×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to Process Dynamics And Control - 3 Edition - Chapter 14 - Problem 14.6
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to Process Dynamics And Control - 3 Edition - Chapter 14 - Problem 14.6

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

A second-order process transfer function is given by (a)

Process Dynamics and Control | 3rd Edition | ISBN: 9780470128671 | Authors: Dale E. Seborg ISBN: 9780470128671 148

Solution for problem 14.6 Chapter 14

Process Dynamics and Control | 3rd Edition

  • Textbook Solutions
  • 2901 Step-by-step solutions solved by professors and subject experts
  • Get 24/7 help from StudySoup virtual teaching assistants
Process Dynamics and Control | 3rd Edition | ISBN: 9780470128671 | Authors: Dale E. Seborg

Process Dynamics and Control | 3rd Edition

4 5 1 371 Reviews
21
1
Problem 14.6

A second-order process transfer function is given by (a) Find IGI and LG when~ = 0.2. (b) Plot IG(jw)l vs. wT and LG(jw) vs. wT for the range 0.01 ::s wT ::s 100 and values of TafT = (0, 0.1, 1, 10). Note that you can obtain the wT plots by setting T = 1 and reparameterizing TafT accordingly.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1 of 3

CLJ Week 12 Notes Police violence v Data v Hard to find v 2012 450 or so v 123 Blacks; 326 whites v 2013 461 v 2014 593 v 2011 163 v 2010 222 v 2009 69 v 2015 thus far 111 v 2014 127 officers killed v Explanations v Racism v Perhaps. v Too simple an explanation v Probably. v What about from a law and society perspective v Police culture: highly militaristic culture v Bureaucratic structure v Paramilitary – Bureaucratic structure and Recruit Training v Command hierarchy v Explicit rule systems v Complex division of labor v The above produces an “us” versus “them” culture v What is culture v An central component of all definitions: difference v Parmilitary v Physical training v Performing under stress v Weapons v Use of force v Strip individuality and embrace the group or collectivity v War Stories v Chasing bad guys v Real police work v Recruits highly receptive to this aspect of organizational culture v “bad guys” v “good guys” v Us v them builds social solidarity v Real police tied to v Crime fighting v Car chases v Arrests v War stories significant part of the academy training v Captures attention of recruits better than anything else v War stories v Emphasize the physical side of policing v Foot chases v Car chases drug busts v Shoot outs v Shows what is truly valued in police work and police culture v Through these stories recruits being to understand the nature of policing and how they’re supposed to act. v Other instruction is considered “boring” v Loyality v We’re in the same boat v Break ties with old friends v Problems stay within group/unit v Paramilitary culture reinforces that separation v Classic on police culture John Van Maanen v “The asshole” v Category that is part of every officers vocabulary v suspicious person (those who commit offense) v “assholes” those who disrespect the police v And do not accept the police definition of the situation v Etc v Assholes are the most important of these for our purposes. v Why v They tend to be treated harshly on the basis of their failure to meet police expectations from the nature of the situation itself. v This is the individual that the police often feel deserves “street justice” or a physical attack designed to rectify what the police talk as a personal insult. v Not granted status as worthy human beings v An affront is a challenged to the police officers’ authority, control and definition of the immediate situation. v This is part of the officer’s or police culture and you can begin to get a handle on police violence that goes beyond run of the mill news media etc v Real Police Wrok v Most police time (99%) involves boring, repetitive paper shuffling etc. v Service work v Cruising etc v When the officer gets a chance to engage in real police work it gets their blood circulating. v It’s a rush (like in the military) v In essence police see themselves as representatives of the moral order. v They view themselves as protectorates of that order v Situations in which their face is challenged are likely to be responded to in unequivocal terms. v Physically attack offender v Swallow pride and ignore offender v Manufacture false excuse to arrest offender v While you might take a very personalized view of the police they view their position as one of morality and responsibility and when citizens disregard the wishes of the officer it can be viewed as a profane (remember Durkheim) violation of the social and legal system itself (not just the officer). v That’s part of the sociocultural order in which police work is embedded. v Goes back to Everett C. Hughes classic study v “Good People and Dirty Work” v Also check Frank Zimring’s “The city that became safe” v Guess how just about all the stop and frisk “victims” are Right. Minority males v Terrorism from a Law & Society Perspective v Terrorism as social control v We’ve already hinted at this from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s work on the General Theory of Crime or Theory of Self Control v (remember that) v Violence is the use of force right v And quite a bit of violence is social control in one fashion or another (even gang violence) v Moreover, a lot of this violence is self – help or the handling of a grievance with aggression (even beating a child who misbehaves or the killing of a spouse who is unfaithful or rioting of prisoners against their guards etc) v Terrorism is a type of self help by organized civilians who covertly inflict mass violence on other civilians v (just to use an ideal type from Weber -- yes he doesn’t go away) v And pure terrorism is social control v Why do you say that v It belongs to the same family as law, gossip, ostracism, ridicule that we talked about in class v Remember our definition of social control v Terrorism defines and responds to deviant behavior (that’s where G and H come in: “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter) v Terrorism is collective violence like