. At the time of this writing, twelve years later, the number has jumped to 1,313,000 systems connecting directly to the Internet." (Cavazos 10) "Privacy plays a unique role in American law." (Cavazos 13) Privacy is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, yet most of the Internet users remain anonymous. Cavazos says, "Computers and digital communication technologies present a serious challenge to legislators and judges who try to meet the demands of economic and social change while protecting this most basic and fundamental personal freedom." Networks and the Internet make it easy for anyone with the proper equipment to look at information based around the world instantly and remain anonymous. "The right to conduct at least some forms of speech activity anonymously has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court." (Cavazos 15) In cyberspace it is extremely uncommon for someone to use their given name to conduct themselves, but rather they use pseudonyms or "Handles". (Cavazos 14) Not only is it not illegal to use handles on most systems, but the sysop (System Operator) does not have to allow anyone access to his data files on who is the person behind the handle. Some sysops make the information public, or give the option to the user, or don't collect the information at all. The Internet brings forth many new concerns regarding crime and computers. With movies like Wargames, and more recently Hackers, becoming popular, computer crime is being blown out of proportion. "The word Hacker conjures up a vivid image in the popular media." (Cavazos 105) There are many types of computer crime that fall under the umbrella of "Hacking". Cavazos says, "In 1986 Congress passed a comprehensive federal law outlawing many of the activities

Various Perspectives on War in Homers Iliad Essay example -- Iliad es

Various Perspectives on War in Homer's Iliad      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Iliad is a story of rages of Achilles and the War of Troy. Thanks to the techniques of the author, Homer, The Iliad is very colorful, romantic, and it makes the readers imagine the ancient Greeks and their times of war. Homer is believed to be the author of epics other than the Iliad, although their authorship remains uncertain. Historian believes that Homer probably lived in the eighth century, B.C.1 (Discovering World History). However, there are very few things that we know about him. Some historians think Homer's birthplace may have been on an island on the eastern edge of the Aegean Sea, or perhaps in a city on the nearby coast, but they don't have evidence to support their theory (Michalopoulos). In The Iliad, Homer interprets the war, the science of nature, the gods, heroes and fate. For all topics, he expresses the words so powerfully and emotionally that it makes it easier to imagine the whole the great story of The Iliad. In the time when Homer lived, the war was something that existed in people's everyday life; he must been an eyewitness of the war, and that experience made him able to tell the story so realistically, especially the description of the soldiers who were killing each other in the war. Even though Homer may be seen as an antiwar storyteller based on his vivid description of violence and injury. He, on the other hand describes the both braveness and cowardliness of two heroes of The Iliad, Achilles and Hector; Homer shows this seems to be a pro-war position, as he idealizes the traces of bravely and heroism. The emotion of all the characters in the story, as well as the characters' suffering, pain, joy, and fury m... ...nd Hector, Homer seems to symbolize the fall of both cities. After 10 years of war, there was no true winner. Thus, the futility of war was the message of Homer.          Sources: -Discovering World History "Homer Composes the Iliad, c. 800 B.C.". Gale Research, 1997. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale Group. http://www.galenet.com/servlet/HistRC/ -Michalopoulos, Andre, " Homer", In Twayne's World Authors Series Online New York: G. K. Hall & Co., 1999 Previously published in print in 1966 by Twayne Publishers. -Homer, The Iliad, translated by Robert Fitzgerald. - Moss Joyce and George Wilson, edited by, Gale Research, Profiles of 300 Notable Literary Works and the Historical Events that Influenced Them, Volume 1: Ancient Times to the American and French Revolutions (Prehistory-1790s), 1997. Various Perspectives on War in Homer's Iliad Essay example -- Iliad es Various Perspectives on War in Homer's Iliad      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Iliad is a story of rages of Achilles and the War of Troy. Thanks to the techniques of the author, Homer, The Iliad is very colorful, romantic, and it makes the readers imagine the ancient Greeks and their times of war. Homer is believed to be the author of epics other than the Iliad, although their authorship remains uncertain. Historian believes that Homer probably lived in the eighth century, B.C.1 (Discovering World History). However, there are very few things that we know about him. Some historians think Homer's birthplace may have been on an island on the eastern edge of the Aegean Sea, or perhaps in a city on the nearby coast, but they don't have evidence to support their theory (Michalopoulos). In The Iliad, Homer interprets the war, the science of nature, the gods, heroes and fate. For all topics, he expresses the words so powerfully and emotionally that it makes it easier to imagine the whole the great story of The Iliad. In the time when Homer lived, the war was something that existed in people's everyday life; he must been an eyewitness of the war, and that experience made him able to tell the story so realistically, especially the description of the soldiers who were killing each other in the war. Even though Homer may be seen as an antiwar storyteller based on his vivid description of violence and injury. He, on the other hand describes the both braveness and cowardliness of two heroes of The Iliad, Achilles and Hector; Homer shows this seems to be a pro-war position, as he idealizes the traces of bravely and heroism. The emotion of all the characters in the story, as well as the characters' suffering, pain, joy, and fury m... ...nd Hector, Homer seems to symbolize the fall of both cities. After 10 years of war, there was no true winner. Thus, the futility of war was the message of Homer.          Sources: -Discovering World History "Homer Composes the Iliad, c. 800 B.C.". Gale Research, 1997. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale Group. http://www.galenet.com/servlet/HistRC/ -Michalopoulos, Andre, " Homer", In Twayne's World Authors Series Online New York: G. K. Hall & Co., 1999 Previously published in print in 1966 by Twayne Publishers. -Homer, The Iliad, translated by Robert Fitzgerald. - Moss Joyce and George Wilson, edited by, Gale Research, Profiles of 300 Notable Literary Works and the Historical Events that Influenced Them, Volume 1: Ancient Times to the American and French Revolutions (Prehistory-1790s), 1997.

Between 1820 and 1860

Between 1820 and 1860 there were a few fundamental differences between the economies of the North and South. How far do you agree? BY beckY10036 Between 1820 and 1860 there were a few fundamental differences between the economies of the North and South. How far do you agree? Between 1820 and 1860 there were problems in America that resulted in the civil war in 1861, the economy affected the North and South during the civil war, and some major differences helped win the civil war. However this does not mean that the economy had many undamental differences.For example the methods of earning money were different, but overall both earned roughly the same amount of money. Firstly, the main difference was that the North relied much more on money from industry and manufacturing, as they had more connections with foreign countries, and more factories were built. In the North in 1860 there were 74,000 factories producing two thirds, of goods for America. Whereas in the South there were only 2 major factors: Textiles factory in South Carolina and an Iron works in Virginia set up in 1840.Although they had fewer factories, the Iron works was vital, as it supplied the North with weaponry during the Civil war. In 1850 the South only produced 10% of the nations manufactured output. However the South did lack the industrialisation because their agricultural methods were so effective they had no need for change. The South was also very traditional and disliked change, whereas seven out of eight immigrants had chosen to settle in the North, and they had seen new ideas in other places in Europe so were welcome to change.This is shown by the South's labour orce being reduced from 82% to 81% over 60 years, on the other hand, the North's labour force was reduced from 68% to over the 60 years. This is however not a reflection on the North rapidly reducing agriculturally, because they still relied on agriculture, and a lot of the North was still rural. Around the urban areas, the popu lation was increasing as towns and cities were developing swiftly.As the North had smaller but still prosperous farmers known as yeomen, they did not earn as much money through agriculture, because they did not have many or any slaves at ll, so they could not produce the high quantities that the south did. Farmers that had lots of land were called plantation owners; there were many more plantations in the south, and when the cotton gin was created in 1793, there was a boom in cotton, and the benefit of having slaves increased. This made Southern plantation owners invest their capital in the Slaves, because they produced so much cotton, which was very lucrative. 5% of slaves worked in cotton which shows how much money was made out of it. The South needed to transport their goods to the North so that it ould be transported abroad, but there was a lack of transport in South, as they only had 35% of the train tracks, which affected them in the Civil war. This meant it was fairly expensi ve to transport the cotton, but they still received a good amount of money it hey lived near a train track. When the cotton arrived in the North the Lowell factory system meant the manufacturing of it was very cheap, which meant the North earnt a large margin on it.Although the danger of the South investing all their money in Slaves was that when slavery got banned, they lost a lot of money, which was partly hy they were so keen to keep slavery. However only one quarter of the population owned a slave, as they were expensive (in 1860 they were $1800 which was double the price in 1820). The North's economy was based on free labour whereas the South's was based on slave labour, which meant that the North's economy was more stimulated by the presence of workers with money who could buy products, which would make money for the company, which in turn would increase wages or hire more workers.The South's economy was largely devoid of this benefit. Essentially, the conomy in the South was weaker and only based on a few important exports (cotton, tobacco, and sugar). This made the South less diversified, as they focused their sales on cotton. Another difference is tariffs; in 1828 congress passes a controversial high protective tax. This majorly benefitted the North as they were the main distributors. However the South were very worried about this because they believed that if they stopped buying the expensive foreign goods, then foreign countries would stop buying their goods, as they would have tax on them too.This affected the economy ntil the tax was promised to be reduced after the law in 1833. In contrast the North and South didn't have many fundamental differences. They both created a lot of money, and were not lacking at all, the only difference was the method in which was used to make the money. The economic diversification was similar too, as 10% of Northerners owned 68% of the wealth, and the wealth was dominated by the plantation owners, called oligarchies , as there were few free-soilers. 12% of the plantation owners owned half the slaves.This shows that there were few farmers, ut the big plantations owned many slaves. Even though the North seems to be more industrial, the South also made efforts to modernise industrially, but they Just lacked because of the closed opinions of the southerners. Also not many people in the North and the South owned slaves, it was more of a rare thing, and the main owners, owned a large amount of slaves. However there was a larger need for slaves in the South, because there was cheap labour force from Europe settling in the North which meant slaves were more expensive so were not deemed as important.Overall I think there ere many differences between the North and South between 1820 and 1860. Some affected the outcome of the Civil war such as the transport boom, and the industrialisation in the North, but a fundamental point is that numerically they have equal amounts of income; there were Just different methods to earning the money. However the differences were major; the amount of industrialisation, and amount of agriculture, the manufactured output, and the need for slaves, was all very different for the North and South. The main similarity was the economic diversification.