vigilantism, rioting, lynching, feuding and so on v Moreover it isn’t just collective but well organized too or like war v In many respects too it’s like guerilla warfare (small scale, hit and run tactics etc) v But while guerrilla warfare has military targets, terrorism has civilian targets (at least in an ideal type or pure terrorism form) v And using 9/11 as the prototype v OK. You’ve stated that it’s social control but why isn’t it criminal v First, to call something criminal means the explanation should be criminological right v Like burglary, rape, robbery – acts with no moral component at all v Terrorism is not like these crimes and probably doesn’t deserve to be explained criminologically (of course you can but I don’t see what sort of analytic mileage you’ll get out of it) v It belongs in the same family as law and other forms of social control v Terrorism is highly moralistic and is also well organized and war like in character (isn’t war moralistic Think about Vietnam as an example etc) v So terrorism needs a law and society theory of social control, one that explains self help by organized civilians who covertly inflict mass violence on other civilians v They want a restoration of the past like political independence, lost territory or a customary way of life etc. v Here’s another way to think about it v Terrorists are an aggrieved collectivity (like ethnicity/religion or whatever) and attack civilians with another collectivity (ethnicity/religion or whatever) v And it usually has an “upward” direction or against a social superior v In that sense we might think of it as social control from “below” v Moreover there’s a physical geometry to terrorism v Violence historically requires contact v For most of human history physical separation prevented mass violence between civilians separated by the longest distances in social space v 9/11 couldn’t have happened a century earlier right v No Contact; no terrorism v That’s why terrorism is a relatively recent phenomenon v 20 century greatly increased the opportunities for terrorism: technology v Rapid transportation and electronic communications shrink space and time v But here’s the “funny” thing (and I’m just saying this simply and stipulatively) v While new technology creates all these opportunities for terrorism by shrinking physical space/time it also sows the seeds of terrorism’s destruction. v What How is that v Think about it v By increasing contact between folks separated by long social and physical distances modern transportation and communications increase global intimacy, cultural homogeneity and other forms of human closeness (right Durkheim again) v So you might think of this as a multidimension process that shrinks social space and physical space. v So technology makes terrorism easier and deadly in the short term but maybe in the long term it destroys the social geometry on which terrorism depends. v Terrorism begets terrorism v Or what we might think of as: Social control of social control (I like that!) v Terrorism is an aggressive form of justice and so is its social control (as we can see clearly). v What is counterterrorism Part warfare, part law. v It isn’t just ordinary criminal justice, right v You can also see how we’re not talking about ordinary criminal justice in another sense. v Counterterrorism is preventive or preemptive or whatever you want to call it. It strikes and kills terrorists before they can strike v Criminal justice doesn’t function this way, at least not in Western Democratic societies v So terrorism is an interesting species of social control, at least from a law & soc perspective th st v It’s limited by heavy implosions of physical/space and time in 20 and 21 centuries v And those conditions for its existence may lead to its eventual decline as we see the intermingling of people and cultures as the social universe shrinks and shrinks v Partisanship may weaken, enemies may disappear – I emphasize the “may” v Terrorism a la Goffman Explanation v How would you explain terrorism in a Goffman framework as symbolic action v It’s a form of political action, at least in one sense as we’ve seen from G and H, right v In democratic societies to achieve effects political actors must orient their tactics to address moral frameworks that encompass the broader population v Terrorism can’t do this. That’s why we had 9/11 v But terrorism is not just political but symbolic (maybe there’s no difference) v It aims not only to kill but to use killing as a gesture and it wants an audience to view that killing as a gesture v Consider a simple (ideal type) dichotomy v East v West as symbolic orders v Over the long course of historical time and often with tragic and terrifying consequences the East and West religio-political systems have become symbolically polarized v Sacred dramas of one side have been the polluting dramas of the other a la Durkheim v Each side embodies evil for each other v Sacred/good: peaceful, cooperative, honest, equal, rational, solidarity, ethical, honorable etc v Profane/bad: violent, antagonistic, decietful, dominating, irrational, corrupt, cynical etc v The Social performances a la Goffman have always been misperceived by the other. v Self v other, insider v outsider etc v Think about a concrete example v Jihad v For Islamic practitioners and key sections of Islam the modern Jihad is sacred and highly demanding performance of holy war. v For the non-Islamic West it is precisely the opposite right That is, it represents an authentic demonstration of polluted and demonic qualities of Islam itself. v Now think how the Gulf War etc get interpreted by Islam Right. Now you got it. (deceit/aggression etc) v Once again, just a way to start thinking about terrorism in another sense, a more law & society/theoretical perspective

Step 2 of 3

Chapter 14, Problem 14.6 is Solved
Step 3 of 3

Textbook: Process Dynamics and Control
Edition: 3
Author: Dale E. Seborg
ISBN: 9780470128671

Other solutions

People also purchased

Related chapters

Unlock Textbook Solution

Enter your email below to unlock your verified solution to:

A second-order process transfer function is given by (a)